2017 CENTRALIZED BAR OPERATIONS

Executive Committee

Chairperson: Bandiola, Dawna Fya O.

Vice Chairperson for Academics: Najarro Jr., Violeta M.

Vice Chairperson for Academic Operations: Matibag, Kevin Christian S.

Vice Chairperson for Hotel Operations: Galvez, Ma. Johara G.

Executive Chairperson for Hotel Operations: Cancio, Ryan John C.

Vice Chairperson for Finance: Cuadra, Luis Alfonso L.

Vice Chairperson for Secretariat: Del Rosario, Janine Gabrielle A.

Vice Chairperson for Communications: Arriba, Edward Vange P.

Vice Chairperson for Recruitment and Membership: Santiago, Martin Kevin P.

Vice Chairperson for Electronic and Data Processing: Arbiol, Christian Adrianne M.

CONTENT AND LAY-OUT EDITORS

Christian Adrianne M.Arbiol Franchezka Mae S. Celis

Nikki Angeli LB Tuble John Eli Zuriel d.V. Bitong

San Beda College Alabang School of Law Administration

ATTY. Ulpiano P. Sarmiento III

Dean and Adviser

ATTY. Anna Marie Melanie B. Trinidad

Vice Dean

ATTY. Carlo D. Busmente

Prefect of Student Affairs and Adviser
 Centralized Bar Operations Advisers
ATTY. Ulpiano P. Sarmiento III
Dean and Adviser

ATTY. Carlo D. Busmente

Prefect of Student Affairs and Adviser

Centralized Bar Operations Core Group

Dawna Fya O. Bandiola Emmanuel Josef Javellanos
Kevin Christian S. Matibag Luis Alfonso L. Cuadra
Annabel F. Hernandez Edward Vange P. Arriba
Violeta M. Najarro Jr. Giulia Ingrid C. Calub
Ma. Terresa M. Marco Martin Kevin P. Santiago
Ma. Johara G. Galvez Rodel Jr. R. Cadorniga
Ryan John C. Cancio Janine Gabrielle A. del Rosario
Kristine C. Mirabueno Jemmarie Q. Pascua
Christian Adrianne M. Arbiol John Eli Zuriel d.V. Bitong
Nikki Angeli LB Tuble Mariane L. Hernandez
Marryl Ann G. Ragpala Juan Paolo N. Tamonte
 Criminal Law Team

Adviser: JUDGE WILHELMINA JORGE-WAGAN

Subject Head: AGRAAM, ANGELI NEWIN C.

Asst. Subject Head: CATALO, MARIA CASSANDRA A.

Members: ABULENCIA, MARIA ANGELICA C.

AQUINO, LEONA ISABELLE A.
BONITA, RAY KARLO M.
DEIPARINE, RALPH LORENZ N.
EBERSOLE, PHILIP F.
GARCIA, ZANDRA MARIE M.
OSMEA, RAMON VICENZZO E.
PADILLA, GERALD CHRISTOPHER M.
SALDANA, EOS MARIELLE G.
TABAN-UD, AIKA MYSTICA

