University of Santo Tomas

Faculty of Civil Law

CRIMINAL LAW

Questions Asked More Than Once

QuAMTO 2021
QuAMTO is a compilation of past bar questions with answers as suggested by the UPLC and other
distinct luminaries in the academe, and updated by the UST Academics Committee to fit for the
2021 Bar Exams.

Bar questions are arranged per topic in accordance with the bar syllabus released by the
Supreme Court and were selected based on their occurrence on past bar examinations from 1987
to 2019.

ACADEMICS COMMITTEE

MARIA FRANCES FAYE R. GUTIERREZ SECRETARY GENERAL

JOHN EDWARD F. FRONDA

ANGEL ISAH M. ROMERO
KIRBY ANNE C. RENIA EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE
KAREN ABBIE C. ASPIRAS
JOSE CHRISTIAN ANTHONY I. PINZON
NATHAN RAPHAEL D.L. AGUSTIN

MARIA FRANCES FAYE R. GUTIERREZ LAYOUT AND DESIGN

QuAMTO COMMITTEE MEMBERS

JUSTINE ISCAH F. MADRILEJOS

RON-SOPHIA NICOLE C. ANTONIO
REEM D. PRUDENCIO
LARISA C. SERRANO

ATTY. VICENTE JAN O. PLATON III

ATTY. AL CONRAD B. ESPALDON
ADVISERS
OUR DEEPEST APPRECIATION TO OUR
MENTORS AND INSPIRATION
JUSTICE AMPARO CABOTAJE-TANG

JUDGE OSCAR B. PIMENTEL

JUDGE PHILIP AGUINALDO

JUDGE CHRISTIAN PIMENTEL

JUDGE MADONNA ECHIVERRI

JUDGE PEDRO DABU

PROSECUTOR VICTORIA GARCIA

ATTY. LORENZO GAYYA

ATTY. RONALD CHUA

ATTY. RAMON ESGUERRA

ATTY. JEDREK NG

ATTY. GIDGET ROSE DUQUE

ATTY. ALWYNE FAYE MENDOZA

For being our guideposts in understanding

the intricate sphere of Criminal Law.
- Academics Committee 2021
 QuAMTO (1987-2019)

CRIMINAL LAW QUAMTO Q: What is the fundamental principle in

________________________________________________________ applying and interpreting criminal laws xxx?
PART I. (2012 BAR)
REVISED PENAL CODE BOOK I
________________________________________________________ A: The fundamental principle in interpreting and
applying penal laws is the principle of pro reo.
The phrase “in dubio pro reo” means “when in
A. FUNDAMENTAL AND GENERAL doubt, for the accused” (Intestate Estate of
PRINCIPLES IN CRIMINAL LAW Gonzales v. People, GR No. 181409, February 11,
2010). This is in consonance with the
Power of Congress to Enact Penal Laws constitutional guarantee that the accused ought
to be presumed innocent until and unless his
Q: What are the limitations upon the power of guilt is established beyond reasonable doubt
Congress to enact penal laws? (1988, 2012 (See People v. Temporary, GR No. 173473)
BAR)
Mala in Se and Mala Prohibita (1997, 1999,
A: The limitations upon the power of congress to 2001, 2003, 2005, 2017 BAR)
enact penal laws are as follows:
Q: Distinguish between crimes mala in se and
1. Congress cannot enact an ex post facto law. mala prohibita. (1997, 1999, 2001, 2003,
2. Congress cannot enact a bill of attainder. 2005, 2017 BAR)
3. Congress cannot provide for a cruel
punishment. A: In concept, crimes mala in se are those where
the acts or omissions penalized are intently bad,
However, other limitations may be considered evil, or wrong that they are almost universally
such as: condemned. Crimes mala prohibita are those
where the acts penalized are not inherently bad,
1. Congress cannot enact a law which shall evil, or wrong but prohibited by law for public
punish for a condition. Congress shall punish good, public welfare, or interest and whoever
an act and not the condition or status. violate the prohibition are penalized.
(Robinson v. California)
2. Congress should consider Article 21 of the In legal implications, in crimes mala in se, good
Revised Penal Code which provides that faith or lack of criminal intent or negligence is a
“penalties that may be imposed.” No felony defense, while in crimes mala prohibita, good
shall be punishable by any penalty not faith or lack of criminal intent or malice is not a
prescribed by law prior to its commission.” defense; it is enough that the prohibition was
voluntarily violated. Also, criminal liability is
Doctrine of Pro Reo (2010, 2012 BAR) generally incurred in crimes mala in se even
when the crime is only attempted or frustrated,
Q: What is the Doctrine of Pro Reo? How does it while in crimes mala prohibita, criminal liability
relate to Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code? is generally incurred only when the crime is
(2010 BAR) consummated.

A: The Doctrine of Pro Reo provides that whenever Further, in crimes mala in se, mitigating and
a penal law is to be construed or applied and the aggravating circumstances are appreciated in
law admits of two interpretations, one lenient to imposing the penalties, while in crimes mala
the offender and one strict to the offender, that prohibita, such circumstances are not
interpretation which is lenient or favorable to the appreciated unless the special law has adopted
offender will be adopted. the scheme or scale of penalties under the
Revised Penal Code.
Following this doctrine, crimes under Art. 48 of the
RPC are complexed and punished with a single Lack of criminal intent is a valid defense in mala
penalty (that prescribed for the most serious crime in se except when the crime results from
and to be imposed in its maximum period). The criminal negligence. Such defense is not
rationale being, that the accused who commits two available in cases of mala prohibita.
crimes with a single criminal impulse
demonstrates lesser perversity than when the All crimes punished under the Revised Penal
crimes are committed by different acts and several Code, and any amendments thereto through
criminal resolutions. (People v. Comadre, G.R. No. special penal laws, are considered mala in se. As
153559, June 8, 2004) such, they are called Felonies. While Crimes
punished by special penal laws, standing alone,
However, Art. 48 shall be applied only when it are considered as mala prohibita.
would bring about the imposition of a penalty
lesser than the penalties imposable for all the Q: May an act be malum in se and be, at the
component crimes if prosecuted separately. same time, malum prohibitum? (1997 BAR)

UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS UST

2021 ACADEMICSCOMMITTEE 1 BAR OPERATIONS
 Criminal Law
A: YES, an act may be malum in se and malum A: YES. The motion to quash the information
prohibitum at the same time. In People v. Sunico, should be granted. The Philippine court has no
et. al. (CA, 50 OG 5880) it was held that the jurisdiction over the crime committed since it
omission or failure of election inspection and poll was committed on the high seas or outside of
clerks to include a voter’s name in the registry Philippine territory and on board a vessel not
list of voters is wrong per se because it registered or licensed in the Philippines. (US v.
disenfranchises a voter of his right to vote. In this Fowler, 1 Phil 614)
regard, it is considered as malum in se. Since it is
punished under a special law (Sec. 101 and 103, It is the registration of the vessel in accordance
Revised Election Code), it is considered malum with the laws of the Philippines, not the
prohibitum. citizenship of her owner, which makes it a
Philippine ship. The vessel being registered in
Applicability and Effectivity of the Penal Code Panama, the laws of Panama shall govern while it
(1988, 1994, 1998, 2000, 2014, 2015, 2016 is in the high seas.
BAR)
Q: Ando, an Indonesian national who just
Q: State the characteristics of criminal law visited the Philippines, purchased a ticket for
and explain each. (1988, 1998 BAR) a passenger vessel bound for Hong Kong.
While on board the vessel, he saw his mortal
A: The characteristics of criminal law are as enemy Iason, also an Indonesian national,
follows: seated at the back portion of the cabin and
who was busy reading a newspaper. Ando
1. Generality – that the law is binding upon all stealthily approached Iason and when he was
persons who reside to sojourn in the near him, Ando stabbed and killed Iason. The
Philippines, irrespective of age, sex, color, vessel is registered in Malaysia. The killing
creed, or personal circumstances. happened just a few moments after the vessel
2. Territoriality – that the law is applicable to left the port of Manila. Operatives from the
all crimes committed within the limits of PNP Maritime Command arrested Ando.
Philippine territory, which includes its Presented for the killing of Iason, Ando
atmosphere interior water and maritime contended that he did not incur criminal
zone. (Art. 2) liability because both he and the victim were
3. Prospectivity – that the law does not have any Indonesians. He likewise argued that he could
retroactive effect, except if it favors the not be prosecuted in Manila because the
offender unless he is a habitual delinquent vessel is a Malaysian- registered ship. Discuss
(Art. 22) or the law otherwise provides. the merits of Ando's contentions. (2015 BAR)

Q: Abe, married to Liza, contracted another A: Both contentions of Ando lack merit. The
marriage with Connie in Singapore. argument of Ando that he did not incur criminal
Thereafter, Abe and Connie returned to the liability because both he and the victim were
Philippines and lived as husband and wife in Indonesians is not tenable. Under the generality
the hometown of Abe in Calamba, Laguna. Can principle, penal laws shall be obligatory upon all
Abe be prosecuted for bigamy? (1994 BAR) who live or sojourn in the Philippine territory
(Art. 14, New Civil Code). The foreign
A: NO. Abe may not be prosecuted for bigamy characteristic of an offender and offended party
since the bigamous marriage was contracted or does not exclude him from operation of penal
solemnized in Singapore; hence, such violation is laws (People v. Galacgac, C.A., 54 O.G. 1027).
not one of those where the Revised Penal Code, Under the Revised Penal Code, except as
under Art. 2 thereof, may be applied provided in treaties and laws of preferential
extraterritoriality. The general rule on application, penal laws of the Philippines shall
territoriality of criminal law governs the have force and effect within its territory. Here,
situation. since the killing took place within the Philippine
territory, our penal laws applies and Ando may
Q: After drinking one (1) case of San Miguel be held criminally responsible despite his being
Beer and taking two plates of “pulutan”, and Indonesian citizen.
Binoy, a Filipino seaman, stabbed to death Sio
My, a Singaporean seaman, aboard M/V Retroactive Effect of Penal Laws
“Princess of the Pacific”, an overseas vessel
which was sailing in the South China Sea. The Q: Congress passed a law reviving the Anti-
vessel, although Panamanian registered, is Subversion Law, making it a criminal offense
owned by Lucio Sy, a rich Filipino again for a person to join the Communist Party
businessman. When M/V “Princess of the of the Philippines. Reporma, a former high-
Pacific” reached a Philippine Port at Cebu ranking member of the Communist Party, was
City, the Captain of the vessel turned over the charged under the new law for his
assailant Binoy to the Philippine authorities. membership in the Communist Party when he
An Information for homicide was filed against was a student in the 80’s. He now challenges
Binoy in the Regional Trial Court of Cebu City. the charge against him. What objections may
He moved to quash the Information for lack of he raise? (2014 BAR)
jurisdiction. If you were the judge, will you
grant the motion? Why? (2000 BAR) A: Reporma may raise the limitations imposed by
the 1987 Constitution on the power of Congress to

2
 QuAMTO (1987-2019)
enact retroactive penal laws which are prejudicial purported victim which had not been found.
to the accused. Under the Bill of Rights of the Even without the body of the purported victim
Constitution such is classified as an ex post facto being found, the offender can be convicted
law. It should be noted that when Congress when the facts and circumstances of a crime,
decriminalized the crime of subversion, under R.A. the body of the crime or “corpus delicti” is
7637, it obliterated the felony and its effects upon established.
Reporma. Consequently, charging him now under
the new law for his previous membership in the In other words, the non-recovery of the body
Communist Party would be constitutionality of the victim is not a bar to the prosecution of
impermissible. A for Murder, but the fact of death and identity
of the victim must be established beyond
B. FELONIES reasonable doubt.
Motive and Intent (1988, 1996, 1999, 2004,
Corpus delicti (2000, 2001 BAR) 2006 BAR)
Q: Q: May a crime be committed without
a. Define “Corpus delicti”. criminal intent? (1988 BAR)
b. What are the elements of “Corpus delicti”?
(2000 BAR) A: YES A crime may be committed without
criminal intent in two cases:
A:
a. Corpus Delicti literally means “the body or 1. In offenses punishable as mala prohibita;
substance of the crime” or the fact that a crime
and
has been committed, but does not include the
2. Felonies committed by means of culpa.
identity of the person who committed it.
(People v. Pascal, 44 OG 2789)
Q: Distinguish intent from motive in
b. Elements of corpus delicti: The actual
Criminal Law. (1996, 2004 BAR)
commission by someone of the particular
crime charged. It is a compound fact made up
A: Motive is the moving power which impels
of two things:
one to action for a definite result; whereas
intent is the purpose to use a particular means
1. The existence of a certain act or result to effect such results. Motive is not an
forming the basis of the criminal charge; essential element of a felony and need not be
and
proved for purpose of conviction, while intent
2. The existence of a criminal agency as the
is an essential element of felonies by dolo.
cause of the act or result.
Q: When is motive relevant to prove a case?
NOTE: The identity of the offender is not a
When is it not necessary to be established?
necessary element of corpus delicti.
Explain. (1999, 2006 BAR)
Q: At a birthday party in Cebu, A got A: Motive is relevant to prove a case when
intoxicated and started quarreling with B and there is doubt as to the identity of the offender
C. At the height of their arguments, A left and or when the act committed gives rise to variant
took a bolo from his house, after which he crimes and there is the need to determine the
returned to the party and threatened to stab proper crime to be imputed to the offender.
everybody. B got scared and ran towards the
seashore, with A chasing him. B ran up a steep It is not necessary to prove motive when the
incline along the shore and was cornered on offender is positively identified or the criminal
top of a cliff. Out of fear, B jumped from the act did not give rise to variant crimes.
cliff into the sea. A returned to the scene of
their confrontation and seeing that nobody Classification of felonies
was there, went home to sleep. The next day,
B’s wife reported to the police station that her Q: Define/Distinguish the following terms:
husband had not yet come home. A search
was conducted by the residents of the a. Grave, less grave, and light felonies;
barangay but after almost two days, B or his b. Aberratio ictus, error in personae, and
body could not be located and his praeter intentionem (2019 BAR)
disappearance continued for the next few
days. Based on the testimony of C and other A:
guests, who had seen A and B on top of the a. Under Art. 9 of the Revised Penal Code
cliff, A was arrested and charged with (RPC), grave felonies are those to which the
Murder. In his defense, he claimed that since law attaches the capital punishment or
B’s body has not been found, there was no penalties which in any of their periods are
evidence of corpus delicti and therefore, he afflictive, in accordance with Art. 25 of the
should be acquitted. same Code. Less grave felonies are those
which the law punishes with penalties
Is the defense of A tenable or not? State the which in their maximum period are
reason(s) for your answer? (2001 BAR) correccional, also in accordance with Art.
25. Light felonies are those infractions of
A: NO. The defense of A is not tenable. “Corpus law for the commission of which a penalty
delicti” does not refer to the body of the

UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS 3 UST

2021 ACADEMICSCOMMITTEE BAR OPERATIONS
 Criminal Law
of arresto menor or a fine not exceeding BAR)
P40,000 or both is provided. (as amended by
R.A. 10951) A: Puti committed an impossible crime of
b. In aberratio ictus, there is a mistake in the murder. Puti, with intent to kill Pula,
blow meaning to say that the offender unknowingly employed ineffectual means to
intending to cause an injury to one person accomplish the intended felony, that is, using a
actually inflicts it on another because of lack non-toxic solution.
of precision. In error in personae, there is a
mistake in the identity of the victim. In Q:
praeter intentionem, the injurious result is a. What is an impossible crime?
greater than that intended by the offender, b. Is an impossible crime really a crime?
the act exceeds the intent. c. A, B, C and D, all armed with armalites,
proceeded to the house of X, Y, a
IMPOSSIBLE CRIME (1994, 1998, 2000, neighbor of X, who happened to be
2004, 2009, 2014 BAR) passing by, pointed to the four culprits
the room that X occupied. The four
Q: JP, Aries, and Randal planned to kill Elsa, culprits peppered the room with bullets.
a resident of Barangay Pula, Laurel, Not satisfied, A even threw a hand
Batangas. They asked the assistance of Ella, grenade that totally destroyed X’s room.
who is familiar with the place. However, unknown to the four culprits, X
was not inside the room and nobody was
On April 3, 1992, at about 10:00 in the hit or injured during the incident. Are A,
evening, JP, Aries, and Randal, all armed B, C and D liable for any crime? Explain.
with automatic weapons, went to Barangay d. Carla, 4 years old, was kidnapped by
Pula. Ella, being the guide, directed her Enrique, the tricycle driver paid by her
companions to the room in the house of parents to bring and fetch her to and
Elsa. Whereupon, JP, Aries and Randal fired from school. Enrique wrote a ransom
their guns at her room. Fortunately, Elsa note demanding P500,000 from Carla’s
was not around as she attended a prayer parents in exchange for Carla’s freedom.
meeting that evening in another barangay Enrique sent the ransom note by mail.
in Laurel. JP, et. al., were charged and However, before the ransom note was
convicted of attempted murder by the received by Carla’s parents, Enrique’s
Regional Trial Court at Tanauan, Batangas. hideout was discovered by the police.
On appeal to the Court of Appeals, all the Carla was rescued while Enrique was
accused ascribed to the trial court the sole arrested and incarcerated. Considering
error of finding them guilty of attempted that the ransom note was not received
murder. If you were the ponente, how will by Carla’s parents, the investigating
you decide the appeal? (1994 BAR) prosecutor merely filed a case of
“Impossible Crime to Commit
A: If I were the ponente, I will set aside the Kidnapping” against Enrique. Is the
judgment convicting the accused of attempted prosecutor correct? (2000 BAR)
murder and instead find them guilty of A:
impossible crime under Art. 4, par. 2, RPC, in
relation to Art. 59, RPC. Liability for impossible a. Impossible crime is an act which would be an
crime arises not only when the impossibility is offense against person or property, were if
legal, but likewise when it is factual or physical not for the inherent impossibility of its
impossibility, as in the case at bar. accomplishment or on account of the
employment of inadequate or ineffectual
Elsa’s absence from the house is a physical means (Art. 4, par. 2, RPC).
impossibility which renders the crime intended
inherently incapable of accomplishment. To b. NO. An impossible crime is not really a crime.
convict the accused of attempted murder It is only so-called because the act gives rise
would make Art. 4, par. 2, practically useless as to criminal liability. But actually, no felony is
all circumstances which prevented the committed. The accused is to be punished for
consummation of the offense will be treated as his criminal tendency or propensity although
an incident independent of the actor’s will no crime was committed.
which is an element of attempted or frustrated
felony. (Intod v. CA, 215 SCRA 52) c. YES. A, B, C and D are liable for destructive
arson because of the destruction of the room
Q: Puti detested Pula, his roommate, of X with the use of an explosive, the hand
because Pula was courting Ganda, whom grenade.
Puti fancied. One day, Puti decided to teach
Pula a lesson and went to a veterinarian to Liability for an impossible crime is to be
ask for poison on the pretext that he was imposed only if the act committed would not
going to kill a sick pet, when actually Puti constitute any other crime under the Revised
was intending to poison Pula, the Vet Penal Code. Although the facts involved are
instantly gave Puti a non-toxic solution parallel to the case of Intod v. CA (215 SCRA
which, when mixed with Pula’s food, did not 52), where it was ruled that the liability of the
kill Pula. What crime, if any, did Puti offender was for an impossible crime, no
commit? (1994, 1998, 2004, 2009, 2014 hand grenade was used in the said case,

4
 QuAMTO (1987-2019)
which constitutes a more serious crime started pouring gasoline on its walls.
though different from what was intended. However, just as Mr. A had lit the match for
burning, he was discovered by Mr. B's
d. NO. The prosecutor is not correct in filing a caretaker, Ms. C, and was consequently
case for “impossible crime to commit prevented from setting the rest house on fire.
kidnapping” against Enrique. Mr. A was then charged with Frustrated
Arson. Is the charge of Frustrated Arson
Impossible crimes are limited only to acts proper? Explain. (2019 BAR)
which when performed would be a crime
against persons or property. As kidnapping is A: NO, the proper charge is Attempted Arson.
a crime against personal security and not Under Art. 6 of the RPC, there is an attempt when
against persons or property, Enrique could the offender commences the commission of a
not have incurred an “impossible crime” to felony directly by overt acts and does not
commit kidnapping. There is thus no perform all the acts of execution which should
impossible crime of kidnapping. produce the felony by reason of some cause or
accident other than his own spontaneous
Q: Edgardo induced his friend Vicente, in desistance. Here, Mr. A commenced the
consideration of money, to kidnap a girl he is commission of arson by pouring gasoline on the
courting so that he may succeed in raping her house and lighting a match. However, he did not
and eventually making her accede to marry perform all the acts of execution which includes
him. Vicente asked for more money which setting the rest house on fire. Thus, Mr. A should
Edgardo failed to put up. Angered because only be liable for Attempted Arson.
Edgardo did not put up the money he
required, he reported Edgardo to the police. COMPLEX AND COMPOSITE CRIMES
May Edgardo be charged with attempted
kidnapping? (1996 BAR) Complex crime (1987, 1989, 1991,
1994,1995, 1996, 1999, 2000, 2003, 2007,
A: NO. Edgardo may not be charged with 2019 BAR)
attempted kidnapping inasmuch as no overt act
to kidnap or restrain the liberty of the girl had Q: Jose purchased roofing materials worth
been commenced. At most, what Edgardo has P20,000 from PY & Sons Construction
done in the premises was a proposal to Vicente Company owned by Pedro and paid the latter
to kidnap the girl, which is only a preparatory act a check in the said amount. The following day,
and not an overt act. The attempt to commit a Pedro deposited the check but it was
felony commences with the commission of overt returned dishonored because it was drawn
act, not preparatory act. Proposal to commit against a closed account. Jose failed to make
kidnapping is not a crime. good the said check despite written demands.
Atty. Saavedra, counsel for Pedro, filed two
Q: Taking into account the nature and complaints against Jose with the Office of the
elements of the felonies of coup d’etat and Provincial Fiscal, one for estafa under Article
rape, may one be criminally liable for 315 of the Revised Penal Code and another
frustrated coup d’etat or frustrated rape? for violation of BP Blg. 22. Atty. San Pascual,
Explain. (2005 BAR) counsel for Jose, claimed that if his client was
at all liable, he could only be liable for
A: NO. A person may not be held liable for violation of BP 22 and not for estafa under
frustrated coup d’etat or for frustrated rape Art. 315 of the RPC because one precludes the
because in a frustrated felony, it is required that other and because BP 22 is more favorable to
all acts of execution that could produce the the accused as it carries a lighter penalty.
felony as a consequence must have been
performed by the offender but the felony was not The investigating fiscal, on his resolution,
produced by reason of causes independent of the stated that only one crime was committed,
will of the offender. In the said felonies, one namely, the complex crime of estafa under
cannot perform all the acts of execution without Art. 315 of the RPC and another under BP 22.
consummating the felony. The said felonies,
therefore, do not admit of the frustrated stage. Is the investigating fiscal correct? (Question
reframed) (1987 BAR)
Q: Why is there no crime of frustrated serious
physical injuries? (2017 BAR) A: NO. The resolution of the investigating fiscal is
erroneous. There is no complex crime of estafa
A: The crime of physical injuries is a formal under Art. 315 of the Revised Penal Code and the
crime since a single act consummates it as a violation of BP 22. A complex crime refers only to
matter of law; hence, it has no attempted or felonies which are punished in the Revised Penal
frustrated stage. Once the injuries are inflicted, Code.
the offense is consummated.

Q: Mr. A has a long-standing feud with Mr. B. STAGES OF EXECUTION (1996, 2000, 2005,
As payback for Mr. B's numerous 2015, 2017, 2019 BAR)
transgressions against him, Mr. A planned to Q: Rodolfo, a policeman, was cleaning his
burn down Mr. B's rest house. service pistol inside his house when it fell
from his hand and fired. The bullet hit a
One night, Mr. A went to the rest house and neighbor on the stomach and a second

UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS 5 UST

2021 ACADEMICSCOMMITTEE BAR OPERATIONS
 Criminal Law
neighbor on the leg. The injuries sustained by separate crimes, namely: murder, theft, and
the two neighbors required thirty-five (35) arson.
days and nine (9) days of medical attendance,
respectively. The investigating fiscal later Harry killed Jason, Manuel and Dave with evident
filed an information for frustrated homicide premeditation, as there was considerable lapse of
and slight physical injuries through reckless time before he decided to commit the crime and
imprudence against Rodolfo. Is the charge the actual commission of the crime. In addition,
correct? Harry employed means which weakened the
Explain. (1989 BAR) defense of Jason, Manuel, and Dave. Harry gave
them the liquor to drink until they were drunk
A: NO, the charge is not correct. One single act of and fell asleep.
accidental shooting cannot give rise to two
felonies - one of which is intentional and the The taking of the money was a mere afterthought
other negligent. Frustrated homicide of the killings. Hence, Harry committed the
presupposes intent to kill. The facts do not show separate crime of theft and not the complex
any intent to kill on the part of Rodolfo. At most, crime of robbery with homicide. Although theft
he was careless, and therefore only negligent. was committed against dead persons, it is still
legally possible as the offended party are the
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER: estates of the victims.

Two separate crimes of serious physical injuries In burning the cottage, it is another separate
(against the first neighbor whose injuries crime of arson. The act of burning was not
requires 35 days of medical attendance), and necessary for the consummation of the two
slight physical injuries (against the second previous offenses he committed. The fact that the
neighbor), both through reckless imprudence, caretaker died from the blaze did not qualify
were committed by Rodolfo. Although both of Harry’s crime into a complex crime of arson with
these offenses were the result of one single act, a homicide for there is no such crime.
complex crime is not committed. It is only when a
single act constitutes two or more grave or less Hence, Harry was improperly charged with the
grave felonies that a complex crime may be complex crime of arson with quadruple homicide
committed under Article 48 of the RPC. Slight and robbery. Harry should have been charged
physical injuries is not a grave or less grave with three separate crimes, murder, theft and
felony. arson.

The information filed should be reckless Q: A, actuated by malice and with the use of a
imprudence resulting to serious physical injuries fully automatic M-14 sub-machine gun, shot a
and slight physical injuries. group of persons who were seated in a
cockpit with one burst of successive,
Q: Harry, an overseas contract worker, continuous, automatic fire. Four (4) persons
arrived from Saudi Arabia with considerable were killed thereby, each having hit by
savings. Knowing him to be “loaded”, his different bullets coming from the sub-
friends Jason, Manuel and Dave invited him to machine gun of A. Four (4) cases of murder
poker session at a rented beach cottage. were filed against A.
When he was losing almost all his money
which to him was his savings of a lifetime, he The trial court ruled that there was only one
discovered that he was being cheated by his crime committed by A for the reason that,
friends. Angered by the betrayal, he decided since A performed only one act, he having
to take revenge on the three cheats. pressed the trigger of his gun only once, the
crime committed was murder. Consequently,
Harry ordered several bottles of Tanduay the trial judge sentenced A to just one penalty
Rhum and gave them to his companions to of reclusion perpetua.
drink, as they did, until they all fell asleep.
When Harry saw his companions already a. Was the decision of the trial judge
sound asleep, he hacked them all to death. correct? Explain.
Then he remembered his losses, he rifled b. What constitutes a complex crime? How
through the pockets of his victims and got many crimes may be involved in a
back all the money he lost. He then ran away complex crime? What is the penalty
but not before burning the cottage to hide his therefor? (1999 BAR)
misdeed. The following day, police A:
investigators found among the debris the
charred bodies of Jason, Manuel, Dave and the a. NO. The decision of the trial judge is not
caretaker of the resort. correct. When the offender made use of an
automatic firearm, the acts committed are
The Provincial Prosecutor charged Harry determined by the number of bullets
with the complex crime of arson with discharged inasmuch as the firearm being
quadruple homicide and robbery. Was Harry automatic, the offender need only press the
properly charged? Discuss. (1995 BAR) trigger once and it would fire continually.
For each death caused by a distinct and
A: NO. Harry was not properly charged. Harry separate bullet, the accused incurs distinct
should have been charged with three (3) criminal liability. Hence, it is not the act of

6
 QuAMTO (1987-2019)
pressing the trigger which should be but alleged in one information either because
considered as producing the several they were brought about by a single felonious
felonies, but the number of bullets which act or because one offense is a necessary means
actually produced them. for committing the other offense or offenses.
They are alleged in one information so that
b. A complex crime is constituted when a only one penalty shall be imposed. A special
single act caused two or more grave or less complex crime, on the other hand, is made up
grave felonies or when an offense is of two or more crimes which are considered
committed as a necessary means to commit only as components of a single indivisible
another offense. (Art 48, RPC) offense being punished in one provision of the
Revised Penal Code.
At least two crimes are involved in a
complex crime; either two or more grave or As to penalties – In ordinary complex crime, the
less grave felonies resulted from a single penalty for the most serious crime shall be
act, or an offense is committed as a imposed and in its maximum period. In special
necessary means for committing another. complex crime, only one penalty is specifically
prescribed for all the component crimes which
The penalty for the more serious crime shall are regarded as one indivisible offense. The
be imposed and in its maximum period. component crimes are not regarded as distinct
(Art. 48, RPC) crimes and so the penalty to be imposed for the
most serious crime is not the penalty to be
Q: Distinguish between compound and imposed nor in its maximum period. It is the
complex crime as concepts. (2004, 2019 BAR) penalty specifically provided for the special
complex crime that shall be applied according
A: Compound crimes result when the offender to the rules on imposition of the penalty.
committed only a single felonious act from which
two or more crimes resulted. This is provided for Q: Pedro, Pablito, Juan, and Julio, all armed
in modified form in the first part of Article 48, with bolos, robbed the house where
RPC, limiting the resulting crimes to only grave Antonio, his wife, and three (3) daughters
and/or less grave felonies. Hence, light felonies were residing. While the four were
are excluded even though resulting from the ransacking Antonio's house, Julio noticed
same single act. that one of Antonio's daughters was trying
to escape. He chased and caught up with her
Complex crime results when the offender has to at a thicket somewhat distant from the
commit an offense as a necessary means for house, but before bringing her back, raped
committing another offense. Only one her.
Information shall be filed and if proven, the
penalty for the more serious crime shall be a. What crime or crimes, if any, did Pedro,
imposed. Pablito, Juan, and Julio commit? Explain.
b. Suppose, after the robbery, the four took
Special Complex Crime (1989, 1995, 1997, turns in raping the three daughters
2003, 2005, 2006, 2016 BAR) inside the house, and, to prevent
identification, killed the whole family
Q: After raping the complainant in her house, just before they left. What crime or
the accused struck a match to smoke a crimes, if any, did the four malefactors
cigarette before departing from the scene. commit? (2016 BAR)
The brief light from the match allowed him to
notice a watch in her wrist. He demanded A:
that she hand over the watch. When she a. Julio is liable for special complex crime of
refused, he forcibly grabbed it from her. The robbery with rape since he had carnal
accused was charged with and convicted of knowledge of Antonio’s daughter on
the special complex crime of robbery with occasion or by reason of robbery. Even if the
rape. Was the court correct? (1997 BAR) place of robbery is different from that of
rape, what is important is the direct
A: NO. The accused should instead be held liable connection between the crimes (People v.
for two separate crimes of robbery and rape, Canastre, G.R. No. L-2055, December 24,
since the primary intent or objective of the 1948).
accused was only to rape the complainant, and
his commission of the robbery was merely an Pedro, Pablito, and Juan are liable for
afterthought. The robbery must precede the robbery by a band since more than three
rape, in order to give rise to the special complex armed malefactors took part in the
crime for which the court convicted the accused. commission of robbery. There were four of
them. Under Art. 296 of RPC, any member of
Q: Distinguish between an ordinary complex a band, who is present at the commission of a
crime and a special complex crime as to robbery by a band, shall be punished as
their concepts and as to the imposition of principal of any of the assaults committed,
penalties. (2003 BAR) unless it be shown that he attempted to
prevent the same.
A: In concept – An ordinary complex crime is
made up of two or more crimes being punished However, Pedro, Pablito, and Juan are not
in distinct provisions of the Revised Penal Code liable for rape since they were not present

UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS 7 UST

2021 ACADEMICSCOMMITTEE BAR OPERATIONS
 Criminal Law
when the victim was raped and thus, they from plying their routes. They later on
had no opportunity to prevent the same. commandeered one of the buses without
They are only liable for robbery by band allowing any of the passengers to alight, and
(People v. Anticamaray, G.R. No. 178771, June told the driver to bring the bus to Tanay, Rizal.
8, 2011).
Upon reaching a remote area in Tanay, Percy,
b. They are liable for special complex crime of Pablo, Pater and Sencio forcibly divested the
robbery with homicide. It is immaterial that passengers of their cash and valuables. They
several persons are killed and the number of ordered the passengers to leave thereafter.
rapes committed by reason or on occasion of Then, they burned the bus. When a tanod of
the crime. Since homicides are committed by the barangay of the area came around to
or on occasion of the robbery, the multiple Intervene, Pater fired at him, instantly killing
rapes committed shall be integrated into one him.
and indivisible felony of robbery with
homicide (People v. Diu, G.R. No. 201449, April After Percy, Pablo, Pater and Sencio were
3, 2013) arrested, the police authorities recommended
them to be charged with the following crimes,
Composite crime (1998, 1999, 2004, 2017, to wit: (1) carnapping; (2) robbery, (3) direct
2018 Bar) assault with homicide; (4) kidnapping; and
(5) arson.
Q: A, B, C and D all armed, robbed a bank and
when they were about to get out of the bank, State your legal opinion on the
policemen came and ordered them to recommendation of the police authorities on
surrender but they fired on the police officers the criminal liabilities incurred by Percy,
who fired back and shot it out with them. Pablo, Pater and Sencio. (2017 BAR)
Suppose a bank employee was killed and the
bullet which killed him came from the A: The proper charges should be carnapping and
firearm of the police officers, with what crime robbery with homicide. Robbery absorbs
shall you charge A, B, C and D? (1998, 2004, kidnapping and serious illegal detention. The
2018 Bar) detention was only incidental to the main crime of
robbery. If the main objective is to commit
A: A, B, C and D should be charged with the crime robbery while homicide and arson are perpetrated
of robbery with homicide because the death of by reason or on occasion thereof, the crime
the bank employee was brought about by the acts committed is robbery with homicide while arson
of said offenders on the occasion of robbery. shall be integrated into this special complex crime.
They shot it out with the policeman, thereby However, the use of fire shall only be considered
causing such death by reason or on the occasion as an ordinary aggravating circumstance.
of robbery; Hence, the composite crime of
robbery with homicide. Q: Two young men, A and B, conspired to rob a
residential house of things of value. They
Q: Samuel, a tricycle driver, plied his usual succeeded in the commission of their original
route using a Honda motorcycle with a plan to simply rob. A, however, was sexually
sidecar. One evening, Raul rode on the aroused when he saw the lady owner of the
sidecar, poked a knife at Samuel and house, and so raped her.
instructed him to go near a bridge. Upon
reaching the bridge, Raul alighted from the The lady victim testified that B did not in any
motorcycle and suddenly stabbed Samuel way participate in the rape but he watched the
several times until he was dead. Raul fled happening from a window and did nothing to
from the scene taking the motorcycle with stop the rape. Is B as criminally liable as A for
him. What crime(s) did Raul commit? (1998, robbery with rape? Explain. (1999 BAR)
2004 BAR)
A: YES. B is as criminally liable for the composite
A: Raul committed the composite crime of crime of robbery with rape under Art. 294 (1).
Carnapping with homicide under Sec. 14 of R.A. Although the conspiracy of A and B was only to
6539, as amended, considering that the killing “in rob, B was present when the rape was being
the course of” or “on the occasion of” a carnapping. committed which gave rise to a composite crime, a
(People v. De la Cruz, 183 SCRA 763). A motorcycle single indivisible offense of robbery with rape. B
is included in the definition of a “motor vehicle” in would not have been liable had he endeavored to
said Republic Act. There is no apparent motive for prevent the commission of the rape. But since he
the killing of the tricycle driver but for Raul to be did not when he could have done so, he in effect
able to take the motorcycle. The fact that the acquiesced with the rape as a component of the
tricycle driver was killed brings about the penalty robbery and so he is also liable for robbery with
of reclusion perpetua to death. rape.

Q: During the nationwide transport strike to JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES

protest the phase out of old public utility (1993, 1998, 2000, 2002, 2003, 2004, 1996,
vehicles, striking jeepney drivers Percy, Pablo, 2008, 2016, 2017, 2019 BAR)
Pater and Sencio, each armed with guns, hailed
several MMDA buses then providing free Q: Distinguish clearly but briefly: Between
transport to the stranded public to stop them justifying and exempting circumstances in

8
 QuAMTO (1987-2019)
criminal law. (2004, 1998 BAR) each other. I cannot also adhere to the
prosecution’s contention that self- defense
A: Justifying circumstance affects the act, not the applies only to consummated killings. Self-
actor; while exempting circumstance affects the defense applies even in frustrated murder as
actor, not the act. In justifying circumstance, no the law did not qualify its application.
criminal and, generally, no civil liability is (People v. Dulin, 760 SCRA 413, June 29, 2015;
incurred; while in exempting circumstance, civil People v. Nugas, 661 SCRA 159, November 23,
liability is generally incurred although there is no 2011)
criminal liability.
Q: BB and CC, both armed with knives,
Self-Defense (Defense of Person, Rights, attacked FT. The victim's son, ST, upon seeing
Property and Honor) the attack, drew his gun but was prevented
Q: Porthos made a sudden turn on a dark from shooting the attackers by AA, who
street, and his Rolls-Royce SUV bumped the grappled with him for possession of the gun.
rear of a parked Cadillac Sedan inside which FT died from knife wounds. AA, BB and CC
Aramis was then taking a nap. Angered by were charged with murder. In his defense, AA
the violent Impact, Aramis alighted and invoked the justifying circumstance of
confronted Porthos who had also alighted. avoidance of greater evil or injury,
Aramis angrily and repeatedly shouted at contending that by preventing ST from
Porthos: Putang Ina mo! Porthos, displaying shooting BB and CC, he merely avoided a
fearlessness, aggressively shouted back at greater evil. Will AA's defense prosper?
Aramis: Wag kang magtapang-tapangan Reason briefly. (2004 BAR)
dyan, papatayin kita! Without saying
anything more, Aramis drew his gun from his A: NO, AA's defense will not prosper. The act of
waist and shot Porthos in the leg. Porthos' the victim's son, ST, appears to be a legitimate
wound was not life threatening. defense of relatives; hence, justified as a defense
of his father against the unlawful aggression by
a. What are the kinds of unlawful BB and CC. ST’s act to defend his father's life and
aggression, and which kind was to stop BB and CC achieve their criminal
displayed in this case? objective cannot be regarded as an evil
b. Standing trial for inasmuch as it is, in the eyes of the law, a lawful
frustrated murder, Aramis pleaded self- act. What AA did was a lawful defense, not
defense. The Prosecution's contention greater evil. Likewise, AA’s defense will not
was that the plea of self-defense applied prosper because in this case there was a
only to consummated killings. Rule, with conspiracy among the three of them, hence, the
explanations, on the tenability of Aramis' act of one is the act of all.
claim of self-defense, and on the
Prosecution's contention. (2017 BAR) Q: Pat. Negre saw Filemon, an inmate,
escaping from jail and ordered the latter to
A: surrender. Instead of doing so, Filemon
a. Unlawful aggression is of two kinds: (a) attacked Pat. Negre with a bamboo spear.
actual or material unlawful aggression; and Filemon missed in his first attempt to hit Pat.
(b) imminent unlawful aggression. (People v. Negre, and before he could strike again, Pat.
Dulin, 760 SCRA 413, June 29, 2015) Negre shot and killed him.

There was neither material nor imminent a. Can Pat. Negre claim self defense?
unlawful aggression here. On the part of Explain.
Porthos, while Aramis displayed b. Suppose Pat Negre missed in his shot,
fearlessness and aggressively shouted back and Filemon ran away without parting
at him, there was no physical force or with his weapon. Pat Negre pursued
weapon that might endanger his life. In Filemon but the latter was running so
other words, it was not life threatening. fast that Pat Negre fired warning shots
CIRCUMSTANCES AFFECTING CRIMINAL into the air shouting for Filemon to stop.
LIABILITY In as much as Filemon continued running
Pat. Negre fired at him hitting and killing
It was Aramis who was the aggressor here in him. Is the plea of self- defense
view of his act in actually shooting Porthos, sustainable? Why would you then hold
although on his leg only. Hence, we could Pat. Negre criminally liable? Discuss.
conclude that there was no intent to kill. (1993 BAR)

b. Aramis cannot plead that his act in shooting A:

Porthos was self- defense. There was no a. YES. Self-defense can be claimed as there is
element of unlawful aggression as a an imminent and great peril on the life of
condition sine qua non on the part of Negre.
Porthos. b. NO. Self-defense is no longer sustainable as
there is no more peril on his life.
The accidental bumping of his car by
Porthos cannot be considered as enough Q: Osang, a married woman in her early
provocation, neither was the verbal tussle twenties, was sleeping on a banig on the floor
between them. No person can be killed or of their nipa hut beside the seashore when
injured by act of shouting fearlessly against she was awakened by the act of a man

UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS 9 UST

2021 ACADEMICSCOMMITTEE BAR OPERATIONS
 Criminal Law
mounting her. Thinking that it was her circumstance or circumstances? (2002, 2000,
husband, Gardo, who had returned from 1998 BAR)
fishing in the sea, Osang continued her sleep
but allowed the man, who was actually their A: NO. A cannot validly invoke defense of his
neighbor, Julio, to have sexual intercourse daughter's honor in having killed B since the rape
with her. After Julio satisfied himself, he said was already consummated; moreover, B already
“Salamat Osang" as he turned to leave. Only ran away, hence, there was no aggression to
then did Osang realize that the man was not defend against and no defense to speak of. Defense
her husband. Enraged, Osang grabbed a of honor as included in self- defense, must have
balisong from the wall and stabbed Julio to been done to prevent or repel an unlawful
death. When tried for homicide, Osang aggression. There is no defense to speak of where
claimed defense of honor. Should the claim be the unlawful aggression no longer exists.
sustained? Why? (2000, 1998 BAR) A may, however, invoke the benefit of the
mitigating circumstance of having acted in
A: NO. Osang's claim of defense of honor should immediate vindication of a grave offense to a
not be sustained because the aggression on her descendant, his daughter, under par. 5, Art. 13 of
honor had ceased when she stabbed the aggressor. the RPC.

