Exempting Circumstances; Coverage (2000)

39.) A, brother of B, with the intention of having a night out with his friends, took the coconut shell which is being used by B as a
bank for coins from inside their locked cabinet using their common key. Forthwith, A broke the coconut shell outside of their
home in the presence of his friends. What is the criminal liability of A, if any? Explain. (3%)Is A exempted from criminal liability
under Article 332 of the Revised Penal Code for being a brother of B? Explain. (2%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
a) A is criminally liable for Robbery with force upon things.....
b) No, A is not exempt from criminal liability under Art. 332 because said Article applies only to theft, swindling or malicious
mischief. Here, the crime committed is robbery.
Exempting Circumstances; Minority (1998)
40.) John, an eight-year old boy, is fond of watching the television program "Zeo Rangers." One evening while he was engrossed
watching his favorite television show, Petra, a maid changed the channel to enable her to watch "Home Along the Riles." This
enraged John who got his father's revolver, and without warning, shot Petra at the back of her head causing her instantaneous
death. Is John criminally liable? [2%]
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, John is not criminally liable for killing Petra because he is only 8 years old when he committed the killing. A minor below nine
(9) years old is absolutely exempt from criminal liability although not from civil liability. (Art. 12, par.2, RPC).
Exempting; Minority; 11 yrs Old; Absence of Discernment (2000)
41.) While they were standing in line awaiting their vaccination at the school clinic, Pomping repeatedly pulled the ponytail of
Katreena, his 11 years, 2 months and 13days old classmate in Grade 5 at the Sampaloc Elementary School. Irritated, Katreena
turned around and swung at Pomping with a ball pen. The top of the ballpen hit the right eye of Pomping which bled profusely.
Realizing what she had caused. Katreena immediately helped Pomping. When investigated, she freely admitted to the school
principal that she was responsible for the injury to Pomping's eye. After the incident, she executed a statement admitting her
culpability. Due to the injury. Pomping lost his right eye.
a) Is Katreena criminally liable? Why? (3%)
b) Discuss the attendant circumstances and effects thereof. (2%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
a) No, Katreena is not criminally liable although she is civilly liable. Being a minor less than fifteen (15) years old although over nine
(9) years of age, she is generally exempt from criminal liability. The exception is where the prosecution proved that the act was
committed with discernment. The burden is upon the prosecution to prove that the accused acted with discernment.
The
presumption is that such minor acted without discernment, and this is strengthened by the fact that Katreena only reacted with a
ballpen which she must be using in class at the time, and only to stop Pomping's vexatious act of repeatedly pulling her ponytail. In
other words, the injury was accidental.
b) The attendant circumstances which may be considered are:
1.Minority of the accused as an exempting circumstance under Article 12.paragraph 3, Rev. Penal Code, where she shall be exempt
from criminal liability, unless it was proved that she acted with discernment. She is however civilly liable;
2.If found criminally liable, the minority of the accused as a privileged mitigating circumstance. A discretionary penalty lower by at
least two (2) degrees than that prescribed for the crime committed shall be imposed in accordance with Article 68. paragraph 1, Rev.
Penal Code. The sentence, however, should automatically be suspended in accordance with Section 5(a) of Rep.Act No. 8369
otherwise known as the "Family Courts Act of 1997";1Also if found criminally liable, the ordinary mitigating circumstance of not
Intending to commit so grave a wrong as that committed, under Article 13,paragraph 3, Rev. Penal Code; and 2The ordinary
mitigating circumstance of sufficient provocation on the part of the offended party immediately preceded the act.
Justifying vs. Exempting Circumstances (2004)
42.) Distinguish clearly but briefly: Between justifying and exempting circumstances in criminal law.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Justifying circumstance affects the act, not the actor; while exempting circumstance affects the actor, not the act. In justifying
circumstance, no criminal and, generally, no civil liability is incurred; while in exempting circumstance, civil liability is generally
incurred although there is no criminal liability.

Justifying vs. Exempting Circumstances (1998)

43.) Distinguish between justifying and exempting circumstances. [3%]
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
1. In Justifying Circumstances: The circumstance affects the act, not the actor; The act is done within legal bounds, hence considered
as not a crime; Since the act is not a crime, there is no criminal; There being no crime nor criminal, there is no criminal nor civil
liability. Whereas, in an Exempting Circumstances: The circumstance affects the actor, not the act; The act is felonious and hence a
crime but the actor acted without voluntariness; Although there is a crime, there is no criminal because the actor is regarded only as
an instrument of the crime; There being a wrong done but no criminal.
Justifying; Defense of Honor; Requisites (2002)
43.) When A arrived home, he found B raping his daughter. Upon seeing A, B ran away. A took his gun and shot B, killing him.
Charged with homicide, A claimed he acted in defense of his daughter's honor. Is A correct? If not, can A claim the benefit of any
mitigating circumstance or circumstances? (3%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, A cannot validly invoke defense of his daughter's honor in having killed B since the rape was already consummated; moreover, B
already ran away, hence, there was no aggression to defend against and no defense to speak of.20 of 86A may, however, invoke the
benefit of the mitigating circumstance of having acted in immediate vindication of a grave offense to a descendant, his daughter,
under par. 5, Article 13 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended.
Justifying; Defense of Stranger (2002)
44.) A chanced upon three men who were attacking B with fist blows. C, one of the men, was about to stab B with a knife. Not
knowing that B was actually the aggressor because he had earlier challenged the three men to a fight, A shot C as the latter was
about to stab B. May A invoke the defense of a stranger as a justifying circumstance in his favor? Why? (2%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes. A may invoke the justifying circumstance of defense of stranger since he was not involved in the fight and he shot C when the
latter was about to stab B. There being no indication that A was induced by revenge, resentment or any other evil motive in shooting
C, his act is justified under par 3, Article 11 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended.