CRIMINAL LAW
CRIMINAL LAW I
FUNDAMENTAL AND GENERAL PRINCIPLES
After drinking one (1) case of San Miguel
beer and taking two plates of "pulutan",
Binoy, a Filipino seaman, stabbed to death
Sio My, a Singaporean seaman, aboard M/V
"Princess of the Pacific", an overseas vessel
which was sailing in the South China Sea. The
vessel, although Panamanian registered, is
owned by Lucio Sy, a rich Filipino
businessman. When M/V "Princess of the
Pacific" reached a Philippine Port at Cebu
City, the Captain of the vessel turned over the
assailant Binoy to the Philippine authorities.
An information for homicide was filed against
Binoy in the Regional Trial Court of Cebu City.
He moved to quash the information for lack
of jurisdiction. If you were the Judge, will you
grant the motion? Why?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes, the Motion to Quash the Information
should be granted. The Philippine court has
no jurisdiction over the crime committed
since it was committed on the high seas or
outside of Philippine territory and on board a
vessel not registered or licensed in the
Philippines (US vs. Fowler, 1 Phil 614). It is the
registration of the vessel in accordance with
the laws of the Philippines, not the citizenship
of her owner, which makes it a Philippine ship.
The vessel being registered in Panama, the
laws of Panama govern while it is in the high
seas.
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.
a. Will the case prosper? Explain.
b. If Eunice gave her consent to the
second marriage, what will your
answer be? Explain.
Adviser: Judge Wilhelmina Jorge-Wagan
Subject Head: Angeli Newin C. Agraam Asst. Subject Head: Maria Cassandra A. Catalo Members: Maria Angelica C. Abulencia, Leona
Isabelle A. Aquino, Ray Karlo M. Bonita, Ralph Lorenz N. Deiparine, Philip F. Ebersole, Zandra Marie M. Garcia, Ramon Vicenzzo E.
Osmea, Gerald Christopher M. Padilla, Eos Marielle G. Saldana, Aika Mystica Taban-Ud
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
a. No, because the Philippine Courts
have no jurisdiction over a crime
committed outside of the Philippine
territory. Under the principle of
territoriality, penal laws, specifically
the RPC, are enforceable only within
our territory (Art. 2, RPC).
b. The answer will be the same. The
consent of Eunice would not confer
jurisdiction on Philippine Courts.
CRIMINAL LIABILITIES AND FELONIES
What is an impossible crime?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
An impossible crime is an act which would be
an offense against person or property, were
if not for the inherent impossibility of its
accomplishment or on account of the
employment of inadequate or ineffectual
means (Art. 4, par. 2, RPC)
Is an impossible crime really a crime?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, an impossible crime is not really a crime.
It is only so-called because the act gives rise
to criminal liability. But actually, no felony is
committed. The accused is to be punished
for his criminal tendency or propensity
although no crime was committed.
CONSUMMATED, FRUSTRATED AND
ATTEMPTED
Sunshine, a beauteous "colegiala" but a
shoplifter, went to the Ever Department Store
and proceeded to the women's wear
section. The saleslady was of the impression
that she brought to the fitting room three (3)
pieces of swimsuits of different colors. When
she came out of the fitting room, she returned
only two (2] pieces to the clothes rack. The
saleslady became suspicious and alerted
the store detective. Sunshine was stopped by
the detective before she could leave the
store and brought to the office of the store
manager. The detective and the manager
searched her and found her wearing the third
swimsuit under her blouse and pants. Was the
theft of the swimsuit consummated, frustrated
or attempted? Explain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The theft was consummated because the
taking or asportation was complete. The
asportation is complete once the offender is
in possession or acquired exclusive control of
the personal property being taken as in this
case, when Sunshine wore the swimsuit under
her blouse and pants and was on her way
out of the store. With evident intent to gain,
the taking constitutes theft and being
complete, it is consummated. It is not
necessary that the offender is in a position to
dispose of the property.
LIGHT FELONIES
When are light felonies punishable and who
are liable in light felonies?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Under Article 7 of the RPC, light felonies are
punishable only when they have been con-
summated, with the exception of those
committed against persons or property.
Under Article 16, only Principals and
