BOOK ONE 1. Explain the justification of the power of the State to enact penal laws.

The state has the authority, under its police power, to define and punish crimes and to lay down the rules or criminal procedure. States, as part of their police power, have a large measure of discretion in creating and defining criminal offenses. 2. What are the limitations on the power of the lawmaking body to enact penal legislation? The limitations on the power of the lawmaking body to enact penal legislation are the following: 1. It must not violate the Equal protection Clause of the Constitution. 2. It must not violate the constitutional mandate of Due Process of Law. 3. It must not partake of the nature of an ex post facto law. 4. It must not partake of the nature of bill of attainder. 5. It must not impose cruel and unusual punishment or excessive fines. 3. What are the three characteristics of criminal law? The three characteristics/features of criminal law are the following: 1. Generality- criminal law is binding on all persons who live or sojourn in Philippine territory subject to certain exceptions. 2. Territoriality- penal laws of the Philippines are enforceable only within its territory subject to certain exceptions also. 3. Prospectivity- this is also called as IRRETROSPECTIVITY. A penal law can not make an act punishable in a manner in which it was not punishable when committed. 4. What are the exceptions to the prospective application of criminal laws? Whenever a new statute dealing with crime establishes conditions more lenient or favorable to the accused, it can be given retroactive effect. This exception has no application in the following: 1. Where the new law is expressly made inapplicable to pending actions or existing causes of action (Tavera vs. Valdez). 2. Where the offender is a habitual criminal (Art. 22, RPC). 5. What is the scope of the application of the provisions of the Revised Penal Code? (Art. 2, RPC) Except as otherwise provided in the treaties and laws of preferential application, the provisions of the code shall be enforced not only within the Philippine Archipelago, including its atmosphere, its interior waters and maritime zone, but also outside of its jurisdiction, against those who: 1. Should commit an offense while on a Philippine ship or airship; 2. Should forge or counterfeit any coin or currency note of the Philippine Islands or obligations and securities issued by the government of the Philippine Islands; 3. Should be liable for acts connected with the introduction in these Islands of the obligations and mentioned in the preceding number; 4. While being public officers or employees, should commit an offense in the exercise of their functions; or 5. Should commit any of the crimes against national security and the law of nations, defined in Title One of Book Two of the Revised Penal Code. 6. What are the rules as to jurisdiction over crimes committed aboard foreign merchant vessels? The two rules as to jurisdiction over crimes committed aboard merchant vessels while in the territorial waters of another country are the following: 1. French Rule/Nationality Rule- such crimes are not triable in the courts of that country, unless the commission affects the peace and security of the territory or the safety of the state is endangered.

2. English Rule/Territoriality Rule- Such crimes are triable in that country, unless they merely affects things within the vessel or they refer to the internal management thereof. The Philippines observe the English Rule. 7. What are the distinctions between crimes mala inse and crimes mala prohibita? 1. As to the Nature: Mala In se are acts which are wrongful from their very nature, inherently evil while Mala prohibita are those which are not inherently evil but becomes evil merely because it is prohibited by a statute. 2. As to Essential Element: In Mala inse criminal intent is essential while in Mala prohibita, criminal intent is not an essential element. 3. As to Defense: In Mala Inse, good faith or lack of criminal intent is a valid defense, unless the crime is the result of culpa while In Mala Prohibita, good faith is not a defense. 4. As to Stages of Execution: In Mala In se, the stages of execution of crime is considered while in Mala Prohibita the offender is always liable, the stages of execution of the crime are not considered. 5. As to the presence of Mitigating and Aggravating Circumstance: In Mala In se, mitigating and aggravating circumstances are taken into account in imposing penalties while in Mala Prohibita, the same are generally not applicable unless the law specifically provides otherwise. 8. What is the distinction between intent and motive? Motive is the moving power which impels one to action for a definite result. Motive is not an essential element of the crime while Intent is the purpose to use a particular means to effect such a result. 9. May a crime be committed without criminal intent? Yes. Criminal intent is not necessary in these cases: 1. When the crime is the product of culpa or negligence, reckless imprudence, lack of foresight or lack of skill; 2. When the crime is a prohibited act under a special law or what is called malum prohibitum. 10. In what instances where motive is necessary to prove? Motive is necessary to prove in the following: 1. Where the identity of a person accused of having committed a crime is in dispute or doubtful.(People vs Gadiana) 2. When the evidence presented is circumstancial. (People vs. Oquino) 3. In ascertaining the truth between two antagonistic theories or versions of killing. (People vs Arcilla) 4. Where there are no eyewitness to the crime and where suspicion is likely to fall upon a number of persons. (People vs Melgar) 11. What are the classification of felonies according to the means by which they are committed? Art. 3 of the RPC classify felonies into (1) intentional felonies, and (2) culpable felonies. In intentional felonies, the act is performed with deliberate intent or with malice. In culpable felonies, the wrongful act results from imprudence, negligence, lack of foresight or lack of skill. 12. When does a person incur criminal liability? (Art. 4, RPC) A person incurs criminal liability under the following instances:

1. When a person commits a felony although the wrongful act done be different from that which he intended. 2. When a person performed an act which would be an offense against persons or property, were it not for an inherent impossibility of its accomplishment or on the account of an employment of inadequate or ineffectual means (impossible crime). 13. What are the requisites of an impossible crime? 1. That the act performed would be an offense against persons or property. 2. That the act was done with evil intent. 3. That its accomplishment is inherently impossible, or that the means employed is either inadequate or ineffectual means. 4. That the act performed should not constitute a violation of another provision of the Revised Penal Code. 14. Is there an attempted or frustrated impossible crime? There could be no attempted impossible crime since the offender in impossible crime has already performed the acts of the execution of the same. On the other hand, frustrated impossible crime cannot be committed because the acts performed by the offender re considered as constituting a consummated offense. 15. Accused was a houseboy in a house where only a spinster resides. It is customary for the spinster to sleep in the nude because her room was warm. It was also the habit of the houseboy that whenever she enters her room, the houseboy would follow and peek into the keyhole. Finally, when the houseboy could no longer resist the urge, he climbed into the ceiling, went inside the room of his master, placed himself on top of her and abused her, not knowing that she was already dead five minutes earlier. Was an impossible crime committed? Yes. Before, the act performed by the offender could not have been a crime against person or property. The act performed would have been constituted a crime against chastity. An impossible crime is true only if the act done by the offender constitutes a crime against person or property. However, with new rape law amending the Revised Penal Code and classifying rape as a crime against persons, it is now possible that an impossible crime was committed. 16. What are the three ways of committing a felony the consequence of which was different from that which intended by the offender? 1. Error in Personae (Mistake in Identity) - there is a mistake in the identity where the offender actually hit the person to whom he believed to be the intended victim but turned out to be different person. 2. Aberratio Ictus (Mistake in the blow)- there is a mistake in the blow when the offender intending to do an injury to one person actually inflicts it on another. 3. Praeter Intentionem (The injurious result is greater than that intended) - the act exceeds the intent. 17. What are the classifications of felonies according to its stage of execution? Art. 6 of the RPC classify felonies into: 1. Consummated Felony- when all the elements necessary for its execution and accomplishment are present. 2. Frustrated Felony- when the offender performs all the acts of execution which would produce the felony as a consequence but which, nevertheless, do not produce it by reason of causes independent of the will of the perpetrator. 3. Attempted felony- when the offender commences the commission of the felony directly be overt acts, and does not perform all the acts of the execution which should produce the felony by the reason of some cause or accident other than his own spontaneous desistence. 18. What is the distinction between material crime and formal crimes? Formal crimes is consummated in one instant, there is no attempt while Material crimes has three stages of execution.

