QuAMTO (1987-2010)
Criminal Law
ACADEMICS COMMITTEE
ALJON D. DE GUZMAN
MARK KEVIN U. DELLOSA
SHARMAGNE JOY A. BINAY
ANTHONY M. ROBLES
CLARABEL ANNE R. LACSINA
RAFAEL LORENZ SANTOS
JAMES BRYAN V. ESTELEYDES
CHAIRPERSON
VICE-CHAIR FOR ACADEMICS
VICE-CHAIR FOR ADMINISTRATION AND FINANCE
VICE-CHAIR FOR LAYOUT AND DESIGN
MEMBER, LAYOUT AND DESIGN TEAM
MEMBER, LAYOUT AND DESIGN TEAM
VICE-CHAIR FOR RESEARCH
RESEARCH COMMITTEE
JAMES BRYAN V. ESTELEYDES
MARIA JAMYKA S. FAMA
PAULINE BREISSEE GAYLE D. ALCARAZ
ROBBIE BAAGA
MONICA S. CAJUCOM
DOMINIC VICTOR C. DE ALBAN
ANNABELLA HERNANDEZ
MA. CRISTINA MANZO-DAGUDAG
WILLIAM RUSSELL MALANG
CHARMAINE PANLAQUE
OMAR DELOSO
Page |2
QUESTIONS ASKED MORE THAN ONCE IN THE BAR
QuAMTO (1987-2010)
DISCLAIMER
THE RISK OF USE, MISUSE OR NONUSE OF THIS BAR REVIEW MATERIAL
SHALL BE BORNE BY THE USER/
NON-USER.
Page |3
QUESTIONS ASKED MORE THAN ONCE IN THE BAR
QuAMTO (1987-2010)
GENERAL PRINCIPLES
Q: What are the three cardinal features or main
characteristics of Philippine Criminal Law? (1998,
1988)
A: The three main characteristics of Philippine
criminal law are:
a. Generality or its being binding to all persons
who live or sojourn in Philippine territory subject
to certain exceptions
b. Territoriality or its having force and effect only
within Philippine territory, subject to certain
exceptions also
c. Irretrospectivity/Prospectivity or its application
only to acts and omissions committed/incurred
after the effectivity of the law except if it favors
the offender unless he is a habitual delinquent or
the law otherwise provides
Q: Hubert and Eunice were married in the
Philippines. Hubert took graduate studies in New
York and met his former girlfriend Eula. They
renewed their friendship and finally decided to get
married. The first wife, Eunice, heard about the
marriage and secures a copy of the marriage
contract in New York. Eunice filed a case of Bigamy
against Hubert in the Philippines.
1.
2.
A:
1.
2.
Page |4
QUESTIONS ASKED MORE THAN ONCE IN THE BAR
QuAMTO (1987-2010)
A: No. Enforced disappearance and extralegal killing
is not per se a criminal offense although it is
wrongful. The grant of a writ of amparo only
provides for a relief; it does not establish a basis for
a crime. Unless the writ was issued because of
specific overt acts shown to have been committed
by the respondent military officers and such acts are
crimes under penal laws, no criminal charge may be
routinely filed just because the petition for the writ
was granted.
Q: Are human rights violations considered as crimes
in the Philippines? Explain. (2008)
A: Not necessarily, since there are human rights
violations which do not amount to a criminal
offense. In this country, there can be no crime when
there is no law punishing an act or omission as a
crime. However, if the acts constitute violations of
customary international law, they may be
considered violations of Philippine law (Sec. 8, Art. II,
Constitution). Also, the acts may constitute elements
of offenses penalized under Philippine laws, like
kidnapping/illegal detention.
Q: Because of the barbarity and hideousness of the
acts committed by the suspects/respondents in
cutting off their victims appendages, stuffing their
torsos, legs, body parts into oil drums and bulletriddled vehicles and later on burying these oil
drums, vehicles with the use of backhoes and other
earth-moving machinery, the Commission on
Human
Rights
(CHR)
investigating
team
recommended to the panel of public prosecutors
that all respondents be charged with violation of
the Heinous Crimes Law. The prosecution panel
agreed with the CHR. As the Chief Prosecutor
tasked with approving the filing of the Information,
how will you pass upon the recommendation?