Accomplices are liable for light felonies.
CIRCUMSTANCES AFFECTING CRIMINAL
LIABILITY
Jack and Jill have been married for seven
years. One night, Jack came home drunk.
Finding no food on the table, Jack started
hitting Jill only to apologize the following day.
A week later, the same episode occurred
Jack came home drunk and started hitting
Jill. Fearing for her life, Jill left and stayed with
her sister. To woo Jill back, Jack sent her floral
arrangements of spotted lilies and
confectioneries. Two days later, Jill returned
home and decided to give Jack another
chance. After several days, however, Jack
again came home drunk. The following day,
he was found dead. Jill was charged with
parricide but raised the defense of "battered
woman syndrome." Would the defense
prosper despite the absence of any of the
elements for justifying circumstances of self-
defense under the Revised Penal Code?
Explain.
5 San Beda College Alabang School of Law
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes, Section 26 of Rep. Act No. 9262 provides
that victim-survivors who are found by the
courts to be suffering from battered woman
syndrome do not incur any criminal and civil
liability notwithstanding the absence of any
of the elements for justifying circumstances of
self-defense under the Revised Penal Code.
Immediately after murdering Bob, Jake went
to his mother to seek refuge. His mother told
him to hide in the maids quarters until she
finds a better place for him to hide. After two
days, Jake transferred to his aunts house. A
week later, Jake was apprehended by the
police. Can Jakes mother and aunt be
made criminally liable as accessories to the
crime of murder? Explain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Jakes mother was aware of her sons
commission of a felony, such that her act of
harboring and concealing him renders her
liable as an accessory. But being an
ascendant to Jake, she is exempt from
criminal liability by express provision of Article
20 of the Revised Penal Code.
The criminal liability of Jakes aunt depends
on her knowledge of his commission of the
felony. Her act of harboring and concealing
Jake would render her criminally liable as
accessory to the crime of murder as an aunt
is not included under the exemption under
Article 20. However, without knowledge of
Jakes commission of the felony, she would
not be liable.
Nicandro borrowed Valerianos, gun, a high-
powered M-16 rifle, to hunt wild pigs.
Nicandro was accompanied by his friend,
Felix. On their way to the hunting ground,
Nicandro and Felix met Pedro near a hut.
Pedro told them where to hunt. Later,
Nicandro saw a pig and then shot and killed
it. The same bullet, however, that killed the
pig struck a stone and ricocheted hitting
Pedro on his breast. Pedro later died. May
Nicandro be held liable for the death of
Pedro? Explain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Nicandro may be held liable for the death of
Pedro. While Pedros death would seem to
be accidental, the requisites of exempting
2017 Centralized Bar Operations
circumstance of accident are not all present.
Said requisites are:
a. A person is performing a lawful act;
b. With due care;
c. He causes an injury to another by
mere accident;
d. Without fault or intention of causing it
(Art. 12, par. 4, RPC)
When Nicandro borrowed Valerianos high
powered M-16 rifle and used it for hunting
wild pigs, he committed the crime of illegal
possession of firearms, as he does not appear
to have either a license to possess a high-
powered gun or to carry the same outside of
his residence. At the time he shot at the wild
pig, therefore, Nicandro was not performing
a lawful act. Furthermore, considering that
the M-16 is a high- powered gun. Nicandro
was negligent in not foreseeing that bullets
fired from said gun may ricochet.
In order that the plea of guilty may be
mitigating, what requisites must be complied
with?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
For plea of guilty to be mitigating, the
requisites are:
That the accused spontaneously and
unconditionally pleaded guilty to the
crime charged;
That such plea was made before the
court competent to try the case and
render judgment; and
That such plea was made prior to the
presentation of evidence for the
prosecution.
When is surrender by an accused considered
voluntary, and constitutive of the mitigating
circumstance of voluntary surrender?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Surrender by an offender is considered
voluntary when it is spontaneous, indicative
of an intent to submit unconditionally to the
authorities.
To be mitigating, the surrender must be:
6 San Beda College Alabang School of Law
Spontaneous, i.e., indicative of