19. Are all light felonies punishable when consummated? No. General Rule: Light Felonies are punishable only when they have been consummated. Exception: Light felonies committed against persons or property, are punishable even if attempted or frustrated. 20. What are the two CONCEPTS of conspiracy? 1. Conspiracy as a crime itself- the first concept explains that conspiracy is punishable as a crime when the law specially provides for a penalty thereof. Example: treason, sedition. 2. As a manner of incurring liability- when the conspiracy relates to s crime actually committed, it is not a felony but only a manner of incurring liability,that is the act of one is the act of all. Conspiracy in this sense is not a separate offense. 21. What are the two TYPES of conspiracy? 1. Express Conspiracy- Conspiracy by pre-agreement and one which must be proven by a third person. 2. Implied Conspiracy- one which is proven by the fact of participation in the commission of the crime. It exists when there is unity of action and unity of purpose in the execution of the act. 22. What is the doctrine of Implied Conspiracy? The doctrine of implied conspiracy holds two or more persons participating in the commission of the crime collectively responsible and liable as co-conspirators although absent any agreement to that effect, when they act in concert, demonstrating unity of criminal intent and a common purpose or objective. The existence of a conspiracy shall be inferred or deduced from their criminal participation in pursuing the crime and thus the act of one shall be the act of all. (People vs Musa, G.r. no. 137042, June 17, 2003) 23. Nicolas and Arriola, former Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner of the Economic Intelligence and Investigation Bureau (EIIB) was charged in Criminal Case for violation of the Tariff and Customs Code and of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act for allowing the release of undeclared goods carried by a van which was seized by EIIB, the van thereafter was declared missing. Nicolas and Arriola were indicted for conspiring with one John Doe who took possession of the goods without proper documentation and payment of customs duties and taxes. Both Nicolas and Arriola pleaded not guilty to the charges. Respondent ruled that petitioners can be deemed to have conspired or colluded with one another or others. Decide. There is no conspiracy committed. Conspiracy must be established by the same quantum of evidence as the elements of the offense charged. It must be shown by overt acts indicating not only unity of purpose but also unity in execution of the unlawful objective by the alleged conspirators. In the case at bar, there is no competent or sufficient evidence of particular overt acts that would tend to show that petitioners colluded with each other or with another person or others to defraud the customs revenue or to otherwise violate the law, or that they willfully made it possible for John Doe to defraud the customs revenue. (Nicholas vs Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos. 175930-31, February 11, 2008)

24. What is the Classification of felonies according to their gravity? Art. 9 of the RPC classify felonies into: 1. Grave Felonies- those which the law attaches the capital punishment or penalties which in any of their periods are afflictive, in accordance with Art. 25 of the RPC. 2. Less Grave Felonies- those which the law punishes with penalties which in their maximum period are correctional, in accordance with Art. 25 of the RPC. 3. Light felonies- those infractions of law for the commission of which the penalty of arresto menor of a fine not exceeding 200 pesos, or both is provided. 25. What are the requisites of mistake of fact as a defense? The requisites of mistake of fact as a defense are the following:

1. That the act done would have been lawful had the facts been as the accused believe them to be; 2. That the intention of the accused in performing the act should be lawful; 3. That the mistake must be without fault or carelessness on the part of the accused. 26. Is mere belief of an impending attack constitutes unlawful aggression? No. Mere belief of an impending attack is not sufficient to constitute unlawful aggression. Neither is an intimidating or threatening attitude. Even a mere push or shove not followed by other acts placing in real peril the life or personal safety of the accused is not unlawful aggression. (People vs Bautista) 27. Around 9 o'clock in the evening, Antonio Balisacan attended a benefit dance with his son Crisanto also present with his friends to attend the same. Crisanto stood beside the emcee, appellant's brother who called the victim, Antonio Balisacan, to come to the the stage as he was a kagawad, however Crisanto heard the people at his back shouting. It was five to six meters at his back, where he saw appellant Timoteo Encarlos stab his father, Antonio, several times. Appellant invoked self-defense since prior to the said occasion, the victim boxed him which left a scar on his face. Is the plea of self defense proper? No. Unlawful aggression presupposes actual, sudden, unexpected or imminent danger not merely threatening and intimidating action. There is aggression, only when the one attacked faces real and immediate threat to one's life. The peril sought to be avoided must be imminent and actual, not just speculative. When an unlawful aggression that has begun no longer exists, the one who resorts to self-defense has no right to kill or even to wound the former aggressor. To be sure, when the present victim no longer persisted in his purpose or action to the extent that the object of his attack was no longer in peril, there was no more unlawful aggression that would warrant legal self-defense on the part of appellant. Undoubtedly, the latter went beyond the call of selfpreservation when he proceeded to inflict excessive, atrocious and fatal injuries on the latter, even when the allegedly unlawful aggression had already ceased. 28. Juan, the victim, while on board a bicycle along a road at Iriga City, met Tomas who was also on board a bicycle coming from the opposite direction. After both alighted from their respective bicycles, Tomas stabbed the victim with a balisong or fan knife at the upper left portion of the abdomen. Not long after the incident, Tomas surrendered to the police. He admitted having stabbed the victim however, he interposed self-defense. Is the contention of Tomas tenable? No. Having interposed self-defense, petitioner had the onus of proving its elements, viz: (1) unlawful aggression on the part of the victim; (2) employment of reasonable necessity to prevent or repel the aggression; and (3) lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself. In the case at bar, Tomas maintained that the victim provoked the incident by waylaying him, and that after he wrested the knife from the victim, the latter instantaneously picked up stones, making him believe that an attack was still forthcoming and he was still threatened by some evil or injury, hence, his stabbing of the victim. The Court explained however, that assuming that unlawful aggression initially came from the victim, the aggression ceased when the victim was divested of his balisong. In the case at bar, there was no longer any imminent risk to petitioners life or personal safety. (Nacario vs People, G.R. No. 173106, September 30, 2008) 29. What is the difference between self-defense and fulfillment of duty? Self-defense and fulfillment of duty operate on different principles. Self-defense is based on the principle of self-preservation from moral harm, while fulfillment of duty is premised on the due performance of duty. Unlike in self-defense where unlawful aggression is an element, in performance of duty, unlawful aggression from the victim is not a requisite. A policeman in the performance of a duty is justified in using such force as is reasonably necessary to secure and detain the offender, overcome his resistance, prevent his escape, recapture him if he escapes, and protect himself from bodily harm. Since a policemans duty requires him to overcome the offender, the force

exerted by the policeman may therefore differ from that which ordinarily may be offered in selfdefense. (Cabanlig vs. Sandiganbayan, Gr. No. 148432, 28 July 2005) 30. Police officer Baxinela was in the pub drinking with Regimen and Legarda for more than a couple of hours prior to the shooting incident. After witnessing an altercation between Lajo and another customer, Baxinela decided to confront Lajo on why he had a gun with him. Baxinela approached Lajo from behind and held the latter on the left shoulder with one hand while holding on to his .45 caliber service firearm with the other. As Lajo was turning around, to see who was confronting him, Baxinela shot him. Baxinela then got Lajos wallet and fled the scene with Regimen. May the accused invoke the justifying circumstance of fulfillment of duties? No. In order to avail of this justifying circumstance it must be shown that: 1) the accused acted in the performance of a duty or in the lawful exercise of a right or office; and 2) the injury caused or the offense committed is the necessary consequence of the due performance of duty or the lawful exercise of a right or office. While the first condition is present, the second is clearly lacking. Baxinelas duty was to investigate the reason why Lajo had a gun tucked behind his waist in a public place. This was what Baxinela was doing when he confronted Lajo at the entrance, but perhaps through anxiety, edginess or the desire to take no chances, Baxinela exceeded his duty by firing upon Lajo who was not at all resisting. The shooting of Lajo cannot be considered due performance of a duty if at that time Lajo posed no serious threat or harm to Baxinela or to the civilians in the pub. (Baxinela vs People, 485 SCRA 331) 31. Distinguish Justifying circumstances from Exempting circumstances? A person who acts by virtue of a justifying circumstance does not transgress the law, he does not commit any crime in the eyes of the law, because there is nothing unlawful in the act as well as in the intention of the actor. In exempting circumstances, there is a crime but no criminal. The act is not justified but the actor is not criminally liable. In justifying circumstances, there is no civil liability except in paragraph 4. In exempting circumstances, there is a civil liability except in paragraph 4 and 7. 32. What are the minimum age of criminal responsibility under Republic Act 9344, Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of 2006? A child fifteen (15) years of age or UNDER at the time of the commission of the offense shall be exempt from criminal responsibility. However, the child shall be subjected to an intervention program under the law, RA 9344. A child above fifteen (15) years but below eighteen (18) years of age shall likewise be exempt from criminal liability and be subjected to an intervention program, unless he/she has acted with discernment. If he acted with discernment, he will under go the diversion program under the same law. 33. May an offender 21 years of age be subjected to execute the service of sentence imposed upon him for the crime committed? Under Republic Act 9344, Section 38, an offender who is 18 years of age but below 21 years at the time of serving sentence is entitled to an automatic suspension of sentence regardless of the crime committed and the penalty prescribed by law except if the offender had been previously granted of the same suspension of sentence. 34. What constitutes compulsion of irresistible force under Article 12-paragraph 5? For duress to exempt accused-appellant of the crime charge, the fear must be well founded, and immediate and actual danger of death or great bodily harm must be present and the compulsion must be of such a character as to leave no opportunity for the accuse to escape or interpose self-defense in equal combat. 35. What is the difference between entrapment and instigation? Instigation is the means by which the accused is lured into the commission of the offense charged in order to prosecute him. On the other hand, entrapment is the employment of such ways and means for the purpose of trapping or capturing a law breaker.