Explain. (2010)
A: The CHR is correct in describing the crimes
committed as heinous crimes as defined in the
preamble of the Heinous Crimes Law (R.A. 7659),
despite the passage of R.A. 9346 prohibiting the
imposition of death penalty.
However, the Heinous Crimes Law does not define
crimes; it is only an amendatory law increasing the
penalty for the crimes specified therein as heinous,
to a maximum of death. Thus, the heinous crimes
committed shall be prosecuted under the penal law
they are respectively defined and penalized, such as
the Revised Penal Code as the case may be. The
circumstances making the crimes heinous may be
alleged as qualifying or generic aggravating, if
proper. The crime shall be designated as defined and
punished under the penal law violated and the
penalty shall be reclusion perpetua without the
benefit of parole or life imprisonment without the
benefit of parole, as the case may be, in lieu of death
penalty.
FELONIES
Q: Luis Cruz was deeply hurt when his offer of love
wsa rejected by his girlfriend Marivella one
afternoon when he visited her. When he left her
house, he walked as if he was sleepwalking so
much so that a teenage snatcher was able to grab
his cellphone and flee without being chased by Luis.
At the next LRT station, he boarded one of the
coachers bound for Baclaran. While seated, he
happened to read a newspaper left on the seat and
noticed that the headlines were about the sinking
of the Super Ferry while on its way to Cebu. He
went over the list of missing passengers who were
presumed dead and came across the name of his
grandfather who had raised him from childhood
after he was orphaned. He was shocked and his
mind went black for minutes, after which he ran
amuck and, using his balisong, started stabbing at
the passengers who then scampered away, with
three of them jumping and landing on the road
below. All the three passengers died later of their
injuries at the hospital. Is Luis liable for the death of
the three passengers who jumped out of the
moving train? (2001, 1996, 1994, 1987)
A: Yes, Luis is liable for their deaths because he was
committing a felony when he started stabbing at the
passengers and such wrongful act was the proximate
cause of said passengers jumping out of the train;
hence, their deaths. Under Art. 4 of the RPC, any
person committing a felony shall incur criminal
liability although the wrongful act done be different
from that which he intended. In this case, the death
of the three passengers was the direct, natural and
logical consequence of Luis felonious act which
created an immediate sense of danger in the minds
of said passengers who tried to avoid or escape from
it by jumping out of the train.
Q: What do you understand by aberratio ictus,
error in personae and praeter intentionem? (1999
1994, 1989)
A: Aberratio ictus or mistake in the blow occurs
when the offender delivered the blow at his
intended victim but missed and instead such blow
landed on an unintended victim. The situation
generally brings about complex crimes where from a
single act, two or more grave or less grave felonies
may result, namely, the attempt against the
intended victim and the consequence on the
unintended victim. It is only when the resulting
crimes are only light that complex crimes do not
result and separate penalties may be imposed.
Error in personae or mistake in identity occurs when
the offender actually hit the person to whom the
blow was directed but turned out to be different
from and not the victim intended. The criminal
liability of the offender is not affected unless the
mistake in identity resulted to a crime different from
what the offender intended to commit, in which
Page |5
QUESTIONS ASKED MORE THAN ONCE IN THE BAR
QuAMTO (1987-2010)
case the lesser penalty between the crime intended
and the crime committed shall be imposed but in the
maximum period (Art. 49, RPC).
In praeter intentionem, the injurious result is greater
than that intended by the offender. This is a
mitigating circumstance of lack of intent to commit
so grave a wrong when the resulting felony could not
reasonably be anticipated or foreseen by the
offender from the act or means employed by him.
Q: What is the doctrine of implied conspiracy?
(2003, 1998)
A: The doctrine of implied conspiracy holds two or
more person participating in the commission of a
crime collectively responsible and liable as coconspirators 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 conspiracy can be
inferred or deduced from the manner the
participants in the commission of crime carried out
its execution and thus the act of one shall be
deemed the act of all.