acknowledgment of guilt and not for
convenience nor conditional;
Made before the government incurs
expenses, time and effort in tracking
down the offender's whereabouts;
and
Made to a person in authority or the
latter's agents
In the middle of the night, Enyong heard the
footsteps of an intruder inside their house.
Enyong picked up his rifle and saw a man,
Gorio, with a pistol ransacking Enyongs
personal effects in his study. He shot and
killed Gorio.
a. Is Enyong criminally liable for killing
the robber Gorio? State your reasons.
b. Suppose Enyong shot Gorio while he
was running away from Enyongs
house with his television set, what is
Enyong liable for? Explain your
answer.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
a. Enyong is not criminally liable
because he was acting in defense of
property rights. Under the case of
People v. Narvaez (G.R. Nos. L-33466-
67. April 20, 1983, 121 SCRA 389)
defense of property need not
necessarily be coupled with
aggression against persons
b. There is criminal liability this time with
the mitigating circumstance of
incomplete self-defense. Under the
case of People v. Narvaez, defense
of property can be availed of even
when there is no assault against a
person. It is recognized as an unlawful
aggression.
Distinguish generic aggravating
circumstance from qualifying aggravating
circumstance.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Generic Aggravating Circumstances:
- Affects only the imposition of the
penalty prescribed, but not the
nature of the crime committed; can
be offset by ordinary mitigating
2017 Centralized Bar Operations
 circumstances; need not be alleged
in the Information as long as proven
during the trial, the same shall be
considered in imposing the sentence.
Qualifying Aggravating Circumstances:
- Must be alleged in the Information
and proven during trial; cannot be
offset by mitigating circumstances;
affects the nature of the crime or
brings about a penalty higher in
degree than that ordinarily
prescribed.
Andres was earlier convicted of adultery and
served an indeterminate penalty, the
maximum term of which did not exceed two
(2) years, four (4) months and one (1) day of
prision correctional. A month after his release
from prison, he was charged with the crime
of serious physical injuries. Later, Andres was
again charged with homicide punishable by
reclusion temporal. He entered a plea of
guilty in the homicide case. May the
aggravating circumstances of recidivism
and/or habituality (reiteracion) be
appreciated against Andres? Explain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The aggravating circumstance of recidivism
cannot be taken against Andres. For this
circumstance to exist, it is necessary that
1. The offender is on trial for an offense;
2. He was previously convicted by final
judgment of another crime;
3. Both the first and second offenses are
embraced in the same title of the
Code; and
4. The offender is convicted of the new
offense (Art. 14, par. 9 RPC).
At the time of his trial for homicide, Andres
was not previously convicted by final
judgment of another crime embraced in the
same title of the Revised Penal Code.
Adultery, which is his only previous conviction
by final judgment is a crime against chastity,
and therefore is not embraced in the same
title of the Code as homicide, which is a
crime against person.
7 San Beda College Alabang School of Law
As for the charge of serious physical injuries,
although serious physical is also a crime
against person, it appears that he had not as
yet been convincted, much less by final
judgment, of the charge at the time that he
was facing trial for homicide.
The aggravating circumstance of habituality
or reiteracion can likewise not be taken
against Andres because in order for this
circumstance to exist, it is necessary that
1. The accused is on trial for an offense;
2. He previously served sentence for
another offense to which the law
attaches an equal or greater
penalty, or for two or more crimes to
which it attaches a lighter penalty
than that for the new offense;
3. He is convicted of the new offense.
In the case at bar, Andres had previously
served sentence only for one offense that of
adultery, but the penalty for adultery (prison
correctional) is lighter than then penalty for
homicide (reclusion-temporal).
Consequently, there is no aggravating
circumstance of habituality or reiteracion.
A was invited to a drinking spree by friends.
After having had a drink too many, A and B
had a heated argument, during which A
stabbed B. As a result, B suffered serious
physical injuries. May the intoxication of A be
considered aggravating or mitigating?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The intoxication of A may be prima facie