Justifying; Fulfillment of Duty; Requisites (2000)
45.) Lucresia, a store owner, was robbed of her bracelet in her home. The following day, at about 5 o'clock in the afternoon, a
neighbor, 22-year old Jun-Jun, who had an unsavory reputation, came to her store to buy bottles of beer. Lucresia noticed her
bracelet wound around the right arm of Jun-Jun. As soon as the latter left, Lucresia went to a nearby police station and sought
the help of a policeman on duty, Pat. Willie Reyes. He went with Lucresia to the house of Jun-Jun to confront the latter. Pat.
Reyes introduced himself as a policeman and tried to get hold of Jun-Jun who resisted and ran away. Pat. Reyes chased him and
fired two warning shots in the air. Jun-Jun continued to run and when he was about 7 meters away, Pat, Reyes shot him in the
right leg. Jun-Jun was hit and he fell down but he crawled towards a fence, intending to pass through an opening underneath.
When Pat. Reyes was about 5 meters away, he fired another shot at Jun-Jun hitting him at the right lower hip. Pat. Reyes brought
Jun-Jun to the hospital, but because of profuse bleeding, he eventually died. Pat Reyes was subsequently charged with homicide.
During the trial, Pat Reyes raised the defense, by way of exoneration, that he acted in the fulfillment of a duty. Is the defense
tenable? Explain. (3%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, the defense of Pat. Reyes is not tenable. The defense of having acted in the fulfillment of a duty requires as a condition, inter alia,
that the injury or offense committed be the unavoidable or necessary consequence of the due performance of the duty (People vs.
Oanis, et.al., 74 Phil. 257). It is not enough that the accused acted in fulfillment of a duty. After Jun-Jun was shot in the right leg and
was already crawling, there was no need for Pat, Reyes to shoot him further. Clearly, Pat. Reyes acted beyond the call of duty which
brought about the cause of death of the victim.
Justifying; SD; Defense of Honor; Requisites (1998)
46.) One night, Una, a young married woman, was sound asleep in her bedroom when she felt a man on top of her. Thinking it
was her husband Tito, who came home a day early from his business trip, Una let him have sex with her. After the act, the man
said, "I hope you enjoyed it as much as I did." Not recognizing the voice, it dawned upon Lina that the man was not Tito, her
husband. Furious, Una took out Tito's gun and shot the man. Charged with homicide Una denies culpability on the ground of
defense of honor. Is her claim tenable? [5%]
SUGGESTED ANSWER:

No, Una's claim that she acted in defense of honor, is not tenable because the unlawful aggression on her honor had already ceased.
Defense of honor as included in self-defense, must have been done to prevent or repel an unlawful aggression. There is no defense to
speak of where the unlawful aggression no longer exists.
Justifying; Defense of Honor; Elements (2000)
47.) Osang, a married woman in her early twenties, was sleeping on a banig on the floor of their nipa hut beside the seashore
when she was awakened by the act of a man mounting her. Thinking that it was her husband, Gardo, who had returned from
fishing in the sea, Osang continued her sleep but allowed the man, who was actually their neighbor, Julio, to have sexual
intercourse with her. After Julio satisfied himself, he said "Salamat Osang" as he turned to leave. Only then did Osang realize
that the man was not her husband. Enraged, Osang grabbed a balisong from the wall and stabbed Julio to death. When tried for
homicide, Osang claimed defense of honor. Should the claim be sustained? Why? (5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, Osang"s claim of defense of honor should not be sustained because the aggression on her honor had ceased when she stabbed the
aggressor. In defense of rights under paragraph 1, Art. 11 of the RPC, It is required inter alia that there be (1) unlawful aggression,
and (2) reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it. The unlawful aggression must be continuing when the
aggressor was injured or disabled by the person making a defense. But if the aggression that was begun by the injured or disabled
party already ceased to exist when the accused attacked him, as in the case at bar, the attack made is a retaliation, and not a defense.
Paragraph 1, Article 11 of the Code does not govern. Hence, Osang's act of stabbing Julio to death after the sexual intercourse was
finished, is not defense of honor but an immediate vindication of a grave offense committed against her, which is only mitigating.
Justifying; SD; Defense of Property; Requisites (1996)
48.) A security guard, upon seeing a man scale the wall of a factory compound which he was guarding, shot and killed the latter.
Upon investigation by the police who thereafter arrived at the scene of the shooting, it was discovered that the victim was
unarmed. When prosecuted for homicide, the security guard claimed that he merely acted in self-defense of property and in the
performance of his duty as a security guard. If you were the judge, would you convict him of homicide? Explain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes. I would convict the security guard for Homicide if I were the Judge, because his claim of having acted in defense of property and
in performance of a duty cannot fully be justified. Even assuming that the victim was scaling the wall of the factory compound to
commit a crime inside the same, shooting him is never justifiable, even admitting that such act is considered unlawful aggression on
property rights. In People vs. Narvaes, 121 SCRA 329, a person is justified to defend his property rights, but all the elements of selfdefense under Art. 11,must be present. In the instant case, just like in Narvaes, the second element(reasonable necessity of the means
employed) is absent. Hence, he should be convicted of homicide but entitled to incomplete self-defense.
Justifying; SD; Defense of Property; Requisites (2003)
49.) The accused lived with his family in a neighborhood that often was the scene of frequent robberies. At one time, past
midnight, the accused went downstairs with a loaded gun to investigate what he thought were footsteps of an uninvited guest.