In defense of rights under Art. 11(1) of the RPC, it Q: Pedro is married to Tessie. Juan is the first
is required inter alia that there be (1) unlawful cousin of Tessie. While in the market, Pedro
aggression, and (2) reasonable necessity of the saw a man stabbing Juan. Seeing the attack on
means employed to prevent or repel it. The Juan, Pedro picked up a spade nearby and hit
unlawful aggression must be continuing when the the attacker on his head which caused the
aggressor was injured or disabled by the person latter’s death. Can Pedro be absolved of the
making a defense. Otherwise, the attack made is a killing on the ground that it is in defense of a
retaliation and not a defense. Hence, Osang's act of relative? Explain. (2016 BAR)
stabbing Julio to death after the sexual intercourse
was finished, is not defense of honor but an A: NO. The relatives of the accused for purpose of
immediate vindication of a grave offense defense of relative under Art. 11(20) of the
committed against her, which is only mitigating. Revised Penal Code are his spouse, ascendants,
descendants, or legitimate, natural or adopted
Q: In dire need of money, Mr. R decided to steal brothers or sisters or of his relatives by affinity in
from his next-door neighbor, Mrs. V. On the the same degrees, and those by consanguinity
night of May 15, 2010, Mr. R proceeded with within the fourth civil degree. Relative by affinity
his plan entered Mrs. V's bedroom by breaking within the same degree includes ascendant,
one of the windows from the outside. Finding descendant, brother or sister of the spouse of the
Mrs. V sound asleep, he silently foraged accused. In this case, Juan is not the ascendant,
through her cabinet, and stashed all the descendant, brother or sister of Tessie, the spouse
bundles of cash and jewelries he could find. of Pedro. Relative by consanguinity within the
fourth civil degree includes first cousin. But in this
As Mr. R was about to leave, he heard Mrs. V case, Juan is the cousin of Pedro by affinity but not
shout, "Stop or I will shoot you!", and when he by consanguinity. Juan, therefore, is not a relative
turned around, he saw Mrs. V cocking a rifle of Pedro for purpose of applying the provision on
which has pointed at him. Fearing for his life, defense of relative.
Mr. R then lunged at Mrs. V and was able to
wrest the gun away from her. Thereafter, Mr. R Pedro, however, can invoke defense of a stranger.
shot Mrs. V, which resulted in her death. Mr. Under the Revised Penal Code, a person who
R's deeds were discovered on the very same defends a person who is not his relative may
night as he was seen by law enforcement invoke the defense of a stranger provided that all
authorities fleeing the crime scene. May Mr. R its elements exist, to wit: (a) unlawful aggression;
validly invoke the justifying circumstances of (b) reasonable necessity of the means employed to
self- defense? Explain. (2019 BAR) prevent or repel the attack; and (c) the person
defending be not induced by revenge, resentment,
A: NO, Mr. R may not invoke the justifying or other evil motive.
circumstance of self-defense. There was no
unlawful aggression on the part of Mrs. V, who was Defense of Stranger
defending her property. As the owner of the cash
and jewelry, Mrs. V had the lawful right to take Q: A chanced upon three men who were
back the goods stolen by Mr. R who was actually attacking B with fist blows. C, one of the men,
the unlawful aggressor. (People v. Salamuddin, 52 was about to stab B with a knife. Not knowing
Phil. 670, January 24, 1929) that B was actually the aggressor because he
had earlier challenged the three men to a fight,
Defense of Relatives A shot C as the latter was about to stab B. May
A invoke the defense of a stranger as a
Q: When A arrived home, he found B raping his justifying circumstance in his favor? Why?
daughter. Upon seeing A, B ran away. A took (2002 BAR)
his gun and shot B, killing him. Charged with
homicide, A claimed he acted in defense of his A: YES A may invoke the justifying circumstance
daughter's honor. Is A correct? If not, can A of defense of stranger since he was not involved in
claim the benefit of any mitigating the fight and he shot C when the latter was about

10
 QuAMTO (1987-2019)
to stab B. There being no indication that A was a. NO. Katreena is not criminally liable due to
induced by revenge, resentment or any other evil her minority. She is exempted from criminal
motive in shooting C, his act is justified under par. liability for being a minor less than fifteen
3, Art. 11 of the RPC. (15) years old although over nine (9) years of
age. Nonetheless, she is civilly liable.
EXEMPTING CIRCUMSTANCES b. The attendant circumstances which may be
(1998, 2000, 2010 BAR) considered are:

Insanity 1. Minority of the accused as an exempting

circumstance under Art. 12(3) of RPC, where
Q: While his wife was on a 2-year scholarship she shall be exempt from criminal liability,
abroad, Romeo was having an affair with his unless it was proved that she acted with
maid Dulcinea. Realizing that the affair was discernment. She is however civilly liable;
going nowhere, Dulcinea told Romeo that she 2. If found criminally liable, the minority of the
was going back to the province to marry her accused is a privileged mitigating
childhood sweetheart. Clouded by anger and circumstance. A discretionary penalty lower
jealousy, Romeo strangled Dulcinea to death by at least two (2) degrees than that
while she was sleeping in the maid’s quarters. prescribed for the crime committed shall be
imposed in accordance with Art. 68(1) of RPC.
The following day, Romeo was found catatonic The sentence however, should automatically
inside the maid’s quarters. He was brought to be suspended in accordance with Sec. 5(a) of
the National Center for Mental Health (NCMH) R.A. No. 8369 (Family Courts Act of 1997);
where he was diagnosed to be mentally 3. Likewise if found criminally liable, the
unstable. Charged with murder, Romeo ordinary mitigating circumstance of not
pleaded insanity as a defense. intending to commit so grave a wrong as that
committed under Art. 13(3) of the RPC may
a. Will Romeo’s defense prosper? Explain. apply;
b. What is the effect of the diagnosis of the 4. The ordinary mitigating circumstance of
NCMH on the case? (2010 BAR) sufficient provocation on the part of the
offended party immediately preceded the act.
A:
a. NO. Romeo’s defense of insanity will not Q: Lito, a minor, was bullied by Brutus, his
prosper. Insanity as a defense to the classmate. Having had enough, Lito got the key
commission of a crime must have existed and to the safe where his father kept his licensed
proven to have been existing at the precise pistol and took the weapon. Knowing that
moment when the crime was being Brutus usually hung out at a nearby
committed. The facts of the case indicate that abandoned building after class, Lito went
Romeo committed the crime with ahead and hid while waiting for Brutus. When
discernment and was only diagnosed to be Lito was convinced that Brutus was alone, he
mentally unstable after the crime was shot Brutus, who died on the spot. Lito then
committed. hid the gun in one of the empty containers. At
b. The effect of the diagnosis made by NCMH is the time of the shooting, Lito was fifteen years
possibly a suspension of the proceeding and one month old. What is Lito's criminal
against Romeo and his commitment to liability? Explain. (2015 BAR)
appropriate institution for treatment until he
could already understand the proceedings. A: Lito is criminally liable for murder qualified by
the circumstance of treachery, or evident
Minority premeditation, as well as illegal possession of
firearms. Minority is not an exempting under
Q: While they were standing in line awaiting Section 7 of R.A. No. 9644 since his age is above
their vaccination at the school clinic, Pomping fifteen years but below eighteen years and he
repeatedly pulled the ponytail of Katreena, his acted with discernment. Circumstance will show
11 years, 2 months and 13 days old classmate that he discerned the consequences of his criminal
in Grade 5 at the Sampaloc Elementary School. acts as shown from the fact he employed means to
Irritated, Katreena turned around and swung make a surprise attack and he even hid the
at Pomping with a ball pen. The top of the ball murder weapon in an empty container. It was also
pen hit the right eye of Pomping which bled clear that he planned the killing. However,
profusely. Realizing what she had caused, minority will be considered as a privileged
Katreena immediately helped Pomping. When mitigating circumstance, which will require the
investigated, she freely admitted to the school graduation of the penalty prescribed by law to
principal that she was responsible for the one degree lower (Article 68).
injury to Pomping's eye. After the incident, she
executed a statement admitting her MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES (1988, 1992,
culpability. Due to the injury, Pomping lost his 1996, 1997, 1999, 2012, 2016, 2019 BAR)
right eye. (2000, 1998 Bar)
Q: What is a privileged mitigating
a. Is Katreena criminally liable? Why? circumstance? Distinguish a privileged
b. Discuss the attendant circumstances and mitigating circumstance from an ordinary
effects thereof. mitigating circumstance as to reduction of
penalty and offsetting against aggravating
A: circumstance/s. (2012 BAR)

UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS 11 UST

2021 ACADEMICSCOMMITTEE BAR OPERATIONS
 Criminal Law
with murder, he pleaded not guilty but, after
A: Privileged mitigating circumstances are those the prosecution had presented two witnesses
that mitigate the criminal liability of the accused implicating him to the crime, he changed his
by graduating the imposable penalty for the crime plea to that of guilty. Should the mitigating
being modified to one or two degrees lower. circumstances of voluntary surrender and
These circumstances cannot be offset by plea of guilty be considered in favor of the
aggravating circumstance. The circumstance of accused? (1997 BAR)
incomplete justification or exemption (when
majority of the conditions are present), and the A: NO. Voluntary surrender may not be
circumstance of minority (if the child above 15 appreciated in favor of the accused. Two years is
years of age acted with discernment) are too long a time to consider the surrender as
privileged mitigating circumstance. spontaneous. (People v. Ablao, G.R. No. 69184,
March 26, 1990)
The distinctions between ordinary and privileged
mitigating circumstances are as follows: For sure the government had already incurred
considerable efforts and expenses in looking for
a. Under the rules for application of divisible the accused. Plea of guilty can no longer be
penalties (RPC, Art. 64), the presence of a appreciated as a mitigating circumstance because
mitigating circumstance, if not off-set by the prosecution had already started with the
aggravating circumstance, has the effect of presentation of its evidence. (Art. 13[7], RPC)
applying the divisible penalty in its minimum
period. Under the rules on graduation of Q: Mr. X and Mr. Y engaged in a violent fistfight
penalty (RPC, Art. 68, 69), the presence of which Mr. X instigated. This culminated in Mr.
privileged mitigating circumstance has the X repeatedly smashing Mr. Y's head on the
effect of reducing the penalty one to two concrete pavement. Thereafter, Mr. X left Mr. Y
degrees lower; barely breathing and almost dead. A few
b. Ordinary mitigating circumstances can be off- minutes after the incident, Mr. X immediately
set by aggravating circumstances. Privileged went to the police station to confess what he
mitigating circumstances are not subject to did and told the police where he left Mr. Y.
the off-set rule. Fortunately, the police rescued Mr. Y and he
survived with the help of timely medical
Surrender and Confession of Guilt intervention. Mr. X was then charged in court
with Frustrated Homicide, to which he openly
Q: When is surrender by an accused confessed his guilt upon arraignment.
considered voluntary, and constitutive of the
mitigating circumstance of voluntary Based on the above-stated facts, what is/are
surrender? (1999 BAR) the mitigating circumstance/s that may be
appreciated in favor of Mr. X. Explain. (2019
A: A surrender by an offender is considered
BAR)
voluntary when it is spontaneous, indicative of an
intent to submit unconditionally to the authorities.
A: The mitigating circumstances of Voluntary
To be mitigating, the surrender must be:
Surrender and Voluntary Confession of Guilt can
be appreciated in Mr. X’s favor. Mr. X voluntarily
a. Spontaneous, i.e., indicative of
and immediately went to the police station after
acknowledgment of guilt and not for
his altercation with Mr. Y. He acknowledged his
convenience nor conditional;
wrongdoing and saved the authorities’ time and
b. Made before the government incurs expenses,
investigative resources. (People v. Gervacio, G.R.
time and effort in tracking down the
No. 107328 September 26, 1994) This satisfies the
offender's whereabouts; and
requirements for Voluntary Surrender.
c. Made to a person in authority or the letter's
agents.
Mr. X likewise voluntarily pleaded “Guilty” in open
court during his arraignment. This satisfies the
Q: In order that the plea of guilty may be
requirements for a Voluntary Confession of Guilt,
mitigating, what requisites must be complied
(a) that the offender spontaneously confessed his
with? (1999 BAR)
guilt; (2) that the confession of guilt was made in
open court, or before the competent court that is
A: For plea of guilty to be mitigating, the requisites
to try the case; and (3) that the confession of guilt
are:
was made prior to the presentation for the
prosecution. (People v. Bueza, G.R. No. 79619,
1. That the accused spontaneously pleaded
August 20, 1990)
guilty to the crime charged;
2. That such plea was made before the court
AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES
competent to try the case and render
(1988, 1991, 1993, 1994, 1996, 1997, 1999,
judgment; and
2000, 2003, 2005, 2009, 2017 BAR)
3. That such plea was made prior to the
presentation of evidence for the prosecution.
Q: Name the four (4) kinds of aggravating
circumstances and state their effect on the
Q: After killing the victim, the accused
penalty of crimes and nature thereof.
absconded. He succeeded in eluding the police
Distinguish generic aggravating
until he surfaced and surrendered to the
circumstance from qualifying aggravating
authorities about two years later. Charged

12
 QuAMTO (1987-2019)
circumstance. (1999 BAR) already so that there is no more prolongation to
speak of.
A: The four (4) kinds of aggravating
circumstances are: Q: At about 9:30 in the evening, while Dino and
Raffy were walking along Padre Faura Street,
1. Generic aggravating or those that can Manila, Johnny hit them with a rock injuring
generally apply to all crimes, and can be offset Dino at the back. Raffy approached Dino, but
by mitigating circumstances, but if not offset, suddenly, Bobby, Steve, Danny and Nonoy
would affect only the maximum of the penalty surrounded the duo. Then Bobby stabbed
prescribed by law; Dino. Steve, Danny, Nonoy and Johnny kept on
2. Specific aggravating or those that apply only hitting Dino and Raffy with rocks. As a result,
to particular crimes and cannot be offset by Dino died.
mitigating circumstances;
3. Qualifying circumstances or those that change Bobby, Steve, Danny, Nonoy and Johnny were
the nature of the crime to a graver one, or charged with homicide. Can the court
brings about a penalty next higher in degree, appreciate the aggravating circumstances of
and cannot be offset by mitigating nighttime and band? (1994 BAR)
circumstances;
4. Inherent aggravating or those that essentially A: NO. Nighttime cannot be appreciated as an
accompany the commission of the crime and aggravating circumstance because there is no
do not affect the penalty whatsoever. indication that the offenders deliberately sought
the cover of darkness to facilitate the commission
The distinctions between generic aggravating of the crime or that they took advantage of
circumstances and qualifying aggravating nighttime (People v. De los Reyes, 203 SCRA 707)
circumstances are as follows: Besides, judicial notice can be taken of the fact
that Padre Faura Street is well-lighted.
Generic aggravating circumstances:
However, band should be considered as the crime
a. affect the nature of the crime or brings about was committed by more than three armed
a penalty higher in degree than that ordinarily malefactors; in a recent Supreme Court decision,
prescribed; stones or rocks are considered deadly weapons.
b. can be offset by ordinary mitigating
circumstances; Q: Rico, a member of the Alpha Rho Fraternity,
c. need not be alleged in the Information as long was killed by Pocholo, a member of the rival
as proven during the trial; group, Sigma Phi Omega. Pocholo was
d. the same shall be considered in imposing the prosecuted for homicide. During the trial, the
sentence. prosecution was able to prove that the killing
was committed by means of poison in
Qualifying circumstances: consideration of a promise or reward and with
a. affect the nature of the crime or brings about cruelty. If you were the Judge, will you
a penalty higher in degree than that ordinarily consider the aggravating circumstances of
prescribed; using poison, in consideration of a promise or
b. cannot be offset by mitigating circumstances; reward and cruelty? (2000 BAR)
c. must be alleged in the Information and
proven during trial. A: The circumstances of using poison, in
consideration of a promise or reward and cruelty
Q: When would qualifying circumstances be which attended the killing of Rico could only be
deemed, if at all, elements of a crime? (2003 appreciated as generic aggravating circumstances
BAR) since none of them have been alleged in the
Information to qualify the killing to murder. A
A: A qualifying circumstance would be deemed an qualifying circumstance must be alleged in the
element of a crime when: Information and proven beyond reasonable doubt
during the trial to be appreciated as such.
1. It changes the nature of the crime, bringing
about a more serious crime and heavier Q: Candido stabbed an innocent bystander
penalty; who accidentally bumped him. The innocent
2. It is essential to the crime involved, otherwise bystander died as a result of the stabbing.
some other crime is committed; and Candido was arrested and was tested to be
3. It is specifically alleged in the information and positive for the use of “shabu” at the time he
proven during trial. committed the stabbing. What should be the
proper charge against Candido? Explain. (2005
Q: The robbers killed a mother and her baby, BAR)
then threw the body of the baby outside the
window. Can the aggravating circumstance of A: Candido should be charged with murder
cruelty be considered in this case? Reason. qualified by treachery because the suddenness of
(1988 BAR) the stabbing caught the victim by surprise and
was totally defenseless. Being under the influence
A: NO. Cruelty cannot be considered in this case of dangerous drugs is a qualifying aggravating
because the aggravating circumstance of cruelty circumstance in the commission of a crime (Sec.
requires deliberate prolongation of the suffering 25, R.A. 9165, Comprehensive Dangerous Drug Act
of the victim. In this case, the baby was dead of 2002); Hence, the penalty for murder shall be

UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS 13 UST

2021 ACADEMICSCOMMITTEE BAR OPERATIONS
 Criminal Law
imposed in the maximum. Thus, quasi-recidivism cannot be considered since
he did not commit the crime after having been
Q: Bernardo was enraged by his conviction convicted by final judgment.
for robbery by Judge Samsonite despite
insufficient evidence. Pending his appeal, ABSOLUTORY CAUSES
Bernardo escaped in order to get even with (2004, 2008, 2012, 2019 BAR)
Judge Samsonite. Bernardo learned that the
judge regularly slept in his mistress' house Article 332: Persons exempt from criminal
every weekend. Thus, he waited for the judge liability for theft, swindling and malicious
to arrive on Saturday evening at the house of mischief
his mistress. It was about 8:00 p.m. when
Bernardo entered the house of the mistress. Q: The wife of AAA predeceased his mother- in-
He found the judge and his mistress having law. AAA was accused of defrauding his
coffee in the kitchen and engaging in small mother-in-law under a criminal information
talk. Without warning, Bernardo stabbed the for estafa, but the actual recital of facts of the
judge at least 20 times. The judge instantly offense charged therein, if proven, would
died. constitute not only the crime of estafa, but also
falsification of public document as a necessary
Prosecuted and tried, Bernardo was convicted means for committing estafa. AAA invokes the
of direct assault with murder. Rule with absolutory cause of relationship by affinity.
reasons whether or not the conviction Which statement is most accurate? (2012 BAR)
for direct assault with murder was justified,
and whether or not the trial court should A: There are two views on whether the
appreciate the following aggravating extinguishment of the marriage by death of the
circumstances against Bernardo, to wit: (1) spouse dissolves the relationship by affinity for
disregard of rank and age of the victim, who purpose of absolutory clause.
was 68 years old; (2) dwelling; (3) nighttime;
(4) cruelty; and (5) quasi-recidivism. (2017 The first holds that the relationship by affinity
BAR) terminates with the dissolution of the marriage,
while the second maintains that relationship
A: The phrase “on occasion of such performance” continues even after the death of the deceased
used in Art. 148 of the RPC means “by reason of spouse. The principle of pro reo calls for the
the past performance of official duty” because the adoption of the continuing affinity view because it
purpose of the law is to allow them to discharge is more favorable to the accused. However, the
their duties without fear of being assaulted by absolutory cause applies to theft, swindling and
reason thereof. Attacking Judge Samsonite by malicious mischief. It does not apply to theft
reason of past performance of duty of convicting through falsification or estafa through
Bernardo based on his assessment of the evidence falsification. (Intestate estate of Gonzales v. People,
constitutes qualified direct assault. Since the G.R. No. 181409, February 11, 2010)
single act of attacking Judge Samsonite constitutes
direct assault and murder qualified by the Q: Ms. E was charged with the complex crime of
circumstance of treachery, the two shall be Estafa through Falsification of Public
merged together to form a complex crime of Documents before the trial court. Prior to her
direct assault with murder. arraignment, Ms. E moved for the dismissal of
the criminal case against her, pointing out that
Disregard of rank, being inherent in direct assault, the private offended party is her biological
is absorbed. Disregard of age shall not be father, and that such relationship is an
considered for lack of showing intent to offend or absolutory cause under Article 332 of the
insult the age of Judge Samsonite. Revised Penal Code (RPC). Is Ms. E's contention
correct? Explain. (2019 BAR)
Dwelling and nighttime shall not be appreciated
because the presence of treachery in the instant A: NO. In order to qualify as an absolutory cause,
case absorbs these aggravating circumstances. there must be lack of voluntariness in committing
a crime. In falsification of Public Document, there
The crime is not aggravated by cruelty simply is deceit. Thus, an act of falsification shows intent
because the judge sustained 10 stab wounds. For to defraud in order to commit the crime of estafa.
cruelty to be considered as an aggravating
circumstance, it must be proven that in inflicting Article 20: Accessories exempt from criminal
several stab wounds on the victim, the perpetrator liability by reason of relationship
intended to exacerbate the pain and suffering of
the victim. The number of wounds on the victim is Q: DCB, the daughter of MCB, stole the earrings
not proof of cruelty. Unless there is proof that of XYZ, a stranger. MCB pawned the earrings
when the 2nd or subsequent stabs were made, the with TBI Pawnshop as a pledge for P500 loan.
Judge was still alive, there is no cruelty to speak of. During the trial, MCB raised the defense that
A quasi-recidivist is a person who shall commit a being the mother of DCB, she cannot be held
felony after having been convicted by final liable as an accessory. Will MCB's defense
judgment, before beginning to serve such prosper? Reason briefly. (2004 BAR)
sentence, or while serving the same (Art. 160,
RPC). In this case, Bernardo committed the crime A: NO. MCB's defense will not prosper because the
while the judgment of conviction is on appeal. exemption from criminal liability of an accessory

14
 QuAMTO (1987-2019)
by virtue of relationship with the principal does He proceeded immediately to their bedroom
not cover accessories who themselves profited to change his clothes. To his surprise, he found
from or assisted the offender to profit by the his wife Bionci in bed making love to another
effects or proceeds of the crime. woman Magna. Enraged, Procopio grabbed a
knife nearby and stabbed Bionci, who died.
This non-exemption of an accessory, though
related to the principal of the crime, is expressly a. What crime did Procopio commit, and what
provided in Art. 20 of the RPC. circumstance attended the case? Explain.
b. Assuming that Procopio and Bionci were
EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES common-law spouses, will your answer be
(1988, 1991, 2001, 2007, 2015, 2016 BAR) the same? Explain. (2015 BAR)

Q: At 10:00 in the evening, upon his arrival, A:

Marco surprised his wife, Rosette and her
former boyfriend, Raul, both naked and in the a. The crime committed by Procopio is
act of illicit copulation. Raul got his revolver parricide qualified by the circumstance of
and upon seeing the revolver, Marco ran relationship. Killing a spouse after having
toward the street, took a pedicab and been surprised in the act of committing
proceeded to the house of his brother, a sexual intercourse with another woman is
policeman from whom he borrowed a death under exceptional circumstance under
revolver. With the weapon, he returned to his Article 247 of the Revised Penal Code.
residence. Unable to find Raul and Rosette, However, in this case this is not death under
Marco proceeded to a disco jointly owned and exceptional circumstance because Bionci was
operated by Raul. It was already 11:00 that having homosexual intercourse with another
evening when he arrived at the joint. Upon woman and not sexual intercourse with a
seeing Raul with two (2) male companions, A man. “Homosexual intercourse “is not within
and B, drinking beer at one of the tables, the contemplation of the term “sexual
Marco fired two (2) shots at Raul, who was hit intercourse” in Article 247. However, the
on his forehead with one of the bullets; the crime of parricide is attended by the
other hit A, injuring him on his stomach. As a circumstance of passion arising from a lawful
consequence of the gunshot wound, Raul died sentiment as a result of having caught his
instantaneously. Due to the timely medical wife in the act of infidelity with another
attention given to A, he survived. He was, woman. (People v. Belarmino, G.R. No. L-4429,
however, hospitalized for 45 days. Marco was April 18, 1952)
prosecuted for Murder for the death of Raul b. NO, the answer is not the same. The crime
and for frustrated murder in the case of A. You committed is Homicide if Procopio and
Bionci were common law spouses. Parricide
PERSONS LIABLE AND DEGREE OF contemplates killing by spouse who are
PARTICIPATION legally married.
are Marco’s lawyer, what will be your defense?
(1991 BAR) Q: Macky, a security guard, arrived home late
one night after rendering overtime. He was
A: The defense with respect to the death of Raul is shocked to see Joy, his wife and Ken, his best
death under exceptional circumstances (Art. 247, friend, in the act of having sexual intercourse.
People v. Abarca, 153 SCRA 735). Although the Macky pulled out his service gun and shot and
killing happened one hour after having surprised killed Ken. Macky was charged with murder
the spouse, that would still be within the context for the death of Ken.
of “immediately thereafter”.
The court found that Ken died under
The term “immediately thereafter” means that exceptional circumstances and exonerated
from discovery to the escape and the killing, there Macky of murder but sentenced him to
must be no interruption or interval of time. The destierro. The court also ordered Macky to pay
pursuit and the killing must form part of one indemnity to the heirs of the victim in the
continuous act. However, it is not necessary that amount of P50,000.00. Did the court correctly
the victim is to be killed instantly by the accused order Macky to pay indemnity? (2007 BAR)
after surprising his spouse in the act of
intercourse with another person. What is required A: NO. Since the killing of Ken was committed
is that the death caused must be the proximate under the exceptional circumstances in Article
result of the outrage overwhelming the accused 247, RPC, it is the consensus that no crime was
after chancing upon his spouse in the act of committed in the light of the pronouncement in
infidelity. People v. Cosicor (79 Phil 672) that banishment
(destierro) is intended more for the protection of
With respect to the wounding of the stranger, the the offender rather than as a penalty. Since the
defense of lawful exercise of a right is a justifying civil liability under the RPC is the consequence of
circumstance. Under Art. 11, par. 5 could be the criminal liability, there would be no legal basis
invoked. At the time the accused shot Raul, he was for the award of indemnity when there is no
not committing a felonious act and therefore could criminal liability.
not have been criminally liable under Art. 4, RPC.
Q: Jojo and Felipa are husband and wife.
Q: Procopio, a call center agent assigned at a Believing that his work as a lawyer is
graveyard shift, went home earlier than usual. sufficient to provide for the needs of their

UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS 15 UST

2021 ACADEMICSCOMMITTEE BAR OPERATIONS
 Criminal Law
family, Jojo convinced Felipa to be a stay-at- reframed) (2000 BAR)
home mom and care for their children. One
day, Jojo arrived home earlier than usual and A: Jonas shall be convicted of the complex crime of
caught Felipa in the act of having sexual attempted murder with homicide. Jonas as
intercourse with their female nanny, Alma, in principal by direct participation and Jaja as co-
their matrimonial bed. In a fit of rage, Jojo principal by indispensable cooperation. It is a case
retrieved his revolver from inside the of aberratio ictus. The single act of pulling the
bedroom cabinet and shot Alma, immediately trigger resulted into a less grave felony and a
killing her. grave felony: (1) attempted murder, with respect
to his real target, Jonas; and (2) homicide, with
Is Art. 247 (Death or physical injuries inflicted respect to the 5-year-old son. Jaja should be liable
under exceptional circumstances) of the RPC as co- principal and not only as an accomplice
applicable in this case given that the paramour because he knew of Jonas’ criminal design even
was of the same gender as the erring spouse? before he lent his firearm to Jonas and still he
(2015, 2016 BAR) concurred in that criminal design by providing the
firearm.
A: The crime committed is parricide qualified by
the circumstance of relationship. Q: A asked B to kill C because of a grave
injustice done to A by C. A promised B a
Killing a spouse after having been surprised in the reward. B was willing to kill C, not so much
act of committing sexual intercourse with another because of the reward promised to him but
woman is death under exceptional circumstance because he also had his own long-standing
under Article 247 of the Revised Penal Code. grudge against C, who had wronged him in the
past. If C killed by B, would A be liable as a
However, in this case this is not death under principal by inducement? (2002 BAR)
exceptional circumstance because Felipa was
having homosexual intercourse with another A: NO. A would not be liable as principal by
woman and not sexual intercourse with a man. inducement because the reward he promised B is
“Homosexual intercourse “is not within the not the sole impelling reason which made B kill C.
contemplation of the term “sexual intercourse” in To bring about the criminal liability of a co-
Article 247. However, the crime of parricide is principal, the inducement made by the inducer
attended by the circumstance of passion arising must be the sole consideration which caused the
from a lawful sentiment as a result of having person induced to commit the crime and without
caught his wife in the act of infidelity with another which the crime would not have been committed.
woman. (People v. Belarmino, G.R. No. L-4429, April The facts of the case would indicate that B, the
18, 1952, En Banc) killer supposedly induced by A had his own
reason to kill C out of a long-standing grudge.
PRINCIPALS, ACCOMPLICES, AND ACCESSORIES
Q: Mr. Red was drinking with his buddies, Mr.
Principals (1994, 2000, 2002, 1994, 2014, White and Mr. Blue when he saw Mr. Green
2015, 2018 BAR) with his former girlfriend, Ms. Yellow. Already
drunk, Mr. Red declared in a loud voice that if
Q: Tata owns a three-storey building. She he could not have Ms. Yellow, no one can. He
wanted to construct a new building but had no then proceeded to the men’s room but told Mr.
money to finance the construction. So, she White and Mr. Blue to take care of Mr. Green.
insured the building for P3,000,000.00. She Mr. Blue and Mr. White asked Mr. Red what he
then urged Yoboy and Yongsi, for monetary meant but Mr. Red simply said, "You already
consideration, to burn her building so she know what I want," and then left. Mr. Blue and
could collect the insurance proceeds. Yoboy Mr. White proceeded to kill Mr. Green and hurt
and Yongsi burned the said building resulting Ms. Yellow.
to its total loss. What is their respective
criminal liability? (1994 BAR) a. What, if any, are the respective liabilities
of Mr. Red, Mr. White and Mr. Blue for the
A: Tata is a principal by inducement for the crime death of Mr. Green?
of destructive arson because she directly induced b. What, if any, are the respective liabilities
Yoboy and Yongsi for a price or monetary of Mr. Red, Mr. White and Mr. Blue for the
consideration, to commit arson which the latter injuries of Ms. Yellow? (2014 BAR)
would not have committed were it not for such
reason. Yoboy and Yongsi are principals by direct A:
participation. (Art. 17, pars. 21 and 3, RPC a. Mr. Blue and Mr. White are liable for the death
of Mr. Green as principals by direct
Q: Jonas convinced Jaja to lend him his .45 participation. They were the ones who
caliber pistol so that he could use it to knock participated in the criminal resolution and
down Jepoy and end his arrogance. When who carried out their plan and personally
Jepoy came out, Jonas immediately shot him took part in its execution by acts which
with Jaja’s .45 caliber gun but missed his directly tended to the same end. Mr. Red
target. Instead, the bullet hit Jepoy’s five-year- cannot be held criminally liable as principal
old son who was following behind him, killing by inducement because his statement that Mr.
the boy instantaneously. What is the criminal Blue and Mr. White are to take care of Mr.
liability of Jonas and Jepoy? (Question Green was not made directly with the

16
 QuAMTO (1987-2019)
intention of procuring the commission of the he could escape.
crime. There is no showing that the words
uttered by him may be considered as so Ruel being involved in the criminal plan to kill
efficacious and powerful so as to amount to Ricardo acted in conspiracy with the two (2) other
physical or moral coercion (People v. Assad, perpetrators staying in the place from the time
G.R. No. L- 33673, February 24, 1931). Neither they planned the crime up to its finalization. They
is there evidence to show that Mr. Red has an were together in the car driven by Rafael going to
ascendancy or influence over Mr. White and the next town in escaping from the scene of the
Mr. Blue. (People v. Abarri, F.R. No. 90815, crime.
March 1, 1995)
b. Mr. Blue and Mr. White are liable as principals Accomplices (2007, 2009, 2012 BAR)
by direct participation for the crime of
physical injuries for hurting Ms. Yellow to the Q: Who is an accomplice? (2012 BAR)
extent of the injuries inflicted. Having no
participation in the attack upon Ms. Yellow, A: Accomplices are those persons who, not being
Mr. Red would have no criminal liability the principal, cooperate in the execution of the
therefor. offense by previous or simultaneous acts which
are not indispensable to the commission of the
Q: Roberto and Ricardo have had a long- crime. (Art. 18, RPC)
standing dispute regarding conflicting claims
over the ownership of a parcel of land. One Q: Ponciano borrowed Ruben’s gun, saying
night, Roberto was so enraged that he decided that he would use it to kill Freddie. Because
to kill Ricardo. Roberto asked his best friend, Ruben also resented Freddie, he readily lent
Rafael, to lend him a gun and drive him to his gun, but told Ponciano: "O, pagkabaril mo
Ricardo’s house. Rafael knew about Roberto’s kay Freddie, isauli mo kaagad, ha." Later,
plan to kill Ricardo, but agreed to lend him a Ponciano killed Freddie, but used a knife
gun nevertheless. Rafael also drove Roberto to because he did not want Freddie’s neighbors to
the street corner nearest the house of Ricardo. hear the gunshot.
Rafael waited for him there, until the task had
been accomplished, so that he could drive a. What, if any, is the liability of Ruben?
Roberto to the next town to evade arrest. Explain.
Roberto also asked another friend, Ruel, to b. Would your answer be the same if,
stand guard outside Ricardo’s house, for the instead of Freddie, it was Manuel, a
purpose of warning him in case there was any relative of Ruben, who was killed by
danger or possible witnesses, and to keep Ponciano using Ruben’s gun? Explain.
other persons away from the vicinity. All three (2009 BAR)
– Roberto, Rafael and Ruel – agreed to the plan
and their respective roles. A:
a. Ruben’s liability is that of an accomplice only
On the agreed date, Rafael drove Roberto and because he merely cooperated in Pociano’s
Ruel to the nearest corner near Ricardo’s determination to kill Freddie. Such
house. Roberto and Ruel walked about 50 cooperation is not indispensable to the killing,
meters where Ruel took his post as guard, and as in fact the killing was carried out without
Roberto walked about five (5) meters more, the use of Ruben’s gun. Neither may Ruben be
aimed the gun at Ricardo’s bedroom, and regarded as a co- conspirator since he was not
peppered it with bullets. When he thought that a participant in the decision-making of
he had accomplished his plan, Roberto ran Ponciano to kill Freddie; he merely
away, followed by Ruel, and together they rode cooperated in carrying out the criminal plan
in Rafael’s car where they drove to the next which was already in place (Art. 18, RPC).
town to spend the night there. It turned out b. NO. The answer would not be the same
that Ricardo was out of town when the because Ruben lent his gun purposely for the
incident happened, and no one was in his room killing of Freddie only, not for any other
at the time it was peppered with bullets. Thus, killing. Ponciano’s using Ruben’s gun in killing
no one was killed or injured during the a person other than Freddie is beyond
incident. If a crime was committed, what is the Ruben’s criminal intent and willing
degree of participation of Roberto, Rafael, and involvement. Only Ponciano will answer for
Ruel? (2018 BAR) the crime against Manuel.

A: All the perpetrators (Roberto, Ricardo and Accessories (1998, 2010 BAR)
Rafael) are criminally liable as principals since the
conspiracy among them was clearly established by Q: Immediately after murdering Bob, Jake
their participation. went to his mother to seek refuge. His mother
told him to hide in the maid’s quarters until
Roberto is principal by direct participation as he she finds a better place for him to hide. After
took a direct part in the execution of the plan to two days, Jake transferred to his aunt’s house.
kill Ricardo by firing his gun at the room of the A week later, Jake was apprehended by the
intended victim. Rafael is principal by police.
indispensable cooperation not only becuase he
lent his gun to Roberto fully knowing the unlawful Can Jake’s mother and aunt be made
intent of the latter, but also drove him to the place criminally liable as accessories to the crime of
of the commission of crime and to a place where murder? Explain. (2010, 1998 BAR)

UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS 17 UST

2021 ACADEMICSCOMMITTEE BAR OPERATIONS
 Criminal Law
and give its legal effects. (1998, 2003 BAR)
A: Obviously, Jake’s mother was aware of her son’s
having committed a felony, such that her act of A: An implied conspiracy is one which is only
harbouring and concealing him renders her liable inferred or deduced from the manner of
as an accessory. But being an ascendant of Jake, participants in the commission of crime carried
she is exempt from criminal liability by express out its execution. Where the offenders acted in
provision of Art. 20 of the RPC. On the other hand, concert in the commission of the crime, meaning
the criminal liability of Jake’s aunt depends on her that their acts are coordinated or synchronized in
knowledge of his commission of the felony, her act a way indicative that they are pursuing a common
of harbouring and concealing Jake would render criminal objective, they shall be deemed to be
her criminally liable as accessory to the crime of acting in conspiracy and their criminal liability
murder; otherwise, without knowledge of Jake’s shall be collective, not individual.
commission of the felony, she would not be liable.
The legal effects of an implied conspiracy are:
CONSPIRACY AND PROPOSAL TO COMMIT
CONSPIRACY (1988, 1990, 1992, 1993, 1997, 1. Not all those who are present at the scene of
1998, 2003, 2004, 2006, 2012, 2013, 2016, the crime will be considered as co-
2017, 2019 BAR) conspirators;
2. Only those who participated by criminal acts
Q: As Sergio, Yoyong, Zoilo and Warlito in the commission of the crime will be
engaged in a drinking spree at Heartthrob considered as co-conspirators; and
Disco, Special Police Officer 3 (SPO3) Manolo 3. Mere acquiescence to or approval of the
Yabang suddenly approached them, aimed his commission of the crime, without any act of
revolver at Sergio whom he recognized as a criminal participation, shall not render one
wanted killer and fatally shot the latter. criminally liable as co-conspirator.
Whereupon, Yoyong, Zoilo and Warlito ganged
up on Yabang, Warlito, using his own pistol, Q: During a town fiesta, a free-for-all fight
shot and wounded Yabang. erupted in the public plaza. As a result of the
tumultuous affray, A sustained one fatal and
What are the criminal libailities of Yoyong, three superficial stab wounds. He died a day
Zoilo and Warlito for the injury to Yabang? after. B, C, D and E were proven to be
Was there conspiracy and treachery? (1992 participants in the “rumble”, each using a knife
BAR) against A, but it could not be ascertained who,
among them, inflicted the mortal injury. Who
A: If they have to be criminally liable at all, each shall be held criminally liable for the death of
will be responsible for their individual acts as A and for what? (1997 BAR)
there appears to be no conspiracy, as the acts of A: B, C, D and E being participants in the
the three were spontaneous and a reflex response tumultuous affray and having been proven to have
to Yabang’s shooting of Sergio. There was no inflicted serious physical injuries, or at least,
concerted act that will lead to a common purpose. employed violence upon A, are criminally liable
for the latter’s death. And because it cannot be
Q: As a result of a misunderstanding during a ascertained who among them inflicted the mortal
meeting, Joe was mauled by Nestor, Jolan, injury on A, there being a free-for-all fight or
Reden, and Arthur. He ran towards his house tumultuous affray, B, C, D and E are all liable for
but the four chased and caught him. the crime of death caused in a tumultuous affray
Thereafter, they tied Joe’s hands at his back under Art. 251 of the Revised Penal Code.
and attacked him. Nestor used a knife; Jolan, a
shovel; Arthur, his fists; and Reden, a piece of Q: Together XA, YB and ZC planned to rob Miss
wood. After killing Joe, Reden ordered the OD. They entered her house by breaking one of
digging of a grave to bury Joe’s lifeless body. the windows in her house. After taking her
Thereafter, the four (4) left together. personal properties and as they were about to
Convicted for the killing of Joe, Arthur now leave, XA decided on impulse to rape OD. As XA
claims that his conviction is erroneous as it was molesting her, YB and ZC stood outside the
was not he who conflicted the fatal blow. door of her bedroom and did nothing to
Would you sustain his claim? (1993 BAR) prevent XA from raping OD.

A: NO. Arthur’s claim is without merit. The What crime/s did XA, YB and ZC commit and
offenders acted in conspiracy in killing the victim what is the criminal liability of each? Explain
and hence, liable collectively. The act of one is the briefly. (2004 BAR)
act of all.
A: The crime committed by XA, YB and ZC is the
The existence of a conspiracy among the offenders composite crime of Robbery with Rape, a single,
can be clearly deduced or inferred from the indivisible offense under Art. 294 (1) of the
manner they committed the killing, demonstrating Revised Penal Code.
a common criminal purpose and intent. There
being a conspiracy, the individual acts of each Although the conspiracy among the offenders was
participant is not considered because their only to commit robbery and only XA raped CD, the
liability is collective. other robbers, YB and ZC, were present and aware
of the rape being committed by their co-
Q: State the concept of “implied conspiracy” conspirator. Having done nothing to stop XA from

18
 QuAMTO (1987-2019)
committing the rape, YB and ZC thereby the instances when each spoke is unconcerned
concurred in the commission of the rape by their with the success of the other spokes, there are
co-conspirator XA. multiple conspiracies.