considered mitigating since it was merely
incidental to the commission of the crime. It
may not be considered aggravating as there
is no clear indication from the facts of the
case that it was habitual or intentional on the
part of A. Aggravating circumstances are
not to be presumed; they should be proved
beyond reasonable doubt.
2017 Centralized Bar Operations
 PERSONS LIABLE AND DEGREE OF
PARTICIPATION
PRINCIPALS, ACCOMPLICES & ACCESSORIES
Mario, a law student, wanted to avenge the
death of his brother, Jose, in the hands of
Pedro and his gang. So, Mario talked to
Dalmacio, known tough guy, to kill Pedro by
promising him P50,000 to be paid after he
had accomplished the killing. Dalmacio
agreed. Since Pedro was to appear in court
the following day at 9:00 a.m. at the city hall
to attend the hearing involving the death of
Jose, Mario told Dalmacio to carry out the
plan at that exact time in the court room, to
which Dalmacio assented. At 8:50 a.m.,
Mario went to see Captain Malonso of the
Police Department and told him that
Dalmacio would kill Pedro at 9:00 a.m. at the
city hall. He asked Captain Malonso to
prevent it and so the latter rushed to the city
hall but arrived at 9:05 a.m. when Dalmacio
had already killed Pedro. Is Mario liable as
coprincipal with Dalmacio for the killing of
Pedro? Give your reasons.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Mario is a principal by inducement. By
promising to give P50,000.00 to Dalmacio,
which is an agreement for a consideration for
the purpose of avenging his brother's death
the inducement was made directly with the
intention of procuring the commission of the
crime. Furthermore, the facts show that
Dalmacio has no personal reason to kill Pedro
except the inducement, which is therefore
the determining cause for the commission of
the crime by Dalmacio. Mario's change of
mind and heart at the last minute, which did
not, after all, prevent the consummation of
the crime, because it was too late, does not
alter the course of his criminal liability as a co-
principal by inducement. Desistance from
carrying out a criminal design is no defense if
such desistance has not actually and
successfully prevented the commission of the
crime.
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,
8 San Beda College Alabang School of Law
Ponciano killed Freddie, but used a knife
because he did not want Freddies neighbors
to hear the gunshot. What, if any, is the
liability of Ruben? Explain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Rubens liability is that of an accomplice only
because he merely cooperated in
Poncianos determination to kill Freddie.
Such cooperation is not indispensable to the
killing, as in fact the killing was carried out
without the use of Rubens gun. Neither may
Ruben be regarded as a co-conspirator
since he was not a participant in the
decision-making of Ponciono to kill Freddie;
he merely cooperated in carrying out the
plan which was already in place.
Modesto and Abelardo are brothers.
Sometime in August 1998 while Abelardo was
in his office, Modesto, together with two other
men in police uniform, came with two heavy
bags. Modesto asked Abelardo to keep the
two bags in his vault until he comes back to
get them. When Abelardo later examined the
two bags, he saw bundles of money that, in
his rough count, could not be less than P5
Million. He kept the money inside the vault
and soon he heard the news that a gang that
included Modesto had been engaged in
bank robberies. Abelardo, unsure of what to
do under the circumstances, kept quiet
about the two bags in his vault. Soon after,
the police captured, and secured a
confession from, Modesto who admitted that
their loot had been deposited with Abelardo.
What is Abelardo's liability?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Abelardo is not criminally liable. To be
criminally liable as an accessory under Article
19 of the Code, such person must have
knowledge of the commission of the crime.
The term knowledge under the law is not
synonymous with suspicion. Mere suspicion
that the crime has been committed is not
sufficient. Even if he can be considered as an
accessory under paragraph 2 of Article 19,
RPC, Abelardo is not liable, being the brother
of Modesto under Article 20, RPC.
2017 Centralized Bar Operations
 CONSPIRACY AND PROPOSAL
Distinguish by way of illustration conspiracy
as a felony, from conspiracy as a manner of
incurring liability, in relation to the crimes of
rebellion and murder.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Conspiracy to commit rebellion: If A and
B conspired to overthrow the government,
conspiracy is punishable. Conspiracy to