After seeing what appeared to him an armed stranger looking around and out to rob the house, he fired his gun seriously injuring
the man. When the lights were turned on, the unfortunate victim turned out to be a brother-in-law on his way to the kitchen to
get some light snacks. The accused was indicted for serious physical injuries. Should the accused, given the circumstances, be
convicted or acquitted? Why? 4%
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The accused should be convicted because, even assuming the facts to be true in his belief, his act of shooting a burglar when there is
no unlawful aggression on his person is not justified. Defense of property or property right does not justify the act of firing a gun at a
burglar unless the life and limb of the accused is already in imminent and immediate danger. Although the accused acted out of a
misapprehension of the facts, he is not absolved from criminal liability.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
Considering the given circumstances, namely; the frequent robberies in the neighborhood, the time was past midnight, and the victim
appeared to be an armed burglar in the dark and inside his house, the accused could have entertained an honest belief that his life and
limb or those of his family are already in immediate and imminent danger. Hence, it may be reasonable to accept that he acted out of
an honest mistake of fact and therefore without criminal intent. An honest mistake of fact negatives criminal intent and thus absolves
the accused from criminal liability.
Qualifying; Elements of a Crime (2003)
50.) When would qualifying circumstances be deemed, if at all, elements of a crime? 4%
SUGGESTED ANSWER:

A qualifying circumstance would be deemed an element of a crime when -it changes the nature of the crime, bringing about a more
serious crime and a heavier penalty; it is essential to the crime involved, otherwise some other crime is committed; and it is
specifically alleged in the Information and proven during the trial.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
A qualifying circumstance is deemed an element of a crime when it is specifically stated by law as included in the definition of a
crime, like treachery in the crime of murder.
Mitigating; Non-Intoxication (2000)
51.) Despite the massive advertising campaign in media against firecrackers and gun-firing during the New Year's celebrations,
Jonas and Jaja bought ten boxes of super lolo and pla-pla in Bocaue, Bulacan. Before midnight of December 31, 1999,Jonas and
Jaja started their celebration by having a drinking spree at Jona's place by exploding their high-powered firecrackers in their
neighborhood. In the course of their conversation, Jonas confided to Jaja that he has been keeping along-time grudge against his
neighbor Jepoy in view of the latter's refusal to lend him some money. While under the influence of liquor, Jonas started throwing
lighted super lolos inside Jepoy's fence to irritate him and the same exploded inside the latter's yard. Upon knowing that the
throwing of the super lolo was deliberate, Jepoy became furious and sternly warned Jonas to stop his malicious act or he would
get what he wanted. A heated argument between Jonas and Jepoy ensued but Jaja tried to calm down his friend. At midnight,
Jonas convinced Jaja to lend him his .45 caliber pistol so that he could use it to knock down Jepoy and to end his arrogance.
Jonas thought that after all, explosions were everywhere and nobody would know who shot Jepoy. After Jaja lent his firearm to
Jonas, the latter again started throwing lighted super lolos and pla-plas at Jepoy's yard in order to provoke him so that he would
come out of his house. When Jepoy came out, Jonas immediately shot him with Jaja's .45 caliber gun but missed his target.
Instead, the bullet hit Jepoy's five year old son who was following behind him, killing the boy instantaneously,
a) What crime or crimes can Jonas and Jaja be charged with? Explain. (2%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
a) Jonas and Jaja, can be charged with the complex crime of attempted murder with homicide because a single act caused a less grave
and a grave felony (Art. 48.RPC)....
Mitigating; Voluntary Surrender; Elements (1999)
52.) When is surrender by an accused considered voluntary, and constitutive of the mitigating circumstance of voluntary
surrender? (3%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
A surrender by an offender is considered voluntary when it is spontaneous, indicative of an intent to submit unconditionally
to the authorities. To be mitigating, the surrender must be: spontaneous, i.e., indicative of acknowledgment of guilt and not
for convenience nor conditional; made before the government incurs expenses, time and effort in tracking down the
offender's whereabouts; and made to a person in authority or the latter's agents.
Aggravating Circumstances (1996)
53.) Jose, Domingo, Manolo, and Fernando, armed with bolos, at about one o'clock in the morning, robbed a house at a
desolate place where Danilo, his wife, and three daughters were living. While the four were in the process of ransacking
Danilo's house, Fernando, noticing that one of Danilo's daughters was trying to get away, ran after her and finally caught up
with her in a thicket somewhat distant from the house. Fernando, before bringing back the daughter to the house, raped her
first. Thereafter, the four carted away the belongings of Danilo and his family. What crime did Jose, Domingo, Manolo and
Fernando commit? Explain. Suppose, after the robbery, the four took turns in raping the three daughters of Danilo inside the
latter's house, but before they left, they killed the whole family to prevent identification, what crime did the four commit?
Explain. Under the facts of the case, what aggravating circumstances may be appreciated against the four? Explain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
a) Jose, Domingo, and Manolo committed Robbery, while Fernando committed complex crime of Robbery with Rape...
b) The crime would be Robbery with Homicide because the killings were by reason(to prevent identification) and on the
occasion of the robbery. The multiple rapes committed and the fact that several persons were killed [homicide), would be
considered as aggravating circumstances. The rapes are synonymous with Ignominy and the additional killing synonymous
with cruelty, (People vs. Solis, 182 SCRA; People vs. Plaga, 202 SCRA 531)
c) The aggravating circumstances which may be considered in the premises are:
1.Band because all the four offenders are armed; 2.Noctumity because evidently the offenders took advantage of
nighttime;3.dwelling; and4Uninhabited place because the house where the crimes were committed was "at a desolate place" and
obviously the offenders took advantage of this circumstance in committing the crime.