Q: Ricky was reviewing for the bar exam when the
commander of a vigilante group came to him and
showed him a list of five policemen to be liquidated
by them for graft and corruption. He was further
asked if any of them is innocent. After going over
the list, Ricky pointed to two of the policemen as
honest. Later, the vigilante group liquidated the
three other policemen in the list. The commander
of the vigilante group reported the liquidation to
Ricky. Is Ricky criminally liable? Explain. (2008)
A: No, there was no conspiracy between Ricky and
the Commander of vigilante. Mere vouching for the
honesty of 2 policemen in the list cannot make him a
co-conspirator for the killing. Ricky enjoys the
presumption of innocence.
Q: Angelo devised a Ponzi Scheme in which 500
persons were deceived into investing their money
upon a promise of a capital return of 25%,
computed monthly, and guaranteed by post-dated
checks. During the first two months following the
investment, the investors received their profits, but
thereafter, Angelo vanished. Angelo was charged
with 500 counts of estafa and 2,000 counts of
violation of Batas Pambansa (BP) 22. In his motion
to quash, Angelo contends that he committed a
continued crime, or delito continuado, hence, he
committed only one count of estafa and one count
of violation of BP 22. (2009)
1.
2.
A:
1.
2.
Page |6
QUESTIONS ASKED MORE THAN ONCE IN THE BAR
QuAMTO (1987-2010)
necessary means for committing the other offense
or offenses. They are alleged in one information so
that only one penalty shall be imposed. The penalty
for the most serious crime shall be imposed and in
its maximum period.
In special complex crime, also known as composite
crime, the component crimes constitute a single
indivisible offense and are thus penalized as one
crime under one Article of the Revised Penal Code.
The component crimes are not regarded as distinct
crimes and so it is the penalty specifically provided
for the special complex crime that shall be applied.
3.
2.
1.
2.
3.
3.
A:
1.
2.
A:
1.
Page |7
QUESTIONS ASKED MORE THAN ONCE IN THE BAR
QuAMTO (1987-2010)
2.
3.
A:
1.
2.
1.
2.
Q:
True or False: Voluntary surrender is a
mitigating circumstance in all acts and omissions
punishable under the Revised Penal Code. (2009)
A: False. Voluntary surrender may not be
appreciated in cases of criminal negligence under
Art. 365 since in such cases, the courts are
authorized to impose a penalty without considering
Art. 62 regarding mitigating and aggravating
circumstances.
PERSONS CRIMINALLY LIABLE/DEGREE OF
PARTICIPATION
Q: Ponciano borrowed Rubens gun, saying that he
would use it to kill Freddie. Because Ruben also
resented Freddie, he readily lent his gun, but told
Ponciano: "O, pagkabaril mo kay Freddie, isauli mo
kaagad, ha." Later, Ponciano killed Freddie, but
used a knife because he did not want Freddies
neighbors to hear the gunshot
1. What, if any, is the liability of Ruben?
Explain.
2. Would your answer be the same if, instead
of Freddie, it was Manuel, a relative of
Ruben, who was killed by Ponciano using
Rubens gun? Explain. (2009)
A:
1.
Page |8
QUESTIONS ASKED MORE THAN ONCE IN THE BAR
QuAMTO (1987-2010)
2.
A:
1.
2.
Page |9
QUESTIONS ASKED MORE THAN ONCE IN THE BAR
QuAMTO (1987-2010)
A: Under the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the
minimum of the sentence shall be anywhere within
the range of 6 years and 1 day to 12 years
imprisonment while the maximum of the sentence
shall be anywhere within the range of Reclusion
Temporal minimum i.e. not lower than 12 years and
1 day to not more than 14 years and 8 months.
Q: When would the Indeterminate Sentence Law be
inapplicable? (2003, 1999, 1988)
A:
a. persons convicted of offenses punished with
death penalty or life-imprisonment;
b. to those convicted of treason, conspiracy or
proposal to commit treason;
c. to those convicted of misprision of treason,
rebellion, sedition or espionage;
d. to those convicted of piracy;
e. to those who are habitual delinquents;
f. to those who have escaped from confinement or
evaded sentence;
g. to those who having been granted conditional
pardon by the Chief Executive shall have violated the
terms thereof;
h. to those whose maximum term of imprisonment
does not exceed one year,
i. to those already sentenced by final judgment at
the time of approval of this Act,
j. those whose sentence imposes penalties which do
not involve imprisonment like destierro
Q: Carlos was charged and convicted of murder. He
was sentenced to life imprisonment and to
indemnify the offended party in the amount of
P30,000. He sought a reconsideration of the penalty
on the ground that he should be entitled to the
benefits of the Indeterminate Sentence Law. Decide
(1990)
A: Carlos is not entitled to avail of the Indeterminate
Sentence because Sec 2 of said law specifically
disqualifies and disallows application thereof to
persons sentenced to life imprisonment.