commit rebellion is a felony. Rebellion: If they
committed rebellion, they are equally liable
for the crime of rebellion but they will not be
additionally charged with conspiracy to
commit rebellion. Since they committed
what they conspired for, conspiracy will not
be considered as an independent felony but
as a manner of incurring criminal
responsibility.
Conspiracy to commit homicide, not
punishable: If A and B conspired to kill
X, conspiracy is not punishable. The law
provides no penalty for conspiracy to be
commit homicide. Homicide: If pursuant to
conspiracy to commit homicide, A
embraced X and then B stabbed and
killed X, the conspirators are equally liable
for homicide. Conspiracy in this case will be
considered as a manner of incurring liability.
a. State the concept of implied
conspiracy and give its legal effects.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
An implied conspiracy is one which is only
inferred or deduced from the manner the
participants in the commission of crime
carried out its execution. Where the
offenders acted in concert in the commission
of the crime, meaning that their acts are
coordinated or synchronized in a way
indicative that they are pursuing a common
criminal objective, they shall be deemed to
be acting in conspiracy and their criminal
liability shall be collective, not individual.
The legal effects of an implied conspiracy
are:
1. Not all those who are present at the
scene of the crime will be considered
conspirators;
9 San Beda College Alabang School of Law
2. Only those who participated by
criminal acts in the commission of the
crime will be considered as
coconspirators; and
3. Mere acquiescence to or approval of
the commission of the crime, without
any act of criminal participation, shall
not render one criminally liable as co-
conspirator.
b. When would qualifying
circumstances be deemed, if at all,
elements of a crime?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
A qualifying circumstance would be
deemed an element of a crime when -
1. It changes the nature of the crime,
bringing about a more serious crime
and a heavier penalty;
2. It is essential to the crime involved,
otherwise some other crime is
committed; and
3. It is specifically alleged in the
Information and proven during the
trial.
A, B, C, D, and E were former soldiers who
deserted their command in Mindanao. Jose
and Pedro, two big landowners, called A, B,
C, D, and E to a conference. Jose and Pedro
proposed to these former soldiers that they
recruit their comrades and organize a group
of 100 for the purpose of challenging the
government by force of arms in order to
prevent the enforcement or implementation
of the Land Reform Law in Cotabato Province.
Jose and Pedro promised to finance the
group and to buy firearms for the purpose.
The former soldiers agreed. After Jose and
Pedro left, A, the leader of the former soldiers,
said that in the meanwhile he needed money
to support his family. D suggested that they
rob a bank and agreed to carry out the plan
on the 15 th day of the month. Unknown to all
of them, as they were conferring with Jose
and Pedro and as they were planning to rob
the bank, Rosauro, a house boy, was within
hearing distance. On the pretext of buying
cigarettes, Ro6auro instead went directly to
the Police and told them what transpired. All
2017 Centralized Bar Operations
the former soldiers, as well as Jose and Pedro,
were arrested.
a. What crime, if any, did the former
soldiers commit?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The former soldiers committed the crime of
conspiracy to commit sedition. What Jose
and Pedro proposed to the soldiers that they
recruit their comrades and organize a group
of 100 for the purpose of challenging the
government by force of arms in order to
prevent the implementation of the Land
Reform Law in Cotabato Province is to
commit sedition. Proposal to commit sedition
is not punished. But since the soldiers agreed,
a conspiracy to commit sedition resulted
which is now punishable. Conspiracy arises
on the very moment the plotters agree
(People vs. Peralta 25 SCRA 759; People vs.
Tiongson 12 SCRA 402).
b. What about Jose and Pedro?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Jose and Pedro will also be liable for
conspiracy to commit sedition since they are
members of the conspiracy where the act of
one is the act of all. If the soldiers did not
agree to their proposal, they would not incur
any criminal liability because there is no pro-
posal to commit sedition.
BB and CC, both armed with knives, attacked
FT. The victims son, ST, upon seeing the
attack, drew his gun but was prevented from
shooting the attackers by AA, who grappled