The criminal liability of all, XA, YZ, and ZC, shall be A “chain conspiracy”, on the other hand, exists
the same, as principals in the special complex when there is successive communication and
crime of robbery with rape which is a single, cooperation in much the same way as with
indivisible offense where the rape accompanying legitimate business operations between
the robbery is just a component. manufacturer and wholesaler, then wholesaler
and retailer, and then retailer and consumer.
Q: Mr. X has always been infatuated with Ms. Y. (Estrada v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 148965,
Scorned by Mr. Y's disregard for his feelings February 26, 2002)
towards her, Mr. X came up with a plan to
abduct Ms. Y in order to have carnal MULTIPLE OFFENDERS
knowledge of her with the help of his buddies, (2018, 2019 BAR)
A, B, and C.
Recidivism
On the day they decided to carry out the plan,
and while surreptitiously waiting for Ms. Y, C Q: Robbie and Rannie are both inmates of the
had a change of heart and left. This National Penitentiary, serving the maximum
notwithstanding, Mr. X, A, and B continued penalty for robbery which they committed
with the plan and abducted Ms. Y by forcefully some years before and for which they have
taking her to a deserted house away from the been sentenced by final judgment.
city. There, Mr. X restrained Ms. Y's arms,
while A held her legs apart. B stood as a One day, Robbie tried to collect money owed
lookout. Mr. X was then able to have carnal by Rannie. Rannie insisted that he did not owe
knowledge of Ms. Y, who was resisting Robbie anything, and after a shouting episode,
throughout the entire ordeal. Rannie kicked Robbie in the stomach. Robbie
fell to the ground in pain, and Rannie left him
Consequently, Mr. X was charged with the to go to the toilet to relieve himself. As Rannie
crime of Forcible Abduction under the Revised was opening the door to the toilet and with his
Penal Code. Assuming that A, B, and C are also back turned against Robbie, Robbie stabbed
charged, may they be held criminally liable him in the back with a bladed weapon that he
together with Mr. X? Explain. (2019 BAR) had concealed in his waist. Hurt, Rannie ran to
A: NO. Only A and B may be held criminally liable the nearest “kubol” where he fell. Robbie ran
together with Mr. X. Under Art. 8, par. 1 of the after him· and, while Rannie was lying on the
RPC, a conspiracy exists when two or more ground, Robbie continued to stab him,
persons come to an agreement concerning the inflicting a total of 15 stab wounds. He died on
commission of a felony and decide to commit it. the spot. Is Robbie a recidivist, or a quasi-
With A holding Ms. Y’s legs apart and B standing recidivist? (2018 BAR)
as a lookout, they actively participated in the
commission of the crime and are guilty as co- A: Robbie is considered a quasi-recidivist
conspirators. (People v. Tumalip, G.R. No. L-28451, pursuant to Article 160 of the RPC. At the time he
October 28, 1974) stabbed Rannie which resulted in the latter’s
death, he had been convicted by final judgment
C may not be held criminally liable. C dissociated and had been serving sentence at the National
himself from the conspiracy when he had a Penitentiary.
change of heart and left. His disavowal of the
conspiracy was effective since he decided not to In quasi-recidivism, the first and second offenses
perform his part in the conspiracy before any need not be embraced in the same title of the RPC.
material act of execution leading to the Rape was A recidivist, on the other hand, requires that the
committed. Mere knowledge, acquiescence, or crimes committed must be embraced in the same
approval of the act without cooperation is not title of the RPC. Because the killing of Rannie and
enough to constitute one as a party to a the robbery, in which Robbie was previously
conspiracy. (Taer v. CA, G.R. No. 85204, June 18, convicted by final judgment, were not under the
1990) same title, Robbie cannot be considered a
recidivist.
Q: Differentiate wheel conspiracy and chain
conspiracy. (2016, 2017 BAR) Habitual Delinquency

A: There are two structures of multiple Q: In November 2018, Mr. N, a notorious

conspiracies, namely: wheel or circle conspiracy criminal, was found guilty of three (3) counts
and chain conspiracy. of Murder and was consequently sentenced
with the penalty of reclusion perpetua for each
A “wheel conspiracy” occurs when there is a single count. A month after, he was likewise found
person or group (the hub) dealing individually guilty of five (5) counts of Grave Threats in a
with two or more other persons or groups (the separate criminal proceeding, and hence,
spokes). The spoke typically interacts with the meted with the penalty of prision mayor for
hub rather than with another spoke. In the event each count. Is Mr. N considered a habitual
that the spoke shares a common purpose to delinquent? Explain. (2019 BAR)
succeed, there is a single conspiracy. However, in

UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS 19 UST

2021 ACADEMICSCOMMITTEE BAR OPERATIONS
 Criminal Law
A: NO. Mr. N is not a habitual delinquent. Under totally different? State your reasons. (1994,
Art. 62 of the RPC, a person shall be deemed to be 2001, 2005 BAR)
a habitual delinquent, if within the period of 10
years from the date of his last release or last A: The penalty of reclusion perpetua and the
conviction of the crimes of serious or less serious penalty of life imprisonment are totally different
physical injuries, robo, hurto, estafa, or from each other and therefore, should not be used
falsification, he is found guilty of any of the said interchangeably. Reclusion perpetua is a penalty
crimes a third time or oftener. Here, Mr. N did not prescribed by the RPC, with a fixed duration of
commit the specific crimes above mentioned. imprisonment from 20 years and 1 day to 40
years, and carries it with accessory penalties. Life
PENALTIES (1988, 1994, 1995, 1997, 2001, imprisonment, on the other hand, is a penalty
2004, 2005, 2007 BAR) prescribed by special laws, with no fixed duration
of imprisonment and without any accessory
Q: penalty.
a. State the two classes of penalties under the
Revised Penal Code. Define each. Q: Under Article 27 of the Revised Penal Code,
b. May censure be included in a sentence of as amended by Republic Act (RA) No. 7959,
acquittal? (1988 BAR) reclusion perpetua shall be from 20 years and
1 day to 40 years. Does this mean that
A: reclusion perpetua is now a divisible penalty?
Explain. (2005 BAR)
a. The two classes of penalties under Article 25
of the RPC are as follows: A: NO, because the Supreme Court has repeatedly
called the attention of the Bench and the Bar to
1. Principal – A principal penalty is defined the fact that the penalties of reclusion perpetua
as that provided for a felony and which and life imprisonment are not synonymous and
is imposed by court expressly upon should be applied correctly and as may be
conviction. specified by the applicable law. Reclusion
2. Accessory – An accessory penalty is perpetua has a specific duration of 20 years and 1
defined as that deemed included in the day to 40 years (Art. 27) and accessory penalties
imposition of the principal penalty. (Art. 41), while life imprisonment has no definite
term or accessory penalties. Also, life
b. Censure may not be included in a sentence of imprisonment is imposable on crimes punished by
acquittal because a censure is a penalty. special laws, and not on felonies in the Code.
Censure is repugnant and is essentially
inconsistent and contrary to an acquittal. Q: What are the penalties that may be served
(People v. Abellera, 69 Phil 623) simultaneously? (2007 BAR)

Q: Imagine that you are a Judge trying a case, A: The penalties that may be served
and based on the evidence presented and the simultaneously are imprisonment/destierro and –
applicable law, you have decided on the guilt
of two (2) accused. Indicate the five (5) steps 1. Perpetual absolute disqualification;
you would follow to determine the exact 2. Perpetual special disqualification;
penalty to be imposed. Stated differently, what 3. Temporary absolute disqualification;
are the factors you must consider to arrive at 4. Temporary special disqualification;
the correct penalty? (1991 BAR) 5. Suspension from public office, the right to
vote and be voted for and the right to
A: follow a profession or calling;
1. Determine the crime committed; 6. Fine; and any principal penalty with its
2. Stage of execution and accessory penalties.
degree of participation; 7. Fine and bond to keep the peace;
3. Determine the penalty 8. Public Censure;
4. Consider the modifying circumstances; 9. Civil Interdiction; and
5. Determine whether Indeterminate Sentence 10. Confiscation and payment of costs
Law is applicable or not.
Principles (including R.A. No. 9346 – Act
Q: After trial, Judge Juan Laya of the Manila Prohibiting the Imposition of Death Penalty in
RTC found Benjamin Garcia guilty of Murder, the Philippines) (1988, 1995, 1997, 2004 BAR)
the victim having sustained several bullet
wounds in his body so that he died despite Q: What offenses, if any, may be punished with
medical assistance given in the Ospital ng the death penalty in our jurisdiction at
Manila. Because the weapon used by Benjamin present? Explain. (1988, 1995 BAR)
was unlicensed and the qualifying
circumstance of treachery was found to be A: At present, no offense may be punished with
present. Judge Laya rendered his decision the death penalty in our jurisdiction at present.
convicting Benjamin and sentencing him to The 1987 Constitution has abolished the death
"reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment". Are penalty and the abolition affects even those who
"reclusion perpetua" and life imprisonment has already been sentenced to death penalty.
the same and can be imposed interchangeably Therefore, unless Congress enacts a law, no
as in the foregoing sentence? Or are they offense may be punished with the death penalty at

20
 QuAMTO (1987-2019)
present. then simultaneously if the nature of the
penalties will so permit. However, the
Application (2005, 2013 BAR) maximum duration of the convict’s sentence
shall not be more than three-fold the length
Indeterminate Sentence Law (Act No. 4103, as of time corresponding to the most severe of
amended) (Refer to SPL Section) the penalties imposed upon him. No other
penalty to which he may be liable shall be
inflicted after the sum total of those
Three-Fold Rule (2013, 2019 BAR)
imposed equals the same maximum period.
Such maximum period shall in no case
Q: Roman and Wendy are neighbors. On
exceed 40 years.
Valentine's Day, without prior notice, Roman
visited Wendy at her condo to invite her to
Subsidiary imprisonment (2005, 2019 BAR)
dinner, but Wendy turned him down and
abruptly left, leaving her condo door unlocked.
Q: E and M are convicted of a penal law that
Roman attempted to follow, but appeared to
imposes a penalty of fine or imprisonment or
have second thoughts; he simply went back to
both fine and imprisonment. The judge
Wendy's condo, let himself in, and waited for
sentenced them to pay the fine, jointly and
her return. On Wendy's arrival later that
severally, with subsidiary imprisonment in
evening, Roman grabbed her from behind and,
case of insolvency.
with a knife in hand, forced her to undress.
Wendy had no choice but to comply. Roman
a. Is the penalty proper? Explain.
then tied Wendy's hands to her bed and
b. May the judge impose an alternative
sexually assaulted her five (5) times that night.
penalty of fine or imprisonment?
Roman was charged with, and was convicted
Explain. (2005 BAR)
of, five (5) counts of rape, but the judge did not
impose the penalty of reclusion perpetua for
A:
each count. Instead, the judge sentenced
a. NO. The penalty should be imposed
Roman to 40 years of imprisonment on the
individually on every person accused of the
basis of the three-fold rule. Was the judge
crime. Any of the convicted accused who is
correct? (2013 BAR)
insolvent and unable to pay the fine, shall
serve the subsidiary imprisonment.
A: NO, the three-fold rule is applicable only in
b. NO. Although the law may prescribe an
connection with the service of the sentence not
alternative penalty for a crime, it does not
in the imposition of the proper penalties. The
mean that the court may impose the
court must impose all penalties for all the crimes
alternative penalties at the same time. The
for which the accused have been found guilty.
sentence must be definite. Otherwise, the
Thus, the court should not make a computation
judgment cannot attain finality.
in it decision and sentence the accused to not
more than the three-fold of the most severe of
Q: Mr. Q was found guilty beyond reasonable
the penalties imposable. The computation under
doubt of the crime of Serious Physical
the three-fold rule is for the prison authorities to
Injuries, and accordingly, was sentenced to
make.
suffer the penalty of imprisonment for an
indeterminate period of six (6) months of
Q: In November 2018, Mr. N, a notorious
arresto mayor, as minimum, to four (4) years,
criminal, was found guilty of three (3) counts
two (2) months, and one (1) day of prision
of Murder and was consequently sentenced
correccional, as maximum. He was also
with the penalty of reclusion perpetua for
ordered to pay the victim actual damages in
each count. A month after, he was likewise
the amount of ₱50,000.00, with subsidiary
found guilty of five (5) counts of Grave
imprisonment in case of insolvency. Was the
Threats in a separate criminal proceeding,
imposition of subsidiary imprisonment
and hence, meted with the penalty of prision
proper? (2019 BAR)
mayor for each count.
A: NO, subsidiary imprisonment does not apply
a. What are the respective durations of the
to civil liability but only for non-payment of fine.
penalties of reclusion perpetua and
Here, there is no penalty of fine imposed by the
prision mayor?
trial court.
b. How long will Mr. N serve all his
penalties of imprisonment? Explain.
CRIMINAL AND CIVIL LIABILITIES
(2019 BAR)
EXTINCTION OF CRIMINAL LIABILITIES
A:
(1988, 1990, 2004, 2015 BAR)
a. Under Art. 27 of the RPC, the penalty of
reclusion perpetua shall be from 20 years
Q:
and 1 day to 40 years; while the duration of
a. How is criminal liability totally
the penalty of prision mayor shall be from 6
extinguished? (1988, 1990 BAR)
years and 1 day to 12 years.
b. How is criminal liability partially
b. Mr. N will serve all these penalties of extinguished?
imprisonment for a total of 40 years. Under c. If an accused is acquitted does it
Art. 70 of the RPC, when the culprit has to necessarily follow that no civil liability
serve two or more penalties, he shall serve arising from the acts complained of may

UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS 21 UST

2021 ACADEMICSCOMMITTEE BAR OPERATIONS
 Criminal Law
be awarded in the same judgment? dismiss because the Court of Appeals, having
Explain briefly. (1988 BAR) issued an Entry of Judgment, the decision has
become final and executory. Moreover, the
A: pecuniary penalty, such as the civil liability
arising from the crime consisting of actual
a. Article 89 of the Revised Penal Code provides damages of P25,000 survives the death of
for the following causes of total extinction of Tiburcio.
criminal liability: b. YES. The RTC decision must be set aside and
the case against Tiburcio must consequently
1. Death of the convict as to personal be dismissed. The demise of Tiburcio which
penalties, as to the pecuniary liabilities, occurred before the Court of Appeals
liability therefore is extinguished only rendered its decision causes his criminal
when death occurs before final judgment liability, as well as his civil liability ex delicto,
2. Service of sentence to be totally extinguished inasmuch as there
3. Amnesty is no longer a defendant to stand as the
4. Absolute pardon accused, the civil action is instituted therein
5. Prescription of the crime for recovery of civil liability ex delicto is ipso
6. Prescription of the penalty facto extinguished, grounded as it is on
7. Marriage of the offended woman as criminal case.
provided in Article 344.
Q: AX was convicted of reckless imprudence
b. Article 94 of the Revised Penal Code provides resulting in homicide. The trial court
for the following causes of the partial sentenced him to a prison term as well as to
extinction of criminal liability: pay P150,000 as civil indemnity and damages.
While his appeal was pending, AX met a fatal
1. Conditional pardon accident. He left a young widow, 2 children,
2. Commutation of sentence and a million-peso estate. What is the effect, if
3. Good conduct allowance during any, of his death on his criminal as well as
confinement civil liability? Explain briefly. (2004 BAR)
4. Parole
5. Probation A: The death of AX while his appeal from the
judgment of the trial court is pending,
c. If an accused is acquitted, it does not extinguishes his criminal liability. The civil
necessarily follow that no civil liability liability insofar as it arises from the crime and
arising from the acts complained of may be recoverable under the RPC is also extinguished;
awarded in the same judgment except: If but indemnity and damages may be recovered in
there is an express waiver of the liability; a civil action if predicated on a source of
and if there is a reservation to file a separate obligation under Art. 1157, NCC, such as law,
civil action. (Rule 107; Padilla v. CA, People v. contracts, quasi-contracts and quasi- delicts, but
Jalandoni) not on the basis of delicts. (People v. Balagtas,
236 SCRA 239)
Q: The Regional Trial Court (RTC) found
Tiburcio guilty of frustrated homicide and Prescription of crimes (1987, 1990, 1993,
sentenced him to an indeterminate penalty of 1994, 1997, 2000, 2001, 2004, 2009, 2010,
four years and one day of prision correccional 2015 BAR)
as minimum, to eight years of prision mayor
as maximum, and ordered him to pay actual Q: B imitated the signature of A, registered
damages in the amount of 1125,000.00. owner of a lot, in a special power of attorney
Tiburcio appealed to the Court of Appeals naming him (B) as his attorney-in- fact of A.
which sustained his conviction as well as the On February 13, 1964, B mortgaged the lot to
penalty imposed by the court a quo. After a bank using the special power of attorney to
sixty days, the Court of Appeals issued an obtain a loan. On the same day, both the
Entry of Judgment and remanded the records special power of attorney and the mortgage
of the case to the RTC. Three days thereafter, contract were duly registered in the Registry
Tiburcio died of heart attack. Atty. Abdul, of Deeds. Because of B’s failure to pay, the
Tiburcio's counsel, filed before the RTC a bank foreclosed the mortgage and the lot was
Manifestation with Motion to Dismiss, sold to X in whose name a new title was
informing the court that Tiburcio died issued. In March, 1974, A discovered that the
already, and claiming that his criminal property was already registered in the name
liability had been extinguished by his demise. of X because of an ejectment case filed against
him by X. If you were the counsel of B, what
a. Should the RTC grant the Motion to would be your defense? Discuss. (1993 BAR)
Dismiss the case? Explain.
b. Assuming that Tiburcio's death occurred A: My defense will be prescription because the
before the Court of Appeals rendered its crime was committed in 1964 and almost ten
decision, will you give a different answer? (10) years had already elapsed since then. Even if
Explain. (2015 BAR) we take Falsification and Estafa individually, they
have already prescribed.
A:
a. NO. The RTC may not grant the motion to It is to be noted that when it comes to discovery,

22
 QuAMTO (1987-2019)
the fact that the crime was discovered in 1974 by the result of proof. (People v. Galano, 75 SCRA
will be of no moment because the offended party 193)
is considered to have constructive notice on the
forgery after the Deed of Sale where his signature Q: A killed his wife and buried her in their
had been falsified was registered in the office of backyard. He immediately went into hiding in
the Register of Deeds. (Cabral v. Puno, 70 SCRA the mountains. Three years later, the bones of
606) A’s wife were discovered by X, the gardener.
Since X had a standing warrant of arrest, he
Q: On January 1990, while 5-year old Albert hid the bones in an old clay jar and kept quiet
was urinating at the back of their house, he about it. After two years, Z, the caretaker,
heard a strange noise coming from the found the bones and reported the matter to
kitchen of their neighbor and playmate, Ara. the police. After 15 years of hiding, A left the
When he peeped inside, he saw Mina, Ara’s country but returned three years later to take
stepmother, very angry and strangling the 5- care of his ailing sibling. Six years thereafter,
year old Ara to death. Albert saw Mina carry he was charged with parricide but raised the
the dead body of Ara, place it inside the trunk defense of prescription.
of her car and drive away. The dead body of
Ara was never found. Mina spread the news a. Under the Revised Penal Code, when does
in the neighborhood that Ara went to live the period of prescription of a crime
with her grandparents in Ormoc. For fear of commence to run?
his life, Albert did not tell anyone, even his b. When is it interrupted?
parents and relatives. 20 and ½ years after c. Is A’s defense tenable? Explain. (2000,
the incident, and right after his graduation in 2004, 2009, 2010 BAR)
Criminology, Albert reported the crime to NBI
authorities. The crime of homicide prescribes A:
in 20 years. Can the State still prosecute Mina a. Generally, the period of prescription of a
for the death of Ara despite the lapse of 20 crime commences to run for the date it was
and ½ years? Explain. (2000 BAR) committed; but if the crime was committed
clandestinely, the period of prescription of
A: YES. The State can still prosecute Mina for the the crimes under the RPC commence to run
death of Ara despite the lapse of 20 & ½ years. from the day on which the crime was
Under Article 91, RPC, the period of prescription discovered (the discovery rule) by the
commences to run from the day on which the offended party, the authorities or their
crime is discovered by the offended party, the agents. (Art. 91, RPC)
authorities or their agents. b. The running of the prescriptive period of the
crime is interrupted when “any kind of
In the case at bar, the commission of the crime investigative proceedings is instituted
was known only to Albert, who was not the against the guilty person which may
offended party nor an authority or an agent of an ultimately lead to his prosecution.”
authority. It was discovered by the NBI (Panaguiton, Jr. v. DOJ, G.R. No. 167571,
Authorities only when Albert revealed to them November 25, 2008)
the commission of the crime. Hence, the period c. NO, the defense of prescription of the crime
of prescription of 20 years for homicide is not tenable. The crime committed is
commenced to run only from the time Albert parricide which prescribes in twenty (20)
revealed the same to the NBI Authorities. years (Art. 90, RPC). It was only when the
caretaker, Z, found the victim’s bones and
Q: On June 1, 1988, a complaint for reported the matter to the police that the
concubinage committed in February 1987 crime is deemed legally discovered by the
was filed against Roberto in the Municipal authorities or their agents and thus the
Trial Court of Tanza, Cavite for purposes of prescriptive period of the crime commenced
preliminary investigation. For various to run. When A left the country and returned
reasons, it was only on July 3, 1998 when the only after three (3) years, the running of the
judge of said court decided the case by prescriptive period of the crime is
dismissing it for lack of jurisdiction since the interrupted and suspended because
crime was committed in Manila. The case was prescription shall not run when the offender
subsequently filed with the City Fiscal of is absent from the Philippine Archipelago
Manila but it was dismissed on the ground (Art. 91, RPC). Since A had been in hiding for
that the crime had already prescribed. The 15 years after the commission of the crime
law provides that the crime of concubinage and the prescriptive period starting running
prescribes in ten (10) years. Was the only after 5 years from such commission
dismissal by the fiscal correct? Explain. (2001 when the crime was discovered, only 10
BAR) years lapsed and 3 years thereof should be
deducted when the prescriptive period was
A: NO. The fiscal’s dismissal of the case on interrupted and suspended. Hence, the 3
alleged prescription is not correct. The filing of years when A was out of the Philippines
the complaint with the Municipal Trial Court, should be deducted from the 10 years after
although only for preliminary investigation, the prescription starts running. Adding the 7
interrupted and suspended the period of years of prescription and the 6 years that
prescription inasmuch as the jurisdiction of a lapsed before the case was filed, only a total
court in a criminal case is determined by the of thirteen (13) years of the prescriptive
allegations in the complaint or information, not period had lapsed. Hence, the crime has not

UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS 23 UST

2021 ACADEMICSCOMMITTEE BAR OPERATIONS
 Criminal Law
yet prescribed. already final and executory at the time the same
is granted. Moreover, the grant is in favor of
Q: Taylor was convicted of a violation of the individual convicted offenders, not to a class of
Election Code, and was sentenced to suffer convicted offenders; and the crimes subject of
imprisonment of one year as minimum, to the grant may be common crimes or political
three years as maximum. The decision of the crimes. Finally, the grant is a private act of the
trial court was affirmed on appeal and Chief Executive which does not require the
became final and executory. Taylor failed to concurrence of any other public officer or office.
appear when summoned for execution of
judgment, prompting the judge to issue an In amnesty – The criminal complexion of the act
order for his arrest. Taylor was able to use constituting the crime is erased, as though such
the backdoor and left for the United States. act was innocent when committed; hence, the
Fifteen years later, Taylor returned to the effects of the conviction are obliterated. Amnesty
Philippines and filed a Motion to Quash the is granted is in favor of a class of convicted
warrant of arrest against him, on the ground offenders, not to individual convicted offenders;
that the penalty imposed against him had and the crimes involved are generally political
already prescribed. offenses, not common crimes. Amnesty is a
public act that requires the conformity or
a. If you were the judge, would you grant concurrence of the Philippine Senate.
Taylor's Motion to Quash? Explain.
b. Assuming that instead of the United Q: Senator Adamos was convicted of plunder.
States, Taylor was able to go to another About one year after beginning to serve his
country with which the Philippines had sentence, the President of the Philippines
no extradition treaty, will your answer be granted him absolute pardon. The signed
the same? Explain. (2015 BAR) pardon states: "In view hereof, and in
pursuance of the authority vested upon me by
A: the Constitution, I hereby grant absolute
a. NO. If I were the judge, I will deny the motion pardon unto Adamos, who was convicted of
to quash. Article 93 of the Revised Penal plunder in Criminal Case No. XV32 and
Code provides when the prescription of upon whom the penalty of reclusion
penalties shall commence to run. Under said perpetua was imposed." He now comes to you
provision, it shall commence to run from the for advice. He wants to know if he could run
date the felon evades the service of his for senator in the next election.
sentence. Pursuant to Article 157 of the same
Code, evasion of service of sentence can be a. What advice will you give Adamos?
committed only by those who have been Explain.
convicted by final judgment by escaping b. Assuming that what Adamos committed
during the term of his sentence. Taylor never was heading a rebellion for which he was
served a single minute of his sentence, and imposed the same penalty of reclusion
thus, prescription never started to run in his perpetua, and what he received was
favor. Clearly, one who has not been amnesty from the government, will your
committed to prison cannot be said to have answer be the same? Explain. (2015
escaped therefrom. (Del Castillo v. BAR)
Torrecampo, G.R. No. 139033, December 18,
2002) A:
b. Even if Taylor was able to go to another a. If I were the counsel of Senator Adamos, I
country which the Philippines had no will give him the advice that he cannot run
extradition treaty, I will deny the motion to in the Senatorial race since the terms of the
quash. Going to a foreign country with which pardon has not expressly restored his right
this Government has no extradition treaty to to hold public office or remitted the
interrupt the running of prescription is not
applicable nor even material because the Accessory penalty of perpetual absolute
period of prescription is not applicable nor disqualification. Under Article 36 of the
even material because the period of Revised Penal Code, a pardon shall not work
prescription had not commenced to run in the restoration of the right to hold public
the first place; hence, there is nothing to office unless such right be expressly
interrupt. restored by terms of the pardon. Under
Article 41, the penalty of reclusion perpetua
Pardon and Amnesty (2006, 2009 BAR) shall carry with it perpetual absolute
disqualification which the offender shall
Q: Enumerate the differences between pardon suffer even though pardoned as to the
and amnesty. (2006 BAR) principal penalty, unless the same shall
have been expressly remitted in the pardon.
A: The following are the differences between (Risos-Vidal v. Lim, G.R. No. 206666, January
pardon and amnesty: 21, 2015)

In pardon – The convict is excused from serving b. If he was given amnesty, he can run in the
the sentence but the effects of conviction remain Senatorial race. Under Article 89 of the
unless expressly remitted by the pardon; hence, Revised Penal Code, criminal liability is
for pardon to be valid there must be a sentence totally extinguished by amnesty, which

24
 QuAMTO (1987-2019)
completely extinguishes the penalty and all conspiracy to commit treason. During the
its effects. Thus, the amnesty extinguishes hearing of the two cases, the government only
not only the principal penalty of reclusion presented as witness, General Riturban, who
perpetua but also its effects such as the testified on the activities of the Ratute
accessory penalty of perpetual absolute brothers, Ricalde, and Riboli. Can Ricalde and
disqualification. Amnesty looks backward Riboli be convicted of the crime of conspiracy
and abolishes and puts into oblivion the to commit treason? Explain. (2017 BAR)
offense itself, it so overlooks and obliterates
the offense with which he is charged, so that A: NO. Ricalde and Riboli cannot be convicted of
the person released by amnesty stands the crime of conspiracy to commit treason,
before the law precisely as though he had because there was no war existing when they
committed no offense. (Barrioquinto v. committed the acts. Jurisprudence considers
Fernandez, G.R. No. L-1278, January 21, treason as a crime committed in times only of an
1949) international armed conflict. The same is true
with the felony of conspiracy to commit treason.
Moreover, the crimes were committed outside
CIVIL LIABILITIES IN CRIMINAL CASES
the jurisdiction of Philippine Court.
(1987, 1990, 1991, 1992 BAR)
Piracy and mutiny on the high seas or in
Q: Rico was convicted of raping Letty, his
Philippine waters (2006, 2008 BAR)
former sweetheart, by the Regional Trial
Court of Manila and he was ordered to serve
Q: The inter-island vessel M/V Viva Lines I,
the penalty of life imprisonment, to
while cruising off Batanes, was forced to seek
indemnify Letty in the amount of P30,000.00
shelter at the harbor of Kaoshiung, Taiwan
and to support their offspring. Pending
because of a strong typhoon. While anchored
appeal in the Supreme Court, Rico died. His
in said harbor, Max, Baldo and Bogart arrived
widow, Bernie, moved for a dismissal of the
in a speedboat, fired a bazooka at the bow of
case. What is the legal effect of Rico’s death
the vessel, boarded it and divested the
on his civil liability? State your reasons.
passengers of their money and jewelry. A
(1990 BAR)
passenger of M/V Viva Lines I, Dodong took
advantage of the confusion to settle an old
A: The civil liability of Rico survives. (People v.
grudge with another passenger, and killed
Tirol, G.R. L-30588, January 31, 1981, People v.
him. After their apprehension, all four were
Naboa, et. al., 132 SCRA 410)
charged with qualified piracy before a
Philippine court.

PART II. REVISED PENAL CODE (BOOK II) a. Was the charge of qualified piracy
against the three person (Max, Badong
and Bogart) who boarded the inter-
Conspiracy and proposal to commit treason
A. CRIMES AGAINST NATIONAL SECURITY
Q: The brothers Roberto and Ricardo Ratute, AND THE LAW OF NATIONS (2006, 2008,
both Filipino citizens, led a group of armed 2016, 2017 BAR)
men in seizing a southern island in the island vessel correct? Explain.
Philippines, and declaring war against the b. Was Dodong correctly charged before
duly constituted government of the country. the Philippine court for qualified
The Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP), piracy? Explain. (2008 BAR)
led by its Chief of Staff, General Riturban,
responded and a full-scale war ensued A:
between the AFP and the armed men led by a. The charge is correct. Qualified Piracy was
the brothers. The armed conflict raged for committed when the offenders seized the
months. vessels by firing on or boarding the same.

When the brothers-led armed men were In the problem, they even went further by
running out of supplies, Ricalde, also a divesting the passengers of their money and
Filipino, and a good friend and supporter of jewelry. The vessel was anchored in the
the Ratute brothers, was tasked to leave for harbour of Kaoshioung, Taiwan and it is
abroad to solicit arms and funding for the submitted that the crime was committed
cash-strapped brothers. He was able to travel within the territorial jurisdiction of another
to Rwanda, and there he met with Riboli, a country. The Supreme Court has ruled that the
citizen and resident of Rwanda, who agreed to high seas contemplated under Art. 122 of the
help the brothers by raising funds RPC include the three-mile limit of any state
internationally, and to send them to the (People v. Lol- lo, G.R. No. 17958, February 27,
Ratute brothers in order to aid them in their 1922). Moreover, piracy is an offense that can
armed struggle against the Philippine be tried anywhere because it is a crime
government. Before Ricalde and Riboli could against the Law of Nations.
complete their fund-raising activities for the
brothers, the AFP was able to reclaim- the b. NO. Dodong was not correctly charged with
island and defeat the Ratute-led uprising. qualified piracy because committing piracy
was never in his mind nor did he have any
Ricalde and Riboli were charged with involvement in the piracy committed. He

UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS 25 UST

2021 ACADEMICSCOMMITTEE BAR OPERATIONS
 Criminal Law
merely took advantage of the situation in belongings of its complement or passengers. The
killing the passenger. He should be charged latter act is committed when the offenders took
with murder since there was evident away the several crates containing valuable
premeditation and intent to kill. items and loaded them in their own motorboat.

Q: While SS Nagoya Maru was negotiating the It is qualified because: (1) the offenders have
sea route from Hongkong towards Manila, seized the vessel by boarding; and (2) the crime
and while still 300 miles from Aparri, or piracy was accompanied by murder and
Cagayan, its engine malfunctioned. The physical injuries. The facts show that the
Captain ordered the ship to stop for offenders planted an explosive in the vessel
emergency repairs lasting for almost 15 which they detonated from a safe distance and
hours. Due to exhaustion, the officers and the explosion killed ten (10) crewmen and
crew fell asleep. While the ship was anchored, injured fifteen (15) others.
a motorboat manned by renegade Ybanags
from Claveria, Cagayan, passed by and took The number of persons killed on the occasion of
advantage of the situation. They cut the ship’s piracy is not material. The law considers
engines and took away several heavy crates of qualified piracy as a special complex crime
electrical equipment and loaded them in their regardless of the number of victims. (People v.
motorboat. Then they left hurriedly towards Siyoh, G.R. No. L-57292 February 18, 1986)
Aparri. At daybreak, the crew found that a
robbery took place. They radioed the Aparri Arbitrary Detention or Expulsion, Violation of
Port Authorites resulting in the apprehension Dwelling, Prohibition, Interruption, and
of the culprits. Dissolution of Peaceful Meeting and Crimes
Against Religious Worship
a. What crime was committed? Explain.
b. Supposing that while the robbery was ARBITRARY DETENTION AND EXPULSION
taking place, the culprits stabbed a (2006, 2008, 1992 BAR)
member of the crew while sleeping. What
crime was committed? Explain. (2006 Q: What are the 3 ways of committing
BAR) arbitrary detention? Explain each. What are
the legal grounds for detention? (2006 BAR)
A:
a. The crime committed was piracy under Art. A: The three (3) ways of committing arbitrary
122, Revised Penal Code, the essence of detention are:
which is robbery directed against a vessel
and/or its cargoes. The taking of the several a. by detaining or locking up a person without
heavy crates of electrical equipment from a any legal cause or ground therefore
vessel at sea, was effected by force and purposely to restrain his liberty (RPC, Art.
undoubtedly with intent to gain. It is of no 124);
moment that the vessel was anchored when b. by delaying delivery to the proper judicial
deprecated so long as it was at sea. authority of a person lawfully arrested
b. The crime was qualified piracy under Art. without a warrant (RPC, Art. 125); and
123 of the RPC because it was attended by a c. by delaying release of a prisoner whose
killing committed by the same culprits release has been ordered by competent
against a member of the crew of the vessel. authority. (RPC, Art. 126)

Q: The Royal S.S. Maru, a vessel registered in In all the above-stated ways, the principal
Panama, was 300 nautical miles from Aparri, offender should be a public officer acting under
Cagayan when its engines malfunctioned. The color of his authority.
Captain ordered his men to drop anchor and
repair the ship. While the officers and crew The legal grounds for detention are:
were asleep, armed men boarded the vessel
and took away several crates containing 1. commission of a crime;
valuable items and loaded them in their own 2. violent insanity or other ailment requiring
motorboat. Before the band left, they planted compulsory confinement in an institution
an explosive which they detonated from a established for such purpose.
safe distance. The explosion damaged the hull
of the ship, killed ten (10) crewmen, and Q: Major Menor, while patrolling Bago-Bago
injured fifteen (15) others. What crime or community in a police car with SP03 Caloy
crimes, if any, were committed? Explain. Itliong blew his whistle to stop a Nissan
(2016 BAR) Sentra car which wrongly entered a one- way
street. After demanding from Linda Lo Hua,
A: The crime committed is Qualified Piracy under the driver, her driver’s license, Menor asked
Article 123 of the Revised Penal Code. The her to follow them to the police precinct.
elements of piracy being present, namely, (1) the Upon arriving there, he gave instructions to
vessel is on the high seas; (2) that the offenders Itliong to guard Lo Hua in one of the rooms
are not members of its complement or passenger and not to let her out of sight until he returns;
of the vessel; and (3) that the offenders attack or then got the car key from Lo Hua. In the
seize the vessel, or seize the whole or part of the meantime, the latter was not allowed to make
cargo of said vessel, its equipment or personal any phone calls but was given food and access

26
 QuAMTO (1987-2019)
to a bathroom. a. YES. Policeman Stone may be charged with
Interruption of religious worship. Under the
When Menor showed up after two days, he RPC, a public officer or employee who shall
brought Lo Hua to a private house and told prevent or disturb the ceremonies or
her that he would only release her and return manifestations of any religion shall be liable
the car if she made arrangements for the for interruption of religious worship. Hence,
delivery of P500,000.00 in a doctor’s bag at a Policeman Stone, a public officer, approached
certain place within the next twenty-four the priest, displayed his firearm, and
hours. When Menor went to the designated threatened the priest, which caused the
spot to pick up the bag of money, he suddenly disruption of the mass and the leaving of the
found himself surrounded by several armed congregation. Policeman Stone, therefore,
civilians who introduced themselves as NBI may be charged of interruption of religious
agents. What criminal offense has Menor worship.
committed? Explain. (1992 BAR) b. NO. Policeman Stone may not be charged
with the crime of offending religious feelings.
A: Menor is liable under Art. 124, RPC (Arbitrary The Supreme Court has ruled that the acts
Detention) he being a public officer who must be directed against religious practice,
detained, a person without legal grounds. dogma, or ritual for the purpose of ridicule as
Violation of a traffic ordinance by entering a one- mocking or scoffing at or attempting to
way street is not a valid reason to arrest and damage an object of religious veneration
detain the driver. Such only merits the issuance (People v. Baes, G.R. No. 46000, May 25,
of a traffic violation ticket. Hence, when Lo Hua 1939). Policeman Stone threatened the
was ordered to follow the police officers to the priest because the priest’s statements during
precinct (confiscating her license to compel her his homily and not to mock or ridicule the
to do so), and confining her in a room for two ceremony; consequently, Policeman Stone
days and prohibiting her to make phone calls, is a may not be charged with the crime of
clear case of deprivation of personal liberty. offending religious feelings.
Giving her food and access to the bathroom will
not extinguish or mitigate the criminal liability. C. CRIMES AGAINST PUBLIC ORDER

Menor is further liable for robbery, because REBELLION, COUP D’ETAT, SEDITION AND
money or personal properly was taken, with DISLOYALTY
intent to gain, and with intimidation. The
peculiar situation of Lo Hua practically forced her Rebellion (1991, 1994, 1998, 2004 BAR)
to submit to the monetary demands of the major.
Q: In the early morning of 25 October 1990,
CRIMES AGAINST RELIGIOUS WORSHIP the troops of the Logistics Command
(2017 BAR) (LOGCOM) of the AFP at Camp General Emilio
Aguinaldo headed by their Operations Officer,
Q: In his homily, Fr. Chris loudly denounced Col. Rito Amparo, withdrew firearms and
the many extrajudicial killings committed by bullets and, per prior agreement, attacked, in
the men in uniform. Policeman Stone, then separate teams, the offices of the Chief of
attending the mass, was peeved by the Staff, the Secretary of National Defense, the
denunciations of Fr. Chris. He immediately Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations, the
approached the priest during the homily, Deputy Chief of Staff for Intelligence and
openly displayed his firearm tucked in his other offices, held hostage the Chief of Staff of
waist, and menacingly uttered at the priest: LOGCOM and other officers, killed three (3)
Father, may kalalagyan kayo kung hindi kayo pro-Government soldiers, inverted the
tumigil. His brazenness terrified the priest, Philippine flag, barricaded all entrances and
who cut short his homily then and there. The exits to the camp, and announced complete
celebration of the mass was disrupted, and control of the camp. Because of the
the congregation left the church in disgust superiority of the pro-Government forces, Col.
over the actuations of Policeman Stone, a co- Amparo and his troops surrendered at 7:00 in
parishioner. the morning of that day.

Policeman Stone was subsequently charged. Did Col. Amparo and his troops commit the
The Office of the Provincial Prosecutor is now crime of coup d’etat (Article 134-A, RPC) or of
about to resolve the case, and is mulling on rebellion? (1991 BAR)
what to charge Policeman Stone with. May
Policeman Stone be properly charged with A: Under the facts stated, the crime committed
either or both of the following crimes, or, if would be coup d’etat (R.A. 6988 incorporating
not, with what proper crime? Art. 134-A).

a. Interruption of religious worship as However, since the law was not yet effective as of
defined and punished under Art. 132 of October 25, 1990, as the effectivity thereof (Sec.
the Revised Penal Code; and/or 8) is upon its approval (which is October 24,
b. Offending the religious feelings as defined 1990) and publication in at least two (2)
and punished under Art. 133 of the newspapers of general circulation, the felony
Revised Penal Code. Explain. committed would be rebellion.

A: Q: VC, JG, GG, and JJ conspired to overthrow

UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS 27 UST

2021 ACADEMICSCOMMITTEE BAR OPERATIONS
 Criminal Law
the Philippine Government. VG was Q: If a group of persons belonging to the
recognized as the titular head of the armed forces makes a swift attack,
conspiracy. Several meetings were held and accompanied by violence, intimidation and
the plan was finalized. JJ, bothered by his threat against a vital military installation for
conscience, confessed to Father Abraham that the purpose of seizing power and taking over
he, VG, JG and GG have conspired to such installation, what crime or crimes are
overthrow the government. Father Abraham they guilty of?
did not report this information to the proper
authorities. Did Father Abraham commit a If the attack is quelled but the leader is
crime? If so, what crime was committed? unknown, who shall be deemed the leader
What is his criminal liability? (1994 BAR) thereof? (1998, 2002 BAR)

A: NO. Father Abraham did not commit a crime A: The perpetrators, being persons belonging to
because the conspiracy involved is one to the Armed Forces, would be guilty of the crime of
commit rebellion, not a conspiracy to commit coup d'etat, under Art. 134-A of the RPC, as
treason which makes a person criminally liable amended, because their attack was against vital
under Art 116, RPC. And even assuming that it military installations which are essential to the
will fall as misprision of treason, Father Abraham continued possession and exercise of
is exempted from criminal liability under Art. 12, governmental powers, and their purpose is to
par. 7, as his failure to report can be considered seize power by taking over such installations.
as due to "insuperable cause", as this involves
the sanctity and inviolability of a confession. The leader being unknown, any person who in
Conspiracy to commit rebellion results in fact directed the others, spoke for them, signed
criminal liability to the co- conspirators, but not receipts and other documents issued in their
to a person who learned of such and did not name, or performed similar acts, on behalf of the
report to the proper authorities. (US v. Vergara, 3 group shall be deemed the leader of said coup
Phil. 432; People vs. Atienza, 56 Phil. 353) d'etat (Art 135, RPC).