Q: While serving sentence for destierro, Macky
entered the prohibited area and had pot session
with Ivy. Is Macky entitled to an indeterminate
sentence in case he is found guilty of use of
prohibited substances? (2007)
A: No, Macky is not entitled to the benefit of the
Indeterminate sentence law for having evaded the
sentence which placed him on destierro. Sec. 2 of
the said law expressly provides that the law shall not
apply to those who have evade sentence. Moreover,
the penalty for use of any dangerous drug by a first
offender is rehabilitation for a minimum period of 6
months. The Indeterminate sentence law does not
apply when the penalty is imprisonment not
exceeding 1 year.
P a g e | 10
QUESTIONS ASKED MORE THAN ONCE IN THE BAR
QuAMTO (1987-2010)
Q. Who are the offenders disqualified from availing
themselves the benefits of the probation law?
(1988)
A: The following offenders are disqualified from
availing of the benefits of the Probation Law:
a. those sentenced to serve a maximum term of
imprisonment of more than 6 years
b. those convicted of subversion or any crime
against national security or public order
c. those who have previously been 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 less than P200
d. those who have been once on probation under
the provisions of the decree
e. those who are already serving sentence at the
time the substantive provisions of this decree
applicable pursuant to Sec 33 of PD 968.
Q: Matt was found guilty of drug trafficking while
his younger brother Jeff was found guilty of
possession of equipment, instrument, apparatus
and other paraphernalia for dangerous drugs under
Section 12 of Republic Act No. 9165. Matt filed a
petition for probation. Jeff appealed his conviction
during the pendency of which he also filed a
petition for probation. The brothers counsel
argued that they being first time offenders, their
petitions for probation should be granted. How
would you resolve the brothers petitions for
probation? Explain. (2010)
A: The brothers petition for probation should both
be denied. Matts petition for probation shall be
denied because he was convicted for drug
trafficking. Sec. 24 of R.A. 9165 expressly provides
that Any person convicted for drug trafficking or
pushing regardless of the penalty imposed by the
court, cannot avail of the privilege granted by the
Probation Law. On the other hand, Jeffs application
for probation cannot also be entertained or granted
because he has already appealed his conviction by
the trial court.
Q: PX was convicted and sentenced to
imprisonment of thirty days and a fine of one
hundred pesos. Previously, PX was convicted of
another crime for which the penalty imposed on
him was thirty days only. Is PX entitled to
probation? (2004, 2002, 1990)
A: Yes, PX may apply for probation since the penalty
imposed on him does not exceed 6 years. The
previous conviction for another crime does not
disqualify him since the penalty for his previous
conviction did not exceed 1 month.
Q: Juan was convicted by the Regional Trial Court of
a crime and sentenced to suffer the penalty of
imprisonment for a minimum of eight years. He
P a g e | 11
QUESTIONS ASKED MORE THAN ONCE IN THE BAR
QuAMTO (1987-2010)
insolvency and to pay the private complainant the
amount of the check. Maganda was unable to pay
the fine but filed a petition for probation. The court
granted the petition subject to the condition,
among others, that she should not change her
residence without the courts prior approval. What
is the proper period of probation? (2005)
A: The period of probation shall not be less than the
total number of days of subsidiary imprisonment or
more than twice said number of days as computed
at the rate established under the RPC.
b.) Supposing before the Order of Discharge was
issued by the court but after the lapse of the period
of probation, Maganda transferred residence
without prior approval of the court. May the court
revoke the Order of Probation and order her to
serve the subsidiary imprisonment?