Aggravating Circumstances; Generis vs. Qualifying (1999)

54.) Distinguish generic aggravating circumstance from qualifying aggravating circumstance.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Generic Aggravating Circumstances: affects only the imposition of the penalty prescribed, but not the nature of the crime
committed; can be offset by ordinary mitigating circumstances; need not be alleged in the Information as long as proven during
the trial, the same shall be considered in imposing the sentence. Qualifying Aggravating Circumstances: must be alleged in the
Information and proven during trial; cannot be offset by mitigating circumstances; affects the nature of the crime or brings about
a penalty higher in degree than that ordinarily prescribed.
Aggravating Circumstances; Kinds & Penalties (1999)
55.) Name the four (4) kinds of aggravating circumstances and state their effect on the penalty of crimes and nature thereof.
(3%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The four (4) kinds of aggravating circumstances are:
1) GENERIC AGGRAVATING or those that can generally apply to all crimes, and can be offset by mitigating circumstances, but
if not offset, would affect only the maximum of the penalty prescribed by law;
2) SPECIFIC AGGRAVATING or those that apply only to particular crimes and cannot be offset by mitigating circumstances:
3) QUALIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES or those that change the nature of the crime to a graver one, or brings about a penalty
next higher in degree, and cannot be offset by mitigating circumstances;
4) INHERENT AGGRAVATING or those that essentially accompany the commission of the crime and does not affect the
penalty whatsoever.
Aggravating; Cruelty; Relationship (1994)
56.) Ben, a widower, driven by bestial desire, poked a gun on his daughter Zeny, forcibly undressed her and tied her legs to
the bed. He also burned her face with a lighted cigarrete. Like a madman, he laughed while raping her. What aggravating
circumstances are present in this case?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
a) Cruelty, for burning the victim's face with a lighted cigarrete, thereby deliberately augmenting the victim's suffering by acts
clearly unnecessary to the rape, while the offender delighted and enjoyed seeing the victim suffer in pain(People vs. Lucas, 181
SCRA 316).
b) Relationship, because the offended party is a descendant (daughter) of the offender and considering that the crime is one
against chastity.
Aggravating; Must be alleged in the information (2000)
57.) Rico, a member of the Alpha Rho fraternity, was killed by Pocholo, a member of the rival group, Sigma Phi Omega.
Pocholo was prosecuted for homicide before the Regional Trial Court in Binan, Laguna. During the trial, the prosecution
was able to prove that the killing was committed by means of poison in consideration of a promise or reward and with cruelty.
If you were the Judge, with what crime will you convict Pocholo? Explain. (2%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Pocholo should be convicted of the crime of homicide only because the aggravating circumstances which should qualify the
crime to murder were not alleged in the Information. The circumstances of using poison, in consideration of a promise or reward,
and cruelty which attended the killing of Rico could only be appreciated as generic aggravating circumstances since none of
them have been alleged in the information to qualify the killing to murder. A qualifying circumstance must be alleged in the
Information and proven beyond reasonable doubt during the trial to be appreciated as such.
Aggravating; Nighttime; Band (1994)
58.) At about 9:30 in the evening, while Dino and Raffy were walking along Padre Faura Street, Manila. Johnny hit them
with a rock injuring Dino at the back. Raffy approached Dino, but suddenly, Bobby, Steve, Danny and Nonoy surrounded the
duo. Then Bobby stabbed Dino. Steve, Danny, Nonoy and Johnny kept on hitting Dino and Raffy with rocks. As a result.

Dino died, Bobby, Steve, Danny, Nonoy and Johnny were charged with homicide. Can the court appreciate the aggravating
circumstances of nighttime and band?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, nighttime cannot be appreciated as an aggravating circumstance because there is no indication that the offenders deliberately
sought the cover of darkness to facilitate the commission of the crime or that they took advantage of nighttime(People vs. De los
Reyes, 203 SCRA 707). Besides, judicial notice can be taken of the fact that Padre Faura Street is well-lighted. However, band
should be considered as the crime was committed by more than three armed malefactors; in a recent Supreme Court decision,
stones or rocks are considered deadly weapons.
Aggravating; Recidivism (2001)
59.) Juan de Castro already had three (3) previous convictions by final judgment for theft when he was found guilty of
Robbery with Homicide. In the last case, the trial Judge considered against the accused both recidivism and habitual
delinquency. The accused appealed and contended that in his last conviction, the trial court cannot consider against him a
finding of recidivism and, again, of habitual delinquency. Is the appeal meritorious? Explain. (5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, the appeal is not meritorious. Recidivism and habitual delinquency are correctly considered in this case because the basis of
recidivism is different from that of habitual delinquency. Juan is a recidivist because he had been previously convicted by final
judgment for theft and again found guilty for Robbery with Homicide, which are both crimes against property, embraced under
the same Title (Title Ten, Book Two] of the Revised Penal Code. The implication is that he is specializing in the commission of
crimes against property, hence aggravating in the conviction for Robbery with Homicide. Habitual delinquency, which brings
about an additional penalty when an offender is convicted a third time or more for specified crimes, is correctly considered ...
Aggravating; Recidivism vs. Quasi-Recidivism (1998)
60.) Distinguish between recidivism and quasi-recidivism. [2%]
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
In recidivism
1.The convictions of the offender are for crimes embraced in the same Title of the Revised Penal Code; and
2.This circumstance is generic aggravating and therefore can be effect by an ordinary mitigating circumstance. Whereas in quasirecidivism -1The convictions are not for crimes embraced in the same Title of the Revised Penal Code, provided that it is a felony
that was committed by the offender before serving sentence by final judgment for another crime or while serving sentence for
another crime; and2This circumstance is a special aggravating circumstance which cannot be offset by any mitigating
circumstance.