Coup d’ etat (1988, 1991, 1998, 2002 BAR) Sedition (1987, 2007 BAR)

Q: Distinguish rebellion from coup d’etat. Q: A, B, C, D, and E were former soldiers who
(1991, 2004 BAR) deserted their command in Mindanao. Jose
and Pedro, two big landowners, called A, B, C,
A: Rebellion distinguished from coup d’etat: D, and E to a conference. Jose and Pedro
proposed to these former soldiers that they
As to overt acts, in rebellion, there is public recruit their comrades and organize a group
uprising and taking up arms against the of 100 for the purpose of challenging the
Government. In coup d’etat public uprising is not government by force of arms in order to
necessary. The essence of the crime is a swift prevent the enforcement or implementation
attack, accompanied by violence, intimidation, of the Land Reform Law in Cotabato Province.
threat, strategy or stealth, directed against duly Jose and Pedro promised to finance the group
constituted authorities of the Government, or and to buy firearms for the purpose. The
any military camp or installation, communication former soldiers agreed. After Jose and Pedro
networks, public utilities, or facilities needed for left, A, the leader of the former soldiers, said
the exercise and continued possession of that in the meanwhile he needed money to
government power. support his family. D suggested that they rob
a bank and agreed to carry put the plan on the
As to objective or purpose, in rebellion, the 15th day of the month. Unknown to all of
purpose is to remove from the allegiance of the them, as they were conferring with Jose and
Philippines, the whole or any part of the Pedro and as they were planning to rob the
Philippines, or any military or naval camps, bank, Rosauro, a houseboy was within
deprive the Chief Executive or Congress from hearing distance.
performing their functions. In coup d’etat, the
objective is to seize or diminish the state powers. On the pretext of buying cigarettes, Rosauro
instead went directly to the Police and told
As to participation, in rebellion, any person may them what transpired. All the former soldiers,
commit. In coup d’etat, any person belonging to as well as Jose and Pedro, were arrested.
the military or police or holding public office,
with or without civilian participation may a. What crime, if any, did the former
commit. soldiers commit?
b. What about Jose and Pedro? (1987 BAR)
Q: Supposing a public school teacher
participated in a coup d'etat using an A:
unlicensed firearm. What crime or crimes did a. The former soldiers committed the crime of
he commit? (1998 BAR) conspiracy to commit sedition. What Jose
and Pedro proposed to the soldiers that they
A: The public school teacher committed only recruit their comrades and organize a group
coup d'etat for his participation therein. His use of 100 for the purpose of challenging the
of an unlicensed firearm is absorbed in the coup government by force of arms in order to
d'etat under the new firearms law (R.A. 8294). prevent the implementation of the Land

28
 QuAMTO (1987-2019)
Reform Law in Cotabato Province is to punched B on the face, which caused him to
commit sedition. lose his grip on Y. Throughout this incident, Z
shouted words of encouragement at Y, her
Proposal to commit sedition is not punished. husband, and also threatened to slap A.
But since the soldiers agreed, a conspiracy to
commit sedition resulted which is now Security guards of the school arrived,
punishable. Conspiracy arises on the very intervened and surrounded X, Y and Z so that
moment the plotters agree. (People v. Peralta, they could be investigated in the principal’s
25 SCRA 759) office. Before leaving, Z passed near A and
threw a small flower pot at him but it was
b. Jose and Pedro will also be liable for deflected by B.
conspiracy to commit sedition since they are
members of the conspiracy where the act of a. What, if any, are the respective criminal
one is the act of all. If the soldiers did not liability of X, Y and Z?
agree to their proposal, they would not incur b. Would your answer be the same if B were
any criminal liability because there is no a barangay tanod only? (2001 BAR)
proposal to commit sedition.
A:
Q: What are the different acts of inciting to a. X is liable for direct assault only, assuming
sedition? (2007 BAR) the physical injuries inflicted on B, the
Barangay Chairman, to be only slight and
A: The different acts which constitute the crime hence, would be absorbed in the direct
of inciting to sedition are: assault. A Barangay Chairman is a person in
authority (Art. 152, RPC) and in this case,
1. Inciting others through speeches, writings, was performing his duty of maintaining
banners and other media of representation peace and order when attacked.
to commit acts which constitute sedition;
2. Uttering seditious words, speeches or Y is liable for the complex crimes of Direct
circulating scurrilous libels against the Assault with Less Serious Physical Injuries
Government of the Philippines or any of its for the fist blow on A, the teacher, which
duly constituted authorities, which tend to caused the latter to fall down. For purposes
disturb or obstruct the performance of of the crime in Arts. 148 and 151 of the RPC,
official functions, or which tend to incite a teacher is considered a person in
others to cabal and meet for unlawful authority, and having been attacked by Y by
purposes; reason of his performance of official duty,
3. Inciting through the same media of direct assault is committed with the
representation rebellious conspiracies or resulting less serious physical injuries
riots; complexed.
4. Stirring people to go against lawful
authorities, or disturb the peace and public Z, the mother of X and wife of Y may only be
order of the community or of the liable as an accomplice to the complex of
Government; or crimes of direct assault with less serious
5. Knowingly concealing any of the aforestated physical injuries committed by Y. Her
evil practices (Art. 142, RPC) participation should not be considered as
that of a co-principal, since her reactions
ASSAULT UPON, AND RESISTANCE AND were only incited by her relationship to X
DISOBEDIENCE TO PERSONS IN AUTHORITY and Y, as the mother of X and the wife of Y.
AND THEIR AGENTS (1993, 1995, 2001, 2002,
2013, 2019 BAR) b. If B were a Barangay Tanod only, the act of
X of laying hand on him, being an agent of a
Direct assaults (2001, 2019 BAR) person in authority only, would constitute
the crime of Resistance and Disobedience
Q: A, a teacher at Mapa High School, having under Art. 151, RPC since X, a high school
gotten mad at X, one of his pupils, because of pupil, could not be considered as having
the latter’s throwing paper clips at his acted out of contempt for authority but
classmates, twisted his right ear. X went out more of helping his father get free from the
of the classroom crying and proceeded home grip of B. Laying hand on an agent of a
located at the back of the school. He reported person in authority is not ipso facto direct
to his parents, Y and Z, what A had done to assault, while it would always be direct
him, Y and Z immediately proceeded to the assault if done to a person in authority in
school building and because they were defiance to the latter’s exercise of authority.
running and talking in loud voices, they were
seen by the barangay chairman, B, who Q: Ms. L, dean of a duly recognized private
followed them as he suspected that an school, caught K, one of her students,
untoward incident might happen. Upon vandalizing one of the school’s properties.
seeing A inside the classroom, X pointed him Ms. L called K’s attention and proceeded to
out to his father, Y, who administered a fist scold him, causing a crowd to gather around
blow on A, causing him to fall down. When Y them. Embarrassed with the situation, K
was about to kick A, B rushed towards Y and attacked Ms. L by repeatedly punching her on
pinned both of the latter’s arms. Seeing his the face. Just as K was about to strike Ms. L
father being held by B, X went near and again, J, another student, intervened. K then

UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS 29 UST

2021 ACADEMICSCOMMITTEE BAR OPERATIONS
 Criminal Law
turned his anger on J and also hit him to defy the law and its representative at all
repeatedly, causing him physical injuries. hazard.

What crime/s did K commit under the NOTE: Illegal possession of firearms may also be
Revised Penal Code for his acts against Ms. considered.
Land J? Explain. (2019 BAR)
It is noteworthy to mention that Dancio cannot
A: K committed two counts of Direct Assault. The be convicted for the crime of evasion of service
elements of direct assault under Art. 148 of the of sentence under Art. 157 of the RPC because
RPC are: this crime can only be committed by a convict
who shall evade service of his sentence by
1. that the offender makes an attack, employs escaping during the term of his imprisonment by
force, makes a serious intimidation or makes reason of final judgment. By escaping while
a serious resistance; undergoing preventive imprisonment, he is not
2. that the person assaulted is a person in evading the service of his sentence.
authority or his agent;
3. that at the time of the assault, the person in Edri committed infidelity in the custody of
authority or his agent is engaged in the prisoner or evasion through negligence under
actual performance of official duties, or that Article 224. As the guard in charge, Edri was
he is assaulted by reason of the past negligent in relaxing the inspection of the
performance of official duties; Brusco’s belongings during jail visits allowing
4. that the offender knows that the one he is him to smuggle a pistol to Dencio, which he
assaulting is a person in authority or his subsequently used to escape. By accepting gifts
agent in the exercise of his duties; and from Brusco, who was part of the syndicate to
5. that there is no public uprising. Art. 152 which Dancio belonged, he is also guilty of
further provides that teachers, professors, indirect bribery under Article 211.
and persons charged with the supervision of
public or duly recognized private schools, Brusco committed delivery of prisoner from jail
colleges, and universities in the actual under Article 156, qualified by his bribery of
performance of their professional duties or Edri. Helping a person confined in jail to escape
on the occasion of such performance shall be constitutes this crime. “Helping” means
deemed persons in authority. furnishing the prisoner with the material means
or tools which greatly facilitate his escape; hence,
Here, all the elements of direct assault are providing a pistol which helped Dencio to escape
present, where K repeatedly punched Ms. L, a is delivery of prisoner from jail.
person in authority engaged in the performance
of her official duties. D. CRIMES AGAINST PUBLIC INTEREST

K also committed Direct Assault against J. Art. Forgeries

152 states that any person who comes to the aid
of persons in authority shall be deemed an agent Q: How are "forging" and "falsification"
of a person in authority. Here, while K was committed?
attacking Ms. L, K also hit J, an agent of a person
in authority who came to the aid of a person in A: Forging or forgery is committed by giving to a
authority. (Gelig v. People, G.R. No. 173150, July treasury or bank note or any instrument payable
28, 2010) to bearer or to order the appearance of a true
and genuine document; or by erasing,
Evasion of Service of Sentence substituting, counterfeiting, or altering by any
means the figures, letters, words or signs
Q: Dancio, a member of a drug syndicate, was contained therein.
a detention prisoner in the provincial jail of X
Province. Brusco, another member of the Falsification, on the other hand, is committed
syndicate, regularly visited Dancio. Edri, the through:
guard in charge who had been receiving gifts
from Brusco everytime he visited Dancio, 1. Counterfeiting or imitating any handwriting,
became friendly with him and became signature or rubric;
relaxed in the inspection of his belongings 2. Causing it to appear that persons have
during his jail visits. In one of Brusco's visits, participated in any act or proceeding when
he was able to smuggle in a pistol which they did not in fact so participate;
Dancio used to disarm the guards and destroy 3. Attributing to persons who have participated
the padlock of the main gate of the jail, in an act or proceeding statements other
enabling Dancio to escape. What crime(s) did
than those in fact made by them;
Dancio, Brusco and Edri commit? Explain.
4. Making untruthful statements in a narration
(2015 BAR) of facts;
5. Altering true dates;
A: Dancio committed the crime of direct assault 6. Making any alteration or intercalation in a
under Article 148 for disarming the guards with genuine document which changes its
the use of pistol while they are engaged in the meaning;
performance of their duties. Using a pistol to 7. Issuing in an authenticated form a document
disarm the guards manifests criminal intention 8. Purporting to be a copy of an original

30
 QuAMTO (1987-2019)
document when no such original exists, or absence of criminal intent and of good faith.
including in such copy a statement contrary
to, or different from, that of the genuine Should she be found guilty of falsification?
original; or Discuss briefly. (1988 BAR)
9. Intercalating any instrument or note relative
to the issuance thereof in a protocol, registry, A: Andrea should be held guilty of falsification of
or official book. public documents. Her claim of absence of
criminal intent and of good faith cannot be
Counterfeiting coins; Forging treasury or considered because she is presumed to know
bank notes, obligations and securities; that her husband is dead. The element of damage
Importing and uttering false or forged notes, required in falsification does not refer to
obligations and securities pecuniary damage but damage to public interest.

Q: Is mere possession of false money bills NOTE: Executive clemency can, however, be
punishable under Article 168 of the Revised sought for by Andrea.
Penal Code? (1999 BAR)
Q: Jose Dee Kiam, a Chinese citizen born in
A: NO. Possession of false treasury or bank note Macao, having applied with a recruitment
alone without an intent to use it, is not agency to work in Kuwait, went to Quezon
punishable. But the circumstances of such City Hall to procure a Community Tax
possession may indicate intent to utter, sufficient Certificate, formerly called Residence
to consummate the crime of illegal possession of Certificate. He stated therein that his name is
false notes. Leo Tiampuy, a Filipino citizen born in Binan,
Laguna. As he paid for the Community Tax
Introduction of false documents Certificate, Cecille Delicious, an employee in
the office recognized him and reported to her
Q: M was forced by a policeman to sign a boss that the information written in the
document entitled “Sinumpaang Salaysay” in Community Tax Certificate were all lies.
which M implicated X as the brain behind the Shortly thereafter, an information was filed
robbery of a bank where P500,000.00 were against Dee Kiam alias Tiampuy.
lost. The document was prepared by the
policeman upon advice of B, the bank’s a. An information was filed against Dee
lawyer, who was present when the policeman Kiam. What crime, if any, may he be
asked M to sign the document. As M refused to indicted for? Why?
sign it, the policeman held him by the neck b. The accused move to quash the
and forced him to sign, which he did as he was information on the ground that it did not
afraid he might be bodily harmed. allege that he had the obligation to
disclose the truth in the Community Tax
During the hearing of the robbery before the Certificate; that the same is a useless
Fiscal’s Office, B submitted the “Sinumpaang scrap of paper which one can buy even in
Salaysay” as evidence, on the basis of which X the Quiapo underpass and that he had no
was included in the information filed by the intent of deceiving anybody. Would you
Fiscal in court. grant the motion to quash? (1992 BAR)

When M testified in court, he repudiated the A:

document and told the court there was no a. Dee Kiam can be indicted for the felony of
truth to its contents as he was merely forced Falsification of a Public Document committed
to sign it. Did lawyer B commit any crime by a private individual under Art. 172 of the
when he used the “Sinumpaang Salaysay” as RPC in relation to Art. 171 thereof. A
evidence? residence certificate is a public or official
document within the context of said
A: The lawyer would be liable under Article 172 provisions and jurisprudence. Since Dee
of the RPC for the offense of introducing a false Kiam made an untruthful statement in a
document in a judicial proceeding as he knew the narration of facts (Art. 171(4), RPC), and he
same to be false. being a private individual, he is culpable
thereunder.
Falsification of Public Document (1988, 1992, b. Falsification of public documents under Arts.
1993, 1999, 2000, 2008 BAR) 171 and 172, RPC does not require that the
document is required by law. The sanctity of
Q: Andrea signed her husband’s name in the public document, a residence certificate,
endorsing his treasury warrants which were cannot be taken lightly as being a “mere
delivered to her directly by the district scrap of paper”. Intent to cause damage or
supervisor who knew that her husband had actual damage, is not an indispensable
already died, and she used the proceeds to requisite for falsification of public document.
pay for the expenses of her husband’s last
illness and his burial. She knew that her Q: A falsified official or public document was
husband had accumulated vacation and sick found in the possession of the accused. No
leaves the money value of which exceeded evidence was introduced to show that the
that value of the three treasury warrants, so accused was the author of the falsification. As
that the government suffered no damage. a matter of fact, the trial court convicted the
Andrea’s appeal is based on her claim of accused of falsification of official or public

UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS 31 UST

2021 ACADEMICSCOMMITTEE BAR OPERATIONS
 Criminal Law
document mainly on the proposition that “the show a falsehood was a private document, the
only person who could have made the only crime that Fe committed was estafa thru
erasures and the superimposition mentioned abuse of confidence or unfaithfulness.
is the one who will be benefited by the
alterations thus made” and that “he alone Criminal liability for falsification of a private
could have the motive for making such document does not arise without damage or at
alterations”. least proof of intent to cause damage. It cannot
co-exist with the crime of estafa which also
Was the conviction of the accused proper essentially requires damage or at least proof of
although the conviction was premised merely intent to cause damage.
on the aforesaid ratiocination? Explain your
answer. (1999 BAR) Since the “talaan” was falsified to cover up or
conceal the misappropriation of the amount
A: YES. The conviction is proper because there is involved, whatever damage or intent to cause
a presumption in law that the possessor and user damage that will attend the estafa.
of a falsified document is the one who falsified
the same. If such “talaan” or ledger was a commercial
document, damage or proof of intent to cause
Falsification of Private Document (1989, damage is not necessary. The falsification alone if
1991, 2007 BAR) done with intent to pervert the truth, would
bring about criminal liability for falsification of a
Q: In a civil case for recovery of a sum of commercial document. Damage or intent to cause
money filed against him by A, B interposed damage, would sustain the estafa independently
the defense of payment. In support thereof, of the falsification of the commercial document.
he identified and offered in evidence a In this case, two (2) separate crimes are
receipt which appears to be signed by A. On committed – estafa and falsification of the
rebuttal, A denied having been paid by B and commercial document. The falsification should
having signed the receipt. He presented a not be complexed with estafa since it was not
handwriting expert who testified that the committed as a necessary means to commit the
alleged signature of A on the receipt is a estafa but rather resorted to, to conceal or hide
forgery and that a comparison thereof with the misappropriation of the amount she
the specimen signatures of B clearly shows pocketed.
that B himself forged the signature of A.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
a. Is B liable for the crime of using a
falsified document in a judicial The crime committed by Fe are theft and
proceeding (last paragraph of Article falsification of private document because Fe’s
172 of the Revised Penal Code)? possession of the proceeds of the rice mill was
b. If he is not, what offense of offenses may only physical, not juridical, possession, and
he be charged with? (1991 BAR) having committed the crimes with grave abuse of
confidence, it is qualified theft.
A:
a. NO. B should not be liable for the crime of The falsification is a separate crime from the
using a falsified document, under the last theft because it was not committed as a
paragraph of Art. 172, RPC. He would be necessary means to commit the theft but
liable for forgery of a private document resorted to only to hide or conceal the unlawful
under the second mode of falsification under taking.
Art. 172, RPC.
Simulation of birth
Being the possessor and user of the falsified
document he is presumed to be the forger or Q: A childless couple, A and B, wanted to have
falsifier and the offense of introducing a child they could call their own. C, an unwed
falsified document is already absorbed in the mother, sold her newborn baby to them.
main offense of forgery or falsification. Thereafter, A and B caused their names to be
stated in the birth certificate of the child as
b. If he testified on the genuineness of the his parents. This was done in connivance with
document, he should also be liable under Art. the doctor who assisted in the delivery of C.
182, which is false testimony in civil cases. What are the criminal liabilities, if any, of the
couple A and B, C and the doctor? (2002 BAR)
Q: Fe is the manager of a rice mill in Bulacan.
In order to support a gambling debt, Fe made A: The couple, A and B, and the doctor shall be
it appear that the rice mill was earning less liable for the crime of simulation of birth
than it actually was by writing in a “talaan” or penalized under Article 347 of the Revised Penal
ledger a figure lower than what was collected Code, as amended. The act of making it appear in
and paid by their customers. Fe then the birth certificate of a child that the persons
pocketed the difference. What crime/s did Fe named therein are the parents of the child when
commit, if any? Explain your answer. (2007 they are not really the biological parents of the
BAR) said child constitutes the crime of simulation of
birth. C, the unwed mother is criminally liable for
A: If the “talaan” or ledger which Fe made to “Child Trafficking”, a violation of Article IV, Sec. 7

32
 QuAMTO (1987-2019)
of R.A. 7610. The law punishes inter alia the act single and was willing to marry B, He induced
of buying and selling of a child. C to testify and C did testify that B was single.
The truth, however, was that A had earlier
False testimony (1987, 1991, 1993, 1994, married D, now a neighbor of C. Is A guilty of
1996, 1997, 2005, 2008 BAR) perjury? Are A and C guilty of subordination
of perjury? (1997 BAR)
Q: Explain and illustrate “subordination of
perjury” (1993 BAR) A: NO. A is not guilty of perjury because the
willful falsehood asserted by him is not material
A: Subordination of perjury refers to the act of a to the charge of immorality. Whether A is single
person procuring a false witness to testify and or married, the charge of immorality against him
thereby commit perjury. The procurer is a co- as a government employee could proceed or
principal by inducement. prosper. In other words, A's civil status is not a
defense to the charge of immorality, hence, not a
Q: Sisenando purchased the share of the material matter that could influence the charge.
stockholders of Estrella Corporation in two
installments, making him the majority There is no crime of subornation of perjury. The
stockholder thereof and eventually, its crime is now treated as plain perjury with the
president. Because the stockholders who sold one inducing another as the principal
their stocks failed to comply with their inducement, and the latter, as principal by direct
warranties attendant to the sale, Sisenando participation. (People v. Podol, 66 Phil. 365)
withheld payment of the second installment
due on the shares and deposited the money in Since in this case, A cannot be held liable for
escrow instead, subject to release once said perjury, the matter that he testified to being
stockholders comply with their warranties. immaterial, he cannot therefore be held
The stockholders concerned, in turn, responsible as a principal by inducement when
rescinded the sale in question and removed he induced C to testify on his status.
Sisenando from the Presidency of the Estrella Consequently, C is not liable as principal by
Corp., Sisenando then filed a verified direct participation in perjury, having testified
complaint for damages against said on matters not material to an administrative
stockholders in his capacity as president and case.
principal stockholder of Estrella Corp. In
retaliation, the stockholders concerned, after Q: Al Chua, a Chinese national, filed a petition
petitioning the Securities and Exchange under oath for naturalization, with the
Commission to declare the rescission valid, Regional Trial Court of Manila. In his petition,
further filed a criminal case for perjury he stated that he is married to Leni Chua; that
against Sisenando, claiming that the latter he is living with her in Sampaloc, Manila; that
perjured himself when he stated under oath he is of good moral character; and that he has
in the verification of his complaint for conducted himself in an irreproachable
damages that he is the President of the manner during his stay in the Philippines.
Estrella Corporation when in fact he had However, at the time of the filing of the
already been removed as such. petition, Leni Chua was already living in
Cebu, while Al was living with Babes Toh in
Under the facts of the case, could Sisenando Manila, with whom he has an amorous
be held liable for perjury? Explain. (1996 relationship. After his direct testimony, Al
BAR) Chua withdrew his petition for
naturalization. What crime or crimes, if any,
A: NO. Sisenando may not be held liable for did Al Chua commit? Explain. (2005 BAR)
perjury because it cannot be reasonably
maintained that he willfully and deliberately A: Al Chua committed perjury. His declarations
made an assertion of a falsehood when he alleged under oath for naturalization that he is of good
in the complaint that he is the President of the moral character and residing at Sampaloc,
Corporation. Manila are false. This information is material to
his petition for naturalization. He committed
Obviously, he made the allegation on the premise perjury for this willful and deliberate assertion
that his removal from the presidency is not valid of falsehood which is contained in a verified
and that is precisely the issue brought about by petition made for a legal purpose.
his complaint to the SEC. It is a fact that
Sisenando has been the President of the E. CRIMES AGAINST PUBLIC MORALS
corporation and it is from that position that the (1996, 1993 BAR)
stockholders concerned purportedly removed
him, whereupon he filed the complaint Q: Pia, a bold actress living on top floor of a
questioning his removal. There is no willful and plush condominium in Makati City sunbathed
deliberate assertion of a falsehood which is a naked at its penthouse every Sunday
requisite of perjury. morning. She was unaware that the business
executives holding office at the adjoining tall
Q: A, a government employee, was buildings reported to office every Sunday
administratively charged with immorality for morning and, with the use of powerful
having an affair with B, a co-employee in the binoculars, kept on gazing at her while she
same office who believed him to be single. To sunbathed. Eventually, her sunbathing
exculpate himself, A testified that he was became the talk of the town.

UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS 33 UST

2021 ACADEMICSCOMMITTEE BAR OPERATIONS
 Criminal Law
a. What crime, if any, did Pia commit? Q: During a PNP buy-bust operation, Cao Shih
Explain. was arrested for selling 20 grams of
b. What crime, if any, did the business methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu) to
executives commit? Explain. (1996 BAR) a poseur-buyer. Cao Shih, through an
intermediary, paid Patrick, the Evidence
A: Custodian of the PNP Forensic Chemistry
a. Pia did not commit a crime, the felony Section, the amount of P500,000 in
closest to making Pia criminally liable is consideration for the destruction by Patrick
Grave Scandal, but then such act is not to of the drug. Patrick managed to destroy the
be considered as highly scandalous and drug.
offensive against decency and good
customs. In the first place, it was not done State with reasons whether Patrick
in a public place and within public committed the following crimes:
knowledge or view. As a matter of fact, it
was discovered by the executives a. Direct bribery
accidentally and they have to use b. Indirect bribery
binoculars to have full view of Pia c. Section 3 (e) of R.A. 3019 (Anti-Graft and
sunbathing in the nude. Corrupt Practices Act)
b. The business executives did not commit d. Obstruction of Justice under P.D. 1829
any crime. Their acts could not be acts of (2005 BAR)
lasciviousness (as there was no overt
lustful act), or slander, as the eventual talk A: Patrick committed the crimes of direct bribery
of the town, resulting from her sunbathing, under Article 210 of the Revised Penal Code,
is not directly imputed to the business Violation of Section 3 (e) of the Anti- Graft and
executives, and besides such topic is not Corrupt Practices Act (RA3019) and Obstruction
intended to defame or put Pia to ridicule. of Justice under Section 1 (b) of PD 1829.

Q: Juan and Petra are officemates. Later, a. Direct bribery was committed by Patrick
intimacy developed between them. One day, when, for a consideration of
Juan sent to Petra a booklet contained in a P500,000.00, he committed a violation of
pay envelope which was securely sealed. The PD 1829 by destroying the drugs which
booklet is unquestionably indecent and were evidence entrusted to him in his
highly offensive to morals. Juan was official capacity.
thereafter charged under par. 3 of Art. 201 of b. Indirect bribery is not committed
the Revised Penal Code, as amended by P.D. because he received the P500,000.00 as
969, which provides that the penalty of consideration for destroying the
prision mayor or a fine from P6,000 to evidence against the offender, which was
P12,000, or both such imprisonment and fine under his official custody as a public
shall be imposed upon those who shall sell, officer. The money was not delivered to
give away or exhibit films, prints, engravings, him simply as a gift or present by reason
sculpture or literature which are offensive to of his public office.
morals. Is Juan guilty of the crime charged? c. Patrick also violated Section 3 (e), R.A.
Reasons. (1993 BAR) 3019 causing undue injury to the
government through evident bad faith,
A: NO. Juan is not guilty of the crime charged giving unwarranted benefit to the
because the law (Art. 201, RPC) covers only the offender by destroying evidence of a
protection of public moral and not only the moral crime.
of an individual. d. Obstruction of justice under Section 1
(b) of P.D. 1829 is committed by
F. CRIMES COMMITTED BY PUBLIC destroying evidence intended to be used
OFFICERS in official proceedings in criminal case.

MALFEASANCE AND MISFEASANCE IN OFFICE Indirect bribery (1993, 1997, 2006 BAR)

Q: Define malfeasance, misfeasance and Q: Commissioner Marian Torres of the Bureau

nonfeasance. (2016 BAR) of Internal Revenue (BIR) wrote solicitation
letters addressed to the Filipino-Chinese
A: Malfeasance is the doing of an act which a Chamber of Commerce and Industry and to
person ought not to do at all. certain CEOs of various multinational
corporations requesting donations of gifts for
Misfeasance is the improper doing of an act her office Christmas party. She used the
which a person may or might lawfully do. Bureau's official stationery. The response was
prompt and overwhelming so much so that
Nonfeasance is the omission of an act which a Commissioner Torres' office was
person ought to do. (Black’s Dictionary, 6th overcrowded with rice cookers, radio sets,
Edition, West Publishing 1990) freezers, electric stoves and toasters. Her staff
also received several envelopes containing
Bribery (1990, 1993, 1994, 1997, 2001, 2005, cash money for the employees' Christmas
2006, 2010, 2014 BAR) luncheon. Has Commissioner Torres
committed any impropriety or irregularity?

34
 QuAMTO (1987-2019)
What laws or decrees did she violate? (2006 BAR)
BAR)
Q: Ricky was driving his car when he was
A: YES. Commissioner Torres violated the flagged down by a traffic enforcer for over
following: speeding. Realizing his undoing, but in a
hurry for a meeting, Ricky shoved a PhP500
1. Indirect bribery (Art. 211, RPC) for receiving bill in the traffic enforcer’s pocket and
gifts offered by reason of office. whispered to the latter to refrain from
2. R.A. 6713 or Code of Conduct and Ethical issuing him a traffic violation receipt. The
Standards for Public Officials and Employees traffic enforcer still issued him a ticket, and
when he solicited and accept gifts (Sec. 7[d]) returned his money. What crime, if any, was
3. P.D. 46 making it punishable for public committed by Ricky? (2018 BAR)
officials and employees to receive, and for
private persons to give gifts on any occasion, A: Ricky in showing a P500 bill in the traffic
including Christmas. enforcer’s pocket, clearly committed the crime of
corruption of public under Art. 212 of the RPC,
Q: A, who is the private complainant in a which states that any person who shall have
murder case pending before a Regional Trial made the offers or promises or given the gifts or
Court judge, gave a judge a Christmas gift, present to a public officer is guilty of corruption
consisting of big basket of assorted canned of public officer. Even if the P500 bill was
goods and bottles of expensive wines, easily returned it cannot erase the fact that gifts or
worth P10, 000.00. The judge accepted the presents was given to the traffic enforcer.
gift knowing it came from A. What crime or
crimes, if any, were committed? (1997, 1993 Q: One Sunday afternoon, Mr. X, President of
BAR) ABC Corp., happened to bump into the Labor
Arbiter assigned to the illegal dismissal case
A: The judge committed the crime of indirect filed by certain employees against his
bribery under Art. 211 of the RPC. The gift was company. During their encounter, Mr. X
offered to the judge by reason of his office. In promised the Labor Arbiter a luxury car in
addition, the judge will be liable for the violation exchange for a favorable ruling. The Labor
of P.D. 46 which punishes the receiving of gifts by Arbiter immediately rejected the offer and
public officials and employees on occasions like walked away.
Christmas.
What crime did Mr. X commit under the
Qualified bribery (2010 BAR) Revised Penal Code (RPC), if any? Explain.
(2019 BAR)
Q: What is the crime of qualified bribery? May
a judge be charged and prosecuted for such A: Mr. X committed the crime of Attempted
felony? How about a public prosecutor? A Corruption of a Public Official. He offered to give
police officer? Explain. (2010 BAR) the Labor Arbiter a luxury car in exchange for a
favorable ruling on a pending illegal dismissal
A: Qualified bribery is a crime committed by a case. By making such offer, Mr. X already
public officer who is entrusted with law commenced the performance of material acts of
enforcement and who, in consideration of any execution in corrupting the Labor Arbiter. He
offer, promise, gift of offer, refrains from was not able to perform all the material acts of
arresting or prosecuting an offender who has execution only because the Labor Arbiter refused
committed a crime punishable by reclusion to accept the offer. (Pozar v. CA, G.R. No. L-62439,
perpetua and/ or death. (Art. 211-A, RPC) October 23, 1984)

NO, a judge may not be charged of this felony ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:

because his official duty as a public officer is not
law enforcement but the determination of cases Mr. X committed no crime. Because there was no
already filed in court. acceptance, there is no crime, and therefore, no
penalty should be imposed. Nullum crimen nulla
On the other hand, a public prosecutor may be poena sine lege. There is no crime where there is
prosecuted for this crime in respect of the no law punishing it.
bribery committed, aside from dereliction of duty
committed in violation of Art. 208 of the Revised MALVERSATION OF PUBLIC FUNDS AND
Penal Code, should he refrain from prosecuting PROPERTY
an offender who has committed a crime
punishable by reclusion perpetua and/or death Malversation of Public Funds (1987, 1988,
in consideration of any offer, promise, gift or 1990, 1994, 1996, 1999, 2001, 2005, 2006,
present. 2008, 2016 BAR)
Q: Dencio, who is the Municipal Treasurer of
Meanwhile, a police officer who refrains from the town, was also the treasurer of a charity
arresting such offender for the same ball of the church. Because he was short of
consideration above stated, may be prosecuted payroll funds for the municipal employees, he
for this felony since he is a public officer used part of the church funds to replenish the
entrusted with law enforcement. payroll funds with the intention of returning
the same when the public funds came.
Corruption of public officials (2018, 2019

UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS 35 UST

2021 ACADEMICSCOMMITTEE BAR OPERATIONS
 Criminal Law
a. Is Dencio guilty of malversation under exhausted while the concreting of Barangay
the RPC? State your reasons. Phanix Road remained unfinished, a
b. Assuming that he failed to replenish the representative of the Commission on Audit
church funds, may he be held criminally conducted a spot audit of Elizabeth who failed
liable thereby? (1990 BAR) to account for the P100,000 CRBI fund.
Elizabeth, who was charged with
A: malversation of public funds, was acquitted
a. NO. The church funds used by Dencio do not by the Sandiganbayan of that charge but was
constitute public funds which are the nevertheless convicted, in the same criminal
proper subject of malversation. Neither case, for illegal use of public funds. On appeal,
does said funds constitute the so called Elizabeth argued that her conviction was
private funds which could be the proper erroneous as she applied the amount of
subject of malversation under Art. 222, RPC, P50,000.00 for a public purpose without
which pertain to private property placed in violating any law or ordinance appropriating
the custody of publicofficers by reason of the said amount for any specific purpose. The
their office. absence of such law or ordinance was, in fact,
b. YES. Momentary use of funds, since there is established. Is the contention of Elizabeth
defraudation, is tantamount to estafa under legally tenable? Explain. (1996 BAR)
Art. 215 of the RPC. This is because he
received the funds in his capacity as A: NO. Elizabeth's contention that her conviction
treasurer and there was temporary damage for illegal use of public funds (technical
caused. Personal benefit is not an element malversation) was erroneous is legally tenable
of the crime of estafa. because she was charged for malversation of
public funds under Art. 217 of the RPC but was
Q: Randy, an NBI agent, was issued by the NBI convicted for Illegal use of public funds which is
an armalite rifle (M16) and a Smith and defined and punished under Art. 220.
Wesson Revolver Cal. 38. After a year, the NBI
Director made an inspection of all the A public officer charged with malversation may
firearms issued. Randy, who reported for not be validly convicted of illegal use of public
work that morning, did not show up during funds (technical malversation) because the latter
the inspection. He went on absence without crime is not necessarily included nor does it
leave (AWOL). After two years, he necessarily include the crime of malversation.
surrendered to the NBI the two firearms
issued to him. He was charged with The Sandiganbayan should have followed the
malversation of government property before procedure provided in Sec. 11, Rule 119 of the
the Sandiganbayan. Rules of Court and order the filing of the proper
Information (Parungao v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No.
Randy put up the defense that he did not 96025, May 15, 1991). From the facts, there is no
appropriate the armalite rifle and the showing that there is a law or ordinance
revolver for his own use, that the delay in appropriating the amount to a specific public
accounting for them does not constitute purpose. As a matter of fact, the problem
conversion and that actually the firearms categorically states that the absence of such law
were stolen by his friend,Chiting. Decide the or ordinance was, in fact, established.
case. (1994 BAR)
So, procedurally and substantially, the
A: Randy is guilty as charged under Art. 217, Sandiganbayan's decision suffers from serious
RPC. He is accountable for the firearms they infirmity.
issued to him in his official capacity. The failure Q: Alex Reyes, together with Jose Santos, were
of Randy to submit the firearms upon demand former warehousemen of the Rustan
created the presumption that he converted them Department Store. In 1986, the PCGG
for his own use. Even if there is no direct sequestered the assets, fund and properties of
evidence of misappropriation, his failure to the owners-incorporators of the store,
account for the government property is enough alleging that they constitute "Ill-gotten
factual basis for a finding of malversation. wealth" of the Marcos family. Upon their
Indeed, even his explanation that the guns were application, Reyes and Santos were appointed
stolen is incredible for if the firearms were as fiscal agents of the sequestered firm and
actually stolen, he should have reported the they were given custody and possession of the
matter immediately to the authorities. sequestered building and its contents,
including various vehicles used in the firm's
Q: Elizabeth is the municipal treasurer of operations.
Masinloc, Zambales. On January 10, 1994, she
received, as municipal treasurer, from the After a few months, an inventory was
Department of Public Works and Highways, conducted and it was discovered that two
the amount of P100, 000.00 known as the delivery vans were missing. After demand
fund for construction, rehabilitation,
was made upon them, Reyes and Santos failed
betterment, and Improvement (CRBI) for the to give any satisfactory explanation why the
concreting of Barangay Phanix Road located vans were missing or to turn them over to the
in Masinloc, Zambales, a project undertaken PCGG; hence, they were charged with
on proposal of the Barangay Captain. Malversation of Public Property. During the
Informed that the fund was already trial, the two accused claimed that they are

36
 QuAMTO (1987-2019)
not public accountable officers and, if any taking of a motor vehicle is now governed by
crime was committed, it should only be Estafa the Anti-Carnapping Act, R.A. 10883, not by
under Art. 315, par. 1(b) of the Revised Penal the provisions of the RPC on theft or robbery)
Code. What is the proper offense committed?
State the reason(s) for your answer. (2001 b. Allan, Jules and Danny are all civilly liable for
BAR) restitution of the car to the government or if
not possible, reparation of damages caused
A: The proper offense committed was by payment of the replacement cost of the
Malversation of Public Property, not estafa, car minus allowance for depreciation, and to
considering that Reyes and Santos, upon their indemnify consequential damages.
application, were constituted as "fiscal agents" of
the sequestered firm and were "given custody Technical Malversation
and possession" of the sequestered properties,
including the delivery vans which later they Q: Governor A was given the amount of P10
could not account for. million by the Department of Agriculture for
the purpose of buying seedlings to be
They were thus made the depositary and distributed to the farmers. Supposedly
administrator of properties deposited by public intending to modernize the farming industry
authority and hence, by the duties of their in his province, Governor A bought farm
office/position, they are accountable for such equipment through direct purchase from XY
properties. Such properties, having been Enterprise, owned by his kumpare B, the
sequestered by the Government through the alleged exclusive distributor of the said
PCGG, are in custodia legis and therefore equipment. Upon inquiry, the Ombudsman
impressed with the character of public property, discovered that B has a pending patent
even though the properties belong to a private application for the said farm equipment.
individual (Art. 222, RPC). Moreover, the equipment purchased turned
out to be overpriced. What crime or crimes, if
The failure of Reyes and Santos to give any any, were committed by Governor A? Explain.
satisfactory explanation why the vans were (2016 BAR)
missing, is prima facie evidence that they had put A: Governor A committed the crimes of (1)
the same to their personal use. Technical Malversation; and (2) Violation of
Sections 3(e)and (g) of Republic Act No. 3019
Q: Allan, the Municipal Treasurer of the
Governor A committed the crime of illegal use of
Municipality of Gerona, was in a hurry to
public funds or property punishable under
return to his office after a day-long official
Article 220 of the Revised Penal Code, also
conference. He alighted from the government
known as Technical Malversation. The crime has
car which was officially assigned to him,
three elements: a) that the offender is an
leaving the ignition key and the car unlocked,
accountable public officer; b) that he applies
and rushed to his office. Jules, a bystander, public funds or property under his
drove off with the car and later sold the same administration to some public use; and c) that
to his brother, Danny for P20,000.00, the public use for which such funds or property
although the car was worth P800,000.00.
has been applied is different from the purpose
for which they were originally appropriated by
a. What are the respective crimes, if any,
law or ordinance. (Ysidro v People, G.R. No.
committed by Allan, Danny and Jules?
192330, November 14, 2012)
Explain.
b. What, if any, are their respective civil
The amount of P 10 M granted by the
liabilities? Explain. (2005 BAR) Department of Agriculture to Governor A, an
accountable public officer, is specifically
A: appropriated for the purpose of buying seedlings
a. Allan, the municipal treasurer is liable for to be distributed to the farmers. Instead,
malversation committed through negligence
Governor A applied the amount to acquire
or culpa. The government car which was modern farm equipment through direct purchase
assigned to him is public property under his
from XY Enterprise owned by his kumpare. The
accountability by reason of his duties. By his
law punishes the act of diverting public funds
act of negligence, he permitted the taking of
earmarked by law or ordinance for a specific
the car by another person, resulting in public purpose to another public purpose, hence,
malversation, consistent with the language of the liability for technical malversation.
Art. 217 of RPC.
Governor A can also be held liable for violation of
Danny committed the crime of fencing for Section 3(e) of RA 3019, which has the following
having bought the car which was the
elements: (1) the accused is a public officer
proceeds of carnapping, a crime in the nature discharging administrative, judicial, or official
of theft or robbery of motor vehicle. The
functions; (2) he must have acted with manifest
presumption of fencing applies to him for he
partiality, evident bad faith or gross excusable
paid a price so inadequate for the value of
negligence; and (3) his action caused undue
the car. injury to any party, including the government, or
gave any private party unwarranted benefits,
Jules committed the crime of carnapping for advantage or preference in the discharge of his
the unlawful taking, with intent to gain, of
functions.
the government’s motor vehicle. (Unlawful

UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS 37 UST

2021 ACADEMICSCOMMITTEE BAR OPERATIONS
 Criminal Law
The facts show that the first element is present. needed the resources for proper
The second element is likewise present because nourishment.
“through manifest partiality” in favoring his
kumpare, Governor A did not hold pubic bidding b. NO. Mayor Maawain cannot invoke good
and directly purchased the farm equipment from faith when he approved the transfer of the
the latter. With respect to the third element, boxes of food from the feeding program to
Governor A’s actions caused undue injury to the the Shelter Assistance program. “Criminal
government as well as the farmers deprived of intent is not an element of technical
the seedlings. His acts likewise gave his kumpare, malversation. The law punishes the act of
a private party, the unwarranted benefit, diverting public property earmarked by law
advantage, or preference, to the exclusion of or ordinance for a particular purpose to
other interested suppliers. another public purpose. The offense is mala
prohibita, meaning that the prohibited act is
The act committed by the Governor is also in not inherently immoral but becomes a
violation of Section 3(g) of R.A. no. 3019 for criminal offense because positive law forbids
entering a contract on behalf of the government its commission based on considerations of
which is manifestly and grossly disadvantageous public policy, order and convenience. It is the
to the same. commission of an act as defined by the law,
and not the character or effect thereof that
Q: A typhoon destroyed the houses of many of determines whether or not the provision has
the inhabitants of X Municipality. Thereafter, been violated. Hence, malice or criminal
X Municipality operated a shelter assistance intent is completely irrelevant”. (Ysidoro v.
program whereby construction materials People, G.R. No. 192330, 14 November 2012)
were provided to the calamity victims, and
the beneficiaries provided the labor. The INFIDELITY OF PUBLIC OFFICERS
construction was partially done when the
beneficiaries stopped helping with the Custody of prisoners (1989, 1990, 1996,
construction for the reason that they needed 1997, 2002, 2009, 2014 BAR)
to earn income to provide food for their
families. When informed of the situation, Q: Ernani was accused of estafa. Unable to
Mayor Maawain approved the withdrawal of post a bail bond for his provisional liberty
ten boxes of food from X Municipality's pending trial of his case, he was detained in
feeding program, which were given to the the city jail. On the date of the hearing of the
families of the beneficiaries of the shelter estafa case, Daniel, a policeman detailed in
assistance program. The appropriations for the city jail, escorted Ernani to the city hall for
the funds pertaining to the shelter assistance the trial. Daniel removed the handcuffs of
program and those for the feeding program Ernani and allowed him to sit on one of the
were separate items on X Municipality's chairs inside the courtroom. As Daniel was
annual budget. talking to a lawyer inside the courtroom,
Ernani, with the help of a cigarette vendor,
a. What crime did Mayor Maawain commit? Meynardo, who used his cigarette container
Explain. as cover, surreptitiously moved out of the
b. May Mayor Maawain invoke the defense room and escaped. Ernani and Meynardo
of good faith and that he had no evil went to the comfort room for a while, then
intent when he approved the transfer of went down the stairs and lost themselves in
the boxes of food from the feeding the crowd. What crime/s were committed by
program to the shelter assistance Ernani, Daniel and Meynardo? Give your
program? Explain. (2015 BAR) reasons. (1989 BAR)

A: A:
a. Mayor Maawain committed the crime of 1. Ernani, the escaped prisoner himself is not
Illegal use of public funds or property criminally liable for any offense. The
punishable under Article 220 of the RPC. detention prisoner who escapes from
This offense is also known as Technical detention does not commit any crime. If he
Malversation. The crime has 3 elements: a.) were a convict by final judgment who is
that the offender is an accountable public serving a sentence which consists of
officer; b) that he applies public funds or deprivation of liberty and he escapes during
property under his administration to some term of his sentence, he would be liable for
public use; and c) that the public use for Evasion of Service Sentence (Art. 157)
which such funds or property were applied is
different from the purpose for which they 2. Daniel, the policeman, committed the crime
were originally appropriated by law or of Evasion thru Negligence, one of the forms
ordinance. The funds for the feeding of Infidelity in the custody of Prisoner (Art.
program are not specifically appropriated for 224), the essential elements of which offense
the beneficiaries of the shelter assistance are:
program in X Municipality’s annual budget.
Mayor Maawain ought to use the boxes of a. That the offender is a public officer
food earmarked particularly for the feeding b. That he has in his custody or charge a
program, which would cater only to the prisoner, either detention prisoner/s by
malnourished among his constituents who final judgment

38
 QuAMTO (1987-2019)
c. That such prisoner escaped from his which can be considered real and actual evasion
custody thru his negligence. of service under Article 223 of the RPC. (People v.
Leon Bandino, 29 Phil 459)
All of these elements are present, Daniel, a
policeman detailed in the city jail, is a public Other Offenses or Irregularities by Public
officer. As the escort for Ernani in the Officers
latter’s trial, he had custody of charge of a
detention prisoner. Ernani escape was thru Q: During the presentation of the
his negligence because after removing prosecution’s evidence, Reichter was called
Ernani’s handcuffs and allowing him to sit to the witness stand with the stated purpose
in one of the chairs inside the courtroom, he that he would testify that his wife Rima had
should have taken the necessary shot him in the stomach with a .38 caliber
precautions to prevent Ernani’s escape by pistol, resulting in near fatal injuries. Upon
keeping an eye on him. Instead, he provided objection of the defense on the ground of the
the opportunity for the escape by talking marital disqualification rule, the presiding
with a lawyer and not keeping watch over judge (Judge Rossano) disallowed Reichter
his prisoner. from testifying in the case. Its motion for
reconsideration having been denied, the
3. Meynardo, not being a public officer, is
People of the Philippines went up on
guilty of the crime of Delivering Prisoners
certiorari to the Court of Appeals (CA)
From Jails (Art. 156), which is committed by
questioning Judge Rossano’s ruling.
any person who either removes from any
jail or penal establishment any person
After due proceedings, the CA rendered
confined therein, or who helps the escape of
judgment declaring Judge Rossano’s ruling
such person by means of violence,
void ab initio for having been made with
intimidation, bribery of other means. The
grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack
act of Meynardo in giving to Ernani his
or excess of jurisdiction, and directing Judge
cigarette container is helping in the latter’s
Rossano to allow Reichter to testify in the
escape by other means.
criminal case for the stated purpose. This is
based on the fact that the marital privilege
Q: Amy was apprehended and arrested by the
rule does not apply where a spouse
Patrolman Bart for illegal parking. She was
committed the crime against the other.
detained at the police precinct, underwent
investigation, and released only after 48
As the CA decision became final and
hours.
executory, the criminal case before the RTC
was calendared for trial. At the scheduled
a. Is Patrolman Bart liable for any offense?
trial, the prosecution called Reichter to the
Explain your answer.
witness stand in order to testify on the same
b. Suppose Amy resisted the arrest and
matter it earlier announced. The defense
grappled with patrolman Bart, is she
objected on the ground that the CA erred in
criminally liable thereby? State your
its disposition of the certiorari case. Judge
reasons. (1990 BAR)
Rossano sustained the objection and again
disallowed Reichter from testifying in the
A:
criminal case. Repeated pleas from the
a. YES. Patrolman Bart is liable for violation of
prosecution for Judge Rossano to reconsider
Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code – Delay
his ruling and to allow Reichter to testify fell
on the Delivery of Detained Persons to the
on deaf ears.
Proper Judicial Authorities.
b. YES. She is criminally liable for slight
May Judge Rossano be convicted of a crime? If
disobedience under Art. 151 of the RPC –
yes, what crime did he commit? (2018 BAR)
Resistance and disobedience to a person in
authority or the agents of such person.
A: Yes. Judge Rossano may be convicted of the
crime of open disobedience (Art. 231, RPC)
Q: During a town fiesta, A, the chief of police,
which provides that any judicial or executive
permitted B, a detention prisoner and his
officer who shall openly refuse to execute the
compadre, to leave the municipal jail and
judgment, decision or order of any suspension
entertain visitors in his house from 10:00 am
authority made within the scope of the
to 8:00 pm. B returned to the municipal jail at
jurisdiction of the latter and issued with all the
8:30 pm. Was there any crime committed by
legal formalities shall suffer the penalties of
A? (1997 BAR)
Arresto Mayor in its medium period to prision
correctional, special disqualification and fine.
A: YES. A committed the crime of infidelity in the
custody of a prisoner. Since B is a detention
The ruling was issued by the Court of Appeals, it
prisoner, as Chief of Police, A has custody over B.
was already final and executoy; the act of Judge
Even if B returned to the municipal jail at 8:30
disallowing Reichter from testifying is open
pm. A, as custodian of the prisoner, has
disobedience under the law.
maliciously failed to perform the duties of his
office, and when he permits said prisoner to
obtain a relaxation of his imprisonment, he
consents to the prisoner escaping the
punishment of being deprived of his liberty

UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS 39 UST

2021 ACADEMICSCOMMITTEE BAR OPERATIONS
 Criminal Law
G. CRIMES AGAINST PERSONS committed is complex crime of parricide
with unintentional abortion. Killing the
Parricide (1994, 1996, 1997, 2003, 2006, unborn child as a result of the violence
2015 BAR) employed against the mother without intent
to abort is unintentional abortion. Since the
Q: Aldrich was dismissed from his job by his child died inside the womb of the mother,
employer. Upon reaching home, his pregnant unintentional abortion is committed
wife, Carmi, nagged him about money for her regardless of viability of the victim. Because
medicines. Depressed by his dismissal and the same violence that killed the mother also
angered by the nagging of his wife, Aldrich caused unintentional abortion, the crime
struck Carmi with his fist. She fell to the committed is a complex crime. (People v.
ground. As a result, she and her unborn baby Pacayna, Jr. G.R. No. 179035, April 16, 2008;
died. What crime was committed by Aldrich? People v. Robinos, G.R. No. 138453, May 29,
(1994 BAR) 2002; People v. Villanueva, G.R. No. 95851,
March 01, 1995; People v. Salufrania, G.R. No.
A: Aldrich committed the crime of parricide with L- 50884, March 30, 1988)
unintentional abortion. When Aldrich struck his
wife, Carmi, with his fist, he committed the crime Q: In 1975, Pedro, then a resident of Manila,
of maltreatment under Art. 266, par. 3 of the RPC. abandoned his wife and their son, Ricky, who
Since Carmi died because of the felonious act of was then only three years old. Twenty years
Aldrich, he is criminally liable of parricide under later, an affray took place in a bar in
Art. 246, RPC in relation to Art. 4, par. 1 of the Olongapo City between Pedro and his
same Code. Since the unborn baby of Carmi died companions, on one hand, and Ricky and his
in the process, but Aldrich had no intention to friends, upon the other, without the father
cause the abortion of his wife, Aldrich committed and son knowing each other. Ricky stabbed
unintentional abortion as defined in Art. 257, and killed Pedro in the fight, only to find out,
RPC. Inasmuch as the single act of Aldrich a week later, when his mother arrived from
produced two grave or less grave felonies, he Manila to visit him in jail, that the man whom
falls under Art. 48, RPC, i.e. a complex crime he killed was his own father.
(People v. Salufrancia, 159 SCRA 401)
a. What crime did Ricky commit?
Q: After a heated argument over his b. Suppose Ricky knew before the killing
philandering, Higino punched on the head his that Pedro is his father, but he
wife Aika, who was six and a half months nevertheless killed him out of bitterness
pregnant. Because of the impact, Aika lost her for having abandoned him and his
balance, fell on the floor with her head hitting mother, what crime did Ricky commit?
a hard object. Aika died and the child was Explain. (1996 BAR)
expelled prematurely. After thirty-six hours,
the child died. A:
a. Ricky committed parricide because the
a. What crime(s) did Higino commit? person killed was his own father and the law
Explain. punishing the crime (Art. 246, RPC) does not
b. Assuming that when the incident require that the crime be knowingly
occurred, Aika was only six months committed. Should Ricky be prosecuted and
pregnant, and when she died, the fetus found guilty of parricide, the penalty to be
inside her womb also died, will your imposed is Art. 49 of the Revised Penal Code
answer be different? Explain. (2015 BAR) for Homicide (the crime he intended to
commit) but in its maximum period.
A: b. The crime committed should be parricide if
a. With respect to the killing of the wife, Ricky knew before the killing that Pedro is
parricide under Article 246 of the Revised his father, because the moral basis for
Penal Code is committed because of the punishing the crime already exists. His
qualifying circumstance of relationship. With having acted out of bitterness for having
respect to the killing of the child, Higino is been abandoned by his father may be
liable for infanticide under Article 255 of the considered mitigating.
Revised Penal Code because his child was
born alive and was already viable or capable Q: Ana has been a bar girl/GRO at a beer
of independent existence and the child’s age house for more than 2 years. She fell in love
is less than three (3) days for the latter died with Oniok, the bartender, who impregnated
after thirty -six hours from expulsion. Higino her. But Ana did not inform about her
shall incur criminal liability for parricide and condition and, instead, went to Cebu to
infanticide although these crimes committed conceal her shame.
are different from his criminal intention of
maltreating his wife (Article 4, RPC). This is a However, her parents drove her away so she
complex crime because the single act of returned to Manila and stayed with Oniok in
punching the victim constitutes two grave his boarding house. Upon learning of her
felonies (Article 48). pregnancy, already in an advanced state,
Oniok tried to persuade her to undergo an
b. If the child died inside the womb of Aika, abortion, but she refused. Because of their
who was only six months, the crime constant and bitter quarrels, she suffered

40
 QuAMTO (1987-2019)
birth pangs and gave birth prematurely to a prosper to allow the court to receive evidence.
live baby girl while Oniok was at his place of However, Rafa can be held liable only for
work. Upon coming home and learning what destierro based on Art. 247 of the RPC. The act
happened, he prevailed upon Ana to conceal committed by Rafa amounts to at least, serious
his dishonor. Hence, they placed the infant in physical injuries, so the penalty of destierro will
a shoe and threw it into a nearby creek. be imposed. If the court finds that the act
However, an inquisitive neighbor saw them amounts to less than serious physical injuries,
and with the help of others. Retrieved the Rafa will not have any criminal liability.
infant who was already dead from drowning.
The incident was reported to the police who ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
arrested Ana and Oniok.
YES. The actions for frustrated parricide and
The two were charged with parricide under frustrated homicide will prosper, and Rafa will
Article 246 of the RPC. After trial, they were be found guilty of these crimes. The penalty,
convicted of the crime charged. Was the however, that the Trial Court can impose is only
conviction correct? (2006 BAR) destierro not penalties for frustrated parricide
and frustrated homicide, being the spouse of
A: NO. The conviction was incorrect because: Rachel (Art. 246, RPC)
a. Under Art. 46, Civil Code, a newborn with
an intra-uterine life of less than 7 months Murder (1987, 1991, 1993, 1995, 1996, 1999,
must live for at least 24 hours before it 2001, 2008, 2009 BAR)
may be considered born and hence, before
it may acquire personality of its own; Q: Define murder. What are the elements of
b. The newborn, therefore was still a fetus the crime? (1999 BAR)
when killed and was not yet a person.
Hence, the crime in law is abortion. It is A: Murder is the unlawful killing of a person
legally a fetus who was killed, not a person which otherwise would constitute only homicide,
or child because legally it has no had it not been attended by any of the following
personality yet. circumstances:
c. Infanticide and parricide involves a killing
when the victim is already a person. 1. With treachery or taking advantage of
superior strength, or with the aid of armed
Q: Rafa caught his wife, Rachel, in the act of men, or employing means to weaken the
having sexual intercourse with Rocco in the defense or of means or persons to insure or
maid’s room of their own house. Rafa shot afford impunity;
both lovers in the chest, but they survived. 2. In consideration of a price, reward or
Rafa charged Rachel and Rocco with adultery, promise;
while Rachel and Rocco charged Rafa with 3. By means or on the occasion of inundation,
frustrated parricide and frustrated homicide. fire, poison, explosion, shipwreck, stranding
of a vessel, derailment or assault upon a
In the adultery case, Rachel and Rocco raised railroad, fall of an airship, or by means of
the defense that Rafa and Rachel, prior to the motor vehicles, or with the use of any other
incident in question, executed a notarized means involving great waste and ruin;
document whereby they agreed to live 4. On occasion of an earthquake, eruption of a
separately and allowed each of them to get a volcano, destructive cyclone, epidemic or
new partner and live with anyone of their other public calamity;
choice as husband and wife. This document 5. With evident premeditation;
was executed after Rachel discovered that 6. With cruelty, by deliberately and
Rafa was cohabiting with another woman. inhumanely augmenting the suffering of the
Thus, they also raised the defense of in pari victim, or outraging or scoffing at his person
delicto. In the frustrated parricide and or corpse.
frustrated homicide cases, Rafa raised the
defense that, having caught them in flagrante Q: A, a 76-year old woman, was brought to the
delicto, he has no criminal liability. hospital in a coma with slight cerebral
hemorrhage. An endotracheal tube was
Will the actions for frustrated parricide and inserted in her mouth to facilitate her
frustrated homicide prosper? (2018 BAR) breathing. B, a hospital janitor, removed the
tube. The victim started to convulse and bleed
A: NO. The actions for frustrated parricide and in the mouth. Only the timely arrival of the
frustrated homicide will not prosper because nurse prevented the patient’s death. The
Rafa is entitled to the benefit of Article 247 of the patient was then transferred to another
Revised Penal Code. Article 247 of the RPC states hospital where she died the next day of
that any legally married person who having cardio-respiratory. Is B criminally liable? If
surprised his spouse in the act of committing so, what crime was committed? (1991 BAR)
sexual intercourse with another person, shall kill
any of them or both of them in the act or A: YES. B is criminally liable for Murder
immediately thereafter, or shall inflict upon them (qualified by treachery) because the death of A
any serious physical injury, shall suffer the appears to be the proximate cause of the overt
penalty of destierro. If he shall inflict upon them acts of B.
physical injuries of any other kind, he shall be
exempt from punishment. The action will A died of cardio-respiratory arrest which

UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS 41 UST

2021 ACADEMICSCOMMITTEE BAR OPERATIONS
 Criminal Law
evidently was brought about by the convulsion who accidentally bumped him. The innocent
and bleeding in the mouth of the victim due to bystander died as a result of the stabbing.
the removal by B of the endotracheal tube twice. Candido was arrested and was tested to be
The two acts of B can be considered as the result positive for the use of “shabu” at the time he
of one criminal design. committed the stabbing. What should be the
proper charge against Candido? Explain.
In People v. Umaging, 107 SCRA 166, the Supreme (2005 BAR)
Court ruled that removal of the endotracheal
tube is attempted murder, qualified by treachery, A: Candido should be charged with murder
because the patient did not die. qualified by treachery because the suddenness of
the stabbing caught the victim by surprise and
Q: Lina worked as a housemaid and yaya of was totally defenseless. Being under the
the one-week old son of the spouses John and influence of dangerous drugs is a qualifying
Joana. When Lina learned that her 70- year aggravating circumstance in the commission of a
old mother was seriously ill, she asked John crime (Sec. 25, R.A. 9165, Comprehensive
for a cash advance of P20,000.00, but the Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002). Hence, the penalty
latter refused. In anger, Lina gagged the for murder shall be imposed in the maximum.
mouth of the child with stockings, placed him
in a box, sealed it with masking tape, and Homicide (1989, 1990, 1992, 1994, 1995,
placed the box in the attic. Lina then left the 1996, 2003, 2005, 2014, 2019 BAR)
house and asked her friend Fely to demand a
P20,000.00 ransom for the release of the Q: Tommy saw Lino and Okito engaged in a
spouses' child to be paid within twenty-four street fight. Lino then suddenly drew his
hours. The spouses did not pay the ransom. balisong and lunged at Okito. In an effort to
After a couple of days, John discovered the break up the fight, Tommy tried to snatch the
box in the attic with his child already dead. balisong from Lino but not before the latter
According to the autopsy report, the child had inflicted a wound on Okito. As Lino
died of asphyxiation barely minutes after the withdrew the weapon and attempted to stab
box was sealed. What crime or crimes, if any, Okito a second time, Tommy tried to grab the
did Lina and Fely commit? Explain. (2016 weapon again. In so doing, his left forearm
BAR) was slashed. As he succeeded in snatching
away the balisong with his right arm, it flew
A: Lina is liable for murder. Gagging the mouth of with such force, that it hit Nereo, a passerby
the child with stockings, placing him in a box, who was seriously injured. Explain your
sealing it with masking tape, and placing the box answers fully.
in the attic were only the methods employed by
the defendant in committing the murder a. What is the criminal liability of Lino with
qualified by treachery (People v. Lora, G.R. No. L- respect to Okito, Tommy and Nereo?
49430, March 30, 1982). Taking advantage of the b. In turn, is Tommy criminally liable to
defenseless condition of the victim by reason of Nereo? (1992 BAR)
his tender age, one-week old, is treachery (People
v. Fallorina, G.R. No. 137347, March 4, 2004). She A:
is not liable for kidnapping with murder. The a. As far as Okito is concerned, Lino is liable for
essence of kidnapping or serious illegal detention frustrated homicide, assuming that the
is the actual confinement or restraint of the wound suffered by Okito is such that for
victim or the deprivation of his liberty. In this reasons or causes independent of the will of
case, the victim was not deprived of his liberty Lino (such as timely medical attention) Okito
since he immediately died. The demand for would have died. If the injury is not serious
ransom did not convert the offense into enough, the liability is only attempted
kidnapping with murder. The defendant was well homicide.
aware that the child would be suffocated to death
in a few moments after she left. The demand for Intent to kill is manifest because of the use of
ransom is only a part of the diabolic scheme of a deadly weapon. For the injury on the arm
the defendant to murder the child, to conceal his of Tommy, Lino is liable only for physical
body and then demand money before the injuries (serious, less serious or slight,
discovery of the cadaver. (People v. Lora, G.R. No. depending on the nature of the injury).
L-49430, March 30, 1982) Apparently, there is no intent to kill.

Fely is not liable for murder as principal or For Nereo, Lino should be liable for serious
accomplice since there is neither conspiracy or physical injuries as the wounding of Nereo
community of design to commit murder since her was the natural and logical consequences of
criminal intention pertains to kidnapping for Lino’s felonious act.
ransom. In addition, her participation of
demanding ransom for the release of the child is b. Tommy is exempted from criminal liability
not connected to murder. Her criminal mind to for the injury to Nereo as he was performing
assist Lina in committing kidnapping for ransom a lawful act with due care and the injury was
is not constitutive of a felony. Mens rea wihout caused by mere accident (Art. 12, par. 4), or
actus reus is not a crime. that he was in lawful exercise of a right (Art.
11, par. 6), that is, defense of a stranger.
Q: Candido stabbed an innocent bystander

42
 QuAMTO (1987-2019)
Q: In a free-for-all brawl that ensued after the victim are not Filipino nationals, and
some customers inside a nightclub became besides, the alleged crime was committed in
unruly, guns were fired by a group, among an Indonesian-registered vessel.
them A and B, that finally put the customers
back to their senses. Unfortunately, one Assuming that the provisions of the RPC can
customer died. Subsequent investigation be applied against Ms. M, what crime under
revealed that A’s gunshot had inflicted on the the RPC should she be charged with? Explain.
victim a slight wound that did not cause the (2019 BAR)
deceased’s death nor materially contribute to
it. It was B’s gunshot that inflicted a fatal A: Ms. M should be charged with the crime of
wound on the deceased. A contended that his Homicide under the RPC. Article 249 of the RPC
liability should, if at all, be limited to slight punishes any person who shall kill another
physical injury. Would you agree? Why? without the attendance of any of the qualifying
(2003 BAR) circumstances mentioned in Art. 248, including
treachery. The suddenness of the attack does not
A: NO. I beg to disagree with A’s contention that by itself, suffice to support a finding of alevosia,
his liability should be limited to slight physical even if the purpose was to kill, so long as the
injury only. He should be held liable for decision was made suddenly, and the victim’s
attempted homicide because he inflicted said helpless position was accidental. (People v.
injury with the use of a firearm which is a lethal Lubreo, G.R. NO. 74146, August 2, 1991)
weapon. Intent to kill is inherent in the use of a
firearm. (Araneta, Jr. v. Court of Appeals, 187 In a number of cases, the Court held that
SCRA 123) treachery cannot be appreciated simply because
the attack was sudden and unexpected. (People v.
Q: Belle saw Gaston stealing the prized cock Vilbar, G.R. No. 186541, February 1, 2012)
of a neighbor and reported him to the police.
Thereafter, Gaston, while driving a car, saw ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
Belle crossing the street. Incensed that Belle
had reported him, Gaston decided to scare Ms. M should be charged with Murder. She killed
her by trying to make it appear that he was Ms. A by stealthily approaching the latter from
about to run her over. He revved the engine behind and stabbing the latter’s neck with a
of his car and drove towards her but he pocketknife. Ms. M therefore employed means
applied the brakes. and methods which tend directly and specially to
insure the execution of the planned killing,
Since the road was slippery at that time, the
without risk to herself arising from the defense
vehicle skidded and hit Belle causing her
which Ms. A might make. Hence, there was
death. What is the liability of Gaston? Why?
treachery on Ms. M’s part, and treachery qualifies
(2005 BAR)
an act of killing to Murder.
A: Gaston is criminally liable for homicide in
Physical Injuries (2017, 2018 BAR)
doing the felonious act which caused Belle’s
death, although the penalty therefor shall be
Q: Mrs. Robinson is a teacher at an
mitigated by lack of intention to commit so grave
elementary school. In one of her classes, she
a wrong as that committed (Art. 13 [3], RPC). The
found, to her consternation, that an 8-year old
act having been deliberately done with malice, is
Richard was always the cause of distraction,
felonious and being the proximate cause of
as he was fond of bullying classmates smaller
Belle’s death, brings about criminal liability
in size than him.
although the wrong done.
One morning, Reymart, a 7-year old pupil,
Q: Ms. M, a Malaysian visiting the Philippines,
cried loudly and complained to Mrs. Robinson
was about to depart for Hong Kong via an
that Richard had boxed him on the ear.
Indonesian-registered commercial vessel.
Confronted by Mrs. Robinson about
While on board the vessel, which was still
Reymart’s accusation, Richard sheepishly
docked at the port of Manila, she saw her
admitted the same. Because of this, Mrs.
mortal enemy, Ms. A, an Australian citizen.
Robinson ordered Richard to lie face down on
Ms. A was seated at the front portion of the
a desk during class. After Richard obliged,
cabin and busy using her laptop, with no idea
Mrs. Robinson hit him ten (10) times on the
whatsoever that Ms. M was likewise onboard
legs with a ruler and pinched his ears.
the ship.
Richard ran home and reported to his mother
what he had suffered at the hands of Mrs.
Consumed by her anger towards Ms. A, Ms. M
Robinson. When Richard’s parents went to
stealthily approached the Australian from
Mrs. Robinson to complain, she interposed
behind, and then quickly stabbed her neck
the defense that she merely performed her
with a pocketknife, resulting in Ms. A's
duty as a teacher to discipline erring pupils.
immediate death. Operatives from the
Philippine National Police - Maritime
Richard’s parents ask your advice on what
Command arrested Ms. M for the killing of Ms.
actions can be instituted against Mrs.
A, and thereafter, intended to charge her
Robinson for acts committed on their minor
under the RPC. Ms. M contended that the
child.
provisions of the RPC cannot be applied and
enforced against her because both she and
a. May Mrs. Robinson be charged with child

UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS 43 UST

2021 ACADEMICSCOMMITTEE BAR OPERATIONS
 Criminal Law
abuse OR slight physical injuries? Explain. the case? Explain. (1996 BAR)
b. May Mrs. Robinson be charged with child
abuse AND slight physical injuries? A: YES, I would convict the accused of rape. Since
Explain. (2018 BAR) the victim is a mental retardate with an
intellectual capacity of a child less than 12 years
A: old, she is legally incapable of giving a valid
a. YES. Mrs. Robinson can be charged with consent to the sexual intercourse. The sexual
either child abuse under R.A. 7610 or slight intercourse is tantamount to a statutory rape
physical injuries if the injuries inflicted because the level of intelligence is that of a child
constitute slight physical injuries. Sec. 10 of less than 12 years of age. Where the victim of
R.A. 7610 provides that “Any person who rape is a mental retardate, violence or
shall commit any other acts of child abuse, intimidation is not essential to constitute rape
cruelty, or exploitation, or be responsible for (People v. Trimor, G.R. 106541-42, March 31,
other conditions prejudicial to the child’s 1995). As a matter of fact, R.A. No. 7659, the
development including those covered by Art. Heinous Crimes Law, amended Art. 335, RPC, by
59 of P.D. 603 but not covered by the Revised adding the phrase “or is demented.”
Penal Code shall suffer the penalty of prision
mayor.” Q: Flordeluna boarded a taxi on her way
home to Quezon City which was driven by
In other words, Richard’s parents may Roger. Flordeluna noticed that Roger was
choose to prosecute Mrs. Robinson under the always placing his car freshener in front of
Revised Penal Code or R.A. 7610. I will advise the car aircon ventilation but did not bother
them to consider R.A. 7610 as there was no asking Roger why. Suddenly, Flordeluna felt
showing of the extent of the physical injuries dizzy and became unconscious. Instead of
inflicted. bringing her to Quezon City, Roger brought
Flordeluna to his house in Cavite where she
b. NO. Mrs. Robinson cannot charged with both was detained for two (2) weeks. She was
of child abuse and slight physical injuries, raped for the entire duration of her
because the latter is deemed absorbed in the detention. May Roger be charged and
charge of child abuse. convicted of the crime of rape with serious
illegal detention? (2000 BAR)
Rape (1992, 1993, 1995, 1996, 2000, 2002,
2004, 2009, 2015, 2017 BAR) A: NO. Roger may not be charged and convicted
of the crime with serious illegal detention.
Q: If the slightest penetration of the female
genitalia consummates rape by carnal Roger may be charged and convicted of multiple
knowledge, how does the accused commit rapes. Each rape is a distinct offense and should
attempted rape by carnal knowledge? (2017 be punished separately. Evidently, his principal
BAR) intention was to abuse Flordeluna; the detention
was only incidental to the rape.
A: To be held liable for attempted rape by carnal
knowledge, the penis of the accused must not Q: A, a male, takes B, another male, to a motel
touch the labia of the pudendum of the victim, and there, through threat and intimidation,
but his acts must be committed with clear succeeds in inserting his penis into the anus
intention to have sexual intercourse. Intent to of B. What, if any, is A’s criminal liability?
have sexual intercourse is present if it is shown Why? (2002 BAR)
that the erectile penis of the accused is in the
position to penetrate (Cruz v. People, G.R. No. A: A shall be criminally liable for rape by
166441, October 08, 2014) or the accused actually committing an act of sexual assault against B, by
commenced to force his penis into the victim’s inserting his penis into the anus of the latter.
sexual organ (People v. Banzuela, G.R. No. 202060,
December 11, 2013). If the offender touches the Even a man may be a victim of rape by sexual
body of the victim through force, with lewd assault under paragraph 2 of Article 266-A of the
design but without clear intention to have sexual Revised Penal Code, as amended, “when the
intercourse, the crime committed is acts of offender’s penis is inserted into his mouth or
lasciviousness. (People v. Sanico, G.R. No. 208469, anal orifice.”
August, 13, 2014)
Q: Braulio invited Lulu, his 11-year old
Q: The complainant, an eighteen-year old stepdaughter, inside the master bedroom. He
mental retardate with an intellectual capacity pulled out a knife and threatened her with
between the ages of nine and twelve years, harm unless she submitted to his desires. He
when asked during the trial how she felt was touching her chest and sex organ when
when she was raped by the accused, replied his wife caught him in the act.
“Masarap, it gave me much pleasure.”
The prosecutor is unsure whether to charge
With the claim of the accused that the Braulio for acts of lasciviousness under Art.
complainant consented for a fee to the sexual 336 of the RPC, for lascivious conduct under
intercourse, and with the foregoing answer of R.A. 7610 (Special Protection against Child
the complainant, would you convict the Abuse, Exploitation, and Discrimination Act);
accused of rape if you were the judge trying or for rape under Art. 266-A of the RPC. What

44
 QuAMTO (1987-2019)
is the crime committed? Explain. (2016 BAR) not. To appreciate this qualifying circumstance of
minority and common-law relationship will
A: The acts of Braulio of touching the chest and offend the constitutional right of the accused to
sex organ of Lulu who is under 12 years of age, be informed of the nature of the crime charged
are merely acts of lasciviousness and not against him.
attempted rape because intent to have sexual
intercourse is not clearly shown. (People v. Q: Sixteen-year (16) old Aliswan prodded
Banzuela, G.R. No. 202060, December 11, 2013) Amethyst, his girlfriend, to remove her
To be held liable of attempted rape, it must be clothing while they were secretly together in
shown that the erectile penis is in the position to her bedroom late one evening. Failing to get a
penetrate (Cruz v. People, G.R. No. 166441, positive response from her, he forcibly
October 8, 2014) or the offender actually undressed her. Apprehensive about rousing
commenced to force his penis into the victim’s the attention of the household who did not
sexual organ. (People v. Banzuela, supra) know of his presence inside her room, she
resisted him with minimal strength, but she
The same acts of touching the chest and sex was really sobbing in a muffled manner. He
organ of Lulu under psychological coercion or then undressed himself while blocking the
influence of her stepfather, Braulio, constitutes door. Yet, the image of a hapless and sobbing
sexual abuse under Section 5(b) of R.A. No. 7610. Amethyst soon brought him to his senses, and
(People v. Optana, G.R. No. 133922, February 12, impelled him to leave her room naked. He did
2001) not notice in his hurry that Amante, the father
of Amethyst, who was then sitting alone on a
Since the requisites for acts of lasciviousness sofa in the sala, saw him leave his daughter's
under Article 336 of the Revised Penal Code are room naked.
met, in addition to the requisites for sexual abuse
under Section 5 of R.A. No. 7610, and the victim Outside the house, the now-clothed Aliswan
is under 12 years of age, Braulio shall be spotted Allesso, Amethyst's former suitor.
prosecuted for acts of lasciviousness under the Knowing how Allesso had aggressively
Revised Penal Code but the penalty imposable is pursued Amethyst, Aliswan fatally stabbed
that prescribed by R.A. No. 7610. (Amployo v. Allesso. Aliswan immediately went into
People, G.R. No. 157718, April 26, 2005) Under hiding afterwards.
Section 5 (b) of R.A. 7610, when the victim (child
subjected to sexual abuse) is under 12 years of Upon learning from Amethyst about what
age, the perpetrators shall be prosecuted (for Aliswan had done to her, an enraged Amante
acts of lasciviousness) under Article 336 of the wanted to teach Aliswan a lesson he would
Revised Penal Code: Provided, That the penalty never forget. Amante set out the next day to
for lasciviousness conduct when the victim is look for Aliswan in his school. There, Amante
under 12 years of age shall be reclusion temporal found a young man who looked very much
in its medium period. like Aliswan. Amante immediately rushed and
knocked the young man unconscious on the
Q: Charlie was charged for the qualified rape pavement, and then draped his body with a
of AAA. The Information alleged that AAA was prepared tarpaulin reading “RAPIST AKO
14 years old at the time the crime was HUWAG TULARAN.” Everyone else in the
committed and that Charlie was AAA's school was shocked upon witnessing what
stepfather. The presentation of AAA's birth had just transpired, unable to believe that the
certificate during the trial duly established timid and quiet Alisto, Aliswan's identical
the following: (1) that AAA was indeed 14 twin brother, had committed rape.
years old at the time of the rape; and (2) that
AAA's mother is BBB and her father was the a. A criminal complaint for attempted rape
late CCC. BBB and Charlie only became live-in with homicide was brought against
partners after CCC's death. The RTC found Aliswan in the Prosecutor's Office.
Charlie guilty of qualified rape. On appeal, the However, after preliminary investigation,
Court of Appeals convicted Charlie of simple the Investigating Prosecutor
rape. Charlie appealed before the Supreme recommended the filing of two separate
Court. How will you rule and why? (2015 Informations: one for attempted rape and
BAR) the other for homicide. Do you agree with
the recommendation? Explain.
A: The CA ruling is correct. The crime committed b. After receiving medical attendance for ten
by Charlie is simple rape. To be held liable for (10) days, Alisto consulted you about
qualified rape, a qualifying circumstance should filing the proper criminal complaint
be alleged in the information and proven by against Amante. What crimes, if any, will
evidence beyond reasonable doubt. Although you charge Amante with? Explain. (2017
minority and step- relationship as a qualifying BAR)
circumstance are alleged in the information,
what is proven by the evidence is the qualifying A:
circumstance of minority and common-law a. NO. I do not agree with the recommendation
relationship with the mother of the victim. The for the filing of attempted rape. Intent to
concept of step- relationship is different from have sexual intercourse is an essential
that of common - law relationship because in the element of attempted rape. In other words,
former the mother of the victim and the offender intent to lie with the victim must be closer.
are legally married while in the latter they are However, this intent is not established for

UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS 45 UST

2021 ACADEMICSCOMMITTEE BAR OPERATIONS
 Criminal Law
failure to show that Aliswan had done acts to around 7 p.m. one night. With his cohorts,
have sex with Amethyst (Cruz v. People, G.R. Solito forced Maita into a Toyota lnnova and
NO. 116441, October 08, 2014); or that drove off with her to a green-painted house
Aliswan had actually commenced to force his situated in a desolate part of the town. There,
penis into the victim’s sexual organ (People v. Solito succeeded in having carnal knowledge
Banzuela, G.R. No. 202060, December 11, of Maita against her will.
2013). Moreover, he spontaneously desisted
from committing further lascivious acts after Meanwhile, the police authorities were
undressing Amethyst which is a defense in tipped off that at 11:30 p.m. on that same
attempted rape. Undressing the victim with night Solito would be selling marijuana
lewd design merely constitutes acts of outside the green-painted house. Acting on
lasciviousness (People v. Sanico, G.R. No. the tip, the PNP station of the town formed a
208469, August 13, 2014) buy-bust team with PO2 Masahol being
designated the poseur buyer. During the buy-
However, I agree with the recommendation bust operation, Solito opened the trunk of the
of separate charges instead of a special Toyota lnnova to retrieve the bag of
complex crime. Acts of lasciviousness cannot marijuana to be sold to PO2 Masahol. To cut
be merged with homicide to form a special the laces that he had tied the bag with, Solito
complex crime. There is no special complex took out a Swiss knife, but his doing so
crime of acts of lasciviousness with homicide prompted PO2 Masahol to effect his
under the statute books; moreover, to be immediate arrest out of fear that he would
held liable of a special complex crime, there attack him with the knife. PO2 Masahol then
must be a direct connection between the confiscated the bag of marijuana as well as
components thereof. In this case, the the Toyota lnnova.
homicide is not directly connected with the
acts of lasciviousness since the killing was Two Informations were filed against Solito in
motivated by personal grudge of Aliswan the RTC: one for forcible abduction with rape,
against Alesso, which has no link to the crime raffled to Branch 8 of the RTC; the other for
committed against Amethyst. illegal sale of drugs, assigned to Branch 29 of
the RTC. Was Solito charged with the proper
b. In People v. Lasala (G.R. No. L-12141, January offenses based on the circumstances?
30, 1962), the Supreme Court ruled that the Explain. (2017 BAR)
crime committed in Less Serious Physical
Injuries under Art. 265 of the RPC as the A: YES. The charge of rape through forcible
medical attendance if for a period of ten (10) abduction is correct. The rule is settled that if the
days only. main objective of the accused is to rape the
victim, the crime committed is rape even if he
Considering, however, that the Less Serious adbucted her forcefully. Forcible abduction is
Physical Injuries was inflicted with manifest absorbed. The doctrine of absorption rather than
intent to insult or offend the offended party Article 48 of the RPC is applicable, since forcible
or under circumstances adding ignominy to abduction is an indispensable means to commit
the offense, there shall be an added penalty rape. (People v. Mejoraday, G.R. No. 102705, July
of fine not exceeding P500 pesos (Art. 265, 30, 1993; People v. Almanzor, G.R. No. 124916, July
par. 2). 11, 2002; People v. Sabadablab, G.R. No. 175924,
March 14, 2012)
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
Where the victim was abducted with lewd design
I will charge Amante for violation of R.A. No. and brought to a house (People v. Magdaraog,
7610 in relation to Art. 265 of the RPC. The G.R. No. L-40988, April 15, 1988; People v. Buhos,
victim Alisto was the twin brother of Aliswan. G.R. No. L-40995, June 25, 1980; People v.
Hence, he is also sixteen (16) years old and a Velasquez, G.R. No. 137383-84, November 23,
minor. The act of Amante constitutes child abuse 2000) in a desolated place where she was raped,
as he maltreated Alisto when he inflicted on him forcible abduction should be treated as a
physically with cruelty. Further, by rapping the necessary means to commit rape, and thus, the
body with prepared tarpaulin reading RAPIST crime committed is a complex crime of rape
AKO HUWAG TULARAN”, it debases, degrades, or through forcible adbudction under Art. 48 of the
demeans the intrinsic worth and dignity of Alisto. RPC.