In instigation, officers of the law or their agents incite, induce, instigate or lure an accused into committing an offense which he or she would otherwise not commit and has no intention of committing. But in entrapment, the criminal intent or design to commit the offense charged originates in the mind of the accused, and law enforcement officials merely facilitate the apprehension of the criminal by employing ruses and schemes; thus, the accused cannot justify his or her conduct. In instigation, where the law enforcers act as co-principals, the accused will have to be acquitted. But entrapment cannot bar prosecution and conviction. As has been said, instigation is a trap for the unwary innocent, while entrapment is a trap for the unwary criminal. (People vs Bayani, Gr. 179150, 17 June 2008). 36. When is a relationship mitigating? In crimes against property, it is mitigating, applying by analogy Art. 332 which provides that there is no criminal liability but only civil liability in crimes of theft, estafa or malicious mischief committed or caused mutually by spouses, ascendants, descendants, brothers or sisters, and relatives by affinity in the same line, with a proviso that in case of brothers and sisters in law, they must be living together. In crimes against persons, except serious physical injuries, where relationship is always aggravating, the rule is, where the offended party is a relative of a higher degree, or where he is of the same level as the offender, relationship is always aggravating, otherwise, it is mitigating. If it results in the death of the victim, even if he is of lower degree, the relationship is aggravating. However, the rule is subject to the other conditions attending the commission of the crime. 37. Distinguish Ordinary mitigating from Privileged mitigating? Ordinary mitigating is susceptible of being offset by any aggravating circumstance while privileged mitigating cannot be offset by aggravating circumstance. Ordinary Mitigating if not offset by an aggravating circumstance, produces only the effect of applying the penalty provided by law for the crime in its minimum period, in case of divisible penalty; whereas privileged mitigating produces the effect of imposing upon the offender the penalty lower by one or two degrees than that provided by law for the crime. 38. What is the test to determine the voluntariness of a surrender? For a surrender to be voluntary, it must be spontaneous and shows the intent of the accused to submit himself unconditionally to the authorities either because (1) he acknowledges his guilt, or (2) he wishes to save them the trouble and expense incidental to his search and capture. 39. Sam raped Sonia. Upon seeing that the accused had laid down his knife beside her head while he was putting on his clothes, Sonia grabbed the knife and stabbed him on the left shoulder. Wounded, the accused ran away. Sonia and his uncle reported the incident to the police, on their way, they saw the accused which appeared to have injured in his hand. They approached the accused but the latter ran away. Their companions however gave chase and caught up with the accused. They brought the accused to the police station and went with them willingly. Is the accused entitled to the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender? No. A surrender to be voluntary must be spontaneous, showing the intent of the accused to submit himself unconditionally to the authorities, either because he acknowledges his guilt, or he wishes to save them the trouble and expense necessarily incurred in his search and capture. If none of these two (2) reasons impelled the accused to surrender, because his surrender was obviously motivated more by an intention to insure his safety, his arrest being inevitable, the surrender is not spontaneous. The conduct of accused-appellant after the commission of the offense, of running away after having been stabbed by private complainant and of fleeing from complainants relatives when they tried to bring him to the authorities, do not show voluntary surrender as contemplated under the law. It appears that accused-appellant willingly went to the police authorities only to escape the wrath of private complainants relatives who were pursuing him and who appeared to be thirsting for his blood. (People vs Basite, 412 SCRA 558)

40. What is the effect if a GENERIC and QUALIFYING aggravating circumstance is not alleged in the information? A Generic aggravating circumstance even if not alleged in the information, may be proved over the objection of the defense and may be appreciated in imposing the sentence. A Qualifying aggravating circumstances must be allege in the information because it is an integral part of the offense. If not alleged in the information, it will only be considered as a generic aggravating circumstance. 41. In what instances does the existence of treachery negated in a case? Jurisprudence dictates that the chance encounters, impulse killing or crimes committed at the spur of the moment or those that were preceded by heated altercations are generally not attended by treachery for lack of opportunity of the accused to deliberately employ a treacherous mode of attack. For the rules on treachery to apply, the attack must have been preconceived by the accused, unexpected by the victim and without provocation on the part of the latter. (People vs. Gonzales, G.r. No. 13542, 21 June 2001) 42. While appellant and the victim were having fun at the videoke bar, appellant picked up a fist-sized stone and smashed it on the face of the victim who, as a result fell down near a creek. The witness rushed to the two and tried to pacify appellant however appellant attempted to hit again the victim by picking up another stone. Appellant thereupon shoved him, picked up the same stone and succeeded in "dropping" it at the already sprawled victim. The trial court convicted the appellant finding that treachery attended the killing. Is the decision of the trial court correct? Yes. In determining the existence of treachery, the Court considers the manner of execution of the criminal act which renders it impossible for the victim to defend himself. Treachery can thus exist even if the attack is frontal if it is sudden and unexpected. In the case at bar, the witness declared that there was an altercation before appellant picked up a stone and hit the victim with it. The appellant's picking up of a stone and crashing it upon the victim was so sudden. Appellant's attack was directed to the head of the victim, indicating that he intended to render him unconscious, if not to kill him instantly, to thus render him defenseless. The gravity of the head wounds suffered by the victim is fatal and should confirm such intent. The requisites to qualify the crime to murder through treachery are met in the instant case. 43. What are the kinds of Repetition of crimes and its effects on the liability of the accused? There are four (4) kinds of Repetition of crimes? 1. Reiteracion (Art. 14, par. 10) The accused has previously served out the sentence for an offense to which the law attaches an equal or greater penalty for two or more crimes which a lighter penalty is attached. It is a generic aggravating circumstance which can be offset by ordinary mitigating circumstance. 2. Habitual Delinquency (Art. 62, par. 5) There is a previous conviction of crimes of serious or less serious physical injuries, robbery, theft, estafa or falsification, within a period of ten (10) years from the date of the offenders release or last conviction of the same crimes, he is again found guilty of any of the said crimes a third time or oftener. It is a special aggravating circumstance which imposes an additional penalty. 3. Recidivism (Art. 14, par. 9) The offender has been previously convicted by final judgment of a crime and currently tried for a crime embraced in the same title of the Revised Penal Code. It is a generic aggravating circumstance which may be offset by ordinary mitigating circumstance.

4. Quasi-recidivism (Art. 160) An offender shall commit a crime after having been convicted by final judgment, before beginning to serve or while serving the penalty of the previous crime. He shall be punished by the maximum period of the penalty prescribed by law for the new felony. It is a special aggravating circumstance which can not be offset by an ordinary mitigating circumstance. 44. When is dwelling not an aggravating circumstance? Dwelling is not aggravating when; (1)Both the offender and the offended party are occupants of the same house, and this is true even if offender is a servant in the house; (2) When robbery is committed by the use of force upon things, wherein dwelling is inherent; (3) In the crime of trespass to dwelling where it is also inherent; (4) When the owner of the dwelling gave sufficient and immediate provocation; (5) When the victim is not a dweller of the house. 45. May the aggravating circumstance of Evident Premeditation co-exist with the exempting circumstance of Passion and Obfuscation? Evident Premeditation CANNOT co-exist with Passion and Obfuscation. The essence of premeditation is that the execution of the criminal act must be preceded by the calm thought and reflection upon the resolution to carry out the criminal intent during the space of time sufficient to arrive at a composed judgment. Verily, a finding that there was a preconceived plan to kill would negate passion and obfuscation. (People vs. Emperador, Gr. 132669, 26 September 2002) 46. X was charged before the RTC violation of Republic Act No. 8294 (illegal possession of firearm) for carrying outside of his residence an armalite rifle during the election period without first obtaining the proper authority in writing from the Commission on Elections, the said guns are also found to be unlicensed and he has no necessary permit to carry such firearm. He was also charged of direct assault with multiple attempted homicide during the election period. He alleged that he cannot be prosecuted for illegal possession of firearms if he was also charged of another crime. Is the contention of X tenable? Yes. Under RA 8294, if an unlicensed firearm is used in the commission of any crime, there can be no separate offense of simple illegal possession of firearms. Hence, if the other crime is murder or homicide, illegal possession of firearms becomes merely an aggravating circumstance, not a separate offense. Since direct assault with multiple attempted homicide was committed in this case, appellant can no longer be held liable for illegal possession of firearms. (Celino vs. C.A. G.r. No. 170562, June 29, 2007) 47. One afternoon, appellants Joseph and Alejandro were having a drinking session with Pampilo until an altercation started between Joseph and Sergio. Sergio suddenly struck Joseph in the face with a bottle of Tanduay. Joseph retaliated by stabbing Sergio in the stomach. After stabbing Sergio, Joseph totally lost control of himself and went on a rampage. He continued to stab even Sergios wife and daughters who were sleeping inside the house. Appellant interpose the defense of intoxication as mitigating circumstance. Is the defense tenable? Yes, intoxication should be considered as mitigating in favor of Joseph since it was sufficiently shown that (a) at the time of the commission of the criminal act, he has taken such quantity of alcoholic drinks as to blur his reason and deprive him of certain degree of control, and (b) that such intoxication is not habitual, or subsequent to the plan to commit the felony. It was this intoxication which led to his impetuous, frenzied and furious attack on the victims. (People vs Marquita, 326 SCRA 41) 48. When is a principal by induction considered liable of a crime? In the case of People vs. Ong Chiat Lay, it was held that one cannot be held guilty of having instigated the commission of the crime without first being shown that the crime was actually committed by another. 49. Distinguish Conspirators and Accomplice?