Aggravating; Treachery & Unlawful Entry (1997)
61.) The accused and the victim occupied adjacent apartments, each being a separate dwelling unit of one big house. The
accused suspected his wife of having an illicit relation with the victim. One afternoon, he saw the victim and his wife together
on board a vehicle. In the evening of that day, the accused went to bed early and tried to sleep, but being so annoyed over the
suspected relation between his wife and the victim, he could not sleep. Later in the night, he resolved to kill victim. He rose
from bed and took hold of a knife. He entered the apartment of the victim through an unlocked window. Inside, he saw the
victim soundly asleep. He thereupon stabbed the victim, inflicting several wounds, which caused his death within a few
hours.25 of 86Would you say that the killing was attended by the qualifying or aggravating circumstances of evident
premeditation, treachery, nighttime and unlawful entry?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
1. Evident premeditation cannot be considered against the accused because he resolved to kill the victim "later in the night" and
there was no sufficient lapse of time between the determination and execution, to allow his conscience to overcome the
resolution of his will.
2. TREACHERY may be present because the accused stabbed the victim while the latter was sound asleep. Accordingly, he
employed means and methods which directly and specially insured the execution of the act without risk himself arising from the
defense which the victim might have made (People vs. Dequina. 60 Phil. 279People vs. Miranda, et at. 90 Phil. 91).
3. Nighttime cannot be appreciated because there is no showing that the accused deliberately sought or availed of nighttime to
insure the success of his act. The Intention to commit the crime was conceived shortly before its commission (Peoplevs Pardo. 79
Phil, 568). Moreover, nighttime is absorbed in treachery.

4. UNLAWFUL ENTRY may be appreciated as an aggravating circumstance, inasmuch as the accused entered the room of the
victim through the window, which is not the proper place for entrance into the house (Art. 14. par. 18. Revised Penal Code,People
vs. Baruga 61 Phil. 318).
Alternative Circumstances; Intoxication (2002)
62.) A was invited to a drinking spree by friends. After having had a drink too many, A and B had a heated argument, during
which A stabbed B. As a result, B suffered serious physical injuries. May the intoxication of A be considered aggravating or
mitigating? (5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The intoxication of A may be prima facie considered mitigating since it was merely incidental to the commission of the crime. It
may not be considered aggravating as there is no clear indication from the facts of the case that it was habitual or intentional on
the part of A. Aggravating circumstances are not to be presumed; they should be proved beyond reasonable doubt
Anti-Fencing Law; Fencing (1996)
63.) Flora, who was engaged in the purchase and sale of jewelry, was prosecuted for the violation of P.D. 1612, otherwise
known as the Anti-Fencing Law, for having been found to be in possession of recently stolen Jewelry valued at P100,000.00 at
her jewelry shop at Zapote Road, Las Pinas, Metro Manila. She testified during the trial that she merely bought the same
from one named Cecilino and even produced a receipt covering the sale. Cecilino, in the past, used to deliver to her jewelries
for sale but is presently nowhere to be found. Convicted by the trial court for violation of the Anti-Fencing Law, she argued
(or her acquittal on appeal, contending that the prosecution failed to prove that she knew or should have known that the
Jewelries recovered from her were the proceeds of the crime of robbery or theft.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, Flora's defense is not well-taken because mere possession of any article of value which has been the subject of theft or robbery
shall be prima facie evidence of fencing (P.D.No. 1612). The burden is upon the accused to prove that she acquired the jewelry
legitimately. Her defense of having bought the Jewelry from someone whose whereabouts is unknown, does not overcome the
presumption of fencing against her (Pamintuan vs People, G.R 111426, 11 July 1994). Buying personal property puts the buyer
on caveat because of the phrases that he should have known or ought to know that it is the proceed from robbery or theft. Besides,
she should have followed the administrative procedure under the decree that of getting a clearance from the authorities in case the
dealer is unlicensed in order to escape liability.
Anti-Fencing Law; Fencing vs. Theft or Robbery (1995)
64.) What is the difference between a fence and an accessory to theft or robbery? Explain. Is there any similarity between
them?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
One difference between a fence and an accessory to theft or robbery is the penalty involved; a fence is punished as a principal
under P.D. No. 1612 and the penalty is higher, whereas an accessory to robbery or theft under the Revised Penal Code is punished
two degrees lower than the principal, unless he bought or profited from the proceeds of theft or robbery arising from robbery in
Philippine highways under P.D. No. 532 where he is punished as an accomplice, hence the penalty is one degree lower. Also,
fencing is a malum prohibitum and therefore there is no need to prove criminal intent of the accused; this is not so in violations of
Revised Penal Code.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes, there is a similarity in the sense that all the acts of one who is an accessory to the crimes of robbery or theft are included in
the acts defined as fencing. In fact, the accessory in the crimes of robbery or theft could be prosecuted as such under the Revised
Penal Code or as a fence under P.D. No. 1612.(Dizon-Pamintuan vs. People, 234 SCRA 63]
Anti-Fencing Law; Fencing; Elements (1995)
65.) What are the elements of fencing?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The elements of fencing are: a. a crime of robbery or theft has been committed; accused, who is not a principal or accomplice in
the crime, buys, receives, possesses, keeps, acquires, conceals, or disposes, or buys and sells, or in any manner deals in any
article, item , object or anything of value, which has been derived from the proceeds of said crime; the accused knows or should
have known that said article, item, object or anything of value has been derived from the from the proceeds of the crime of
robbery or theft; and there is on the part of the accused, intent to gain for himself or for another.