with him for possession of the gun. FT died
from knife wounds. AA, BB and CC were
charged with murder. In his defense, AA
invoked the justifying circumstance of
avoidance of greater evil or injury,
contending that by preventing ST from
shooting BB and CC, he merely avoided a
greater evil. Will AAs defense prosper?
Reason briefly.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, AAs defense will not prosper because
there was a conspiracy among BB, CC and
AA. The principle that when there is a
conspiracy, the act of one is the act of all,
shall govern. The act of ST, the victims son,
10
appears to be a legitimate defense of
relatives; hence, justified as a defense of his
father against the unlawful aggression by BB
and CC. STs act to defend his fathers life,
cannot be regarded as an evil inasmuch as
it is, in the eyes of the law, a lawful act. What
AA did was to stop a lawful defense, not
greater evil, to allow BB and CC achieve their
criminal objective of stabbing FT.
COMPLEX CRIME
What constitutes a complex crime? How
many crimes maybe involved in a complex
crime? What is the penalty therefor?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
A complex crime is constituted when a single
act caused two or more grave or less grave
felonies or when an offense is committed as
a necessary means to commit another
offense (Art. 48, RPC). At least two (2) crimes
are involved in a complex crime; either two
or more grave or less grave felonies resulted
from a single act, or an offense is committed
as a necessary means for committing
another. The penalty for the more serious
crime shall be imposed and in its maximum
period. (Art. 48, RPC)
Diego and Pablo were both farmers residing
in Barangay Damayan. On one occasion,
Diego called Pablo to come down from his
house in order to ask him why he got his
(Diegos) plow without permission. One word
led to another. Diego, in a fit of anger,
unsheathed his bolo and hacked Pablo to
death. Pablos 9-year old son, Mario, who
was inside the house, saw the killing of his
father. Afraid that he might also be killed by
Diego, Mario covered himself with a blanket
and hid in a comer of the house. To conceal
the killing of Pablo, Diego brought Pablos
body inside the house and burned it. Mario
was also burned to death. What crime or
crimes did Diego commit?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Diego committed two crimes (1) homicide
for the death of Pablo and (2) the special
complex crime of arson with homicide as
provided in PD 1613 for the burning of the
house and the death of Mario.
San Beda College Alabang School of Law
2017 Centralized Bar Operations
The hacking of Pablo to death is homicide,
the killing not being attended by any of the
qualifying circumstances of murder. It was
killing in the course of a quarrel.
The burning of the house to conceal the
killing of Pablo is a separate crime. Were it not
for the death of Mario, this separate offense
would have been arson. But inside the house
was unknown to Diego, the resulting crime is
under PD No. 1613, because the death
resulted from the arson. If by reason or on the
occasion of the arson, death results, the
offense is the special complex or arson with
homicide (Sec. 5, PD 1613, which expressly
repealed Art. 320 and consequently the
ruling case therein, People v. Paterno (L-2665,
March 6, 1950).
If Diego knew that Mario was inside the house
when he set it on fire, the crime committed,
instead of arson, would be MURDER, with fire
as the qualifying circumstance.
PENALTIES
PENALTIES WHICH MAY BE IMPOSED
(a) State the two classes of penalties under
the revised Penal Code. Define each.
(b) May censure be included in a sentence
of acquittal? Why or why not?
(c) What offenses, if any, may be punished
with the death penalty in our jurisdiction at
present? Explain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
a) The two classes of penalties under Article
25 of the Revise Penal Code are as follows:
1. Principal
2. Accessory
A principal penalty is defined as that
provided for a felony and which is imposed
by court expressly upon conviction. An
accessory penalty is defined as that deemed
included in the imposition of the principal
penalty.
b) Censure may not be included in a
sentence of acquittal, because a censure is
a penalty. Censure is repugnant and is
11
essentially inconsistent and contrary to an
acquittal (People vs. Abellera, 69 Phil. 623.)
c) At present, no offense may be punished
with the death penalty in our jurisdiction at
present. The 1987 Constitution has abolished
the death penalty and the abolition affects
even those who has already been
sentenced to death penalty. Therefore,
unless Congress enacts a law, no offense