Conspirators and accomplices have one thing in common; they know and agree with the criminal design. Conspirators, however, know the criminal intention because they themselves have decided upon such course of action. Accomplices come to know about it after the principals have reached the decision, and only then do they agree to cooperate in its execution. Conspirators decide that a crime should be committed; accomplices merely concur in it. Accomplices do not decide whether the crime should be committed; they merely assent to the plan and cooperate in its accomplishment. Conspirators are the authors of a crime; accomplices are merely instruments who perform acts not essential to the perpetration of the offense. (People vs. de Vera) 50. Perfecto told Lobrigo in a dringking spree to go home because his children were crying. Vexed for having lost face as he was berated by his father-in-law, Lobrigo hit Perfecto with a piece of wood as soon as Perfecto turned his back. Immediately, Lobrigos drinking buddies followed suit and started to box and maul Perfecto. They stabbed Perfecto twice which lead to hemorrhage causing Perfectos death. Other than Lobrigo, Perfectos other assailants were Gregorio, Dominador and Teodico. The RTC found the accused guilty. Determine the criminal liability of Lobrigo, dominador and Teodico. Lobrigo is a principal by direct participation while the two others, Gregorio and Dominador are accomplices. A principal by direct participation are those who materially execute the crime, in the instant case, Lobrigo performs the acts necessary in the commission of the offense. On the other hand, an accomplice is one who knew the criminal design of the principal and knowingly or intentionally participated therewith by an act which even if not rendered, the crime would be committed just the same. This is the nature of the acts that Gregorio and Dominador committed. Their acts of repeatedly boxing Perfecto were either previous or simultaneous to the stabbing, even without which the crime of murder still would have been committed. 51. When is conviction of an accessory possible, even if the principal is acquitted? Conviction of an accessory is possible notwithstanding the acquittal of the principal, if the crime was in fact committed, but the principal was not held criminally liable, because of an exempting circumstance (Art.12), such as insanity or minority. In exempting circumstances, there is a crime committed. Hence, there is a basis for convicting the accessory. 52. When are accessories liable under the Anti-Fencing Law? The Anti-Fencing Law shall apply in case, persons who, with intent to gain for himself or another, shall buy, receive, possess, keep, acquire, conceal, sell or dispose of, or shall buy and sell, or in any manner deal in any article, item, object or anything of value which he knows, or should be known to him, to have been derived from the proceeds of a crime of Robbery or Theft. Under Art. 19 of the RPC, an accessory is one who profits from the proceeds of the crime. However, since the above-mentioned law is a special law, the accessory is considered a principal of the act committed. 53. Is a possessor of a stolen property guilty as principal? The possessor of a recently stolen article is considered a principal, not merely as an accessory or an accomplice, unless he proves in a satisfactory manner that he is but an accessory or an accomplice thereto and that another person, from whom the article came, is the one who stole it from the owner thereof. (People vs. Javier, G.R. No. L-36509, February 25, 1982) 54. X, a Chief of Police, deliberately hides his son who has been accused of murder. (a.) May X be considered an accessory in the crime of murder committed by his son? No, while it is true that the act of X is that of an accessory, since he is harboring a criminal and he acts with abuse of his public functions under Art. 19 par. 3 of the RPC, he is not liable because accessories who are such with respect to their

descendants, among others, are exempt from criminal liability under Art. 20 of the same Code. (b.)Does X incur any criminal liability? Yes, violation of P.D. 1829 on Obstruction of Justice, for harboring the escape of any person, he knows, or has reasonable ground to believe or respect, has committed any offense under existing penal laws in order to prevent his arrest, prosecution and conviction. In this case, he is liable as a Principal under P.D. 1829. 55. What is the effect of Pardon of the offended party? If the offended party already pardoned the offender, the prosecutor may still prosecute the offender. Such pardon by the offended party is not even a ground for the dismissal of the complaint or information. A criminal offense is an outrage to the sovereign State and to the State belongs the power to prosecute and punish crimes. By itself, an affidavit of desistance is not a ground for the dismissal of an action, once it has been instituted in court. A private complainant looses the right or absolute privilege to decide whether the rape charge should proceed, because the case was already filed and must therefore continue to be heard by the trial court. (People vs. Dimaano, G.R. No. 168168, 14 September 2005) 56. Distinguish Pardon by the Chief Executive from Pardon by the offended Party? (1) Pardon by the Chief Executive extinguishes the criminal liability of the offender, such is not the case when the pardon is given by the offended party. (2) Pardon by the Chief Executive cannot include civil liability which the offender must pay, but the offended party can waive the civil liability which the offender must pay. (3) In cases where the law allows pardon by the offended party (Art. 344), the pardon should be given before the institution of criminal prosecution and must be extended to both offenders, whereas, pardon by the Chief Executive is granted only after the conviction and may be extended to any of the offenders. 57. X was charged with the crime of adultery with a married woman. The married woman, after conviction of both, was pardoned by the Chief Executive. Does the pardon of the woman have the effect of extinguishing the criminal liability of X? No, because the power to extend executive clemency is unlimited and that the exercise of that power lies in the absolute and uncontrolled discretion of the Chief Executive. But if the one giving the pardon is the offended spouse in adultery, both offenders must be pardoned by the offended party if said pardon is to be effective. 58. What is subsidiary imprisonment? It is a subsidiary personal liability to be suffered by the convict who has no property with which to meet the fine, at the rate of one day for each eight pesos, subject to the rules provided for in Article 39. 59. Is Subsidiary Imprisonment an accessory penalty? Subsidiary Imprisonment is NOT an accessory penalty. That Subsidiary imprisonment is a penalty, there can be no doubt, for according to Article 39, it is imposed upon the accused and served by him in lieu of the fine which he fails to pay on account of insolvency. Therefore, the culprit cannot be made to undergo subsidiary imprisonment unless the judgment expressly so provides. 60. What is a complex crime? There is a complex crime when a single act constitutes two or more grave or less grave felonies or when an offense is a necessary means for committing the other. In a complex crime, although two or more crimes are actually committed, they constitute only one crime in the eyes of the law as well as in the conscience of the offender. The offender has only one criminal intent, hence there is only one penalty imposed for the commission of a complex crime. The penalty for complex crime is the penalty for the most serious crime, the same to be applied in its maximum period. If different crimes resulting from one single act are punished with the same penalty, the penalty for anyone of them shall be imposed, the same to be applied in the maximum period?

61. Pedro was found guilty of the complex crime of homicide with assault upon a person in authority for the killing of Juan, a barangay captain who was performing his duties as such when Pedro attacked him. The trial judge imposed on Pedro the penalty of reclusion temporal in int maximum period. Is the trial judge decision correct? Yes, the trial judge ruled correctly in imposing the penalty of reclusion temporal in its maximum period on Peter. The penalty for homicide is reclusion temporal (Art. 249, RPC) while the penalty for direct assault is prision correctional (Art. 148, RPC). Applying the rule in Art. 48 of the RPC, the penalty for the most serious crime shall be imposed in its maximum period. In this case, homicide is the more serious offense than direct assault. 62. Is there a complex crime of trespass to dwelling with homicide? When trespass to dwelling is a direct means to commit a graver offense, like homicide, rape, or murder, there is no complex crime of trespass to dwelling with rape, homicide or murder. The trespass to dwelling will be considered as the aggravating circumstance of unlawful entry under par. 18, or of breaking a part of the dwelling under par. 19, of Art. 14. (People vs. Abedosa, 53 Phil. 788). 63. Is there a complex crime of murder with illegal possession of firearm? The use of unlicensed firearm in murder or homicide is considered, not as a separate crime, but merely a special aggravating circumstance. (People vs. Castillo, G.R. Nos. 13159293, 15 February 2000) 64. What is a continuing crime? A continuing crime is a single crime consisting of a series of acts arising from one criminal resolution or intent not susceptible of division. It is a continuous, unlawful actor series of acts set on foot by a single impulse and operated by an unintermittent force however long time it may occupancy. 65. What is a special complex crime/composite crime? Give examples. A special complex crime is made up of more than one crime but under the law it is considered a single indivisible crime. There is only one penalty which is specifically prescribed for all the component crimes, which are regarded as one indivisible offense. The examples of which are: (1) robbery with homicide; (2) robbery with rape, and (3) rape with homicide. 66. When is there preventive imprisonment? The accused undergoes preventive imprisonment when the offense charged is nonbailable or even if bailable, he cannot furnish the required bail. 67. What are the benefits provided under preventive imprisonment? (a) Pre-Sentence Benefit Whenever an accused has undergone preventive imprisonment for a period equal to or more than the possible maximum imprisonment of the offense charged to which he may be sentenced and his case is not yet terminated, he shall be release immediately. In case the maximum penalty to which the accused may be sentenced is destierro, he shall be released after thirty (30) days of preventive imprisonment. Under Rule 114- Sec. 16 of the Rules of Court, a person in custody for a period equal to or more than the minimum of the principal penalty prescribed for the offense charged shall be released on a reduced bail or on his own recognizance, at the discretion of the court. (b) Post-Sentence Benefit Offenders or accused who have undergone preventive imprisonment shall be credited in their service of there sentence consisting of deprivation of liberty, with the full time during which they have undergone preventive imprisonment if the detention prisoner agrees voluntarily in writing to abide by the same disciplinary rules imposed upon convicted prisoners.