Criminal Liability; Accessories & Fence (1998)

66.) King went to the house of Laura who was alone. Laura offered him a drink and after consuming three bottles of beer.
King made advances to her and with force and violence, ravished her. Then King killed Laura and took her jewelry.
Doming, King's adopted brother, learned about the incident. He went to Laura's house, hid her body, cleaned everything and
washed the bloodstains inside the room. Later, King gave Jose, his legitimate brother, one piece of jewelry belonging to
Laura. Jose knew that the jewelry was taken from Laura but nonetheless he sold it for P2,000.What crime or crimes did
King, Doming and Jose commit? Discuss their criminal liabilities. [10%]
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
King committed the composite crime of Rape with homicide as a single indivisible offense, not a complex crime, and Theft.
...Doming's acts, having been done with knowledge of the commission of the crime and obviously to conceal the body of the
crime to prevent its discovery, makes him an accessory to the crime of rape with homicide under Art. 19, par. 2 of the Rev.
Penal Code, but he is exempt from criminal liability therefor under Article 20 of the Code, being an adopted brother of the
principal. Jose incurs criminal liability either as an accessory to the crime of theft committed by King, or as fence. Although he is
a legitimate brother of King, the exemption under Article 20 does not include the participation he did, because he profited from
the effects of such theft by selling the jewelry knowing that the same was taken from Laura. Or Jose may be prosecuted for
fencing under the Anti-Fencing Law of 1979 (PD No. 1612) since the jewelry was the proceeds of theft and with intent to gain,
he received it from King and sold it.
Criminal Liability; Non-Exemption as Accessory (2004)
67.) DCB, the daughter of MCB, stole the earrings of XYZ, a stranger. MCB pawned the earrings with TBI Pawnshop as a
pledge for P500 loan. During the trial, MCB raised the defense that being the mother of DCB, she cannot be held liable as
an accessory. Will MCB's defense prosper? Reason briefly. (5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, MCB's defense will not prosper because the exemption from criminal liability of an accessory by virtue of relationship with
the principal does not cover accessories who themselves profited from or assisted the offender to profit by the effects or
proceeds of the crime. This non-exemption of an accessory, though related to the principal of the crime, is expressly provided in
Art. 20 of the Revised Penal Code.
Criminal Liability; Principal by Direct Participation; Co-Principal by Indispensable Cooperation (2000)
68.) Despite the massive advertising campaign in media against firecrackers and gun-firing during the New Year's
celebrations, Jonas and Jaja bought ten boxes of super lolo and pla-pla in Bocaue, Bulacan. Before midnight of December
31, 1999,Jonas and Jaja started their celebration by having a drinking spree at Jona's place by exploding their high-powered
firecrackers in their neighborhood. In the course of their conversation, Jonas confided to Jaja that he has been keeping
along-time grudge against his neighbor Jepoy in view of the latter's refusal to lend him some money. While under the
influence of liquor, Jonas started throwing lighted super lolos inside Jepoy's fence to irritate him and the same exploded
inside the latter's yard. Upon knowing that the throwing of the super lolo was deliberate, Jepoy became furious and sternly
warned Jonas to stop his malicious act or he would get what he wanted. A heated argument between Jonas and Jepoy
ensued but Jaja tried to calm down his friend. At midnight, Jonas convinced Jajato lend him his .45 caliber pistol so that he
could use it to knock down Jepoy and to end his arrogance. Jonas thought that after all, explosions were everywhere and
nobody would know who shot Jepoy. After Jaja lent his firearm to Jonas, the latter again started throwing lighted super
lolos and pla-plas at Jepoy's yard inorder to provoke him so that he would come out of his house. When Jepoy came out,
Jonas immediately shot him with Jaja's .45 caliber gun but missed his target. Instead, the bullet hit Jepoy's five year old son
who was following behind him, killing the boy instantaneously, If you were the Judge, how would you decide the case?
Explain. (1%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:I would convict Jonas as principal by direct participation and Jaja as co-principal by Indispensable
cooperation for the complex crime of murder with homicide. Jaja should be held liable as co-principal and not only as an
accomplice because he knew of Jonas' criminal design even before he lent his firearm to Jonas and still he concurred in that
criminal design by providing the firearm.
Criminal Liability; Principal by Inducement (2002)
69.) A asked B to kill C because of a grave injustice done to A by C. A promised B a reward. B was willing to kill C, not so
much because of the reward promised to himbut27 of 86because he also had his own long-standing grudge against C, who
had wronged him in the past. If C is killed by B, would A be liable as a principal by inducement?(5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No. A would not be liable as a principal by inducement because the reward he promised B is not the sole impelling reason which
made B to kill C. To bring about criminal liability of a co-principal, the inducement made by the inducer must be the sole
consideration which caused the person induced to commit the crime and without which the crime would not have been
committed. The facts of the case indicate that B, the killer supposedly induced by A, had his own reason to kill C out of a long
standing grudge.
Criminal Liability; Principal; Inducement & Participation (1994)

70.) Tata owns a three-storey building located at No. 3 Herran Street. Paco, Manila. She wanted to construct a new building
but had no money to finance the construction. So, she insured the building for P3,000,000.00. She then urged Yoboy and
Yongsi, for monetary consideration, to burn her building so she could collect the insurance proceeds. Yoboy and Yongsi
burned the said building resulting to its total loss. What is their respective criminal liability?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Tata is a principal by inducement because she directly induced Yoboy and Yongsi,for a price or monetary consideration, to
commit arson which the latter would nothave committed were it not for such reason. Yoboy and Yongsi are principals bydirect
participation (Art. 17, pars. 21 and 3, RPC).