A: Yes, the court may revoke the Order of Probation
and order the convicted accused to serve the
subsidiary imprisonment, because she violated the
condition of her probation before the Order of
Discharge was issued by the court. The conditions of
probation are not co-terminous with the period of
probation; such conditions continue even after the
probation had ended and thus requires faithful
compliance or fulfillment, for as long as the court
which placed the convict on probation has not issued
the Order of Discharge that would release her from
probation (Bala v. Martinez, 181 SCRA 459)
MODIFICATION AND EXTINCTION OF CRIMINAL
LIABILITY
Q: OW is a private person engaged in cattle
ranching. One night, he saw AM stab CV
treacherously, then throw the dead mans body
into ravine. For 25 years, CVs body was never seen
nor found; and OW told no one what he had
witnessed. Yesterday after consulting the parish
priest, OW decided to tell the authorities what he
had witnessed, and revealed that AM had killed CV
25 years ago. Can AM be prosecuted for murder
despite the lapse of 25 years? (2004, 2000)
A: Yes, AM can be prosecuted for murder despite
the lapse of 25 years, because the crime has not yet
prescribed and legally, its prescriptive period has not
even commenced to run. The period of a crime shall
commence to run only from the day on which the
crime shall commence to run only from the day on
which the crime has been discovered by the
offended party, the authorities or their agents (Art.
91, RPC). OW, a private citizen who saw the killing
but never disclosed it is not the offended party nor
has the crime been discovered by the authorities or
their agents.
Q: Antero Makabayan was convicted of the crime
of Rebellion. While serving sentence, he escaped
P a g e | 12
QUESTIONS ASKED MORE THAN ONCE IN THE BAR
QuAMTO (1987-2010)
After their apprehension, all four were charged
with qualified piracy before a Philippine court.
1. Was the charge of qualified piracy against
the three person ( Max, Badong and Bogart
) who boarded the inter-island vessel
correct? Explain.
2. Was Dodong correctly charged before the
Philippine court for qualified piracy?
Explain. (2008)
A:
1.
2.
A:
1.
2.
P a g e | 13
QUESTIONS ASKED MORE THAN ONCE IN THE BAR
QuAMTO (1987-2010)
her relationship to X and Y as the mother of X and
the wife of Y.
If B were a Branagay Tanod only, the act of X of
laying a hand on him, being an agent of a person in
authority only would constitute the crime of
Resistance and Disobedience since X, a high school
pupil, could not be considered as having acted out of
contempt for authority but more of helping his
father get free from the grip of B. Laying hand on
anagent of a person in authority is not ipso facto
direct assault, while it would always be direct assault
if done to a person in authority in defiance to the
latter's exercise of authority.
Q: To secure the release of his brother Willy, a
detention prisoner, and his cousin Vincent, who is
serving sentence for homicide, Chito asked the RTC
Branch Clerk of Court to issue an Order which
would allow the two prisoners to be brought out of
jail. At first, the Clerk refused, but when Chito gave
her P50,000.00, she consented. She then prepared
an Order requiring the appearance in court of Willy
and Vincent, ostensibly as witnesses in a pending
case. She forged the judges signature, and
delivered the Order to the jail warden who, in turn,
allowed Willy and Vincent to go out of jail in the
company of an armed escort, Edwin. Chito also
gave Edwin P50,000.00 to leave the two inmates
unguarded for three minutes and provide them
with an opportunity to escape. Thus, Willy and
Vincent were able to escape. What crime or crimes,
if any, had been committed by Chito, Willy,
Vincent, the Branch Clerk of Court, Edwin, and the
jail warden? Explain your answer. (2009)
A: Chito committed the crimes of Delivery of
Prisoners from Jail for working out the escape of
prisoners Willy and Vincent. He is also liable for two
counts of Corruption of Public Officials and
Falsification of Public Documents as a principal by
inducement.
Willy committed the crime of Delivery of Prisoners
from Jail as a principal by indispensable cooperation
of he was aware of the criminal plan of Chito to have
them escape pursuant to such criminal plan;
otherwise he would not be liable for said crime of he
escaped pursuant to human instinct only.
Vincent, being a prisoner serving sentence by final
judgment, committed the crime of Evasion of Service
of Sentence for escaping during the term of his
imprisonment.