Considering that Alisto received medical As to the charge of sale of dangerous drugs, it is
attendance for ten (10) days due to the injury he improper since this crime is consummated only
suffered from Amante, the latter is also liable for upon the delivery of the dangerous drugs to the
Less serious physical injuries under Art. 265 of poseur buyer for a consideration. In this case,
the Revised Penal Code. (Bongalon v. People, G.R. Solito has not yet delivered the marijuana to PO2
No. 169533, March 20, 2013) Masahol when the latter apprehended the
former; therefore, the crime committed is not
Q: Maita was the object of Solito's avid sexual sale of dangerous drugs but attempted sale of
desires. Solito had attempted many times to dangerous drugs.
entice Maita to a date in bed with him but H. CRIMES AGAINST PERSONAL LIBERTY
Maita had consistently refused. Fed up with AND SECURITY
all her rejections, Solito abducted Maita

46
 QuAMTO (1987-2019)
no showing, moreover, that at the time abduction
Kidnapping (1991, 2009, 2014, 2016 Bar) is committed with lewd design; hence, his
abduction constitutes illegal detention. Since
Q: A charged B with the crime of rape. While Angelino was killed in the course of the
the case was pending in court, B, together detention, the crime constitutes kidnapping and
with his mother and brother, overpowered A serious illegal detention with homicide under
while riding a tricycle, dragged her inside a Art. 267.
carenderia owned by them and detained her
for two (2) days. They demanded that she Since the victim is not a woman, it cannot be rape
sign an affidavit of desistance and reimburse by sexual intercourse. Neither can it be rape by
B the sum of P5,000.00 which he paid to his sexual assault for Razzy did not insert his penis
lawyer in the case. She was released only into the anal orifice or mouth of Angelino or an
after she signed the affidavit asking for the instrument or object into anal orifice or genital
dismissal of the case and delivered to B P1, orifice, hence, this act constitutes acts of
000.00. She promised to deliver the balance lasciviousness under Art. 336. Since the acts of
of P4,000.00 thirty (30) days later. What lasciviousness is committed by reason or
crime/s was/were committed by B, his occasion of kidnapping, it will be integrated into
mother and brother? (1991 BAR) one and indivisible felony of kidnapping with
homicide (People v. De Leon, G.R. No. 179943, June
A: This is Kidnapping with Ransom which is 26, 2009; People v. Jugueta, G.R. No. 202124, April
kidnapping or illegal detention committed by a 5, 2016)
private person for the purpose of extorting
ransom. Since the victim is a woman, it is serious. Max is liable for kidnapping with homicide as an
accomplice since he concurred in the criminal
Q: A, with lewd designs, took a 13-year old design of Razzy in depriving Angelino his liberty
girl to a nipa hut in his farm and there had and supplied the former material aid in an
sexual intercourse with her. The girl did not efficacious way by helping him beat the latter.
offer any resistance because she was
infatuated with the man, who was good- Trespass to dwelling
looking and belonged to a rich and prominent
family in the town. What crime, if any, was Q: At about 11:00 in the evening, Dante forced
committed by A? Why? (2002 BAR) his way inside the house of Mamerto. Jay,
Mamerto’s son, saw Dante and accosted him.
A: A committed the crime of Consented Dante pulled a knife and stabbed Jay on his
Abduction under Article 343 of the Revised Penal abdomen. Mamerto heard the commotion and
Code, as amended. went out of his room. Dante, who was about to
escape, assaulted Mamerto. Jay suffered
The said Article punishes the abduction of a injuries which, were it not for the timely
virgin over 12 and under 18 years of age, carried medical attendance, would have caused his
out with her consent and with lewd designs. death. Mamerto sustained injuries that
Although the problem did not indicate the victim incapacitated him for 25 days.
to be a virgin, virginity should not be understood
in its material sense, as to exclude a virtuous What crime/s did Dante commit? (1994 BAR)
woman of good reputation, since the essence of
the crime is not the injury to the woman but the A: Dante committed qualified trespass to
outrage and alarm to her family. (Valdepeñas v. dwelling, frustrated homicide for the stabbing of
People, 16 SCRA 871) Jay, and less serious physical injuries for the
assault on Mamerto.
Q: Angelino, a Filipino, is a transgender who
underwent gender reassignment and had The crime of qualified trespass to dwelling
implants in different parts of her body. She should not be complexed with frustrated
changed her name to Angelina and was a homicide because when the trespass is
finalist in the Miss Gay International. She committed as a means to commit a more serious
came back to the Philippines and while she crime, trespass to dwelling is absorbed by the
was walking outside her home, she was greater crime and the former constitutes an
abducted by Max and Razzy who took her to a aggravating circumstance of dwelling. (People v.
house in the province. She was then placed in Abedoza, 53 Phil 788)
a room and Razzy forced her to have sex with
him at knife's point. After the act, it dawned The stabbing of Jay and the assault on Mamerto
upon Razzy that Angelina is actually a male. were merely an afterthought, hence Dante is
Incensed, Razzy called Max to help him beat liable for the separate crimes of trespass to
Angelina. The beatings that Angelina received dwelling, frustrated homicide, and less serious
eventually caused her death. What crime or physical injuries.
crimes, if any, were committed? Explain.
(2016 BAR) THREATS AND COERCION
(1987, 1988, 1989, 1998, 1999 BAR)
A: Razzy is liable for kidnapping with homicide.
Abducting Angelino is not forcible abduction Grave Coercion
since the victim in this crime must be a woman.
Gender reassignment will not make him a woman Q: Isagani lost his gold necklace bearing his
within the meaning of Art. 342 of RPC. There is initials. He saw Roy wearing the said
UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS 47 UST
2021 ACADEMICSCOMMITTEE BAR OPERATIONS
 Criminal Law
necklace. Isagani asked Roy to return to him because the agents failed to draw such
the necklace as it belongs to him, but Roy confession, the crime is grave coercion
refused. Isagani then drew his gun and told because of the violence employed to compel
Roy, “If you will not give back the necklace to such confession without the offended party
me, I will kill you!” Out of fear for his life and being confined in jail. (US v. Cusi, 10 Phil 143)
against his will, Roy gave the necklace to
Isagani. What offense did Isagani commit? It is noted that the offended party was
(1998 BAR) merely “brought” to the police headquarters
and is thus not a detention prisoner. Had he
A: Isagani committed the crime of grave coercion been validly arrested, the crime committed
(Art. 286, RPC) for compelling Roy, by means of would be maltreatment of prisoners.
serious threats or intimidation, to do something
against the latter’s will, whether it be right or CRIMES AGAINST PROPERTY
wrong. Serious threats or intimidation
approximating violence constitute grave Robbery (1987, 1988, 1992, 1996, 2000,
coercion, not grave threats. Such is the nature of 2001, 2012, 2018 BAR)
the threat in this case because it was committed
with a gun, is a deadly weapon. Q: Five robbers robbed one after the other
five houses occupied by different families
The crime cannot be robbery because intent to located inside a compound enclosed by a six-
gain, which is an essential element of robbery, is foot high hollow block fence. How many
absent since the necklace belongs to Isagani. robberies did the five commit? Explain. (1996
BAR)
Q:
a. Distinguish coercion from illegal A: The offenders committed only one robbery in
detention. the eyes of the law because when they entered
b. Forcibly brought to the police the compound, they were impelled only by a
headquarters, a person was tortured and single indivisible criminal resolution to commit a
maltreated by agents of the law in order robbery as they were not aware that there were
to compel him to confess a crime imputed five families inside said compound, considering
to him. The agents failed, however, to that the same was enclosed by a six-foot high
draw from him a confession which was hollow block fence. The series of robbery
their intention to obtain through the committed in the same compound at about the
employment of such means. What crime same time constitutes one continued crime,
was committed by the agents of the law? motivated by one criminal impulse.
(1999 BAR)
Q: A, brother of B, with the intention of having
A: a night out with his friends, took the coconut
a. Coercion may be distinguished from illegal shell which is being used by B as a bank for
detention as follows: In coercion, the basis of his coins from inside their locked cabinet
criminal liability is the employment of using their common key. Forthwith, A broke
violence or serious intimidation the coconut shell outside of their home in the
approximating violence, without authority of presence of his friends.
law, to prevent a person from doing
something not prohibited by law or to a. What is the criminal liability of A, if any?
compel him to do something against his will Explain.
whether it be right or wrong; while in Illegal b. Is A exempted from criminal liability
Detention, the basis of liability is the actual under Article 332 of the Revised Penal
restraint or locking up of a person thereby Code for being a brother of B? Explain.
depriving him of his liberty without (2000 BAR)
authority of law. If there was no intent to
lock up or detain the offended party A:
unlawfully, the crime of illegal detention is a. A is criminally liable for Robbery with force
not committed. upon things, because the coconut shell with
the coins inside, was taken with intent to gain
b. Evidently, the person tortured and and broken outside of their home. (Art. 299
maltreated by the agents of the law is a [b], [2], RPC)
suspect and may have been detained by b. NO. A is not exempt from criminal liability
them. If so and he had already been booked under Art. 332 because said Article applies
and put in jail, the crime is maltreatment of only to theft, swindling, or malicious mischief.
prisoner and the fact that the suspect was Here, the crime committed is robbery.
subjected to torture to extort a confession
would bring about a higher penalty, in Q: A entered the house of another without
addition to the offender’s liability for the employing force or violence upon things. He
physical injuries inflicted. was seen by a maid who wanted to scream
but was prevented from doing so because A
But if the suspect was forcibly brought to the threatened her with a gun. A then took money
police headquarters to make him admit the and other valuables and left. Is A guilty of
crime and tortured/maltreated to make him theft or robbery? Explain. (2002 BAR)
confess to such crime, but later released

48
 QuAMTO (1987-2019)
A: A is liable for robbery because the firearm as a single offense.
intimidation he employed on the maid before the
taking of the money and other valuables. It is the Q: In dire need of money, Mr. R decided to
intimidation of the person relative to the taking steal from his next-door neighbor, Mrs. V. On
that qualifies the crime as robbery, instead of the night of May 15, 2010, Mr. R proceeded
simply theft. ‘ with his plan entered Mrs. V's bedroom by
breaking one of the windows from the
The non-employment of force upon things is of outside. Finding Mrs. V sound asleep, he
no moment because robbery is committed not silently foraged through her cabinet, and
only by employing force upon things but also by stashed all the bundles of cash and jewelries
employing violence against or intimidation of he could find.
persons.
As Mr. R was about to leave, he heard Mrs. V
Q: Wielding loose firearms, Rene and Roan shout, "Stop or I will shoot you!", and when he
held up a bank. After taking the bank’s turned around, he saw Mrs. V cocking a rifle
money, the robbers ran towards their which has pointed at him. Fearing for his life,
getaway car, pursued by the bank security Mr. R then lunged at Mrs. V and was able to
guards. As the security guards were closing in wrest the gun away from her. Thereafter, Mr.
on the robbers, the two fired their firearms at R shot Mrs. V, which resulted in her death. Mr.
the pursuing security guards. As a result, one R's deeds were discovered on the very same
of the security guards was hit on the head night as he was seen by law enforcement
causing his immediate death. authorities fleeing the crime scene.

For the taking of the bank’s money and killing What crime/s did Mr. R commit under the
of the security guard with the use of loose Revised Penal Code? Explain (2019 BAR)
firearms, the robbers were charged in court
in two separate Informations, one for robbery A: Mr. R committed Robbery with Homicide
with homicide attended by the aggravating under Art. 293, in relation to Art. 294, par. 1 of
circumstance of use of loose firearms, and the the RPC. The elements of the crime are: a) the
other for illegal possession of firearms. taking of personal property with the use of
violence or intimidation against the person; b)
Are the indictments correct? (2018 BAR) the property taken belongs to another; c) the
taking is characterized by intent to gain or
A: The indictment for Robbery with homicide is animus lucrandi; and d) on the occasion or by
correct. Robbery with homicide, a special reason of the robbery, the crime of homicide, as
complex crime, is primarily a crime against used it is generic sense, was committed. It must
property and not against persons, homicide be established that the original criminal design of
being a mere incident of the robbery with the the malefactor is to commit robbery and the
latter being the main purpose of the criminal. The killing is merely incidental thereto. Here, Mr. R’s
elements of robbery with homicide are: (a) the intent to commit robbery preceded the taking of
taking of personal property with the use of Mrs. V’s life. The killing took place on the
violence or intimidation against a person; (b) the occasion or by reason of the robbery.
property thus taken belongs to another; the
taking is characterized by intent to gain or Theft (1989, 1998, 2000, 2001, 2005, 2008,
animus lucrandi; and (d) on the occasion, the 2012, 2018 BAR)
crime of homicide, which is therein used in a
generic sense, was committed. Q: Sunshine, a “beauteous” colegiala but a
shoplifter, went to the Ever Department Store
The indictment for illegal possession of firearm is and proceeded to the women’s wear section.
wrong. In the case of People v. Gaborne (G.R. No. The saleslady was of the impression that she
210710, July 27, 2016), the Supreme Court brought to the fitting room three (3) pieces of
clarified the issue, to wit: In view of the swimsuits of different colors. When she came
amendments introduced by R.A. No. 8294 and out of the fitting room, she returned only two
R.A. No. 10591, to Presidential Decree No. 1866, (2) pieces to the clothes rack. The saleslady
separate prosecutions for homicide and illegal became suspicious and alerted the store
possession are no longer in order. Instead, illegal detective. Sunshine was stopped by the
possession of firearm is merely to be taken as an detective before she could leave the store and
aggravating circumstance in the crime of murder. brought to the office of the store manager.
It is clear from the foregoing that where murder The detective and the manager searched her
results from the use of an unlicensed firearm, the and found her wearing the third swimsuit
crime is not qualified illegal possession but under her blouse and pants. Was the theft
murder. In such a case, the use of the unlicensed consummated, frustrated, or attempted?
firearm is not considered as a separate crime but Explain. (2000 BAR)
shall be appreciated as a mere aggravating
circumstance. Thus, where murder was A: The theft was consummated because the
committed, the penalty for illegal possession of taking or asportation was complete. The
firearms is no longer imposable since it becomes asportation is complete when the offender
merely a special aggravating circumstance. The acquired the exclusive control of the personal
intent of Congress is to treat the offense of illegal property being taken. In this case, when Sunshine
possession of firearm and the commission of wore the swimsuit under her blouse and pants
homicide or murder with the use of unlicensed and was on her way out of the store, with evident

UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS 49 UST

2021 ACADEMICSCOMMITTEE BAR OPERATIONS
 Criminal Law
intent to gain, the taking constitutes theft and and it was the chief of police of that
being complete, it is consummated. It is not station who appropriated the money for
necessary that the offender is in a position to his own benefit, what crime was
dispose of the property. committed by the chief of police?
Explain. (2015 BAR)
Q: Francis Garcia, a Jollibee waiter, found a
gold bracelet in front of his working place in A:
Makati and, upon inspecting it, saw the name a. Bruno committed the crime of theft. The
and address of the owner engraved on the owner is known to Bruno because there are
inside. Remembering his parents’ admonition IDs found in the wallet. Under Article 308 of
that he should not take anything which does RPC, “theft is likewise committed by any
not belong to him, he delivered the bracelet to person who, having found lost property, shall
PO1 Jesus Reyes of the Makati quad precinct fail to deliver the same to the local authorities
with the instruction to locate the owner and or to its owner”
return it to him. PO1 Reyes, instead, sold the
bracelet and misappropriated the proceeds. b. The chief of police is liable for theft. Although
Subsequent events brought out the fact that he is not the one who found the property, he
the bracelet was dropped by a snatcher who is considered as finder in fact since the
had grabbed it from the owner a block away property was surrendered to him by the
from where Francis had found it and further actual finder. He acquired the position
investigation traced the last possessor as PO1 occupied by the actual finder and assumed by
Reyes. voluntary substitution the obligation to
surrender the property to the lawful owner.
Charged with theft, PO1 Reyes reasoned out Appropriating the property is of the same
that he had not committed any crime because character of that made by one who originally
it was not he who had found the bracelet, and found the same (People v. Avila, G.R. No. L-
moreover, it turned out to have been stolen. 19786, March 31, 1923). The liability of the
finder in fact is the same liability of the finder
Resolve the case with reasons. (2001 BAR) in law. Thus, what the Chief of Police
committed is Theft.
A: PO1 Reyes is criminally liable. His contention
that he has not committed any crime because he Q: On the way home from work, Rica lost her
was not the one who found the bracelet and it necklace to a snatcher. A week later, she saw
turned out to be stolen also, is devoid of merit. It what looked like her necklace on display in a
is enough that the bracelet belonged to another jewelry store in Raon. Believing that the
and the failure to restore the same to its owner is necklace on display was the same necklace
characterized by intent to gain. snatched from her the week before, she
surreptitiously took the necklace without the
The act of PO1 Reyes of selling the bracelet knowledge and consent of the store owner.
which does not belong to him and which he only Later, the loss of the necklace was discovered,
held to be delivered to its owner, is furtive and Rica was shown on the CCTV camera of
misappropriation with intent to gain. the store as the culprit. Accordingly, Rica was
charged with theft of the necklace. Rica
Where a finder of lost or mislaid property raised the defense that she could not be guilty
entrusts it to another for delivery to the owner, as charged because she was the owner of the
the person to whom such property is entrusted necklace and that the element of intent to
and who accepts the same, assumes the relation gain was lacking.
of the finder to the owner as if he was the actual
finder; if he would misappropriate it, he is guilty What should be the verdict if:
of theft. (People v. Avila, 44 Phil 720) a. The necklace is proven to be owned by
Rica?
Q: Bruno, a taxi driver, had an indebtedness b. It is proven that the store acquired the
in the sum of P10,000.00 which would necklace from another person who was
become due in one week. He was starting to the real owner of the necklace? (2018
worry because he still had not raised the BAR)
amount to pay for his debt. Every day, he had
prayed for divine intervention. One night, A:
while returning the taxi to the garage, he a. Under Art. 308 of the RPC, theft is committed
found a wallet on the back seat. Inspecting it, by any person who, with intent to gain but
he learned that it contained exactly Pl without violence, against, or intimidation of
0,000.00 cash, the amount of his obligation, persons nor force upon things, shall take
and IDs. Thinking it was divine intervention, personal property of another without the
and that his prayers were answered, he took latter's consent. While the CCTV captured
the money and used it to pay his debt. Rica surreptitiously taking the necklace from
a jewelry store without the knowledge and
a. What crime, if any, did Bruno commit? consent of the store owner, she cannot be
Explain. charged with theft, because the taking was
b. Assuming that instead of using the made under a claim of ownership. The fact of
money, Bruno turned over the wallet and ownership negates any intention to gain, as
its contents to the nearby police station, Rica cannot steal the necklace which she

50
 QuAMTO (1987-2019)
claims to own. not for profit or gain, or whether committed
with or without violence against or
b. Even if it was proven that the necklace was intimidation or intimidation of any person or
bought by the store from another person force upon things. It includes the killing of
who was the real owner of the necklace, Rica large cattle, or taking its meat or hide
still cannot be held liable for theft absent a without the consent of the owner/raiser
felonious intent. “Actus non facit reum, nisi
mens sit rea”. A crime is not committed if the Q: A fire broke out in a department store. A,
mind of the person performing the act taking advantage of the confusion, entered
complained of is innocent. the store and carried away goods which he
later sold. What crime, if any, did he commit?
The ruling in U.S. v. Vera (1 Phil 485, May 31, Why? (2002 BAR)
1974) is emphatic; i.e. if a person takes
personal property of another believing it to A: A committed the crime of qualified theft
be his own, the presumption of intent to gain because he took the goods on the occasion of and
is rebutted and therefore he is not guilty of taking advantage of the fire which broke out in
theft. the department store. The occasion of a calamity
such as fire, when the theft was committed,
Qualified theft (1992, 2002, 2006, 2016 BAR) qualifies the crime under Article 310 of the
Revised Penal Code, as amended.
Q: Domingo is the caretaker of two (2) cows
and two (2) horses owned by Hannibal. Q: Forest Ranger Jay Velasco was patrolling
Hannibal told Domingo to lend the cows to the Balara Watershed and Reservoir when he
Tristan on the condition that the latter will noticed a big pile of cut logs outside the gate
give a goat to the former when the cows are of the watershed. Curious, he scouted around
returned. Instead, Tristan sold the cows and and after a few minutes, he saw Rene and
pocketed the money. Due to the neglect of Dante coming out of the gate with some more
Domingo, one of the horses was stolen. newly-cut logs. He apprehended and charged
Knowing that he will be blamed for the loss, them with the proper offense. What is that
Domingo slaughtered the other horse, got the offense? Explain. (2006 BAR)
meat, and sold it to Pastor. He later reported
to Hannibal that the two horses were stolen. A: The offense committed is qualified theft
pursuant to Sec. 1 of P.D. No. 330 and Sec. 68 of
a. What crime or crimes, if any, did Tristan P.D. No. 705 defining the offense committed by
commit? Explain. any person who directly or indirectly cuts,
b. What crime or crimes, if any, were gathers, removes or smuggles timber or other
committed by Domingo? Explain. (2016 forest products in violation of existing laws, rules
BAR) and regulation, from any public forest reserves,
and other kinds of public forest or even privately
A: owned forest lands.
a. Tristan is liable for Estafa through
Misappropriation under Article 315 of RPC. Q: A is the driver of B’s Mercedez Benz car.
Their transaction is a commodatum. He When B was on a trip to Paris, A used the car
received the cows with the duty to return the for a joy ride with C whom he is courting.
same thing deposited, and acquired legal or Unfortunately, A met an accident. Upon his
juridical possession. Selling the cows as if he return, B came to know about the
owned it constitutes misappropriation or unauthorized use of the car and sued A for
conversion within the contemplation of Art. qualified theft. B alleged that A took and used
315. the car with intent to gain as he derived some
b. Domingo is liable for qualified theft. benefit or satisfaction from its use. On the
Although Tristan received the horse with the other hand, A argued that he has no intent of
consent of the owner, Hannibal, his making himself the owner of the car as he in
possession is merely physical or de facto fact returned it to the garage after the joy
since the former is the employee of the latter. ride. What crime/s, if any, were committed?
Slaughtering the horse, which he physically Explain. (2016 BAR)
possessed, and selling its meat to Pastor shall
be considered as taking without the consent A: The crime committed by A is carnapping. The
of the owner with intent to gain, which unlawful taking of motor vehicles is now covered
constitutes theft (Balerta v. People, G.R. No. by the Anti-Carnapping Law (R.A. 10883 as
205144 November 26, 2014). Since the horse amended) and not by the provisions on qualified
is accessible to him, the theft is qualified by theft or robbery. (People v. Bustinera, G.R. No.
the circumstances of abuse of confidence 148233, June 8, 2004) The concept of carnapping
(Yangco v. People, G.R. No. 209373 July 30, is the same as that of robbery and theft. Hence,
2014) rules applicable to theft or robbery are also
applicable to carnapping. (People v. Asamuddin,
Further, Domingo committed an act in G.R. No. 213913, September 2, 2015) In theft,
violation of the Anti-Cattle Rustling Law (P.D. unlawful taking should be understood within the
No. 533). Cattle rustling is the taking away by Spanish concept of apoderamiento. In order to
any means, method or scheme, without the constitute apoderamiento, the physical taking
consent of the owner/raiser of large cattle, must be coupled with the intent oto appropriate
which includes cows and horses, whether or the object, which means intent to deprive the

UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS 51 UST

2021 ACADEMICSCOMMITTEE BAR OPERATIONS
 Criminal Law
lawful owner of the thing, whether permanently stating in a marriage contract, a public document,
or temporarily. (People v. Valenzuela, G.R. No. that the marriage was solemnized by him, is an
160188, June 21, 2007) In this case, A took the car act of falsification. The crime of illegal marriage is
without the consent of B with intent to not committed because element that “the
temporarily deprive him of the car. Although the offender has performed an illegal marriage
taking was “temporary” and for a “joy ride”, the ceremony” is lacking. (Ronulo v. People, G.R. No.
Supreme Court in People v. Bustinera (supra), 182438, July 2, 2014)
sustains as the better view which holds that
when a person, either with the object of going to Donato committed the crime of usurpation of
a certain place, or learning how to drive, or function under Article 177 of the Revised Penal
enjoying a free ride, takes possession of a vehicle Code because he performed the act of
belonging to another, without the consent of its solemnizing marriage, which pertained to the
owner, he is guilty of theft because by taking mayor, a person in authority, without being
possession of the personal property belonging to lawfully entitled to do so. The crime of illegal
another and using it, his intent to gain is evident marriage is not committed, because the element
since he derives therefrom utility, satisfaction, that “the offender is authorized to solemnize
enjoyment and pleasure. marriage” is lacking. (Ronulo v. People, G.R. No.
182438, July 2, 2014)
Usurpation (1988, 1989, 1996, 2018, 2019
BAR) Q: A and B, both farmers, entered the land
owned by X and planted palay thereon. When
Q: Jorge is the owner of 10 hectares of land in X came to know about it, he confronted A and
the foothills which he planted with lanzones. B and inquired why the latter occupied his
On his last visit there, he was shocked to land and planted palay thereon.
discover that his land had been taken over by
a group of 15 families whose members had A, with a bolo in hand, replied that the land
forcibly driven away his caretaker, had belongs to the family of S, and not to X and at
appropriated the fruits for themselves, and the same time said, “If you touch this land
were not threatening to kill him should he try and my palay, blood will flow on this ground.”
to eject them. What crime should Jorge charge Because of the said remark, X went to the
these 15 families? Explain. (1988 BAR) Chief of Police and complained. The Chief of
Police filed a complex crime of Usurpation of
A: Jorge can charge the 15 families of 2 separate Real Property with Grave Threats.
crimes namely:
What crime/s were committed? (1989 BAR)
a. Violation of Article 282, Grave threats xxx
b. Violation of Article 312 which provides that: A: The crime committed by A and B is squatting
“Occupation of real property or usurpation of under PD 772 and not Usurpation of Real
real rights in property. – Any person who, by Property because in the latter crime, there must
means of violence against or intimidation of be violence against or intimidation of persons
persons, shall take possession of any real employed in taking possession of any real
property or shall usurp any real rights in property or in usurping any real rights in
property belonging to another, in addition to property belonging to another (Art. 312, RPC). In
the penalty incurred for the acts of violence this case, it appears that A and B entered X’s land
executed by him, shall be punished by a without the owner’s consent or against his will
fine...”. but without any violence against or intimidation
of persons.
Q: Erwin and Bea approached Mayor Abral
and requested him to solemnize their The crime of squatting is committed by any
marriage. Mayor Abral agreed. Erwin and Bea person, who, with the use of force, intimidation
went to Mayor Abral's office on the day of the or threat, or taking advantage of the absence or
ceremony, but Mayor Abral was not there. tolerance of the landowner, succeeds in
When Erwin and Bea inquired where Mayor occupying or possessing the property of the
Abral was, his chief of staff Donato informed latter against his will for residential, commercial
them that the Mayor was campaigning for the or any other purposes.
coming elections. Donato told them that the
Mayor authorized him to solemnize the The threat uttered by A, not having been used in
marriage and that Mayor Abral would just the taking of possession of the land, it is not
sign the documents when he arrived. Donato absorbed in the crime of squatting. When A
thereafter solemnized the marriage and later threatened X that blood will flow if X touches the
turned over the documents to Mayor Abral for land and his palay, he committed the crime of
his signature. In the marriage contract, it was grave threats by threatening another with the
stated that the marriage was solemnized by infliction of a wrong amounting to a crime. Only
Mayor Abral. What crime(s) did Mayor Abral A is criminally liable for the crime of grave
and Donato commit? Explain. (2015, 2019 threats.
BAR)
Q: A group of homeless and destitute persons
A: Mayor Abral is liable for falsification of public invaded and occupied the houses built by the
document by a public officer under Article 177 of National Housing Authority (NHA) for certain
the RPC. Making an untruthful statement by military personnel. To gain entry to the

52
 QuAMTO (1987-2019)
houses, the group intimidated the security circumstance at the time he issued the two (2)
guards posted at the entrance gate with the checks.
firearms they were carrying and destroyed
the padlocks of the doors of the houses with What crime/s should B be charges with and
the use of crowbars and hammers. They for how many counts? Explain. (2018, 2019
claimed that they would occupy the houses BAR)
and live therein because the houses were
idle, and they were entitled to free housing A: B should be charged with 1 count of Estafa and
from the government. 2 counts of violation of B.P. 22. Under Art. 315,
par. 2(d) of the RPC, estafa by postdating a check
For the reason that the houses were already or issuing a check in payment of an obligation is
awarded to military personnel who have been committed when: (a) the offender post-dated a
found to have fully complied with the check, or issued a check in payment of an
requirements for the award thereof, NHA obligation; and (b) such postdating or issuing a
demanded the group to vacate within ten (10) check was done when the offender had no funds
days from notice the houses they occupied in the bank, or his funds deposited therein were
and were still occupying. Despite the lapse of not sufficient to cover the amount of the check.
the deadline, the group refused to vacate the Here, B’s act of postdating checks in payment of
houses in question. an obligation was the efficient cause of the
defraudation. Postdating the checks was
What is the criminal liability of the members committed prior to or simultaneously with the
of the group, if any, for their actions? (2018 commission of the fraud.
BAR)
B should also be charged with two (2) counts of
A: The members of the group who, by means of violation of B.P. 22 or the Bouncing Checks Law.
violence against or intimidation, shall take B.P. 22 may be violated by making or drawing
possession of any real property or shall usurp and issuing any check to apply on account or for
any real rights in property belonging to another, value, knowing at the time of issue that he does
is criminally liable under Art. 312 of the RPC or not have sufficient funds in or credit with the
Occupation of real property or usurpation of real drawee bank for the payment of such check,
rights in property. In addition, they may also be which check is subsequently dishonored for
charged with other crimes resulting from their insufficiency of funds or credit, or would have
acts of violence. been dishonored for the same reason had not the
drawer, without any valid reason, ordered the
Swindling and Other Deceits (2017, 2018, bank to stop payment. Here, all the elements of
2019 BAR) the offense are present. B issued two (2) checks,
which was subsequently dishonored by the
Q: What crime is committed by a capataz who drawee bank for insufficiency of funds. The
enrolls two fictitious names in the payroll and gravamen of B.P. 22 is the issuance of the check,
collects their supposed daily wages every thus, the issuance of each bouncing check
payday? (2017 BAR) constitutes as one count of the offense.

A: The crime committed is Estafa through While a BP 22 case and an estafa case may be
Falsification of Public Documents. A capataz is a rooted from an identical set of facts, they
foreman for the government and since the nevertheless present different causes of action,
falsification of the public document is committed which, under the law, are considered "separate,
as a means to commit estafa, the proper charge is distinct, and independent" from each other
estafa through falsification of public documents. (Rimando v. Aldaba, G.R. No. 203583, October 13,
2014).
Q: In August 2018, B entered a contract with S
for the purchase of the latter's second-hand Arson (1994, 2000, 2015, 2019 BAR)
car in the amount of ₱400,000.00 payable in
two (2) equal monthly installments. Q: One early evening, there was a fight
Simultaneously with the signing of the between Eddie Gutierrez and Mario Cortez.
contract and S's turnover of the car keys, B Later that evening, at about 11 o’clock, Eddie
executed, issued, and delivered two (2) post- passed by the house of Mario carrying a
dated checks, all payable to S, with the plastic bag containing gasoline, threw the bag
assurances that they will be honored on their at the house of Mario who was inside the
respective maturity dates. house watching television, and then lit it. The
front wall of the house started blazing and
However, all two (2) checks were dishonored some neighbors yelled and shouted.
for being drawn against insufficient funds. Forthwith, Mario poured water on the
Consequently, notices therefore were duly burning portion of the house. Neighbors also
issued to and received by B, but this rushed in to help put the fire under control
notwithstanding, no payment arrangements before any great damage could be inflicted
were made by him. Further, upon S's and before the flames have extensively
investigation, it was uncovered that B's spread. Only a portion of the house was
checking account had only ₱50,000.00 when burned. Discuss Eddie’s liability. (2000 BAR)
it was opened in June 2018 and no further
deposits were made after that. S also found A: Eddie is liable for destructive arson in the
out that B knew fully well of such consummated stage. It is destructive arson

UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS 53 UST

2021 ACADEMICSCOMMITTEE BAR OPERATIONS
 Criminal Law
because fire was resorted to in destroying the commission of a felony directly by overt
house of Mario which is an inhabited house or acts and does not perform all the acts of
dwelling. The arson is consummated because the execution that should produce the felony by
house was in fact already burned although not reason of some cause or accident other than
totally. In arson, it is not required that the his own spontaneous desistance. Here, Mr.
premises be totally burned for the crime to be A commenced the commission of arson by
consummated. It is enough that the premises pouring gasoline on the house and lighting a
suffer destruction by burning. match. However, he did not perform all the
acts of execution which includes setting the
Q: Senio planned to burn Bal' s house. One rest house on fire. Thus, Mr. A should only
evening, during a drinking spree at his house, be liable for Attempted Arson.
Senio told his friends what he intended to do
and even showed them the gasoline in cans b. In cases where both burning and death
that he would use for the purpose. Carlo, a occur, in order to determine what crime
common friend of Senio and Bal, was present was committed, there is a need to ascertain
at the drinking spree. He was still sober when the main objective of the malefactor: (a) if
Senio told them his plans. Before going home, the main objective is the burning of the
Carlo warned Bal that Senio would burn his building or edifice but death results by
house and had already bought gasoline that reason or on occasion of arson, the crime is
would be used for the purpose. Bal reported simply arson, and the resulting homicide is
the matter to the police authorities. absorbed; (b) if the main objective is to kill
Meanwhile, Senio went to Bal' s house and a particular person who may be in the
proceeded to pour gasoline around the walls building or edifice, when fire is resorted to
of the house and it was at that point when he as a means to accomplish such goal, the
was caught by the police. What crime did crime committed is murder only; and (3) if
Senio commit, if any? Explain. (2015 BAR) the objective is to kill a particular person,
and in fact the offender has already done so,
A: Senio is liable for attempted arson. He but the fire is resorted to as a means to
manifested before his intention to burn the cover up the killing, then there are two
house of Bal to his friends. He then performed separate and distinct crimes committed –
the act of pouring gasoline around the walls of homicide/murder and arson (People v. Sota
the house to execute his criminal design to and Gadjadli, G.R. No. 203121, November 29,
commit arson. This is not just a preparatory act, 2017). Here the main purpose was to burn
because it already ceased to be equivocal and the house and the death of Mr. C was only
revealed a clear intention to burn the house. In incidental, hence, arson was committed, and
sum, he already commenced the commission of the homicide is absorbed.
the crime of arson directly by overt acts but he
did not perform all acts to execute his criminal J. CRIMES AGAINST CHASTITY
design to commit arson by setting the house on
fire due to a cause other than his spontaneous Adultery & Concubinage (1991, 1994, 2002,
desistance, and that is, having been caught by the 2005, 2010, 2019 BAR)
police.
Q: A, a married woman, had sexual
Q: Mr. A has a long-standing feud with Mr. B. intercourse with a man who was not her
As payback for Mr. B's numerous husband. The man did not know she was
transgressions against him, Mr. A planned to married. What crime, if any, did each of them
bum down Mr. B's rest house. commit? Why? (2002 BAR)

One night, Mr. A went to the rest house and A: A, the married woman, committed the crime
started pouring gasoline on its walls. of adultery under Article 333 of the Revised
However, just as Mr. A had lit the match for Penal Code, as amended, for having sexual
burning, he was discovered by Mr. B's intercourse with a man not her husband while
caretaker, Ms. C, and was consequently her marriage is still subsisting. But the man who
prevented from setting the rest house on fire. had carnal knowledge of her, not knowing her to
Mr. A was then charged with Frustrated be married, shall not be liable for adultery.
Arson.
Q: A is married. He has a paramour with
a. Is the charge of Frustrated Arson whom he had sexual relations on a more or
proper? Explain. less regular basis. They meet at least once a
b. Assuming that Mr. A successfully burned week in hotels, motels, and other places
down Mr. B's rest house, and as a result, where they can be alone. Is A guilty of any
Ms. C was trapped therein and was crime? Why?
subsequently killed in the fire, what
crime/s did Mr. A commit? Explain. A: A is guilty of the crime of concubinage by
(2019 BAR) having sexual intercourse under scandalous
circumstances, with a woman who is not his wife.
A:
a. NO. The proper charge is Attempted Arson. Having sexual relations on a more or less regular
Under Art. 6 of the RPC, there is an attempt basis in hotels, motels, and other places may be
when the offender commences the considered scandalous circumstances that

54
 QuAMTO (1987-2019)
offends public conscience, giving rise to criticism desire. Circumstances in the problem fell short to
and general protest, such acts being imprudent qualify as one. Thus, unjust vexation is proper
and wanton and setting a bad example. (People v. where it only brought annoyance and irritation
Santos, 86 SCRA 705) to the woman.

Acts of Lasciviousness K. CRIMES AGAINST HONOR

Q: Mr. O, a 75-year-old retiree who has been a Libel (2002, 2005, 2013, 2016, 2019 BAR)
widower for the last ten (10) years, believed
that, at past 70, he is licensed to engage in Q: A was nominated Secretary of a
voyeurism to satisfy his lustful desires. If not Department in the Executive Branch of the
peeping into his neighbors' room through his government. His nomination was thereafter
powerful single-cylinder telescope, he would submitted to the Commission on
trail young and shapely girls along the Appointments for confirmation. While the
hallways and corridors of shopping malls, Commission was considering the nomination,
While going up the escalator, he stayed a step a group of concerned citizens caused to be
behind a mini-skirted, 20-year old girl, and in published in the newspapers a full-page
the heat of the moment, put his hand on her statement objecting to A’s appointment. They
left buttock and massaged it. The girl alleged that A was a drug dependent, that he
screamed and hollered for help. Mr. O was had several mistresses, and that he was
thus apprehended and charged with Acts of corrupt, having accepted bribes or favors
Lasciviousness under Article 336 of the from parties transacting business in his
Revised Penal Code. Mr. O's counsel, however, previous office, and therefore he was unfit for
claimed that Mr. O should only be charged the position to which he had been nominated.
with the crime of Unjust Vexation. As a result of the publication, the nomination
was not confirmed by the Commission on
Is the contention of Mr. O's counsel tenable? Appointments. The official sued the
Explain. (2019 BAR) concerned citizens and the newspapers for
libel and damages on account of his non-
A: NO. The contention of Mr. O’s counsel is confirmation. How will you decide the case?
untenable. Under Article 366 of the RPC, the (2002 BAR)
elements of Acts of Lasciviousness are:
A: I will acquit the concerned citizens and the
1. That the offender commits any act of newspapers involved from the crime of libel. One
lasciviousness or lewdness; of the requisites of libel is the existence of malice
2. That the lascivious act is committed against a on the part of the accused. In this case, the
person of either sex; and publication is made from a moral or social duty.
3. That it is done under any of the following Thus, there is an absence of malice.
circumstances:
As a nominee for the public position of a
a. By using force or intimidation; Department Secretary, A’s moral, mental, and
b. When the offended party is deprived physical fitness becomes a public concern. The
of reason or otherwise unconscious; publication merely reflects on his public
c. By means of fraudulent machination character and image as a public official. Hence,
or grave abuse of authority; or the act of publishing such criticisms is bereft of
d. When the offended party is under 12 malice.
years of age or is demented.
Q: A is the president of the corporate
Lascivious conduct is defined as “the intentional publisher of the daily tabloid, Bulgar; B is the
touching, either directly or through clothing, of managing editor and C is the author/writer.
the genitalia, anus, groin, breast, inner thigh, or In his column, Direct Hit, C wrote about X, the
buttock, or the introduction of any object into the head examiner of the BIR-RDO Manila as
genitalia, anus or mouth, of any person, whether follows:
of the same or opposite sex, with an intent to
abuse , humiliate, harass, degrade, or arouse or "Itong si X ay talagang BUWAYA kaya ang logo
gratify the sexual desire of any person, bestiality, ng Lacoste T shirt niya ay napaka suwapang
masturbation, lascivious exhibition of the na buwaya. Ang nickname niya ay si Atty.
genitals or pubic area of a person” (Orsos v. Buwaya. Ang PR niya ay 90% sa bayad ng
People, G.R. No. 214673, November 20, 2017) taxpayer at ang para sa RP ay 10% lang. Kaya
ang baba ng collection ng RDO niya.
Here, when Mr. O touched the buttocks of the Masyadong magnanakaw si X at dapat
offended party, he was animated with lewdness; tanggalin itong bundat na bundat na buwaya
thus, acts of lasciviousness was committed. na ito at napakalaki na ng kurakot."

ALTERNATIVE ANSWER: A, B and C were charged with libel before the

RTC of Manila. The three (3) defendants
YES. The contention of Mr. O’s counsel is tenable. argued that the article is within the ambit of
Mere touching or massaging the buttocks does qualified privileged communication; that
not clearly indicate sexual design. To be liable there is no malice in law and in fact; and that
under acts of lasciviousness, the act must be one defamatory comments on the acts of public
that shows perversity to gratify sexual arousal or officials which are related to the discharge of

UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS 55 UST

2021 ACADEMICSCOMMITTEE BAR OPERATIONS
 Criminal Law
their official duties do not constitute libel. Judge G is based on the complaints he
received from private citizens, and as such,
Was the crime of libel committed? If so, are A, should be deemed as a mere fair commentary
B and C all liable for the crime? Explain. on a matter of public interest.
(2016 BAR)
Are the contentions of Mr. L tenable? Explain.
A: YES, the crime of libel is committed. While, (2019 BAR)
fair comment on acts of public officers related to
the discharge of their duties is a qualified A: YES. Mr. L’s contention that truth is a valid
privileged communication, the accused can still defense in libel is tenable. Under Art. 361 of the
be held liable for libel if actual malice is shown. RPC, if the defamatory statement is made against
In fair comment, actual malice can be established a public official with respect to the discharge of
by showing that comment was made with his official duties and functions, and the truth of
knowledge that it was false or with reckless the allegations is shown, the accused will be
disregard of whether it was false or not. entitled to an acquittal even though he does not
(Guingguing v. The Honorable Court of Appeals, prove that the imputation was published with
G.R. No. 128959, September 30, 2005). Journalists good motives and for justifiable ends. (Lopez v.
bear the burden of writing responsibly when People, G.R. No. 172203, February 14, 2011)
practicing their profession, even when writing
about public figures or matters of public interest. Defamation (1988, 1993, 2003 BAR)
The report made by C describing a lawyer in the
Bureau of Customs as corrupt cannot be Q: Romeo Cunanan, publisher of the Baguio
considered as “fair” and “true” since he did not Daily, was sued by Pedro Aguas for libel for
do research before making his allegations, and it the public publication of his picture with the
has been shown that these allegations were notice that: “This is to inform the public that
baseless. The articles are not “fair and true Mr. Pedro Aguas whose picture appears
reports,” but merely wild accusations. He has above has ceased to be connected with the
written and published the subject articles with Sincere Insurance Company as underwriter as
reckless disregard of whether the same were of December 31, 1987. Any transaction
false or not(Erwin Tulfo v. People, G.R. No. entered into by him after the said date will
161032, September 16, 2008). not be honored.