If the detention prisoner does not agree to abide by the same disciplinary rules imposed upon convicted prisoners, he shall be credited in the service of his sentence with four-fifths of the time during which he has undergone preventive imprisonment.

68. Who are the offenders not entitled to the fulltime or four-fifths of the time of preventive imprisonment? The following offenders are not entitled to be credited with the full-time or 4/5 of the time of preventive imprisonment: (1) Recidivist or those convicted previously twice or more times of any crime. (2) Those who, upon being summoned for the execution of their sentence, failed to surrender voluntarily. 69. What is the three-fold rule? When is it applicable? The three-fold rule provides that the maximum duration of the convicts sentence shall not be more than three times the length of time corresponding to the most severe of the penalties imposed to him, which in no case shall exceed 40 years. The rule can only be applied if the convict is to serve four (4) or more sentences successively. If the sentence would be served simultaneously, the rule does not govern. 70. How is criminal liability totally extinguished? How is partially extinguished? Criminal liability is totally extinguished in the following; (a) By the death of the convict, as to personal penalties and as to pecuniary penalties, liability is therefore extinguished only when the death of the offender occurs before final judgment. (b) By service of sentence (c) By amnesty (d) By absolute pardon (e) By prescription of the crime (f) By prescription of the penalty (g) By the marriage of the offended woman in cases of seduction, abduction, acts of lasciviousness and rape. Criminal liability is partially extinguished in the following: (a) By conditional pardon (b) By commutation of the sentence (c) For good conduct allowances which the culprit may earn while he is serving his sentence. 71. What are the instances when civil liability may exist, although the accused is not held criminally liable? The following are the instances when civil liability may exists, although the accused is not held criminally liable; (a) Acquittal on reasonable doubt. (Art. 29, Civil Code) (b) Acquittal from a cause of non-imputability. (Art. 101, RPC) (c) Acquittal in the criminal action for negligence does not preclude the offended party from filing a civil action to recover damages, based on the new theory that the act is a quasidelict. (Art. 2177, Civil Code) (d) When there is only civil responsibility. (e) In cases of Independent Civil Actions. (Art. 31, 32, 33 & 34, Civil Code) 72. What are the remedies available to an offended party if civil liability in the criminal case has been imposed upon the offender? The first remedy granted by law is restitution of the thing taken away by the offender; if restitution cannot be made by the offender, or by his heirs, the law allows the offended party reparation. In either case, indemnity for consequential damages may be required.

BOOK TWO

73. When is piracy considered qualified? Piracy is qualified when any of the following circumstances are present: 1) Whenever they have seized a vessel by boarding or firing upon the same; 2) Whenever the pirate have abandoned their victims without means of saving themselves; 3) Whenever the crime is accompanied by murder, homicide, physical injuries or rape. (Art. 123,RPC) 74. Distinguish Rebellion from Coup detat. 1.) A to overt acts: In Rebellion, there is public uprising and taking up arms against the government. In Coup detat, public uprising is not necessary. The essence of the crime is swift attack, accompanied by violence, intimidation. Threat, strategy or stealth, directed against duly constituted authorities of the Government, or any military camp or installation, communication networks, public utilities or facilities needed for the exercise and continued possession of government power. 2.) As to objective or purpose: In Rebellion, the purpose is to remove from the allegiance of the Philippines, the whole or any part of the Philippines or any military or naval camps, to deprive the Chief Executive or Congress from performing their functions. In Coup detat the objective is to seize or diminish state powers. 3.) As to participation: In Rebellion, any person may participate. In Coup detat, any person belonging to the military or police or holding public office participate, with or without civilian participation. 75. Can Direct Assault be committed during Rebellion or Sedition? No. The crime of direct assault cannot be committed in times of Rebellion or sedition because absence of public uprising is an essential element of direct assault. Moreover, in rebellion, common crimes like direct assault are absorbed if committed in furtherance thereto. 76. Can there be a complex crime of coup detat with rebellion? Yes, if there was conspiracy between the offenders committing the coup detat and the offenders committing the rebellion. By conspiracy, the crime of one would be the crime of the other and vice versa. This is possible because the offender in coup detat may be person or persons belonging to the military, national police or a public officer, whereas rebellion does not so require. Moreover, the crime of coup detat may be committed singly, whereas rebellion requires a public uprising and taking up arms to overthrow the duly constituted government. Since the two crimes are essentially different and punished with distinct penalties, there is no legal impediment to the application of RPC Art. 48. 77. X, a prisoner, learns that he is already overstaying in jail because his jail guard, Y, who happens to be a law student advised him that there is no more legal ground for his continued imprisonment, and B told him that he can go. A got out of jail and went home. Was there any crime committed? As far as X, the prisoner who is serving sentence, is concerned, the crime committed is evasion of sentence. As far as Y, the jail guard who allowed X to go is concerned, the crime committed is infidelity in the custody of prisoners. 78. Union X proposed acts of sedition to Union Y. Is there a crime committed? Assuming Union Y accepts the proposal, will your answer be different? There is no crime committed. Proposal to commit sedition is not a crime. But if Union Y accepts the proposal, there will be conspiracy to commit sedition which is a crime under the Revised Penal Code. 79. What are the legal grounds for detention?

The commission of a crime, or violent insanity or any other ailment requiring the compulsory confinement of a patient in a hospital shall be considered legal grounds for the detention of any prisoner. 80. A janitress at the Pasay City Hall was assigned in cleaning the ladiess room. One day, she noticed a fellow urinating so carelessly that instead of urinating at the bowl, she was actually urinating partly on the floor. The janitress resented this. She stepped out of the room and locked the same. She left. The fellow was able to come out only after several hours when people from the outside forcibly opened the door. Is the janitress liable for arbitrary detention? No. Even if she is a public officer, he is not permitted by his official function to arrest and detain persons. Therefore, she is guilty only of illegal detention. While the offender is a public officer, his duty does not include the authority to make arrest; hence, the crime committed is illegal detention. 81. Distinguish arbitrary detention from illegal detention. In arbitrary detention, the offender is a public officer or employee and detains a person without legal grounds while in illegal detention, the offender is a private individual and deprives a person of his liberty. 82. When is delay in the delivery of detained person to the proper judicial authorities applicable in a case? Delay in the delivery of detained person to the proper judicial authorities applies only when the arrest is made without warrant of arrest. But the arrest must be lawful. 83. What are the classes of arbitrary detention? The following are the different class of arbitrary detention: 1.) Arbitrary detention by detaining a person without legal ground. (Art. 124) 2.) Delay in the delivery of detained persons to the proper judicial authorities. (Art. 125) 3.) Delaying release. (Art. 126) 84. What are the crimes known as violation of domicile? The following are the crimes under violation of domicile: 1.) Violation of domicile by entering a dwelling against the will of the owner thereof or making search without previous consent of the owner. 2.) Search warrants maliciously obtained and abuse in the service of those legally obtained. 3.) Searching domicile without witnesses. 85. What are the different acts of inciting to sedition? The following are the acts inciting to sedition: 1.) Inciting others to the accomplishment of any acts which constitute sedition by means of speeches, proclamations, writings, emblems and similar acts. 2.) Uttering seditious words or speeches which tend to disturb the public peace. 3.) Writing, publishing, or circulating scurrilous libels against the Government or any of the duly constituted authorities thereof, which tend to disturb the public peace. 86. Distinguish violation of domicile and trespass to dwelling. The offender in Violation of Domicile is a public officer acting under color of authority, while in Trespass to dwelling, the offender is a private person. Violation of Domicile is committed in 3 ways; (1) by entering the dwelling of another against the will of the latter; (2) searching for papers and other effects inside the dwelling without consent from the owner; (3) refusing to leave the premises which he entered