The Branch Clerk of Court committed the crimes of
a.) Direct Bribery for accepting the P50,000 in
consideration of the Order she issued to enable the
prisoners to get out of jail, b.) Falsification of Public
Document for forging the judges signature of said
order, c.) Delivery of Prisoners from Jail as a coprincipal of Chito by indispensable cooperation for
P a g e | 14
QUESTIONS ASKED MORE THAN ONCE IN THE BAR
QuAMTO (1987-2010)
Q: Al Chua, a Chinese national, filed a petition
under oath for naturalization, with the Regional
Trial Court of Manila. In his petition, he stated that
he is married to Leni Chua; that he is living with her
in Sampaloc Manila; that he is of good moral
character; and that he has conducted himself in an
irreproachable manner during his stay in the
Philippines. However, at the time of the filing of the
petition, Leni Chua was already living in Cebu, while
Al was living with Babes Toh in Manila, with whom
he has an amorous relationship. After his direct
testimony, Al Chua withdrew his petition for
naturalization. Is he liable for perjury? (2005, 1997,
1996, 1991, 1987)
A: Yes. The crime of perjury is committed by Al Chua
when he stated under oath that he was living with
Leni Chua in Sampaloc when in fact he was living
with his mistress, and Leni Chua was already living in
Cebu at the time of the filing of the petition. It is a
false allegation under oath, on a material matter
required by law in naturalization cases.
CRIMES RELATIVE TO OPIUM AND OTHER
PROHIBITED DRUGS
Q: Following his arrest after a valid buy-bust
operation, Tommy was convicted of violation of
Section 5, Republic Act 9165. On appeal, Tommy
questioned the admissibility of the evidence
because the police officers who conducted the buybust operation failed to observe the requisite
"chain of custody" of the evidence confiscated
and/or seized from him. What is the "chain of
custody" requirement in drug offenses? What is its
rationale? What is the effect of failure to observe
the requirement? (2009)
A: Chain of custody requirement in drug offenses
refers to the duly recorded, authorized movement
and custody of seized dangerous drugs, controlled
chemicals, plant sources of dangerous drugs, and
laboratory equipment for dangerous drugs from the
time of confiscation/seizure thereof from the
offender, to its turn-over and receipt in the forensic
laboratory for examination, to its safekeeping and
eventual presentation/ offer in court as evidence of
the criminal violation, and for destruction.
Its rationale is to preserve the authenticity of the
corpus delicti or body of the crime by rendering it
improbable that the original item seized/confiscated
in the violation has been exchanged or substituted
with another or tampered with or contaminated. It is
a method of authenticating the evidence as would
support a finding beyond reasonable doubt that the
matter is what the prosecution claims it to be.
Failure to observe the chain of custody requirement
renders the evidence questionable, not trustworthy
and insufficient to prove the corpus delicti beyond
would
be
P a g e | 15
QUESTIONS ASKED MORE THAN ONCE IN THE BAR
QuAMTO (1987-2010)
they could not account for. They were thus made the
depositary and administrator of properties
deposited by public authority and hence, by the
duties of their office/ position, they are accountable
for such properties. Such properties, having been
sequestered by the government through the PCGG,
are in custodial egis and therefore impressed with
the character of public property, even though the
properties belong to a private individual. The failure
of Reyes and Santos to give any satisfactory
explanation why the vans were missing, is prima
facie evidence that they had put the same to their
personal use.
Q: Eliseo, the deputy sheriff, conducted the
execution sale of the property of Andres to satisfy
the judgment against him in favor of ABC
Corporation, a government-owned or controlled
corporation with an original charter. However, the
representative of the corporation failed to attend
the auction sale. Gonzalo , the winning bidder,
purchased property for P100,000 which he paid to
Eliseo. Instead of remitting the amount to the Clerk
of Court as ex-officio Provincial Sheriff, Eliseo lent
the amount to Myrna, his officemate, who
promised to repay the amount within two months,
with interest thereon. However, Myrna reneged on
her promise. Despite demands of ABC Corporation,
Eliseo failed to remit the said amount.
1.
2.
A:
1.
2.
P a g e | 16
QUESTIONS ASKED MORE THAN ONCE IN THE BAR
QuAMTO (1987-2010)
Bribery arose from the same act, the elements of the
violation charged under R.A. 3019 are not the same
as the felony charged for indirect bribery under the
RPC (Mejia v. Pamaran, 160 SCRA 457). Hence, the
crimes charged are separate and distinct from each
other, with different penalties. The two charges do
not constitute a ground for a motion to dismiss or
motion to quash, as there is no jeopardy against the
accused.