YES, A, B and C are liable for the crime. Under Is the publication defamatory? Explain
Art. 360 of the RPC, “Any person who shall briefly. (1988 BAR)
publish, exhibit, or cause the publication or
exhibition of any defamation in writing or by A: NO. The publication is not defamatory,
similar means, shall be responsible for the same. because the element of imputation of a
The author or editor of a book or pamphlet, or defamatory statement is absent. There is no
the editor or business manager of a daily imputation of a crime, vice, defect, or any act, or
newspaper, magazine or serial publication, shall omission, condition, status or circumstance,
be responsible for the defamations contained tending to cause the dishonor, discredit or
therein to the same extent as if he were the contempt to a natural or juridical person, or to
author thereof.” A, the president, and B, the blacken the memory of one who is dead. This is a
managing editor, are liable to the same extent of mere announcement and does not carry any
C, the author. The provision in the RPC does not implication.
provide absence of participation as a defense,
but rather plainly and specifically states the Q: During a seminar workshop attended by
responsibility of those involved in publishing government employees from the Bureau of
newspapers and other periodicals. Hence, A, B, Customs and Bureau of Internal Revenue, A,
and C are all liable for libel. (Erwin Tulfo v. the speaker, in the course of his lecture,
People, G.R. No. 161032, September 16, 2008) lamented the fact that a great majority of
those serving in said agencies were utterly
Q: Mr. L is a newspaper reporter who writes dishonest and corrupt.
about news items concerning the judiciary.
Mr. L believed that members of the judiciary The following morning, the whole group of
can be criticized and exposed for the employees in the two bureaus who attended
prohibited acts that they commit by virtue of the seminar, as complainants, filed a criminal
the public nature of their offices. Upon complaint against A for uttering what the
receiving numerous complaints from private group claimed to be defamatory statements of
citizens, Mr. L released a scathing newspaper the lecturer.
expose involving Judge G and his alleged acts In court, A filed a Motion to Quash the
constituting graft and corruption. Information, reciting fully the above facts, on
Consequently, Mr. L was charged with the the ground that no crime was committed. If
crime of Libel. you were the judge, how would you resolve
the motion? (2003 BAR)
In response, Mr. L contended that truth is a
valid defense in Libel and in this relation, A: I would grant the Motion to Quash on the
claimed that he was only exposing the truth ground that the facts charged do not constitute
regarding Judge G's misdeeds. Further, Mr. L an offense, since there is no definite person or
contended that in any event, his expose on persons dishonored.

56
 QuAMTO (1987-2019)
The crime of libel or slander is a crime against Explain your answer. (2007 BAR)
honor such that the person/s dishonored must
be identifiable even by innuendoes. Otherwise, A: NO. The conviction for murder should not be
the crime against honor is not committed. sustained because there is no indication that the
Moreover, A was not making a malicious accused acted with intent to kill Randy. On the
imputation, but merely stating an opinion; he contrary, the facts show that the accused aimed
was delivering a lecture with no malice at all to “treat” the victim by driving away the evil
during a seminar workshop. Malice being spirit which was believed to have “possessed”
inherently absent in the utterance, the statement him. Considering that the proximate cause of the
is not actionable as defamatory. victim’s death was the healing ritual done by the
accused which is not recognized in law as
Slander (1990 BAR) legitimate, the accused are still criminally liable
for the victim’s death. As they may have
Q: Lando and Marco are candidates in the overdone the “healing ritual” they conducted on
local elections. In his speeches, Lando the victim’s body, causing the latter’s death,
attacked his opponent Marco alleging that he although the intent to kill was absent, the
is the son of Nanding, a robber and a thief accused may be held criminally liable for
who amassed his wealth through shady deals. Reckless Imprudence Resulting in Homicide.
May Marco file a case against Lando for grave
oral defamation? State your reasons. (1990
BAR) PART IV. SPECIAL PENAL LAWS

A: NO. Marco cannot file a case for grave oral

defamation. If at all, he may file a case for light ANTI-CHILD ABUSE LAW (R.A. NO. 7610,
slander. AS AMENDED) (1993, 2004, 2018 BAR)

The gravity of the oral defamation depends not Q: Sometime in December 1992, retired Lt.
only (1) upon the expressions used, but also (2) Col. Agaton, celebrating the first year of his
on the personal relations of the accused and the compulsory retirement from the Armed
offended party, and (3) the circumstances Forces of the Philippines, had in his company
surrounding the case. It is a doctrine of ancient a fourteen (14) year-old girl whose parents
respectability that defamatory words will fall were killed by the Mt. Pinatubo eruption and
under one or the other, depending not only upon being totally orphaned has been living or
their sense, grammatical significance, and fending for herself in the streets in Manila.
accepted ordinary meaning judging them They were alone in one room in a beach
separately, but also upon the special resort and stayed there for two (2) nights. No
circumstances of the case, antecedents or sexual intercourse took place between them.
relationship between the offended party and the Before they parted, retired Lt. Col. Agaton
offender, which might tend to prove the intention gave the girl P1,000.00 for her services. She
of the offender at the time. (Rogelio Pader v. gladly accepted it.
People, G.R. No. 139157, February 8, 2000)
a. What crime may the retired colonel be
In the case of People v. Laroga (40 OG 123), it was charged with, if any? Discuss.
held that defamation in a political meeting when b. What possible defenses can he
feelings are running high and people could not interpose? Explain. (1993 BAR)
think clearly only amount to light slander.
Moreover, his statements against Marco pertains A:
to a person who is running for public office a. The retired colonel may be charged with
wherein a wider latitude is given. the violation of Sec. 10 (b) of RA 7610 or
the Anti-Child Abuse Law. Under the law,
“any person who shall keep or have in his
PART III. QUASI-OFFENSES company a minor, twelve (12) years or
under or who in is ten (10) years or more
his junior in any public or private place,
ARTICLE 365 – CRIMINAL NEGLIGENCE hotel, motel, beer joint, discotheque,
(2001, 2007 BAR) cabaret, pension house, sauna or massage
parlor, beach and/or other tourist resort
Q: Eddie brought his son Randy to a local faith or similar places” is liable for other acts of
healer known as “Mother Himala”. He was neglect, abuse, cruelty or exploitation and
diagnosed by the faithhealer as being other conditions prejudicial to the child's
possessed by an evil spirit. Eddie thereupon development. (Sec. 10 (b), RA 7610)
authorized the conduct of a “treatment”
calculated to drive the “spirit” from the boy’s Considering that Lt. Col Agaton is
body. Unfortunately, the procedure compulsory retired and that the child is
conducted resulted in the boy’s death. only 14 years old, there must be an age
difference of more than 10 years between
The faith healer and three others who were them. The age difference and the fact that
part of the healing ritual were charged with Lt. Col. Agaton stayed with the child in one
murder and convicted by the lower court. If room at a beach resort for two nights and
you were the appellate court Justice, would thereafter giving her P1,000.00 “for her
you sustain the conviction upon appeal? services,” constitutes violation of the said
UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS 57 UST
2021 ACADEMICSCOMMITTEE BAR OPERATIONS
 Criminal Law
law. b. Will your answer in (a) be the same if the
victim is a 15-year old lass who was
b. The possible defenses Lt. Col. Agaton may enticed, through cunning and deceit of
interpose are: Romy, to voluntarily go to the house of
Robert where the latter subsequently had
1. That the child is related to him carnal knowledge with her? (2018 BAR)
within the fourth degree of
consanguinity or affinity or by a A:
bond recognized in law, or local a. Robert may be charged with the crime of
customs and traditions; or Child Prostitution or other sexual abuse
2. That he was only acting in under Section 5(b) of R.A. No. 7610 (the
pursuance of a moral, social or legal Special Protection of Children Against Child
duty. (Sec. 10 (b), Art. VI, R.A. 7610) Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination
Act) by having sexual intercourse with a
Q: Arnold, 25 years of age, was sitting on a child exploited in prostitution. Because the
bench in Luneta Park, watching the statue of victim was under 12 years of age, (in this
Jose Rizal, when, without his permission, case, 8 years), Robert shall be prosecuted
Leilani, 17 years of age, sat beside him and under Article 266-A and 266-B of the
asked for financial assistance, allegedly for Revised Penal Code. Romy, on the other
payment of her tuition fee, in exchange for hand, may be charged with the crime of
sex. While they were conversing, police Child Prostitution or other sexual abuse
operatives arrested and charged him with under Section 5(a) of R.A. No. 7610 by acting
violation of Section 10 of RA 7610 (Special as procurer of a child prostitute.
Protection of Children against Child Abuse, b. YES. R.A. No. 7610 covers sexual abuse
Exploitation and Discrimination Act), committed against a child or children below
accusing him of having in his company a eighteen (18) years of age. Children, who for
minor, who is not related to him, in a public money, profit or any other consideration due
place. It was established that Arnold was not to the coercion or influence of any adult,
in the performance of a social, moral and syndicate or group, indulge in sexual
legal duty at that time. intercourse or lascivious conduct, are
deemed to be children exploited in
Is Arnold liable for the charge? Explain. (2016 prostitution and other sexual abuse. Robert
BAR) and Romy may be prosecuted under the said
law.
A: NO, Arnold is not liable. Under Section 10 (b)
of RA No. 7610, any person who shall keep or ANTI-FENCING LAW (P.D 1612) (1987,
have in his company a minor, twelve (12) years 1990, 1992, 1995, 1996, 2005, 2010, 2013
or under or who in ten (10) years or more his BAR)
junior in any public or private place, hotel, motel,
beer joint, discotheque, cabaret, pension house, Q: Pedro, a municipal treasurer, received
sauna or massage parlor, beach and/or other from the Provincial Treasurer of the Province
tourist resort or similar places is liable for child five (5) brand new typewriters for use in the
abuse. To be held liable, it is indispensable that municipal treasurer’s office. Each typewriter
the child in the company of the offender must be is valued at P10,000.00. Since Pedro needed
12 years old or under or who is 10 years or more money for the hospitalization of his sick son,
his junior in a public place. he sold four (4) of the typewriters to his
friend, Rodolfo, a general merchant in San
In this case, Leilani is 17 years of age, and she is Isidro for P2,000.00 each. Rodolfo, as a
only 8 years younger than Arnold. Moreover, general merchant knew that one typewriter
Leilani sat beside Arnold without his permission. could easily be between P6,000.00 to
Hence, he is not in the company of a child in a P10,000.00.For this reason, he readily agreed
public place. to buy the typewriters. Rodolfo then resold
the typewriters at P6,000.00 thus making a
Lastly, applying the ejusdem generis principle, profit of P16,000.00. Two months after the
Luneta Park is not a place similar to hotel, motel, transaction, Pedro was audited and the
beer joint, discotheque, cabaret, pension house, investigation as to his accountabilities led to
sauna or massage parlor, beach and/or other the discovery that Rodolfo bought the four (4)
tourist resort. typewriters from Pedro. Is Rodolfo liable for
violation of the Anti-Fencing Law? (1987
Q: With a promise of reward, Robert asked BAR)
Romy to bring him a young girl that he
(Robert) can have carnal knowledge with. A: Rodolfo is not liable for violation of the Anti-
Romy agreed, seized an eight-year old girl Fencing Law as this law is applicable only to the
and brought her to Robert. After receiving his buy and sell of articles of value which are the
reward, Romy left while Robert proceeded to proceeds of robbery and theft. In this case, the
have carnal knowledge with the girl. typewriters were proceeds of malversation.

a. For what felony may Robert and Romy be Q:

charged? a. What are the elements of fencing?
b. What is the difference between a fence

58
 QuAMTO (1987-2019)
and an accessory to theft or robbery? Antonia representing previous transactions.
Explain. Convicted of the charge, Ofelia appealed,
c. Is there any similarity between them? arguing that her acquisition of the jewelries
(1995 BAR) resulted from a legal transaction and that the
prosecution failed to prove that she knew or
A: should have known that the pieces of jewelry
a. The elements of fencing are: which she bought

1. A crime of robbery or theft has been from Antonia were proceeds of the crime of
committed; theft.
2. Accused, who is not a principal or
accomplice in the crime, buys, receives, a. What is a “fence” under PD 1612?
possesses, keeps, acquires, conceals or b. Is Ofelia liable under the Anti-Fencing
disposes or buys and sells or in any Law? Explain. (2016 BAR)
manner deals in any article, item, object
or anything of value , which has been A:
derived from the proceeds of said crime; a. A fence includes any person, firm,
3. The accused knows or should have association, corporation or partnership or
known that said article, item, object or other organization who/which commits the
anything of value has been derived from act of fencing (Sec. 2(b), PD 1612). Fencing is
the proceeds of the crime of robbery or the act of any person who, with intent to
theft; and gain for himself or for another, shall buy,
4. There is, on the part of the accused, receive, possess, keep, acquire, conceal, sell
intent to gain for himself or for another. or dispose of, or shall buy and sell, or in any
other manner deal in any article, item,
b. As to the degree of participation and penalty object or anything of value which he knows,
– a fence is punished as a principal under PD or should be known to him, to have been
1612 and the penalty is higher, whereas an derived from the proceeds of the crime of
accessory to robbery or theft under the RPC robbery or theft. (Section 2(a), PD 1612)
is punished with penalty two degrees lower
than the principal, unless he bought or b. NO. Ofelia is not liable under the Anti-
profited from the proceeds of theft or Fencing Law. The presumption of fencing
robbery arising from robbery in Philippine only shifted the burden of evidence to the
highways under PD 532 where he is defense. Burden of proof is upon the fence
punished as an accomplice, hence the penalty to overcome the presumption.
is one degree lower.
In this case, Ofelia’s defense that the
As to the presumption - there is a jewelries werea cquired in a legitimate
presumption of fencing by mere possession transaction is sufficient. Further, there is no
of any good, article, item, object, or anything other circumstance indicating that Ofelia, an
of value which has been the subject of innocent purchaser, should have known
robbery or thievery. There is no such that the jewelries were the subject of theft.
presumption applicable to an accessory to On the contrary, there was even a receipt
theft or robbery. produced by Ofelia for the transaction.

c. There is similarity in the sense that all the ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:

acts of one who is an accessory to the crimes
of robbery or theft are included in the acts YES. Under Section 5 of P.D. 1612, mere
defined as fencing. In fact, the accessory in possession of any good, article, item, object,
the crimes of robbery or theft could be or anything of value which has been the
prosecuted as such under the RPC or as a subject of robbery or theft shall be prima
fence under PD 1612. The state may choose facie evidence of fencing. Failure to prove
to prosecute the person either under the that Ofelia knows, or should have known
Revised Penal Code or P.D. No. 1612, that the jewelry is stolen is not a defense
although the preference for the latter would since this element is presumed to be
seem inevitable considering that fencing is a present because Ofelia is in possession of
malum prohibitum, and P.D. No. 1612 creates the stolen property. Moreover, there is no
a presumption of fencing and prescribes a showing that Ofelia secured a permit or
higher penalty based on the value of the clearance from PNP station commander of
property. (Dizon- Pamintuan v. People, G.R. the place of sale required in Section 6 of P.D.
No. 111426 July 11, 1994) 1612.

Q: Ofelia engaged in the purchase and sale of ANTI-GRAFT AND CORRUPT PRACTICES
jewelry, was charged with violation of PD ACT (R.A. NO. 3019, AS AMENDED)
1612, otherwise known as the Anti-Fencing (1990, 1991, 2001, 2008, 2009, 2010,
Law, for having been found in possession of 2014, 2016, 2019 BAR)
recently stolen jewelry valued at P100,000.00
at her jewelry shop. Her defense is that she Q:
merely bought the same from Antonia and
produced a receipt covering the sale. She a. Melda who is the private secretary of
presented other receipts given to her by Judge TolitsNaya, was persuaded by a
UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS 59 UST
2021 ACADEMICSCOMMITTEE BAR OPERATIONS
 Criminal Law
litigant, Jumbo, to have his case mere request or demand of a gift, present, share,
calendared as early as possible for a percentage or benefit is enough to constitute a
consideration of P500.00.May she be violation of Section 3(b) of RA 3019, acceptance
held criminally liable for this of a promise or offer or receipt of a gift or
accommodation? Explain your answer. present is required in direct bribery. Moreover,
b. What will be the criminal liability of the ambit of Section 3(b) of RA 3019 is specific. It
Melda if she volunteered to persuade is limited only to contracts or transactions
Judge TolitsNaya to rule in Jumbo’s favor involving monetary consideration where the
without asking any consideration? public officer has the authority to intervene
Explain your answer. (1990 BAR) under the law. Direct bribery, on the other hand,
has a wider and more general scope: (a)
A: performance of an act constituting a crime; (b)
a. The answer would depend or be qualified execution of an unjust act which does not
by the implication of the phrase “to have his constitute a crime and (c) agreeing to refrain or
case calendared as early as possible.” refraining from doing an act which is his official
duty to do. No double jeopardy attached since
If the phrase is interpreted as an unjust act there was a variance between the elements of the
and in violation of the rule to give priority offenses charged. The constitutional protection
to the older cases, then she would be liable against double jeopardy proceeds from a second
under direct bribery for an act which does prosecution for the same offense, not for a
not constitute a crime but is unjust. He may different one. (Merencillo v. People, G.R. Nos.
also be held liable under Section 3 (e) of RA 142369-70, April 13, 2007)
3019 for“giving any private party any
unwarranted benefits.” Q: One Sunday afternoon, Mr. X, President of
ABC Corp., happened to bump into the Labor
If the phrase is interpreted as a non- Arbiter assigned to the illegal dismissal case
violation of the rules and regulations, then filed by certain employees against his
she can only be held liable for direct company. During their encounter, Mr. X
bribery. promised the Labor Arbiter a luxury car in
exchange for a favorable ruling. The Labor
b. Melda is not criminally liable because the Arbiter immediately rejected the offer and
act of volunteering to persuade is not a walked away.
criminal act. It is the act of persuading that
is considered a criminal act. The act does Assuming that Mr. X's offer was instead
not fall under Article 210 of the Revised accepted, should the Labor Arbiter be held
Penal Code on Direct Bribery nor does it fall liable for any crime under the RPC? If so, for
under Article 211 of the RPC on Indirect what crime? May the Labor Arbiter also be
Bribery. Neither does it fall under the Anti- held liable for violation of the Anti-Graft and
Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. Section 3(a) Corrupt Practices Act? Explain. (2019 BAR)
of RA 3019 refers to acts of persuading
another public official to violate rules and A: The Labor Arbiter should be held liable for
regulations. Direct Bribery. Under Art. 210 of the RPC, public
officer commits direct bribery by accepting a gift
Q: Malo, a clerk of court of a trial court, in consideration of the execution of an act which
promised the accused in a drug case pending does not constitute a crime, in connection with
before the court, that he would convince the the performance of his official duties. By
judge to acquit him for a consideration of P5 accepting Mr. X’s offer of a luxury car, the Labor
million. The accused agreed and delivered Arbiter agreed to render a ruling in Mr. X’s favor.
the money through his lawyer to the clerk of
court. The Labor Arbiter may also be held liable for
violation of RA 3019, or the Anti-Graft and
The judge, not knowing of the deal, Corrupt Practices Act. Under Sec. 3(e), it is
proceeded to rule on the evidence and considered a corrupt practice of any public
convicted the accused. officer to cause any undue injury to any party,
including the Government, or give any private
Malo was charged with violation of Section 3 party unwarranted benefits, advantage or
(b), RA 3019 which prohibits a public officer preference in the discharge of his official,
from directly or indirectly requesting or administrative or judicial functions through
receiving any gift, present, share percentage manifest partiality when evident bad faith, or
or benefit wherein the public officer, in his gross inexcusable negligence. There is manifest
official capacity, has to intervene under the partiality when there is a clear, notorious or plain
law. He was later charged also with indirect inclination or predilection to favor one side or
bribery under the RPC. Malo claims he can no person rather than another (Fuentes v. People,
longer be charged under the RPC for the same G.R. No. 186421, April 17, 2017). Here, the Labor
act under RA 3019. Is he correct? (2014 BAR) Arbiter committed manifest partiality in favor of
Mr. X.
A: NO, Malo is not correct. Although the two
charges against Malo stemmed from the same ANTI-PIRACY AND ANTI-HIGHWAY
transaction, the same act gave rise to two ROBBERY (P.D. NO. 532) (2000, 2001, 2006,
separate and distinct offenses. Whereas the 2008, 2012 Bar)

60
 QuAMTO (1987-2019)
the prosecution must prove that the accused
Q: A postal van containing mail matter, were organized for the purpose of
including checks and treasury warrants, was committing robbery indiscriminately. If the
hijacked along a national highway by ten (10) purpose is only a particular robbery, the
men, two of whom, were armed. They used crime is only robbery, or robbery in band if
force, violence and intimidation against the there are at least four armed participants.
three postal employees who were occupants (See People v. Mendoza, GR No. 104461,
of the van, resulting in the unlawful taking February 23, 1996)
and aspiration of the entire van and its
contents. Q: Distinguish Highway Robbery under PD
No. 532 from Robbery committed on a
a. If you were the public prosecutor, would highway. (2000 BAR)
you charge the ten (10) men who hijacked
the postal van with violation of A: Highway Robbery under PPD 532 differs from
Presidential Decree No. 532, otherwise ordinary Robbery committed on a highway in
known as the Anti-Piracy and Anti- these respects:
Highway Robbery Law of 1974? Explain
your answer. 1. In Highway Robbery under PD 532, the
b. If you were the defense counsel, what are robbery is committed indiscriminately
the elements of the crime of highway against persons who commute in such
robbery that the prosecution should highways, regardless of the potentiality they
prove to sustain a conviction? (2012 BAR) offer; while in ordinary Robbery committed
on a highway, the robbery is committed
A: only against predetermined victims;
a. NO. I would not charge the 10 men with the
2. It is Highway Robbery under PD 532, when
crime of highway robbery. The mere fact that
the offender is a brigand or one who roams
the offense charged was committed on a
in public highways and carries out his
highway would not be thedeterminant for
robbery in public highways as venue,
the application of PD No. 532. If a motor
whenever the opportunity to do so arises. It
vehicle, either stationary or moving on a
is ordinary Robbery under the RPC when
highway is forcibly taken at a gunpoint by
the commission thereof in a public highway
the accused who happened to take a fancy
is only incidental and the offender is not a
thereto, the location of the vehicle at the time
brigand; and
of the unlawful taking would not necessarily
put the offense within the ambit of PD 532.
3. In Highway Robbery under PD 532, there is
In this case, the crime committed is violation
frequency in the commission of the robbery
of the Anti-Carnapping Act of 1972. (People v.
in public highways and against persons
Puno, GR No. 97471, February 17, 1993)
traveling thereat; whereas ordinary robbery
in public highways is only occasional
Moreover, there is no showing that the 10
against a predetermined victim, without
men were a band of outlaws organized for
frequency in public highways.
the purpose of depredation upon the persons
and properties of innocent and defenseless ANTI-PLUNDER ACT (R.A. NO. 7080, AS
inhabitants who travel from one place to AMENDED) (1993, 2014, 2017 BAR)
another. What was shown is one isolated
hijacking of a postal van. It was not stated in Q: Through kickbacks, percentages or
the facts given that the 10 men previously commissions and other fraudulent
attempted at similar robberies by them to schemes/conveyances and taking
establish the “indiscriminate” commission advantage of his position, Andy, a former
thereof. (Filoteo, Jr. v. Sandiganbayan, GR No. mayor of a suburban town, acquired assets
79543, October 16, 1996) amounting to P10 billion which is grossly
disproportionate to his lawful income. Due to
b. Under Section 2 of PD 532, highway robbery his influence and connections and despite
is defined as “the seizure of any person for knowledge by the authorities of his ill-gotten
ransom, extortion, or other unlawful wealth, he was charged with the crime of
purposes, or the taking away of the property plunder only after twenty (20) years from his
of another by means of violence against or defeat in the last elections he participated in.
intimidation of person or force upon things
or other unlawful means, committed by any a. May Andy still be held criminally liable?
person on any Philippines highway.” Hence, Why?
the elements of highway robbery are: b. Can the State still recover the properties
and assets that he illegally acquired, the
1. Intent to gain; bulk of which is in the name of his wife
2. Unlawful taking of property of and children? Reason out. (1993 BAR)
another;
3. Violence against or intimidation of any A:
person; a. NO. Andy will not be criminally liable.
4. Committed on a Philippine highway. Under Sec. 6 of RA 7080, “the crime
punishable under this Act shall prescribe in
To obtain a conviction for highway robbery, twenty years.” For crimes punished by

UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS 61 UST

2021 ACADEMICSCOMMITTEE BAR OPERATIONS
 Criminal Law
special penal laws, Sec. 2 of Act 3326 amount given to Governor Datu, his husband,
provides that “prescription shall begin to was deposited in her account. She is
run from the day of the commission of the considered as co-conspirator;
violation of the law, and if the same be not
known at the time, from the discovery 2. Bokal Diva is also liable for plunder. He was
thereof and the institution of judicial the one who lobbied for the award of the
proceeding for its investigation and Project to the firm of Mr. Gangnam in the
punishment.” In this case, Andy was Sanguniang Panlalawigan. He received 25%
charged with the crime of plunder after of or P25,000,000.00 and another
twenty (20) years from his defeat in the last P25,000,000.00 in another project of Mr.
elections he participated in, despite Gangnam in the construction of an
knowledge by the authorities of his ill- overpriced Blank Sports Arena in the
gotten wealth. Thus, the crime has already Municipality to which Dolor is the Mayor.
prescribed. The aggregate amount has a total of
b. YES. Sec. 6 of RA 7080 provides that the P50,000,000.00. Further, Terry, the
right of the State to recover properties Secretary of Bokal Diva is also liable as co-
unlawfully acquired by public officers from conspirator. The amount was deposited in
them or their nominees or transferees shall her bank account.
not be barred by prescription, laches or
estoppel. (Sec. 6, R.A. 7080) The corpus delicti of plunder is the
amassment, accumulation or acquisition of
Q: Overjoyed by the award to his firm of a ill-gotten wealth valued at not less than
multi-billion government contract for the P50,000,000.00. The failure to establish the
development of an economic and tourism hub corpus delicti should lead to the dismissal of
in the Province of Blank, Mr. Gangnam the criminal prosecution. (Macapagal-Arroyo
allotted the amount of P100 Million to serve vs. People, 797 SCRA 241, 19 July 2016, En
as gifts for certain persons instrumental in Banc)
his firm's winning the award. He gave 50% of
that amount to Governor Datu, the official ANTI-VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN
who had signed the contract with the proper AND THEIR CHILDREN (R.A. NO. 9262)
authorization from the Sangguniang
Panlalawigan; 25% to Bokal Diva, the Battered Woman Syndrome (2010, 2014,
Sangguniang Panlalawigan member who had 2015, 2018 BAR)
lobbied for the award of the project in the
Sangguniang Panlalawigan; and 25% to Q: Define "Battered Woman Syndrome." What
Mayor Dolor of the Municipality where the are the three phases of the "Battered Woman
project would be implemented. Governor Syndrome"? Would the defense prosper
Datu received his share through his wife, despite the absence of any of the elements for
Provincial First Lady Dee, who then deposited justifying circumstances of self-defense under
the amount in her personal bank account. the Revised Penal Code? Explain. (2010 BAR)
Previously, upon facilitation by Bokal Diva, A: “Battered Woman Syndrome” refers to a
Mr. Gangnam concluded an agreement with scientifically define pattern of psychological and
Mayor Dolor for the construction of the Blank behavioural symptoms found in woman living in
Sports Arena worth ₱800 Million. The project battering relationships as a result of cumulative
was highly overpriced because it could be abuse. (Sec. 3[d], R.A. 9262)
undertaken and completed for not more than
₱400 Million. For this project, Mayor Dolor The three (3) phases of the BWS are: (1) tension-
received from Mr. Gangnam a gift of ₱10 building phase; (2) acute battering incident; and
Million, while Bokal Diva got ₱25 Million. (3) tranquil, loving, or non- violent phase. (People
v. Genosa, G.R. No. 135981, January 15, 2004)
In both instances, Bokal Diva had her
monetary gifts deposited in the name of her YES, the defense will prosper. Sec. 26 of R.A.
secretary, Terry, who personally maintained 9262 provides that victim-survivors who are
a bank account for Bokal Diva's share in found by the courts to be suffering from battered
government projects. woman syndrome do not incur any criminal and
civil liability notwithstanding the absence of any
May each of the above-named individuals be of the elements of justifying circumstances of
held liable for plunder? Explain your answer. self-defense under the RPC.
(2017 BAR)
Q: Ms. A had been married to Mr. B for 10
A: NO. Not all of them could be held liable for years. Since their marriage, Mr. B had been
plunder based on the elements of R.A. No. 7080 jobless and a drunkard, preferring to stay
as amended by R.A. No. 7659. Only the following with his “barkadas” until the wee hours of the
individuals could be held liable for plunder: morning. Ms. A was the breadwinner and
attended to the needs of their three (3)
1. Governor Datu who received the amount of growing children. Many times, when Mr. B
P50,000,000.00 after he signed the contract was drunk, he would beat Ms. A and their
in favor of the firm of Mr. Gangnam. His wife three children, and shout invectives against
Provincial First Lady Dee is also liable as the them. In fact, in one of the beating incidents,

62
 QuAMTO (1987-2019)
Ms.A suffered a deep stab wound on her of Battered Woman Syndrome can be
tummy that required a prolonged stay in the invoked if the woman with marital
hospital. Due to the beatings and verbal relationship with the victim is subjected to
abuses committed against her, she consulted cumulative abuse or battery involving the
a psychologist several times, as she was infliction of physical harm resulting to the
slowly beginning to lose her mind. One night, physical and psychological or emotional
when Mr. B arrived dead drunk, he suddenly distress. Cumulative means resulting from
stabbed Ms. A several times while shouting successive addition. In sum, there must be
invectives against her. “at least two battering episodes” between the
accused and her intimate partner and such
Defending herself from the attack, Ms. A final episode produced in the battered
grappled for the possession of a knife and she person’s mind an actual fear of an imminent
succeeded. She then stabbed Mr. B several harm from her batterer and an honest belief
times which caused his instantaneous death. that she needed to use force in order to save
Medico-Legal Report showed that the her life. (People v. Genosa, G.R. No. 135981,
husband suffered three (3) stabbed wounds. January 15, 2004)
Can Ms. A validly put up a defense? Explain.
(2014 BAR) b. YES, Talia can invoke the defense of Battered
Woman Syndrome to free herself from
A: YES. Ms. A can put up the defense of battered criminal liability for killing her husband
woman syndrome. It appears that she is suffering since she suffered physical and emotional
from physical and psychological or emotional distress arising from cumulative abuse or
distress resulting from cumulative abuse by her battery. Under Section 26 of RA 9262, victim
husband. survivors of Battered Woman Syndrome do
not incur any criminal or civil liability
Under Section 26 of RA 9262, “victim survivors despite the absence of the requisites of self-
who are found by the courts to be suffering from defense.
battered woman syndrome do not incur any
criminal and civil liability notwithstanding the Q: Romeo and Julia have been married for
absence of any of the elements for justifying twelve (12) years and had two (2) children.
circumstances of self-defense under the RPC.” The first few years of their marriage went
along smoothly. However, on the fifth year
As a rule, once the unlawful aggression ceased, onwards, they would often quarrel when
stabbing the victim further is not self-defense. Romeo comes home drunk. The quarrels
However, even if the element of unlawful became increasingly violent, marked by quiet
aggression in self-defense is lacking, Ms. A, who is periods when Julia would leave the conjugal
suffering for battered woman syndrome, will not dwelling. During the times of quiet, Romeo
incur criminal and civil liability. would court Julia with flowers and chocolates
and convince her to return home, telling her
Q: Dion and Talia were spouses. Dion always that he could not live without her; or Romeo
came home drunk since he lost his job a would ask Julia to forgive him, which she did,
couple of months ago. Talia had gotten used believing that if she humbled herself, Romeo
to the verbal abuse from Dion. One night, in would change. After a month of marital bliss,
addition to the usual verbal abuse, Dion beat Romeo would return to his drinking habit
up Talia. The next morning, Dion saw the and the quarrel would start again, verbally at
injury that he had inflicted upon Talia and first, until it would escalate to physical
promised her that he would stop drinking and violence.
never beat her again. However, Dion did not
make good on his promise. Just after one One night, Romeo came home drunk and
week, he started drinking again. Talia once went straight to bed. Fearing the onset of
more endured the usual verbal abuse. Afraid another violent fight, Julia stabbed Romeo,
that he might beat her up again, Talia stabbed while he was asleep. A week later, their
Dion with a kitchen knife while he was passed neighbors discovered Romeo’s rotting corpse
out from imbibing too much alcohol. Talia on the marital bed. Julia and the children
was charged with the crime of parricide. were nowhere to be found. Julia was charged
with parricide. She asserted “battered woman
a. May Talia invoke the defense of Battered syndrome” as her defense.
Woman Syndrome to free herself from
criminal liability? Explain. a. Explain the cycle of violence.
b. Will your answer be the same, assuming b. Is Julia’s “battered woman syndrome”
that Talia killed Dion after being beaten defense meritorious? Explain. (2016
up after a second time? Explain. (2015 BAR)
BAR)
A:
A: a. The Battered Woman Syndrome is
a. NO. A single act of battery or physical harm characterized by the so-called “cycle of
committed by Dion against Talia resulting to violence,” which has three phases: (1)
the physical and psychological or emotional tension-building phase; (2) the acute
distress on her part is not sufficient to avail battering incident; and (3) the tranquil,
of the benefit of the justifying circumstance loving (or at least, nonviolent) phase.
of “Battered Woman Syndrome”. The defense

UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS 63 UST

2021 ACADEMICSCOMMITTEE BAR OPERATIONS
 Criminal Law
During the tension-building phase, minor them. Their relationship got worse when,
battering occurs – it could be verbal or even for slight mistakes, Ruben would lay his
slight physical abuse or another form of hands on Rorie. One day, a tipsy Ruben
hostile behavior. The woman tries to pacify barged into their house and, for no reason,
the batterer through a kind, nurturing repeatedly punched Rorie in the stomach. To
behavior; or by simply staying out of his avoid further harm, Rorie ran out of the
way. The acute battering incident is house. But Ruben pursued her and stripped
characterized by brutality, destructiveness her naked in full view of their neighbors; and
and sometimes, death. The battered woman then he vanished.
deems this incident as unpredictable, yet
also inevitable. During this phase, she has Ten days later, Ruben came back to Rorie and
no control; only the batterer may put an end pleaded for forgiveness. However, Rorie
to the violence. The final phase of the cycle expressed her wish to live separately from
of violence begins when the acute battering Ruben and asked him to continue providing
incident ends. During this tranquil period, financial support for their daughter Rona. At
the couple experience profound relief.. that time, Ruben was earning enough to
support a family. He threatened to withdraw
b. YES. Under Section 3(c) of RA No. 9262, the support he was giving to Rona unless
“Battered Woman Syndrome” refers to a Rorie would agree to live with him again. But
scientifically defined pattern of Rorie was steadfast in refusing to live with
psychological and behavioral symptoms Ruben again, and insisted on her demand for
found in women living in battering support for Rona. As the ex-lovers could not
relationships as a result of “cumulative reach an agreement, no further support was
abuse”. Under Section 3(b), “Battery” refers given by Ruben.
to an act of inflicting physical harm upon
the woman or her child resulting in physical What crimes did Ruben commit:
and psychological or emotional distress. a. For beating and humiliating Rorie?
b. For withdrawing support for Rona?
In sum, the defense of Battered Woman (2018 BAR)
Syndrome can be invoked if the woman in
marital relationship with the victim is A:
subjected to cumulative abuse or battery a. For beating and humiliating Rorie, such acts
involving the infliction of physical harm violate R.A 9262, known as the “Anti-
resulting to the physical and psychological Violence Against Women and Their Children
or emotional distress. Cumulative means Act of 2004,” particularly section 3 (a)
resulting from successive addition. In sum, thereof under “Physical Violence” referring
there must be “at least two battering to acts that include bodily or physical harm
episodes” between the accused and her against a woman with whom the person has
intimate partner and such final episode or had a sexual or dating relationship.
produced in the battered person’s mind an
actual fear of an imminent harm from her b. For withdrawing support for Rona, such act
batterer and an honest belief that she is a violation of RA 9262, section 3 (d), which
needed to use force in order to save her life. reads: “Economic abuse” refers to acts that
(People v. Genosa, G.R. No. 135981, January make or attempt to make a woman
15, 2004) financially dependent which includes, but is
not limited to the following: Withdrawal of
In this case, because of the battering financial support or preventing the victim
episodes, Julia feared the onset of another from engaging in any legitimate profession,
violent fight and honestly believed the need occupation, business or activity, except in
to defend herself even if Romeo had not cases wherein the other spouse/partner
commenced an unlawful aggression. Even in objects on valid, serious and moral grounds
the absence of unlawful aggression, as defined in Article 73 of the Family Code;
however, Battered Woman Syndrome is a
defense. Under Section 27 of RA No. 9262, BOUNCING CHECKS LAW (B.P. 22) (1987,
Battered Woman Syndrome is a defense 1990, 1991, 1995, 1996, 2009, 2010, 2013,
notwithstanding the absence of any of the 2018 BAR)
elements for justifying circumstances of
self-defense under the Revised Penal Code Q: As security for a loan of P50,000.00 he
such as unlawful aggression. (Section 26, RA obtained from his friend, Joseph David,
No. 9262) payable not later than 17 April 1990, Roger
Vasquez drew and delivered to Joseph a check
Q: For the past five years, Ruben and Rorie on due date. The check was dishonored on the
had been living together as husband and wife ground of insufficiency of funds. After
without the benefit of marriage. Initially, they appropriate preliminary investigation, the
had a happy relationship which was blessed City Prosecutor filed against Roger an
with a daughter, Rona, who was born on Information for violation of B.P. Blg. No. 22
March 1, 2014. However, the partners’ alleging therein, inter alia, that Roger “with
relationship became sour when Ruben began intent to defraud, by means of deceit,
indulging in vices, such as women and knowing fully well that he had no funds
alcohol, causing frequent arguments between and/or sufficient funds in the bank, for value

64
 QuAMTO (1987-2019)
received, did then and there, willfully and check, shall fail to keep sufficient funds or to
feloniously, issue the aforesaid check” but maintain a credit to cover the full amount of the
“when the said check was presented for check if presented within a period of ninety (90)
encashment, said check was dishonored and days from the date appearing thereon, for which
returned” on the ground of insufficiency of reason it is dishonored by the drawee bank. (Sec.
funds. 1, Par. 2, BP 22)

In a decision rendered thereafter, the trial Estafa (1989, 1998, 1990, 1991, 2005, 2010,
judge ruled that Roger cannot be convicted of 2013, 2014 BAR)
the offense charged because the information
failed to allege that he knew, when he issued Q: B imitated the signature of A, registered
the check, that he would have insufficient owner of a lot, in special power of attorney
funds for its payment in full upon its naming him (B) as the attorney-in-fact of A.
presentment to the drawee bank. On February 13, 1964, B mortgaged the lot to
a bank using the special power of attorney to
Is the judge correct? (1991 BAR) obtain a loan of P8, 500. On the same day,
both the special power of attorney and the
A: NO. The allegation satisfies the legal definition mortgage contract were duly registered in
of the offense. The maker’s knowledge of the Registry of Deeds.
insufficiency of his funds is legally presumed
from the dishonor of the check for lack of funds. Because of B’s failure to pay, the bank
(People v. Lagui, G.R. No. 131840. April 27, 2000) foreclosed the mortgage and the lot was sold
to X in whose name a new title was issued. In
Q: Val, a Nigerian, set up a perfume business March 1974, A discovered that the property
in the Philippines. The investors would buy was already registered in the name of X
the raw materials at a low price from Val. The because an ejectment case filed against him
raw materials consisted of powders, which by X.
the investors would mix with water and let
stand until a gel was formed. Val made a a. If you were the lawyer of A, with what
written commitment to the investors that he crime or crimes would you charge B?
would buy back the gel at a higher price, thus Explain.
assuring the investors of a neat profit. When b. If you were the counsel of B, what would
the amounts to be paid by Val to the investors be your defense? Discuss. (1993 BAR)
reached millions of pesos, he sold all the
equipment of his perfume business, A:
absconded with the money, and is nowhere to a. The crime to be charged against B is estafa
be found. What crime or crimes were through falsification of a public document.
committed, if any? Explain. (2016 BAR) When the offender commits in a public
document any of the acts of falsification
A: The crime committed is estafa through false enumerated in Article 171 of the RPC as a
pretenses (Art. 315 par. 2[a]). Val defrauded the necessary means to commit another crime,
investors by falsely pretending to possess like estafa, theft or malversation, the two
business or imaginary transactions. The fact that crimes form a complex crime under Article
he sold all the equipment of his perfume 48 of the same Code. The falsification of a
business, and absconded with the money when public, official or commercial document
the amounts to be paid by him to the investors may be a means of committing estafa
reached millions of pesos shows that the because, before the falsified document is
transaction or his business is imaginary, and he actually utilized to defraud another, the
defrauded the victims. crime of falsification has already been
consummated, damage or intent to cause
Q: The accused was convicted under BP Blg. damage not being an element of the crime of
22 for having issued several checks which falsification of a public, official or
were dishonored by the drawee bank on their commercial document. In other words, the
due date because the accused closed her crime of falsification was committed prior
account after the issuance of checks. On to the consummation of the crime of estafa.
appeal, she argued that she could not be Actually utilizing the falsified public, official
convicted under B.P. Blg. 22 by reason of the or commercial document to defraud
closing of her account because said law another is estafa. The damage to another is
applies solely to checks dishonored by reason caused by the commission of estafa, not by
of insufficiency of funds and that at the time the falsification of the document. (Intestate
she issued the checks concerned, she had Estate of Manolita Gonzales Vda. De
adequate funds in the bank. While she admits Carungcong v. People, G.R. No. 181409,
that she may be held liable for estafa under February 11, 2010)
Article 215 of the Revised Penal Code, she
cannot however be found guilty of having b. The defense may be prescription if the filing
violated B.P. Blg. 22. Is her contention of the complaint against B was done beyond
correct? Explain. (1996 BAR) the prescriptive period.