Destructive Arson (1994)
71.) Tata owns a three-storey building located at No. 3 Herran Street. Paco, Manila. She wanted to construct a new building
but had no money to finance the construction. So, she insured the building for P3,000,000.00. She then urged Yoboy and
Yongsi, for monetary consideration, to burn her building so she could collect the insurance proceeds. Yoboy and Yongsi
burned the said building resulting to its total loss. What crime did Tata, Yoboy and Yongsi commit?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Tata, Yoboy and Yongsi committed the crime of destructive arson because they collectively caused the destruction of property by
means of fire under the circumstances which exposed to danger the life or property of others (Art, 320,par. 5, RPC. as amended
by RA No. 7659).
Complex Crime vs. Compound Crime (2004)
72.) Distinguish clearly but briefly: Between compound and complex crimes as conceptsin the Penal Code.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
COMPOUND CRIMES result when the offender committed only a single felonious act from which two or more crimes resulted.
This is provided for in modified form in the first part of Article 48, Revised Penal Code, limiting the resulting crimes to only grave
and/or less grave felonies. Hence, light felonies are excluded even though resulting from the same single act.
COMPLEX CRIMES result when the offender has to commit an offense as a necessary means for committing another offense. Only
one information shall be filed and if proven, the penalty for the more serious crime shall be imposed.
Complex Crime vs. Special Complex Crime vs. Delito Continuado (2005)
73.) Distinguish the following from each other: ORDINARY COMPLEX CRIME, SPECIAL COMPLEX CRIME, AND DELITO
CONTINUADO, or CONTINUOUS CRIME
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
An ORDINARY COMPLEX CRIME is made up of two or more crimes being punished indistinct provisions of the Revised Penal
Code but alleged in one information either because they were brought about by a single felonious act or because one offense is a
necessary means for committing the other offense or offenses. They are alleged in one information so that only one penalty shall be
imposed. As to penalties, ordinary complex crime, the penalty for the most serious crime shall be imposed and in its maximum period
A SPECIAL COMPLEX CRIME, on the other hand, is made up of two or more crimes which are considered only as components of a
single indivisible offense being punished in one provision of the Revised Penal Code. As to penalties, special complex crime, only
one penalty is specifically prescribed for all the component crimes which are regarded as one indivisible offense. The component
crimes are not regarded as distinct crimes and so the penalty for the most serious crime is not the penalty to be imposed nor in its
maximum period. It is the penalty specifically provided for the special complex crime that shall be applied according to the rules on
imposition of the penalty.
DELITO CONTINUADO, or CONTINUOUS CRIME, is a term used to denote as only one crime a series of felonious acts arising
from a single criminal resolution, not susceptible of division, which are carried out in the same place and at about the same time, and
violating one and the same penal provision. The acts done must be impelled by one criminal intent or purpose, such that each act
merely constitutes a partial execution of a particular crime, violating one and the same penal provision. It involves a concurrence of
felonious acts violating a common right, a common penal provision, and Impelled by a single criminal impulse (People vs.Ledesma,
73 SCRA 77).
Complex Crimes; Nature & Penalty Involved (1999)
77.) What constitutes a complex crime? How many crimes maybe involved in a complex crime? What is the penalty
therefor? (4%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:

A complex crime is constituted when a single act caused two or more grave or less grave felonies or when an offense is
committed as a necessary means to commit another offense (Art. 48, RPC). At least two (2) crimes are involved in a complex
crime; either two or more grave or less grave felonies resulted from a single act, or an offense is committed as a necessary
means for committing another. The penalty for the more serious crime shall be imposed and in its maximum period.(Art. 48,
RPC)
Complex Crimes; Ordinary Complex Crime vs. Special Complex Crime (2003)
78.) Distinguish between an ordinary complex crime and a special complex crime as to their concepts and as to the
imposition of penalties. 2%
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
IN CONCEPT
An ORDINARY COMPLEX CRIME is made up of two or more crimes being punished indistinct provisions of the Revised
Penal Code but alleged in one Information either because they were brought about by a single felonious act or because one
offense is a necessary means for committing the other offense or offenses. They are alleged in one Information so that only
one penalty shall be imposed.
A SPECIAL COMPLEX CRIME, on the other hand, is made up of two or more crimes which are considered only as
components of a single indivisible offense being punished in one provision of the Revised Penal Code.
AS TO PENALTIES
In ORDINARY COMPLEX CRIME, the penalty for the most serious crime shall be imposed and in its maximum period.
In SPECIAL COMPLEX CRIME, only one penalty is specifically prescribed for all the component crimes which are
regarded as one indivisible offense. The component crimes are not regarded as distinct crimes and so the penalty for the most
serious crime is not the penalty to be imposed nor in its maximum period. It is the penalty specifically provided for the
special complex crime that shall be applied according to the rules on imposition of the penalty.
Continuing Offense vs. Delito Continuado (1994)
79.) Differentiate delito continuado from a continuing offense.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
DELITO CONTINUADO, or CONTINUOUS CRIME, is a term used to denote as only one crime a series of felonious acts
arising from a single criminal resolution, not susceptible of division, which are carried out in the same place and at about the
same time, and violating one and the same penal provision. The acts done must be impelled by one criminal intent or
purpose, such that each act merely constitutes a partial execution of a particular crime, violating one and the same penal
provision. It involves a concurrence of felonious acts violating a common right, a common penal provision, and impelled by
a single criminal impulse (People vs. Ledesma, 73 SCRA 77).