CRIMES AGAINST PERSONS
Q: Murder (2007, 2005, 2004, 2001, 1999, 1996,
1987)
1. Define murder. What are the elements of the
crime?
A: Murder is the unlawful killing of a person which
otherwise would constitute only homicide, had it not
been attended attended by any of the following
circumstances:
a.) with treachery, or taking advantage of superior
strength, or with the aid of armed men, or
employing means to weaken the defense or of
means of persons to insure or afford impunity
b.) in consideration of a price, reward or promise
c.) by means or on the occasion of inundation, fire,
poison, explosion, shipwreck, stranding of a vessel,
derailment or assault upon a railroad, fall of an
airship, or by means of motor vehicles, or with the
aid of any other means involving great waste and
ruin
d.) on occasion of an earthquake, eruption of a
volcano, destructive cyclone, epidemic or other
public calamity
e.) with evident premeditation
f.) with cruelty, by deliberately and inhumanly
augmenting the suffering of the victim, or outraging
or scoffing at his person or corpse
The elements of murder are:
1.) That a person was unlawfully killed;
2.) That such killing was attended by any of the
above mentioned circumstances;
3.) That the killing is not parricide nor infanticide;
4.) That the accused killed the victim.
2. Juan had a land dispute with Pedro for a number
of years. As Juan was coming down to his house, he
saw his brother, Rodolfo attack Pedro with a bolo
from behind. Rodolfo was about to hit Pedro a
second time while the latter was prostrate on the
ground, when Carling, Pedros son, shouted, Ill kill
you This distracted Rodolfo, who turned to
Carling. Rodolfo and Carling fought with their bolos.
Carling suffered a number of wounds and died on
the spot. Pedro who was in serious condition was
rushed to the hospital. He died five days later for
loss of blood because the blood purchased from
P a g e | 17
QUESTIONS ASKED MORE THAN ONCE IN THE BAR
QuAMTO (1987-2010)
whereas the victim was helpless and not in a
position to defend himself or to retaliate.
Q: Roger, the leader of a crime syndicate in Malate,
Manila, demanded the payment by Antonio, the
owner of a motel in that area, of P10,000 a month
as "protection money". With the monthly payment,
Roger assured, the syndicate would provide
protection to Antonio, his business, and his
employees. Should Antonio refuse, Roger warned,
the motel owner would either be killed or his
establishment destroyed. Antonio refused to pay
the protection money. Days later, at round 3:00 in
the morning, Mauro, a member of the criminal
syndicate, arrived at Antonio's home and hurled a
grenade inti an open window of the bedroom
where Antonio, his wife and their three year-old
daughter were sleeping. All three of them were
killed instantly when the grenade exploded. State,
with reason, the crime or crimes that had been
committed as well as the aggravating
circumstances, if any, attendant thereto. (2008)
A: By demanding protection money under threat and
intimidation that the businessman would be killed or
his establishment destroyed if he would refuse to
pay the protection money, the crime of grave threats
is committed by Roger, the leader of the crime
syndicate.
Roger and Mauro conspired to commit the crime of
murder qualified by treachery, with the use of
means involving great waste and ruin. In this case,
Mauro is liable as a principal by direct participation
by using a grenade and hurled into an open window
of the victims bedroom. Killing the victims while
they were sleeping and in no position to defend
themselves is a treacherous act (People v. Aguilar, 88
Phil 693)
The aggravating circumstances includes Sec. 3 of R.A.
8294 which provides that when a person commits
any of the crime under RPC or special laws with the
use of explosive and like incendiary devices which
resulted in the death of any person. Likewise is
Art.23 of R.A. 7659 as organized/syndicated crime
group. It also includes dwelling because the killings
were committed in the home of the victims who had
not given any provocation, nocturnity, considering
that the offenders carried out the killing at around
3:00AM, indicative of a deliberate choice of
nighttime for the commission of the crime, and
treachery considering that the victims were asleep
when killed.