A: NO. BP 22 also covers any person who, having Art. 90 of the RPC states that “crimes
sufficient funds in or credit with the drawee punishable by death, reclusion perpetuaor
bank when he makes or draws and issues a reclusion temporal shall prescribe in twenty

UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS 65 UST

2021 ACADEMICSCOMMITTEE BAR OPERATIONS
 Criminal Law
years. Crimes punishable by other afflictive washing machine to a third party. Is B liable
penalties shall prescribe in fifteen years. for estafa? Why? (2002 BAR)
Those punishable by a correctional penalty
shall prescribe in ten years; with the A: NO. B is not liable for estafa because he is not
exception of those punishable by arresto just an entrustee of the washing machine which
mayor, which shall prescribe in five years.” he sold; he is the owner thereof by virtue of the
Article 91 of the same Code provides that sale of the washing machine to him. The sale
the period of prescription shall commence being on credit, B as buyer is only liable for the
to run from the day on which the crime is unpaid price of the washing machine; his
discovered by the offended party, the obligation is only a civil obligation. There is no
authorities, or their agents. Under Art. 48 of felonious misappropriation that could constitute
the same Code, “When a single act estafa.
constitutes two or more grave or less grave
felonies, or when an offense is a necessary Q: A and B agreed to meet at the latter's house
means for committing the other, the penalty to discuss B's financial problems. On his way,
for the most serious crime shall be imposed, one of A's car tires blew up. Before A left
the same to be applied in its maximum following the meeting, he asked B to lend him
period.” money to buy a new spare tire. B had
temporarily exhausted his bank deposits,
In this case, the most serious crime is leaving a zero balance. Anticipating, however,
Falsification under Article 171 of the RPC a replenishment of his account soon, B issued
which has a corresponding penalty of A a postdated check with which A negotiated
prision mayor and a fine not exceeding for a new tire. When presented, the check
₱5,000.00 and not Estafa, because under RA bounced for lack of funds. The tire company
10951, the penalty is only arresto mayor if filed a criminal case against A and B. What
the amount involved does not exceed would be the criminal liability, if any, of each
P40,000.00. Since prison mayor is an of the two accused? Explain. (2003 BAR)
afflictive penalty, the prescriptive period
under Art. 90 of RPC is 15 years from the A: A who negotiated the unfunded check of B in
time the crime is discovered by the offended buying a new tire for his car may only be
party, which is March 1974. Thus, prosecuted for estafa if he was aware at the time
prescription is a defense if the complaint of such negotiation that the check has no
was filed beyond March 1989. sufficient funds in the drawee bank; otherwise,
he is not criminally liable.
Q: On March 31, 1995, Orpheus Financing
Corp. received from Maricar the sum of B who accommodated A with his check may
P500,000 as money market placement for nevertheless be prosecuted under B.P. 22 for
sixty days at fifteen (15) percent interest, and having issued the check, knowing at the time of
the President of said Corp. issued a check issuance that it has no funds in the bank and that
covering the amount including the interest A will negotiate it to buy a new tire, i.e., for value.
due thereon, postdated May 30, 1995. On the B may not be prosecuted for estafa because the
maturity date, however, Orpheus Financing facts indicate that he is not actuated by intent to
Corp. failed to deliver back Maricar's money defraud in issuing the check which A negotiated.
placement with the corresponding interest Obviously, B issued the postdated check only to
earned, notwithstanding repeated demands help A; criminal intent or dolo is absent.
upon said Corporation to comply with its
commitment. Did the President of Orpheus Q: DD was engaged in the warehouse
Financing Corporation incur any criminal business. Sometime in November 2004, he
liability for estafa for reason of the non- was in dire need of money. He, thus, sold
payment of the money market placement? merchandise deposited in his warehouse to
Explain. (1996 BAR) VR for P500,000.00. DD was charged with
theft, as principal, while VR as accessory. The
court convicted DD of theft but acquitted VR
A: NO. The President of the financing corporation
on the ground that he purchased the
does not incur criminal liability for estafa
merchandise in good faith. However, the
because a money market transaction partakes of
court ordered VR to return the merchandise
the nature of a loan, such that non- payment
to the owner thereof and ordered DD to
thereof would not give rise to estafa through
refund the P500,000.00 to VR. DD moved for
misappropriation or conversion. In money
the reconsideration of the decision insisting
market placement, there is transfer of ownership
that he should be acquitted of theft because
of the money to be invested and therefore the
being the depositary, he had juridical
liability for its return is civil in nature. (Sesbreño
possession of the merchandise. VR also
v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 84096, January 26,
moved for the reconsideration of the decision
1995)
insisting that since he was acquitted of the
crime charged, and that he purchased the
Q: A sold a washing machine to B on credit
merchandise in good faith, he is not obligated
with the understanding that B could return
to return the merchandise to its owner. Rule
the appliance within two weeks if after
on the motions with reasons. (2005 BAR)
testing the same, B decided not to buy it. Two
weeks lapsed without B returning the
A: The motion for reconsideration of DD should
appliance. A found out that B had sold the

66
 QuAMTO (1987-2019)
be denied. one offense, because a single criminal act
may give rise to a multiplicity of offenses
In this case, there being no proof that title to the and where there is variance or differences
goods was transferred to DD, only physical between the elements of an offense in one
possession is presumed transferred to and law and another law, as in this case, there
obtained by DD. (U.S. v. De Vera, G.R. No. L- 16961, will be no double jeopardy, because what
September 19, 1921) the rule on double jeopardy prohibits refers
to identity of elements in the two (2)
The principal distinction between the two crimes offenses. Otherwise stated, prosecution for
is that in theft the thing is taken while in estafa the same act is not prohibited. What is
the accused received the property and converts it forbidden is prosecution for the same
to his own use or benefit. However, there may be offense.
theft even if the accused has possession of the
property, if he was entrusted only with the Essentially, while a BP 22 case and an estafa
material or physical (natural) or de facto case may be rooted from an identical set of
possession of the thing, his misappropriation of facts, they nevertheless present different
the same constitutes theft, but if he has the causes of action, which, under the law, are
juridical possession of the thing, his conversion considered “separate, distinct, and
of the same constitutes embezzlement or estafa. independent” from each other. Both cases,
(Santos v. People, G.R. No. 77429, January 29, therefore, can proceed to their final
1990) adjudication– both as to their criminal and
civil aspects. (Rimando v. Spouses Aldaba
While VR is acquitted of theft, such acquittal does and People, G.R. No. 203583, 13 October
not of itself negate civil liability of VR to return 2014)
the property stolen by DD. Civil liability on the
part of VR exists despite acquittal since his b. YES. The presentation of the check beyond
acquittal is premised on the finding that his the 90-day period would be of no
liability is only civil in nature. (De Guzman v. Alva, consequence per Section 2 of B.P. Blg. 22.
51 OG 1311) The 90-day period is not an element of the
offense but merely a condition for the prima
Q: Rashid asked Rene to lend him PhP50,000, facie presumption of knowledge of the
payable in six (6) months and, as payment for insufficiency of funds. That the check must
the loan, Rashid issued a postdated check for be deposited within ninety (90) days is
the said amount plus the agreed interest. simply one of the conditions for the prima
Rashid assured Rene that the account would facie presumption of knowledge of lack of
have sufficient funds on maturity date. On funds to arise. It does not discharge Rashid
that date, Rene presented the check to the from his duty to maintain sufficient funds in
drawee bank for payment but it was the account.
dishonored for the reason that it was drawn
COMPREHENSIVE DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT
against insufficient funds (DAIF).
(R.A. 9165) (1990, 1992, 1995, 1996, 1998,
2000, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2009, 2015,
Rene sent Rashid a timely notice of dishonor
2016, 2019 BAR)
of the check and demanded the latter to make
good the same within five (5) days from
notice. After the lapse of the five (5)-day
Q:
notice, Rene redeposited the check with the
a. Distinguish entrapment from
drawee bank but it was again dishonored for
instigation. Discuss fully. (1990, 1995,
the same reason, i.e., DAIF. Rene thereafter
2003, 2015 BAR)
filed two (2) separate criminal actions
b. Suspecting that Juan was a drug pusher,
against Rashid: (1) Estafa under Art.
SPO2 Mercado, leader of the Narcom
315(2)(d) of the RPC, as amended by R.A. No.
team, gave Juan a P100-bill and asked him
4885, i.e, estafa committed by postdating a
to buy some marijuana cigarettes.
check, or issuing a check in payment of an
Desirous of pleasing SPO2 Mercado, Juan
obligation without sufficient funds in the
went inside the shopping mall while the
bank; and (2) Violation of B.P. 22 or the
officer waited at the corner of mall. After
Bouncing Checks Law.
15 minutes, Juan returned with ten sticks
of marijuana cigarettes which he gave to
a. Can he be held liable under both actions?
SPO2 Mercado who thereupon placed
b. If the check is presented for payment
Juan under arrest and charged him with
after four (4) months, but before it
violation of The Dangerous Drugs Law by
becomes stale, can the two actions still
selling marijuana cigarettes. Is Juan guilty
proceed? (2018 BAR)
of any offense punishable under The
Dangerous Drugs Act? Discuss fully. (1995
A:
BAR)
a. YES. Rashid can be liable for estafa and also
for violation of B.P. Bldg. 22. While the two
A:
criminal actions of estafa under Art.
a. As to the criminal design, in entrapment, it
315(2)(d) of the RPC and violation of Batas
originates from and is already in the mind of
Pambansa (BP) Bilang 22 may refer to
the lawbreaker even before entrapment. In
identical acts committed by Rashid, the
instigation, the idea and design to bring
prosecution thereof cannot be limited to

UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS 67 UST

2021 ACADEMICSCOMMITTEE BAR OPERATIONS
 Criminal Law
about the commission of the crime following the discovery of 100 grams of the
originated and developed in the mind of the said dangerous drug in his possession. He was
law enforcers; subsequently charged with two crimes:
Violation of Section 11, Article II of RA 9165
In entrapment, the law enforcers resort to for the possession of “shabu” and violation of
ways and means for the purpose of capturing Section 15, Art. II of RA 9165 for the use of
the lawbreaker in flagrante delicto. In marijuana.
instigation, the law enforcers induce, lure, or
incite a person who is not minded to commit a. Are the charges proper? Explain.
a crime and would not otherwise commit it, b. So as not to be sentenced to death, Obie
into committing the crime; and Juan offers to plead guilty to a lesser
offense. Can he do so? Why? (1998, 2004,
Entrapment will not bar the prosecution and 2005, 2016 BAR)
conviction of the lawbreaker while
instigation absolves the accused from A:
criminal liability (People v. Dante Marcos, 185 a. The charge of possession of shabu is proper
SCRA 154, 1990) as the mere possession of such drug is
punishable, but the charge of use of
b. Juan cannot be charged of any offense marijuana is not proper as Section 15 of R.A.
punishable under the Dangerous Drugs Act. 9165 (Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act
Although Juan is a suspected drug pusher, he of 2002) expressly excludes penalties for
cannot be charged on the basis of a mere “use” of dangerous drugs when the person
suspicion. By providing the money with tested “is also found to have in possession
which to buy marijuana cigarettes, SPO2 such quantity of any dangerous drug”
Mercado practically induced and prodded provided for in Section 11 of such Act.
Juan to commit the offense of illegal
possession of marijuana. Set against the facts b. YES. Section 23 of R.A. 9165 which expressly
instigation is a valid defense available to provides that “Any person charged under
Juan. any provision of this Act regardless of the
imposable penalty shall not be allowed to
Q: Pat. Buensuceso, posing as a buyer, avail of the provision on plea-bargaining.”
approached Ronnie, a suspected drug pusher, has already been struck down by the
and offered to buy P300.00 worth of shabu. Supreme Court as unconstitutional for it
Ronnie then left, came back five minutes later encroaches on the rule-making power of the
and handed the aluminum foil containing the Supreme Court (Estipona Jr v. Lobrigo G.R.
shabu to him. Before Pat. Buensuceso was No. 226679 August 15, 2017). Thus, Obie
able to deliver the marked money to Ronnie, Juan can now plea to a lesser offense.
the latter spotted a policeman at a distance,
whom Ronnie knew to be connected with the Q: After receiving a reliable information that
Narcotics Command of the Police. Upon seeing Dante Ong, a notorious drug smuggler, was
the latter, Ronnie ran away but was arrested arriving on PAL Flight No. PR181, PNP Chief
thirty minutes later by other policemen who Inspector Samuel Gamboa formed a group of
pursued him. Under the circumstances, would anti-drug agents. When Ong arrived at the
you consider the crime of sale of a prohibited airport, the group arrested him and seized his
drug already consummated? (1996 BAR) attaché case. Upon inspection the
Immigration holding area, the attaché case
A: YES. The sale of prohibited drug is already yielded 5 plastic bags of heroin weighing 500
consummated although the marked money was grams. Chief Inspector Gamboa took the
not yet delivered. When Ronnie handed the attaché case and boarded him in an
aluminum foil containing the shabu to Pat. unmarked car driven by PO3 Pepito Lorbes.
Buensuceso pursuant to their agreed sale, the On the way to Camp Crame and upon nearing
crime was consummated. Payment of the White Plains corner Edsa, Chief Inspector
consideration is not an element of requisite of the Gamboa ordered PO3 Lorbes to stop the car.
crime. If ever, the marked money is only They brought out the drugs from the case in
evidentiary to strengthen the case of the the trunk to and got 3 plastic sacks of heroin.
prosecution. They then told Ong to alight from the car. Ong
left with the 2 remaining plastic sacks of
The absence of the marked money will not create heroin. Chief Inspector Gamboa advised him
a hiatus in the prosecution’s evidence as long as to keep silent and go home which the latter
the sale of the dangerous drugs is adequately did. Unknown to them, an NBI team of agents
proven and the drug subject of the transaction is had been following them and witnessed the
presented before the court. There was a transaction. They arrested Chief Inspector
perfected contract of sale of the drug. (People v. Gamboa and PO3 Lorbes. Meanwhile, another
Ong Co, 245 SCRA 733) NBI team followed Ong and likewise arrested
him. All of them were later charged. What are
Q: Obie Juan is suspected to have in his their respective criminal liabilities? (2006
possession an unspecified amount of BAR)
methamphetamine hydrochloride or “shabu”.
An entrapment operation was conducted by A: Chief Inspector Samuel Gamboa and PO3
police officers, resulting in his arrest Pepito Lorbes incur criminal liability under Art.

68
 QuAMTO (1987-2019)
11, Sec. 4 last par., RA No. 9165, otherwise eventual violation, and for destruction
known as the “Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs (Dangerous Drugs Board Regulation No. 1
Act of 2002”. They acted as “protector/coddler” Series of 2001)
to the unlawful bringing into the Philippines of
the dangerous drugs. A “protector/coddler” Its rationale is to preserve the authenticity
refers to any person who uses his power or of the corpus delicti or body of the crime by
position in, inter alia, facilitating the escape of rendering it improbable that the original
any person whom he knows or believes, has item seized/ confiscated in the violation has
violated the Dangerous Drugs Law, in order to been exchanged or substituted with another
prevent the arrest, prosecution and conviction of or tampered with or contaminated. It is a
the violator. method of authenticating the evidence as
would support a finding beyond reasonable
The two police officers are criminally liable for doubt that the matter is what the
violation of Sec. 27. RA 9165 of the same law for prosecution claims to be.
misappropriation and failure to account for the
confiscated or seized dangerous drugs. b. Failure to observe the “chain of custody”
requirement renders the evidence
On the other hand, Dante Ong is criminally liable questionable, not trustworthy and
for the illegal importation or bringing into the insufficient to prove the corpus delicti
Philippines of the dangerous drugs (Art. 11, Sec. beyond reasonable doubt.
4, RA 9165).
Hence, Tommy would be acquitted on
Q: Tuburcio asked Anastacio to join their reasonable doubt.
group for a “session”. Thinking that it was for
a mahjong session, Anastacio agreed. Upon Q: The Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency
reaching Tiburcio’s house, Anastacio (PDEA) had intelligence reports about the
discovered that it was actually a shabu drug pushing activities of Rado, but could not
session. At that precise time, the place was arrest him for lack of concrete evidence. SP03
raided by the police, and Anastacio was Relio, a PDEA team leader, approached Emilo
among those arrested. and requested him to act as poseur-buyer of
shabu and transact with Rado. Emilo refused,
What crime can Anastacio be charged with, if saying that he had completely been
any? Explain. (2007 BAR) rehabilitated and did not want to have
anything to do with drugs anymore. But he
A: Anastacio may not be charged of any crime. was prevailed upon to help when SP03 Relio
Sec. 7 of RA 9165 on the Comprehensive explained that only he could help capture
Dangerous Drugs of 2002 punishes employees Rado because he used to be his customer.
and visitors of a den, dive or resort where SP03 Relio then gave Emilo the marked
dangerous drugs are used in any form. But for a money to be used in buying shabu from Rado.
visitor of such place to commit the crime, it is a The operation proceeded. After Emilo handed
requisite that he is “aware of the nature of the the marked money to Rado in exchange for
place as such and shall knowingly visit the same.” the sachets of shabu weighing 50 grams, and
These requisites are absent in the facts given. upon receiving the pre-arranged signal from
Ernilo, SP03 Relio and his team members
Q: Following his arrest after a valid buy- bust barged in and arrested Rado and Ernilo, who
operation, Tommy was convicted of violation were both charged with violation of R.A.
of Section 5, Republic Act 9165. On appeal, 9165, otherwise known as the
Tommy questioned the admissibility of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.
evidence because the police officers who
conducted the buy-bust operation failed to a. What defense, if any, may Emilo invoke to
observe the requisite "chain of custody" of free himself from criminal liability?
the evidence confiscated and/or seized from Explain.
him. b. May Rado adopt as his own Emilo's
defense? Explain. (2015 BAR)
a. What is the "chain of custody"
requirement in drug offenses? What is its A:
rationale? (2009, 2016 BAR) a. Ernilo may invoke Section 33, Art. II of RA
b. What is the effect of failure to observe the 9165 or the “Comprehensive Drugs Act of
requirement? (2009 BAR) 2002”. He may have violated Section 11 of
RA 9165 for possession of shabu but he is
A: immune from prosecution and punishment
a. “Chain of custody” requirement in drug because of his role as the poseur-buyer in the
offenses refers to the duly recorded, entrapment operation. There was virtually
authorized movement and custody of seized instigation. He is exempted from prosecution
dangerous drugs, controlled chemicals, or punishment because the information
plant sources of dangerous drugs, and obtained from him by the PDEA agents, who
laboratory equipment of dangerous drugs had no direct and concrete evidence of
from the time of confiscation/seizure Rado’s drug-pushing activities, led to the
thereof from the offender, to its turn-over whereabouts, identity and arrest of Rado. So
and receipt in the forensic laboratory for long as the information and testimony given
examination, to its safekeeping and are pleaded and proven, Ernilo cannot be

UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS 69 UST

2021 ACADEMICSCOMMITTEE BAR OPERATIONS
 Criminal Law
prosecuted for violation of RA 9165. were obtained from him. The items were
marked immediately upon confiscation, and
b. NO. First, an entrapment operation is a valid they were likewise inventoried and
means of arresting violators of RA 9165. It is photographed at the place of arrest.
an effective way of apprehending law Throughout the process, a media
offenders in the act of committing a crime. In representative was able to witness the
a buy-bust operation, the idea to commit a conduct of the marking, inventory, and
crime originates from the offender, without photography of the seized items in the
anybody inducing or prodding him to presence of Mr. D.
commit the offense. Second, the immunity
does not extend to violators of Section 5 of Mr. D was then charged with the crimes of
RA 9165 or the sale of shabu (sec. 33, RA Illegal Sale and Illegal Possession of
9165). Lastly, he was the offender of the Dangerous Drugs. In defense, he lamented
crime and apparently the most guilty of that the chain of custody procedure under
the offense. Section 21, Article II of the Comprehensive
Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, as amended,
Q: Dimas was arrested after a valid buy- bust was not followed because only a media
operation. Macario, the policeman who acted representative was present. In response, the
as poseur-buyer, inventoried and prosecution maintained that the said media
photographed ten (10) sachets of shabu in the representative was a very credible reporter
presence of a barangay tanod. The inventory and as such, the presence of any other witness
was signed by Macario and the tanod, but was unnecessary.
Dimas refused to sign. As Macario was
stricken with flu the day after, he was able to a. Was the chain of custody procedure
surrender the sachets to the PNP Crime validly complied with in this case? If not,
Laboratory only after four (4) days. During was the deviation from such procedure
pre-trial, the counsel de oficio of Dimas justified? Explain.
stipulated that the substance contained in the b. What is the consequence of an unjustified
sachets examined by the forensic chemist is in deviation from the chain of custody rule
fact methamphetamine hydrochloride or to the criminal case against Mr. D?
shabu. Dimas was convicted of violating Explain. (2019 BAR)
Section 5 of RA 9165. On appeal, Dimas
questioned the admissibility of the evidence A:
because Macario failed to observe the a. NO, the chain of custody was not validly
requisite "chain of custody" of the alleged complied with. Under Sec. 21 of RA 9165, as
"shabu" seized from him. On behalf of the amended by RA 10640, the presence of at
State, the Solicitor General claimed that least two insulating witnesses are required:
despite non-compliance with some (1) an elected public official, and (2) a
requirements, the prosecution was able to representative from the media, or a
show that the integrity of the substance was representative from the National
preserved. Moreover, even with some Prosecution Service. Here, only a media
deviations from the requirements, the representative was present to witness the
counsel of Dimas stipulated that the conduct of marking, inventory and
substance seized from Dimas was shabu so photography. Further, the credibility of the
that the conviction should be affirmed. Rule media reporter as the lone witness in a buy-
on the contention of the State. (2016 BAR) bust operation is neither a plausible
explanation nor an unacceptable justification
A: The contention of the State is meritorious. The for the PDEA’s non-compliance with the
rule is settled that failure to strictly comply with chain of custody rule. The Supreme Court
Section 21(1), Article II of RA 9165 does not listed the following acceptable justifications
necessarily render an accused’s arrest illegal or in case of the absence of witnesses: (1) their
the items seized or confiscated from him attendance was impossible because the place
inadmissible. The most important factor is the of arrest was a remote area; (2) their safety
preservation the integrity and evidentiary value was threatened by an immediate retaliatory
of the seized item. Moreover, the issue of action of the accused; and (3) earnest efforts
noncompliance with Section 21 of RA 9165 to secure the presence of the witnesses
cannot be raised for the first time on appeal. within the period required under Art. 125 of
(People v. Badilla, G.R. No. 218578, August 31, the RPC prove futile through no fault of the
2016) arresting officers (People v. Sipin, as cited in
People v. Lim, G.R. 231989, September 04,
Q: After a successful entrapment operation by 2018)
the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency, Mr. b. The unjustified deviation from the chain of
D, a known drug pusher, was arrested on custody rule would lead to Mr. D’s acquittal.
January 15, 2019 for having been caught in Well settled is the rule that the procedure
flagrante delicto selling a pack of shabu, a under Sec. 21 is a matter of substantive law
prohibited drug, to the poseur- buyer. and cannot be brushed aside as a simple
Consequently, Mr. D was frisked by the procedural technicality. (People v. Año, G.R.
arresting officer, and aluminum foils, plastic No. 230070, March 14, 2018)
lighters, and another plastic sachet of shabu

70
 QuAMTO (1987-2019)
ILLEGAL POSSESSION OF FIREARMS (P.D.
1866, AS AMENDED BY R.A. NO. 8294 AND A: The Indeterminate Sentence Law (ISLaw)
R.A. 10591) (1990, 2000, 2004 BAR) applies in cases where the penalty imposed is
more than one year and the ISLaw shall apply
where there is a minimum penalty which is not
Q: lower than the penalty next lower in degree
a. Ka Jacinto, an NPA commander, was provided by law and the maximum not higher
apprehended with unlicensed firearms than the maximum penalty provided by law in
and explosives. He was accordingly cases of felonies but when it comes to statutory
charged with illegal possession of said offenses, it must be lower than the minimum
firearms and explosives. He now penalty provided by law and not higher than the
questions the filing of the charges on the maximum penalty provided by law except in the
ground that they are deemed absorbed following cases as provided by Section 2 of Art.
in a separate charge of rebellion filed 4103:
against him. Decide the issue.
b. Suppose Ka Jacinto, using one of the 1. Life imprisonment
unlicensed firearms, shot and killed his 2. Those convicted of treason, conspiracy or
neighbor in an altercation. May the proposal to commit treason
charge of murder and illegal possession 3. To those convicted of misprision of
of firearms be deemed absorbed in the treason, rebellion, sedition or espionage
separate charge of rebellion filed against 4. Those convicted of piracy
him? Resolve the matter with reasons. 5. Those who are habitual delinquents
(1990 BAR) 6. Those who shall have escaped from
confinement or evaded sentence
A: 7. Those who having been granted
a. The charge of illegal possession of firearms conditional pardon by the Chief Executive
and explosives is deemed absorbed in the shall have violated the terms thereof
crime of rebellion, such possession being a 8. Those whose maximum term of
necessary means for the perpetration of the imprisonment does not exceed one year,
latter crime. (Eliasv. Rodriguez, 107 Phil 659) not to those already sentenced by final
b. The charges here could not be absorbed in judgment at the time of approval of this
the separate charge of rebellion as it is clear Act, except as provided in Sec. 5 hereof
that the act of murder, coupled with the
possession of an unlicensed firearm, was not Q: Explain how the Indeterminate Sentence
in furtherance of the rebellion. Law is applied in crimes punished by special
laws (2017 BAR)
Q: PH killed OJ, his political rival in the
election campaign for Mayor of their town. A: The indeterminate sentence in such cases shall
The Information against PH alleged that he consist of a maximum term which shall not
used an unlicensed firearm in the killing of exceed the maximum fixed by the special law and
the victim, and this was proved beyond a minimum term which shall not be less than the
reasonable doubt by the prosecution. The minimum term prescribed by the same.
trial court convicted PH of two crimes:
Murder and Illegal Possession of Firearms. Is Q: Itos was convicted of an offense penalized
the conviction correct? Reason briefly. (2004 by a special law. The penalty prescribed is not
BAR) less than six years but not more than twelve
years. No modifying circumstance attended
A: NO. The conviction of PH for two crimes is not the commission of the crime. If you were the
correct. Under the new law on illegal possession judge, will you apply the Indeterminate
of firearms and explosives, RA 8294, a person Sentence Law? If so, how will you apply it?
may only be criminally liable for illegal (1994, 1999 BAR)
possession of firearm if no other crime is
committed therewith; If a homicide or murder is A: If I were the judge, I will apply the provisions
committed with the use of an unlicensed firearm, of the Indeterminate Sentence Law, as the last
such use shall be considered as an aggravating sentence of Section 1 Act 4103, specifically
circumstance. provides the application thereof for violations of
special laws. Under the same provision, the
PH therefore may only be convicted of murder minimum must not be less than the minimum
and the use of an unlicensed firearm in its provided therein (six years and one day) and the
commission may only be appreciated as a special maximum shall not be more than the maximum
aggravating circumstance, provided that such provided therein, i.e. twelve years.
use is alleged specifically in the Information for
Murder. Q: When would the Indeterminate Sentence
INDETERMINATE SENTENCE LAW (R.A. Law (ISLaw) be inapplicable? (1999, 2003
4103, AS AMENDED) (1988, 1989, 1990, BAR)
1994, 1997, 1999, 2002, 2005, 2007, 2009,
2010, 2013, 2016, 2018 BAR) A: The ISLaw is not applicable to:

1. Those persons convicted of offenses

Q: State the application of the Indeterminate punished with death penalty or life-
Sentence Law. (1988, 2016 BAR) imprisonment or reclusion perpetua;

UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS 71 UST

2021 ACADEMICSCOMMITTEE BAR OPERATIONS
 Criminal Law
2. Those convicted of treason, conspiracy or in any of its period to prison correccional in its
proposal to commit treason; medium period as maximum. Bruno was entitled
3. Those convicted of misprision of treason, to two privileged mitigating circumstances of
rebellion, sedition or espionage; incomplete self-defense and the presence of at
4. Those convicted of piracy; least two ordinary mitigating circumstances
5. Those who are habitual delinquents; (voluntary surrender and plea of guilt) without
6. Those who shall have escaped from any aggravating circumstance under Art. 69 and
confinement or evaded sentence; 64(5) of the RPC respectively, which lowers the
7. Those who having been granted conditional prescribed penalty for homicide which is
pardon by the Chief Executive shall have reclusion temporal to prison correccional.
violated the terms thereof;
8. Those whose maximum term of Q: Randy was prosecuted for forcible
imprisonment does not exceed one year; abduction attended by the aggravating
9. Those already sentenced by final judgment at circumstance of recidivism. After trial, the
the time of the approval of this Act; and court held that the prosecutor was able to
10. Those whose sentence imposes penalties prove the charge. Nonetheless, it appreciated
which do not involve imprisonment, like in favor of Randy, on the basis of the
destierro. defense’s evidence, the mitigating
circumstances of voluntary surrender,
Q: How are the maximum and the minimum uncontrollable fear, and provocation. Under
terms of the indeterminate sentence for Art. 342 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), the
offenses punishable under the Revised Penal penalty for forcible abduction is reclusion
Code determined? (2002 BAR) temporal.

A: For crimes punished under the Revised Penal Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law,
Code, the maximum term of the indeterminate what penalty should be imposed on Randy?
sentence shall be the penalty properly imposable (2018 BAR)
under the same Code after considering the
attending mitigating and/or aggravating A: Since he was found guilty of Forcible
circumstances according to Art. 64 of said Code. Abduction with one aggravating circumstances
The minimum term of the same sentence shall be of recidivism, this aggravating circumstance is
fixed within the range of the penalty next lower off-set by one of the three mitigating
in degree to that prescribed for the crime under circumstances; so the penalty to be imposed is
the said Code. still Reclusion Temporal (Art. 342, RPC) but
because there are two (2) more mitigating
Q: While serving his sentence, Macky entered circumstances left and the penalty is divisible, in
the prohibited area and had a pot session determining the maximum term, we have to
with Ivy (Joy’s sister). Is Macky entitled to an reduce to prision Mayor and because there is no
indeterminate sentence in case he is found more mitigating and aggravating circumstances
guilty of use of prohibited substances? to be considered, the maximum term shall
Explain your answer. (2007 BAR) be prision mayor in its medium period that is
eight (8) years and one (1) day to ten (10) years.
A: NO. Macky is not entitled to the benefit of the The minimum, term shall be any range within,
Indeterminate Sentence Law (Act 4103, as that is from six (6) years and one (1) day to six
amended) for having evaded the sentence which (8) years.
banished or placed him on destierro. Sec. 2 of the
said law expressly provides that the law shall not Thus Randy will suffer as Minimum term any
apply to those who shall have “evaded sentence”. penalty ranging from six months and one (1) day,
and the maximum term will be, any range from
Q: Bruno was charged with homicide for eight (8) years and one (1) day to ten (10) years
killing the 75 year old owner of his rooming of prision Mayor.
house. The prosecution proved that Bruno
stabbed the owner causing his death; and that What is now the age of doli incapax in the
the killing happened at 10 in the evening in Philippines? (2017 BAR)
the house where the victim and Bruno lived.
Bruno, on the other hand, successfully proved A: Section 6 of Republic Act No. 9344 (Juvenile
that he voluntarily surrendered to the Justice and Welfare Act of 2006), xxx states as
authorities; that he pleaded guilty to the follows:
crime charged; that it was the victim who first
attacked and did so without any provocation Section 6. Minimum Age of Criminal
on his (Bruno's) part, but he prevailed Responsibility. - A child fifteen (15) years of age
because he managed to draw his knife with or under at the time of the commission of the
which he stabbed the victim. The penalty for offense shall be exempt from criminal liability.
homicide is reclusion temporal. Assuming a However, the child shall be subjected to an
judgment of conviction and after considering intervention program pursuant to Section 20 of
the attendant circumstances, what penalty this Act.
should the judge impose? (2013 BAR)
A child above fifteen (15) years but below
A: Bruno should be sentenced to an eighteen (18) years of age shall likewise be
indeterminate sentence penalty of arresto mayor exempt from criminal liability and be subjected

72
 QuAMTO (1987-2019)
to an intervention program, unless he/she has a. NO. A is not entitled to a suspension of
acted with discernment, in which case, such child sentence because he is no longer a minor at
shall be subjected to the appropriate the time of promulgation of the sentence.
proceedings in accordance with this Act. The For purposes of suspension of sentence, the
exemption from criminal liability herein offender’s age at the time of promulgation
established does not include exemption from of the sentence is the one considered, not
civil liability, which shall be enforced in his age when he committed the crime. So
accordance with existing laws. (Office of the although A was below 18 years old when he
Court Administrator vs. Larida, Jr., 718 SCRA 359, committed the crime, but he was already 23
11 March 2014) years old when sentenced, he is no longer
eligible for suspension of sentence.
doli incapax – incapable of criminal intention or
malice; not of the age of discretion; not b. YES. So long as the offender is still a minor
possessed of sufficient discretion and at the time of the promulgation of the
intelligence to distinguish between right and sentence. The law establishing Family
wrong to the extent of being criminally Courts, RA 8369, provides to this effect: that
responsible for his actions. if the minor is found guilty, the court should
promulgate the sentence and ascertain any
JUVENILE JUSTICE AND WELFARE ACT (R.A. civil liability which the accused may have
NO. 9344, AS AMENDED, R.A. NO. 10630 incurred. However, the sentence shall be
AND IN RELATION TO P.D. 603) (1995, suspended without the need of application
2003, 2006, 2009, 2013, 2017 BAR) pursuant to PD 603, otherwise known as
the “Child and Youth Welfare Code” (R.A.
Q: Victor, Ricky, Rod and Ronnie went to the 8369, Sec. 5a). It is under PD 603 that an
store of MangPandoy, Victor and Ricky application for suspension of the sentence is
entered the store while Rod and Ronnie required and thereunder it is one of the
posted themselves at the door. After ordering conditions for suspension of sentence that
beer, Ricky complained that he was the offender be a first time convict: this has
shortchanged although MangPandoy been displaced by RA 8369.
vehemently denied it. Suddenly, Ricky
whipped out a knife as he announced “Hold- PROBATION LAW (P.D. 968, AS AMENDED)
up ito!” and stabbed MangPandoy to death. (1988, 1989, 1990, 1991, 1992, 1993,
Rod boxed the store’s salesgirl Lucy to 1995,2000, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2010
prevent her from helping MangPandoy. When BAR)
Lucy ran out of the store to seek help from
people next door, she was chased by Ronnie. Q: Who are the offenders disqualified from
As soon as Ricky had stabbed MangPandoy, availing themselves of the benefits of the
Victor scooped up the money from the cash probation law (P.D. 968, as amended)? (1988
box. Then Victor and Ricky dashed to the BAR)
street and shouted, “Tumakbona kayo!” Rod
was 14 and Ronnie was 17. The money and A: The following offenders are disqualified from
other articles looted from the store of availing of the benefits of the Probation Law:
MangPandoy were later found in the houses
of Victor and Ricky. 1. Those sentenced to serve maximum term of
imprisonment of more than six years;
Are the minors Rod and Ronnie entitled to 2. Those convicted of any crime against the
suspended sentence under The Child and national security (amended by R.A. 10707);
Youth Welfare Code? Explain. (1995 BAR) 3. Those who have previously been convicted
by final judgment of an offense punished by
A: NO. Because the benefits of suspension of imprisonment of more than six (6) month
sentence is not available where the youthful and one (1) day and or a fine of not less than
offender has been convicted of an offense Php 1,000.00 (amended by R.A. 10707);
punishable by reclusion perpetua to death under 4. Those who have been once on probation
Art. 294 (1), RPC (People v. Galit, 230 SCRA 486) under the provisions of this decree; and
5. Those who are already serving sentence at
Q: the time the substantive provisions of this
a. A was 2 months below 18 years of age decree applicable pursuant to Sec. 33 of P.D.
when he committed the crime. He was 968.
charged with the crime 3 months later.
He was 23 when he was finally convicted Q: A was charged with theft and upon
and sentenced. Instead of preparing to arraignment, pleaded guilty to the charge. He
serve a jail term, he sought a suspension was detained for failure to post bail. After two
of the sentence on the ground that he (2) months, a decision was rendered
was a juvenile offender. Should he be sentencing “A” to an indeterminate sentence
entitled to a suspension of sentence? of six (6) months and one (1) day as a
Reasons. minimum, to one (1) year and one (1) month
b. Can juvenile offenders, who are as maximum, and to pay the offended party
recidivists, validly ask for suspension of the amount of P700. On January 16, 1985, the
sentence? Explain. (2003, 2013 BAR) very day the sentence was read to “A”, the
Judge issued a Commitment Order addressed
A: to the Provincial Jail Warden. On January 28,

UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS 73 UST

2021 ACADEMICSCOMMITTEE BAR OPERATIONS
 Criminal Law
1985, “A” applied for probation but his matter to the Supreme Court in a petition for
application was denied on the ground that the certiorari. Did the trial court act correctly in
sentence of conviction became final and denying the petition for probation? (1991
executory on January 16, 1985, when “A” BAR)
commence to serve his sentence. Is “A”
eligible for probation? (1989 BAR) A: NO. The trial court acted incorrectly. In Balleta
v. Leviste (92 SCRA 719), the Judge precisely
A: YES. A is still eligible for probation since he denied the petition for probation on the same
filed his application for probation within 15 days excuse stated in the problem. The Supreme Court
from the promulgation of the judgment. Under held that an accused must fall within any one of
the Probation Law, the accused may apply for the disqualifications stated in Sec. 9 of PD 960 in
probation within the period for perfecting an order to be denied probation.
appeal which is 15 days from promulgation or
notice thereof. Q: Johnny Gitara was convicted of the crime of
estafa by the Regional Trial Court of Manila.
The judge committed an error in issuing a He was imposed the indeterminate penalty of
Commitment order on the same day of imprisonment of 3 years, 2 months and 1 day
promulgation. A commitment order for the as minimum and six years as maximum, both
convict to begin serving his sentence can be of prison correccional and was ordered to
validly issued only if the period for perfecting an indemnify the offended party in the amount
appeal has expired with no appeal being taken. of P3,000.00. He filed an application for
The fact that in compliance with such order, probation upon the promulgation of the
which is void, the accused commenced to serve judgment.
his sentence does not bar him from availing
himself of the benefits of the Probation Law. What is the legal effect of his application for
probation on the judgment of conviction?
While it is true under the Rules that a judgment Does said application interrupt the running
in a criminal case becomes final after the lapse of of the period of appeal? (1992 BAR)
the period for perfecting an appeal or when the
sentence has been partially or totally satisfied or A: The filing of the application for probation is
served or the accused has applied for probation considered as a waiver of the right of the accused
(Sec. 7, Rule 120), Sec. 9 of the same Rule to appeal; the decision has become final. In view
provides that “nothing in this Rule shall be of the finality of the decision, there is no period
construed as affecting any existing provision in of appeal to speak of.
the law governing suspension of sentence,
probation or parole.” Q: On February 3, 1986, Roberto was
convicted of arson through reckless
The probation law does NOT speak of filing an imprudence and sentenced to pay a fine of
application for probation before judgment has P15,000.00, with subsidiary imprisonment in
become final. It only speaks of filing the case of insolvency by the Regional Trial Court
application WITHIN THE PERIOD FOR of Quezon City. On February 10, 1986, he
PERFECTING AN APPEAL. There is nothing in the appealed to the Court of Appeals. Several
Probation Law that bars an accused who has months later, he filed a motion to withdraw
commenced to serve his sentence from filing an the appeal on the ground that he is applying
application for probation provided he does so for probation. On May 7, 1987, the Court of
within the period for perfecting an appeal. Appeals granted the motion and considered
the appeal withdrawn.
What the Probation Law provides is that no
application for probation shall be entertained or On June 10, 1987, the records of the case
granted if the defendant has perfected an appeal were remanded to the trial court. Roberto
from the judgment or conviction. It does not say filed a “Motion for Probation” praying that
that no application shall be entertained if the execution of his sentence be suspended, and
judgment has become final because the convict that a probation officer be ordered to conduct
has already commenced to serve his sentence. an investigation and to submit a report on his
probation.
Q: Boyet Mar was charged with consented
abduction by a 17-year old complainant. The The judge denied the motion on the ground
accused made wedding arrangements with that pursuant to Presidential Decree No.
the girl, but her parents insisted on the 1990, which took effect on July 16, 1986, no
prosecution of the case. To avoid further application for probation shall be
embarrassment of a court trial for him and entertained or granted if the defendant has
the girl, the accused entered a plea of guilty. perfected an appeal from the judgment of
He then filed a petition for probation before conviction. Is the denial of Roberto’s motion
serving sentence, but the court denied the correct? (1994 BAR)
petition on the ground that “it would be
better for the accused to serve sentence so A: YES, even if at the time of his conviction,
that he would reform himself and avoid the Roberto was qualified for probation but that at
scandal in the community that would be the time of his application for probation, he is no
caused by the grant of the petition. The longer qualified, he is not entitled to probation.
accused serve sentence but he brought the The qualification for probation must be

74
 QuAMTO (1987-2019)
determined as of the time the application is filed
in Court. (Bernardo v. Judge Balagot, et. al., G.R.
86561, Nov. 10, 1992)

Q: Juan was convicted of the Regional Trial

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

A: NO. Juan can no longer avail of the probation

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

Q: May a probationer appeal from the

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

A: NO. Under Sec. 4 of the Probation Law, as

amended, an order granting or denying the
probation is not appealable.

UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS 75 UST

2021 ACADEMICSCOMMITTEE BAR OPERATIONS