On the other hand, a CONTINUING OFFENSE is one whose essential ingredients took place in more than one
municipality or city, so much so that the criminal prosecution may be instituted and the case tried in the competent court
of any one of such municipality or city. The term "CONTINUED CRIME" or delito continuado mandates that only one
information should be filed against the offender although a series of felonious acts were performed; the term "continuing
crime" is more pertinently used with reference to the venue where the criminal action may be instituted.
Habitual Delinquency & Recidivism (2001)
80.) Juan de Castro already had three (3) previous convictions by final judgment for theft when he was found guilty of Robbery
with Homicide. In the last case, the trial Judge considered against the accused both recidivism and habitual delinquency. The
accused appealed and contended that in his last conviction, the trial court cannot consider against him a finding of recidivism and,
again, of habitual delinquency. Is the appeal meritorious? Explain. (5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER
No, the appeal is not meritorious. Recidivism and habitual delinquency are correctly considered in this case because the basis of
recidivism is different from that of habitual delinquency. Juan is a recidivist ... Habitual delinquency, which brings about an additional
penalty when an offender is convicted a third time or more for specified crimes, is correctly considered because Juan had already three
(3) previous convictions by final judgment for theft and again convicted for Robbery With Homicide. And the crimes specified as
basis for habitual delinquency includes, inter alia, theft and robbery
Indeterminate Sentence Law (1994)

81.) Itos was convicted of an offense penalized by a special law. The penalty prescribed is not less than six years but not more than
twelve years. No modifying circumstance attended the commission of the crime. If you were the judge, will you apply the
Indeterminate Sentence Law? If so, how will you apply it?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
If I were the judge, I will apply the provisions of the Indeterminate Sentence Law, as the last sentence of Section 1 Act 4103,
specifically provides the application thereof for violations of special laws. Under the same provision, the minimum must not be less
than the minimum provided therein (six years and one day) and the maximum shall not be more than the maximum provided therein,
i.e. twelve years. (People vs. Rosalina Reyes, 186 SCRA184)
Indeterminate Sentence Law (1999
82.) Andres is charged with an offense defined by a special law. The penalty prescribed for the offense is imprisonment of not less
than five (5) years but not more than ten [10) years. Upon arraignment, he entered a plea of guilty. In the imposition of the proper
penalty, should the Indeterminate Sentence Law be applied? If you were the Judge trying the case, what penalty would you impose
on Andres? (4%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes, the Indeterminate Sentence Law should be applied because the minimum imprisonment is more than one (1) year. If I were the
Judge, I will impose an indeterminate sentence, the maximum of which shall not exceed the maximum fixed by law and the minimum
shall not be less than the minimum penalty prescribed by the same. I have the discretion to impose the penalty within the said
minimum and maximum.
Indeterminate Sentence Law (1999)
83.) Under Article 27 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act (RA) No.7959, reclusion perpetua shall be from
20 years and 1 day to 40 years. Does this mean that reclusion perpetua is now a divisible penalty? Explain. (2%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, because the Supreme Court has repeatedly called the attention of the Bench and the Bar to the fact that the penalties of
reclusion perpetua and life imprisonment are not synonymous and should be applied correctly and as may be specified by the
applicable law. Reclusion perpetua has a specific duration of 20 years and 1 day to 40 years (Art. 27) and accessory penalties (Art.
41), while life imprisonment has no definite term or accessory penalties. Also, life imprisonment is imposable on crimes punished
by special laws, and not on felonies in the Code(People vs. De Guzman, G.R. Nos. 51385-86, Jan. 22, 1993; People vs.
Estrella,G.R. Nos. 92506-07, April 28, 1993; People vs. Alvero,G.R. No. 72319, June 30,1993; People vs. Lapiroso, G.R. No.
122507, Feb. 25,1999).
Penalties; Reclusion Perpetua vs. Life Imprisonment (1994)
84.) Differentiate reclusion perpetua from life imprisonment.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
RECLUSION PERPETUA is that penalty provided for in the Revised Penal Code for crimes defined in and penalized therein
except for some crimes defined by special laws which impose reclusion perpetua, such as violations of Republic Act 6425, as
amended by Republic Act 7659 or of PD 1860; while LIFE IMPRISONMENT is a penalty usually provided for in special
laws. Reclusion perpetua has a duration of twenty(20) years and one (1) day to forty [40] years under Republic Act 7659,
while life imprisonment has no duration; reclusion perpetua may be reduced by one or two degrees; reclusion perpetuates
accessory penalties while life imprisonment does not have any accessory penalties (People vs. Baguio, 196 SCRA 459,
People vs. Panellos, 205 SCRA 546).
Penalties; Reclusion Perpetua vs. Life Imprisonment (2001)
85.) After trial, Judge Juan Laya of the Manila RTC found Benjamin Garcia guilty of Murder, the victim having sustained
several bullet wounds in his body so that he died despite medical assistance given in the Ospital ng Manila. Because the
weapon used by Benjamin was unlicensed and the qualifying circumstance of treachery was found to be present. Judge
Laya rendered his decision convicting Benjamin and sentencing him to "reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment". Are
"reclusion perpetua" and life imprisonment the same and can be imposed interchangeably as in the foregoing sentence?
Or are they totally different? State your reasons. (3%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The penalty of reclusion perpetua and the penalty of life Imprisonment are totally different from each other and therefore,
should not be used interchangeably. Reclusion perpetua is a penalty prescribed by the Revised Penal Code, with a fixed
duration of imprisonment from 20 years and 1 day to 40 years, and carries it with accessory penalties. Life imprisonment, on
the other hand, is a penalty prescribed by special laws, with no fixed duration of imprisonment and without any accessory
penalty.