Q: A and B are husband and wife. A is employed as
a security guard at Landmark, his shift being from
11:00 p.m.to 7:00 a.m. One night, he felt sick and
cold, hence, he decided to go home around
midnight after getting permission from his duty
officer. Upon reaching the front yard of his home,
he noticed that the light in the master bedroom
P a g e | 18
QUESTIONS ASKED MORE THAN ONCE IN THE BAR
QuAMTO (1987-2010)
Inasmuch as the single act of striking the pregnant wife
produced 2 grave or less grave felonies, it falls under Art.
48 of RPC (complex crime)
On the other hand, if it is a child which was killed, he/she
must be at least 3 years old to be liable for parricide. If
he/she is less than 3 years old, parricide is not committed,
instead, it is infanticide.
P a g e | 19
QUESTIONS ASKED MORE THAN ONCE IN THE BAR
QuAMTO (1987-2010)
seriously intimidated with a gun pointed at him and
directed to stop the van and allow the gun-man to
board the same, and thereafter to drive to a
deserted place, the crime committed by Virgilio is
Grave Coercion and Slight Illegal Detention for
holding the driver before he was allowed to go.
Q: A and B, conspiring with each other, kidnapped
C and detained him. The duo then called up Cs wife
informing her that they had her husband and would
release him only if she paid a ransom in the amount
of P10,000, and that if she were to fail, they would
kill him. The next day, C, who had just recovered
from an illness had a relapse. Fearing he might die
if not treated at once by a doctor, A and B released
C during the early morning of the third day of
detention. Was the crime committed kidnapping
and serious detention or slight illegal detention?
(1997, 1991)
A: The crime committed by A and B is kidnapping
and serious illegal detention because they made a
demand for ransom and threatened to kill C if the
latters wife did not pay the same. Without the
demand for ransom, the crime could have been
slight illegal detention only.
Note: Had it been the wife who was kidnapped, even in the
absence of ransom, it will still constitute serious illegal
detention because the victim is a woman.
P a g e | 20
QUESTIONS ASKED MORE THAN ONCE IN THE BAR
QuAMTO (1987-2010)
commit robbery and only XA raped OD, the other
robbers, YB and ZC were present and aware of the
rape being committed by their co-conspirator.
Having done nothing to stop XA from committing the
rape, YB and ZC thereby concurred in the
commission of the rape by their co-conspirator XA.
P a g e | 21
QUESTIONS ASKED MORE THAN ONCE IN THE BAR
QuAMTO (1987-2010)
5. A sold a washing machine to B in credit, with the
understanding that B could return the appliance
within two weeks if, after testing the same, B
decided not to buy it. Two weeks lapsed without B
returning the appliance. A found out that B had
sold the washing machine to a third party. Is B
liable for estafa?
A: No, B is not liable for estafa because he is not just
an entrustee of the washing machine which he sold;
he is the owner thereof by virtue of the sale of the
washing machine to him. The sale being on credit, B
as buyer is only liable for the unpaid price of the
washing machine; his obligation is only a civil
obligation. There is no felonious misappropriation
that could constitute estafa.
Q: Dennis leased his apartment to Myla for P10,000
a month. Myla failed to pay the rent for 3months.
Gabriel , the son of Dennis, prepared a demand
letter falsely alleging that his father had authorized
him to collect the unpaid rentals. Myla paid the
unpaid rentals to Gabriel who kept the payment.
1.
2.
A:
1.
2.
P a g e | 22
QUESTIONS ASKED MORE THAN ONCE IN THE BAR
QuAMTO (1987-2010)
P a g e | 23
QUESTIONS ASKED MORE THAN ONCE IN THE BAR
QuAMTO (1987-2010)
pharmacist sold him three (3) tablets. Upon arriving
home, he took a tablet. One hour later, he had a
seizure and died. The autopsy showed that the
tablet he had taken was not paracetamol but a pill
to which he was allergic. The pharmacist was
charged with murder. Is the charge proper? If not,
what should it be? Explain. (2008)
A: The charge was improper. The pharmacist should
be charged with criminal negligence, or reckless
imprudence resulting in homicide, because there
was no intent to kill Olimpio. The accused
inexcusably lacked precaution in failing to dispense
the proper medicine to the victim which cause his
death.