surreptitiously, after being required to leave, while Trespass to Dwelling is committed only in one way: that is by entering the dwelling of another against the will of the latter. 87. A, a professor, was giving an examination. She noticed B, one of her students, cheating. She called the students attention and confiscated his examination booklet, causing him embarrassment. The following day, while the class was going on, B approached A and without any warning slapped her. B would have inflicted further injuries on A had not C, another student come to As rescue and prevented B from continuing his attack. B punched C, at the same time. What crime or crimes, if any, did B commit? Explain. B committed one count of direct assault for slapping A while in the performance of her professional duty, and one count of indirect assault for punching C who came to the aid of A. Under Article 152, in relation to Art. 148 of the RPC, teachers and professors in the actual performance of their professional duties or on occasion of such performance are deemed persons in authority. When a person comes to the aid of such person of authority or his agent, and when the offender makes use of force or intimidation upon such person, the crime committed in indirect assault. 88. Who are deemed persons in authority and agents of persons in authority? Persons in authority are persons directly vested with the jurisdiction, whether as individual or as a member of some courts or governmental corporation, board or commission. A barangay captain and a barangay chairman are also deemed persons in authority. Agents of a persons in authority are persons who, by direct provision of law, or by election or by appointment by competent authority, is charged with the maintenance of public order and the protection and security of life an property, such as barrio councilman, barrio policeman and barangay leader, and any person who comes to the aid of persons in authority. In applying the provisions of Article 148 and 151 of the Revised Penal Code, teachers, professors, and persons charged with the supervision of public or duly recognized private schools, colleges and universities, and lawyers in the actual performance of their professional duties or on the occasion of such performance shall be deemed persons in authority. 89. When may an outcry or displaying of emblems or placards be a crime of inciting to rebellion or s crime of inciting to sedition, and when may it be considered a simple public disorder? For an outcry or the displaying of emblems or placards to constitute inciting to commit rebellion or sedition, it is necessary that the offender should have done the act with the idea aforethought of inducing his hearers or readers to commit the crime of rebellion or sedition. But if the outcry is more or less unconscious outburst which, although rebellious or seditious in nature, is not intentionally calculated to induce others to commit rebellion or sedition, it is only public disorder. 90. What is the difference between falsification of public or official documents and that of private documents? The essential difference between falsification of private documents and that of public or official documents lies in the fact that while in the former, the prejudice to a third party is primarily taken into account so that if such damage is not apparent, or there is at least no intention to cause it, the falsification is not punishable while in falsification of public or official documents, the principal thing punished is the violation of public faith and the perversion of truth which the document solemnly proclaims and for this reason it is immaterial whether or not some prejudice has been caused to third persons. 91. Petitioner was convicted of robbery. He appealed from the decision, but he escaped during the pendency of the appeal, his appeal was however dismissed. As a result, he was prosecuted for evasion of service of sentence and was sentence to the corresponding penalty. While petitioner was serving his sentence in the robbery case, he again escaped from confinement. He was again prosecuted for evasion of service of sentence and pleaded guilty. Petitioner claimed that the sentence imposed for the first

alleged evasion is null and void for the reason that the decision in the robbery case has not yet become final. Decide. The contention of the petitioner must be sustained. If the accused escaped while the sentence of conviction was under appeal, he is not liable for evasion of service of sentence, the judgment not having become final, and this is true even if his appeal was later dismissed because he has escaped. Furthermore, the crime of evasion of service of sentence can be committed only by a convict by final judgment. 92. A, received a treasury warrant, a check issued by the Government. It was originally made payable to B, or his order. A wrote Bs name on the back of said treasury warrant as if B had indorsed it, and then presented it for payment. It was paid to A. Determine the crime committed. The crime committed is forgery, because when A wrote Bs name on the back of the treasury warrant which was originally made payable to B or his order, he converted, by such supposed indorsement, the treasury warrant to one payable o bearer. It had the effect of erasing the phrase or his order upon the face of warrant. There was material alteration on a genuine document. 93. Is mere possession of false money bills punishable under Article 168 (Illegal Possession and use of false treasury or bank notes and other instrument of credit) of the RPC? No. Possession of false treasury or bank note alone without intent to use it is not punishable. But the circumstance of such possession may indicate intent to utter which is sufficient to consummate the crime of illegal possession of false notes. 94. Is there such a crime as frustrated theft? None. The elements of theft are the following: (1) that there be taking of personal property; (2) that said property belongs to another; (3) that the taking be done with intent to gain; (4) that the taking be done without the consent of the owner; (5) that the taking be accomplished without the use of violence against or intimidation of persons of force upon things. Theft is already consummated when a property belonging to another is taken without the consent of the owner. It is immaterial to the product of the felony that the offender, once having committed all the acts of execution for theft, is able or unable to freely dispose of the property stolen since the deprivation from the owner alone has already ensued from such acts of execution. (Valenzuela vs People, G.R. No. 160188. 21 June 2007) 95. What if the husband surprising his wife in the act of sexual intercourse with another man, inflicts upon the latter less serious physical injuries. Will the husband be criminally liable? No, if the physical injuries inflicted are less serious or slight, there is no criminal liability. It is an absolutory cause. The second paragraph of Art. 247 of the RPC states, If he (the offended spouse) inflicts upon them physical injuries of any other kind (other than serious physical injuries), he shall be exempt from punishment. 96. When is robbery consummated? The crime is consummated when the robber acquires possession of the property even if for a short time, and it is not necessary that the property be taken into the hands of the robber, or that he should have actually carried the property away, out of the physical presence of the lawful possessor, or that he should have made his escape with it. From the moment the offender gained possession of the thing, even if the culprit had no opportunity to dispose of the same, unlawful taking is complete and hence, robbery is consummated. (People vs Sevilla) 97. Distinguish falsification from forgery. Falsification is the commission of any of the eight acts mentioned in Article 171 on legislative (only the act of making alteration), public or official, commercial, or private documents, or wireless, or telegraph messages while the term forgery as used in Article 169

refers to the falsification and counterfeiting of treasury or bank notes or any instruments payable to bearer or to order. 98. During the robbery in a dwelling house, one of the culprits happened to fire his gun in the ceiling without meaning to kill anyone. The owner of the house who was hiding thereat was hit and killed as a result. Determine the crime committed. Explain. The offender shall be prosecuted for the crime of robbery with homicide, whether the killing was intentional or accidental, as long as the killing was on occasion of the robbery. The act being felonious and the proximate cause of the victims death, the offender is liable therefore although it may not be intended or different from what he intended. 99. X, a policeman assigned to the city jail as a guard, who, while he was off duty, brought a recently released prisoner inside the jail to substitute for a detention prisoner who he later brought out of jail, returning said prisoner inside the jail about 5 hours thereafter. What crime if any was committed? A may be held liable for the crime of delivering prisoners from jail. Under Art. 156, any person who shall remove from any jail or penal establishment any person confined therein is guilty of delivering prisoners from jail. 100. Judge Tomas accepts the gift offered by the plaintiff Juan so he would decide the case in his favor, but Judge Tomas decides in favor of the defendant. What are the crimes committed? Judge Tomas is guilty of the crime of Indirect Bribery. The offender in the above mentioned case is a public officer, and that he accepts gift and the gift are offered to him for the reason of his office. Juan on the other hand is guilty of the crime of Corruption of Public Officials since he offered a gift to a public officer and the gift was given to a public officer under the circumstances that will make the public officer liable for indirect bribery. 101. If a person is found wandering in an estate belonging to another, whether public or private, without any lawful purpose, what other crimes may be committed? When a person is apprehended loitering inside an estate belonging to another, the following crimes may be committed: (1) Trespass to property under Article 281 if the estate is fenced and there is a clear prohibition against entering, but the offender entered without the consent of the owner or overseer thereof. What is referred to here is estate, not dwelling. (2) Attempted theft under Article 308, paragraph 3, if the estate is fenced and the offender entered the same to hunt therein or fish from any waters therein or to gather any farm products therein without the consent of the owner or overseer thereof; (3) Vagrancy under Article 202 if the estate is not fenced or there is no clear prohibition against entering. 102. Cristine Reyes extended a loan to petitioner in the amount of P200,000, to bear interest at 10 a month. After petitioner had partially paid his obligation, he failed to settle the balance. Cristine thus filed a collection suit against petitioner, which was eventually settled when petitioner paid her and issued in her favor an International Exchange Bank post dated check. Said check was co-signed by one Zanjoe. When the check was presented for payment, it was dishonored for having been Drawn Against Insufficient Funds. Consequently, Cristine, through counsel, thus sent a letter to petitioner informing him that the check was dishonored by the drawee bank, and demanding that he make it good within five (5) days from receipt thereof. However, no settlement was made by the petitioner, hence, Cristine filed a complaint against him and his co-signatory for violation of B.P. Blg. 22. The court convicted petitioner under BP 22. Is the conviction correct? No. Petitioner must be acquitted of the crime charge. In the case at bar, the first and third elements of BP 22 was obtained. The second element

however was not proven. There is failure on the part of the prosecution to prove the existence and receipt by petitioner of the requisite written notice of dishonor and that he was given at least five banking days within which to settle his account constitutes sufficient ground for petitioners acquittal. While the registry receipt, which is said to cover the letter-notice of dishonor and of demand sent to petitioner, was presented, there is no proof that he or a duly authorized agent received the same. Receipts for registered letters including return receipts do not themselves prove receipt, they must be properly authenticated to serve as proof of receipt of the letters. (Svensen vs People, G.R. No. 175381, February 26, 2008). 103. A killed B, his adopted child. A casa for parricide was filed against A. Will the case prosper? No. A could not be held liable for parricide, notwithstanding that adoption confers on the adopted all the rights and privileges of a legitimated child. Relationship of the offender with the victim is essential element of parricide. In the instant case, A would be liable either for the crime of murder or homicide as the case may be. 104. X and B are enemies, as X chanced upon B, X pursued B. B, however, went straight inside his house, and did not go out despite the demands made by X. Enraged, X got a gasoline and a box of matches, poured tons of gasoline on Bs house and put Bs house on fire. B died. What was the crime committed? The crime committed was murder. When a person is killed by fire, the primordial criminal intent of the offender is to kill and the use of fire was purposely adopted as a means to that end. The crime for putting the house on fire cannot be considered as a separate crime because the intention of X was only to kill B, using fire only as a means to perpetrate it. 105. Mendoza killed; (a) his live-in partner, (b) their child who was only two (2) days old, (c) his daughter, and (d) his adopted child. What crime or crimes did X commit? X committed the following crimes:

a)

Homicide or murder, as the case maybe, for killing his common law wife who is not his legal spouse. The key element in parricide is the relationship of the offender with the victim. In case of parricide of a spouse, the best proof of the relationship between the accused and the deceased would be the marriage certificate. (People vs. Paycana, G.R. No. 179035, 16 April 2008). b) Infanticide for the killing of the child who is less than three (3) days old. c) Parricide for killing his daughter, whether legitimate or illegitimate, as long as she is not less than three days old at the time of the killing. d) Murder for the killing of their adopted son. The relationship between Mendoza and his son must be by blood in order for him to be held liable for the crime of parricide. 106. Is there a crime of Estafa with Falsification of Private Documents? There is No crime of Estafa with Falsification of Private Documents. As there is no such crime, it is important to ascertain whether the offender is to be charged with falsification of a private document or with estafa. If the falsification of a private document is committed as a means to commit estafa, the proper crime to be charged is falsification. If estafa can be committed without the necessity of falsifying a document, the proper crime to be charged is estafa. (Batulanon vs. People, G.R. No. 139857, 15 September 2006). 107. What does material matter in perjury means? The basis of the crime of perjury is the willful assertion of a falsehood under oath upon a material matter. Although the term material matter under Art. 183 takes on a fairly general meaning, that is, it refers to the main fact which is the subject of inquiry, in term of being an element in the execution of a statement under oath it must be understood as referring to a fact which has an effect on the outcome of the proceeding for which the statement is being executed (Lluz vs COMELEC, G.R. No. 172840, 7 June 2007). 108. Is there such crime as frustrated rape? There is no such crime as frustrated rape. Any penetration of the female organ by the male organ is sufficient. Entry of the labia of lips of the female organ, without rupture of the hymen or laceration of the vagina is sufficient to warrant conviction. Necessarily, rape is

attempted if there is no penetration of the female organ (People vs. Orande, G.R. Nos. 14172427, 12 November 2003). Partial penile penetration is as serious as full penetration. In either case, rape is deemed consummated. Bombardment of the drawbridge is invasion enough even if the troops do not succeed in entering the castle (People vs. Nequia, G.R. No. 146569, 6 October 2003). 109. When is force, threat or intimidation not required in the crime of rape? In rape committed by a father or a person recognized by the victim as her father, the formers moral ascendancy and influence over the latter substitutes for violence and intimidation. That ascendancy or influence necessarily flows from the fathers parental authority, which the Constitution and the laws recognize, support and enhance, as well as from the childrens duty to obey and observe reverence and respect are deeply ingrained in the minds of Filipino children and are recognize by law. Thus, evidence of force, threat or intimidation is not required if the offender has moral ascendancy over the victim (People vs Dulay, G.R. No. 144082-83, 18 April 2002). 110. Pedro takes Juan to a motel and there, through threat and intimidation, succeeds in inserting his penis into the anus of Juan. Determine the criminal liability of Pedro. Explain. Pedro shall be criminally liable for Rape by committing an act of sexual assault against Juan by inserting his penis into the anus of the latter. Even a man may be a victim of rape by sexual assault under paragraph 2 of Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, when the offenders penis is inserted into his mouth or anal orifice. 111. A, B and C robbed a house. In the course of the execution of the crime of robbery, one of the offenders killed C. What is the crime committed? The crime committed is robbery with homicide. Homicide may be committed by the actor at the spur of the moment or by mere accident. Robbery with Homicide is committed even if the victim of the robbery is different from the victim of homicide, as long as the homicide is committed by reason or on the occasion of the robbery. It is not even necessary that the victim of the robbery is the very person the malefactor intended to rob (People vs. Daniela, G.R. No. 139230, 24 April 2003). 112. A case was filed by the Delacruz spouses against Margarita for estafa under Art. 315 (2) (d). According to Delacruz spouses, they loaned the accused Margarita, on a staggered basis, the amount totaling P855,000 to be used by the latter for her business, on the condition that she issued to the spouses checks to cover the money given to her. However, when the checks issued by Margarita were presented for payment, they were all dishonored either on DAIF (drawn against insufficient funds) or Account Closed. Despite repeated demands, Margarita Failed to make good the checks. If you were the judge would you convict Margarita of estafa under Art. 315 (2) (d)? Reason. No. To constitute estafa under Art. 315 (2)(d), the act of post dating or issuing a check in payment of an obligation must be the efficient cause of defraudation, and as such it should be either prior to or simultaneous with the act of fraud. The offender must be able to obtain money or property from the offended party because of the issuance of the check whether postdated or not. That is, the latter would not have parted with his money or other property were it not for the issuance of the check. In the case at bar, there was no showing of the existence of fraud. The transaction between Margarita and the Delacruz spouses was one for a loan of money to be used by Margarita in her business and she issued checks to guarantee the payment of the loan. As such, she has the obligation to make good the payment of money borrowed by her. But such obligation is civil in character and in the absence of fraud, no criminal liability under the RPC arises from the mere issuance of postdated checks as a guarantee of repayment (People vs. Cuyugan, 18 November 2002). 113. Can the accused be convicted of bigamy despite the fact that his first marriage was subsequently declared void ab initio?

Yes. A judicial declaration of nullity of a previous marriage is necessary before a subsequent one can be legally contracted. One who enters into a subsequent marriage without first obtaining such judicial declaration is guilty of bigamy. The principle applies even if the earlier union is characterized by the statute as void. That he subsequently obtained a judicial declaration of the nullity of the first marriage was immaterial, the crime had already been consummated by then. (Mercado vs. Tan)

INDETERMINATE SENTENCE LAW (ACT NO. 4103 AS AMENDED NY ACT 4225) 114. What is the purpose of the Indeterminate Sentence Law? The purpose of the Indeterminate Sentence Law is (a) to uplift and redeem valuable human material, (b) prevent unnecessary and excessive deprivation of personal liberty and (c) economic usefulness. It aims to individualize the administration of our criminal laws. 115. What are the reasons for fixing the MINIMUM and MAXIMUM penalties in the Indeterminate Sentence? The following are the reasons for the imposition of the Minimum and Maximum penalties in the Indeterminate Sentence: 1) Whenever any prisoner shall have served the minimum penalty imposed on him, and it shall appear to the Board of Indeterminate Sentence that such prisoner is fitted for release, said board may authorize the release of such prisoner ON PAROLE, upon such terms and conditions as may be prescribed by the Board. 2) Whenever such prisoner released on parole shall, during the period of surveillance, violate any of the conditions of his parole, the Board may issue an order for his arrest. In such case, the prisoner so rearrested shall serve the remaining unexpired portion of the maximum sentence.

3) Even if a prisoner has already served the minimum, but he is not fitted for release on parole, he shall continue to serve imprisonment until the end of the maximum. 116. How are the maximum and the minimum terms of the indeterminate sentence determined? For offenses under the Revised Penal Code, determine the maximum period by considering the presence of modifying circumstances applying the rules under Article 64 of the RPC. Privileged mitigating circumstances must first be considered before applying the said rules. Having determined the maximum, fix the minimum at one degree lower than that provided by the Code. For offenses in violation of Special Penal Laws, the maximum term shall be any period not to exceed the maximum fixed by the said law and the minimum shall be any period not less than the minimum term prescribed by the same. This is due to the fact that in special laws, there are no mitigating or aggravating circumstances, or periods of divisible penalties. 117. Who are the persons disqualified to avail the benefits of ISLAW? The benefits of ISLAW shall not apply to the following: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Persons convicted of offenses punished with death penalty or life imprisonment. Those convicted of treason, conspiracy or proposal to commit treason. Those convicted of misprision of treason, rebellion, sedition or espionage. Those convicted of piracy. Those who are habitual delinquents. Those who shall have escaped from confinement or evaded sentence. Those who violated the terms of conditional pardon granted to them by the Chief Executive. 8. Those whose maximum term of imprisonment does not exceed one year. 9. Those who, upon the approval of the law, had been sentence by final judgment. 10. Those sentenced to the penalty of destierro or suspension.

118. Z was convicted of rebellion. After serving sentence, he was employed by the government agency. In the course of his employment, he was charged with and found guilty of the complex crime of estafa through falsification of public documents. Is the Indeterminate Sentence Law applicable in this case? No. Section 2 of the Indeterminate Sentence Law expressly provides that ISLAW is not applicable to those persons convicted of rebellion. 119. After a trial for Homicide, the accused was found guilty, with 3 mitigating circumstances in his favor, and one aggravating circumstance against him. The penalty imposed by law is Reclusion Temporal. Compute the appropriate Indeterminate Sentence under ISLAW. Answer: Minimum Period: Prision Mayor; Maximum Period: Reclusion Temporal in its minimum period. To determine the Maximum Period, first, offset the aggravating circumstance with one mitigating circumstance, thus leaving two mitigating circumstances in the accuseds favor. The effect of the remaining mitigating circumstances is to impose the penalty in its minimum period. PROBATION LAW (PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NO. 968) 120. What are the purposes of probation? The purposes of probation are the following: 1) To promote the correction and rehabilitation of an offender by providing him with personalized community based treatment; 2) To provide an opportunity for his reformation and reintegration in the community; 3) To prevent the commission of offense. 121. Who are the offenders disqualified from being placed on probation? The benefits of probation shall not be extended to the following: 1.) Those sentenced to serve a maximum term of imprisonment of more than six years; 2.) Those convicted of subversion or any crime against the national security or public order; 3.) Those who were previously convicted by final judgment of an offense punished by imprisonment of not less than one month and one day and/or a fine of not more than P200; 4.) Those who have been once on probation; 5.) Those who are already serving sentence at the time the substantive provisions of the Decree became applicable. 122. When is the time to file the application for probation? Explain its purpose and its effect. The application for probation must be filed within the period for perfecting an appeal. The need to file it within such period was intended to encourage offenders, who are willing to be reformed and rehabilitated, to avail of probation at the first opportunity. It was never intended to suspend the period for the perfection of appeal, and the filing of the application for probation operates as a waiver of the right to appeal (Palo vs. Militante). An order placing defendant on probation is not a sentence but is rather in effect, a suspension of the imposition of sentence. 123. For how long may a convict be placed on probation? 1.) If the convict is sentenced to a term of imprisonment of not more than one year, the period of probation shall not exceed two years. 2.) In all other cases, if he is sentenced to more than one year, said period shall not exceed six years. 3.) When the sentence imposes a fine only and the offender is made to serve subsidiary imprisonment, the period of probation shall be twice the total number of days of subsidiary imprisonment.

124. What are the effects of violation of probation order? Upon the failure of the probationer to comply with any of the conditions prescribed in the order, or upon his commission of another offense, he shall serve the penalty imposed for the offense under which he was placed on probation. 125. When and how probation is terminated, what are the effects of the termination? After the period of probation and upon consideration of the report and recommendation of the probation officer, the court may order the final discharge of the probationer upon the finding that he has fulfilled the terms and conditions of his probation and thereupon the case is deemed terminated. The final discharge of the probationer shall operate to restore to him all rights lost or suspended as a result of his conviction and to fully discharge his liability for any fine imposed as to the offense for which probation was granted. 126. Distinguished Probation and Parole under the Indeterminate Sentence Law. 1) As to sentence: to be entitled for probation the sentence must not be more than 6 years while to be entitled for parole, the sentence imposed must be more than 1 year. 2) As to penalty: In probation the penalty imposed is imprisonment or fine while in parole, the penalty imposed is imprisonment only. 3) As to disposition: In probation, the sentence is automatically suspended after conviction while in parole, service of sentence is suspended only after serving the minimum period. 4) As to violation of conditions: In probation, violation of the conditions shall have the effect of serving the entire sentence imposed on the convict while in parole, violation of the condition shall have the effect of serving the unexpired portion of the maximum period imposed on the convict. 5) As to Character: probation is a grant of privilege, it must be applied for while parole is mandatory, application is not necessary. 6) As to who grants the benefit: Probation is granted by the court while Parole is granted by the Board of Pardons and Parole. ANTI-FENCING LAW (PRESIDENTIAL DECREE 1612) 127. What is fencing and how it is committed? Fencing is the act of any person who, with intent to gain for himself or for another, shall buy, receive, possess, keep, acquire, conceal, sell or dispose of, or shall buy and sell, or in any other manner denial in any article, item, object, or anything of value which he knows or should be known to him, to have been derived from proceeds of the crime of robbery or theft. 128. What are the elements of the crime of fencing? 1) Robbery or theft has been committed; 2) The accused , who is not a principal or accomplice in the commission of robbery theft, buys, receives, possesses, keeps, acquires, conceals, sells or disposes buys and sells, or in any manner deals in any article, item, object or anything value, which has been derived from the proceeds of the said crime; 3) The accused knows or should have known that the said article, item, object anything of value ahs been derived from the proceeds of the crime of robbery theft; and 4) There is on the part of the accused, intent to gain for himself or for another.

or or of or or

129. Can an accessory in the crime of robbery or theft be prosecuted under PD 1612 or the Anti-Fencing Law? Yes. The accessory in the crimes of robbery and theft could be prosecuted under the Revised Penal Code or under P.D. 1612. However, in the latter case, he ceases to be a mere accessory but becomes a principal in the crime of fencing. In other words, the crimes of theft and robbery and fencing, on the other hand, are separate and distinct offenses. The state may choose to prosecute him either under the RPC or PD 1612, although the preference for the

latter would seem inevitable considering that fencing is mallum prohibitum, and PD 1612 creates a presumption of fencing and thus prescribes a higher penalty based on the value of the property. ILLEGAL POSSESSION OF FIREARMS (REPUBLIC ACT 8294) 130. What are the different effects of use of illegal firearms? The following are the effects of use of illegal firearms: 1) If Homicide or Murder is committed with the use of an unlicensed firearm, such use of an unlicensed firearm shall be considered as a SPECIAL AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCE. 2) Use/possession of unlicensed firearms in furtherance of or incident to, or in connection with the crime of Rebellion, or Insurrection, Sedition or Attempted Coup detat, the violation shall be ABSORBED AS AN ELEMENT of the said crimes. 3) If an unlicensed firearm is used in the commission of the crime of Robbery by a band under Art. 295, the PENALTY TO BE IMPOSED SHALL BE THE MAXIMUM PERIOD of the corresponding penalty provided by law, without prejudice to the criminal liability for illegal possession of such unlicensed firearm (Art. 296, RPC) 131. Is ownership an essential element of illegal possession of firearms? Ownership is NOT an essential element of illegal possession of firearms and ammunition. What the law requires is merely possession which includes not only actual physical possession but also constructive possession of the subjection of the thing to ones control and management. 132. Is criminal intent sufficient to convict a person for illegal possession of firearms? A distinction should be made between criminal intent and intent to possess. While mere possession without criminal intent is sufficient to convict a person for illegal possession of firearms, it must still be shown that there was animus possidendi or intent to possess on the part of the accused. DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT OF 2002 (REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9165) 133. What are the qualifying/aggravating circumstances under R.A. 9165? 1) When a crime is committed under the influence of drugs, a positive finding thereof shall be a qualifying circumstance in such crime and the rules under the Revised Penal Code shall apply; 2) Possession of dangerous drugs during parties, social gatherings or meetings or in the proximate company of at least two persons and possession of equipment, instrument, apparatus and other paraphernalia during parties, social gatherings or meetings or in the proximate company of at least two persons shall aggravate the crimes of Possession of Dangerous Drugs under Sec 11 and Possession of Equipment, Instrument under sec. 12, respectively of the said law. 134. May a person convicted under R.A. 9165 be entitled to the benefit of Indeterminate Sentence Law? Yes. Since drug offenses are not included in the exceptions to said law and the penalty to be imposed does not involve life imprisonment, reclusion perpetua, provided that the penalty as ultimately resolved will exceed one year imprisonment, the Indeterminate Sentence law applies. 135. What are the instances necessary to establish conviction under a single prosecution witness under RA 9165? To sustain a conviction under a single prosecution witness under the comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act, such testimony needs only to establish sufficiently; 1) the identity of the buyer, seller, object and consideration; 2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment thereof. Indeed, what is material is proof that the transaction or sale actually took place, coupled with the presentation in court of the substance seized as evidence. (People vs Villanueva, G.R. 172116)

----------------------------

END

------------------------------