may be punished with the death penalty at
present. But until today, Congress has not yet
passed a law to this effect.
Pedro was convicted of the crime of damage
to property through reckless imprudence for
bumping the car of Jose and the court of
sentenced him to pay a fine of P3,000. Pedro
failed to pay die amount of the fine for he was
insolvent. Later, the court ordered the
incarceration of Pedro so that the latter could
serve subsidiary imprisonment to satisfy the
fine. Pedro filed a petition for habeas corpus
alleging that his confinement is illegal. Will
the petition prosper? Give your reasons.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The petition for habeas corpus will prosper.
Subsidiary penalty is not an accessory
penalty which inheres to a principal penalty
and may therefore be imposed even if it is
not expressly provided in the sentence. It is a
penalty in lieu of the penalty imposed in the
sentence. Hence, unless the judgment or
sentence expressly provides for subsidiary im-
prisonment, the culprit cannot be made to
undergo the same (People vs. Fajardo, 65
Phil. 639). In this case, the court merely
sentenced Pedro to pay a P3,000.00 fine. It
was only LATER that the Court ordered the
incarceration of Pedro to serve subsidiary
imprisonment AFTER Pedro failed to pay the
amount of the fine. Subsidiary imprisonment
cannot be imposed unless it is expressly
provided in the sentence.
What is the doctrine of pro reo? How does it
relate to Article 48 of the Revised Penal
Code?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The doctrine of pro reo advocates that penal
laws and laws penal in nature are to be
San Beda College Alabang School of Law
2017 Centralized Bar Operations
construed and applied in a way lenient or
liberal to the offender, constant to and
consistent with the constitutional guarantee
that an accused shall be presumed innocent
until his guilt is established beyond
reasonable doubt. Following the pro reo
doctrine, under Art. 48 of the Revised Penal
Code, crimes are complexed and punished
with a single penalty (i.e., that prescribed for
the most serious crime and to be imposed in
its maximum period). The rationale being,
that the accused who commits two crimes
with single criminal impulse demonstrates
lesser perversity that when the crimes are
committed by different acts and several
criminal resolutions. (People vs Comadre, 431
SCRA 366, 384 [2004]). However, Art. 48 shall
be applied only when it would bring about
the imposition of a penalty lesser than the
penalties if prosecuted separately instead of
being complexed.
Jose purchased roofing materials worth
P20,000.00 from PY & Sons Construction
Company owned by Pedro, paid the latter a
check in the said amount. The following day,
Pedro deposited the check, but it was
returned dishonored because it was drawn
against a closed account. Notwithstanding
written demands, Jose failed to make good
said check. Atty. Saavedra, counsel for
Pedro, filed two complaints against Jose with
the Office of the Provincial Fiscal, one for
estafa under Article 315 of the Revised Penal
Code and another for violation of Batas
Pambansa Big. 22.
Atty. San Pascual, counsel for Jose, claimed
that if his client was at all liable, he could only
be liable for violation of Batas Pambansa Big.
22 and not for estafa under Article 315 of the
Revised Penal Code because one precludes
the other and because Batas Pambansa Big.
22 is more favorable to the accused as it
carries a lighter penalty. The investigating
fiscal, on his resolution, stated that only one
crime was committed, namely, the complex
crime of estafa under Article 315 of the
Revised Penal Code and violation of Batas
Pambansa Big. 22 because the single act of
issuing the bouncing check constitutes two
offenses, one under Article 315 of the Revised
12
Penal Code and another under Batas
Pambansa Big. 22.
If you were the Provincial Fiscal asked to
review the matter, how would you resolve it?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The resolution of the investigating fiscal is
erroneous. There is no complex crime of
estafa under Article 315 of the Revised Penal
Code and the violation of BP 22. A complex
crime refers only to felonies which are
punished in the Revised Penal Code. BP 22
which punishes the offense of issuing a
worthless check is a special law.
However, the contention of the counsel of
Jose that his client should be liable only for BP
22 because it precludes estafa and because
BP 22 is more favorable to the accused
cannot also be sustained. BP 22 specifically
provides that liability under said act is without
prejudice to any liability for estafa under the
Revised Penal Code.
The check issued by Jose in payment of
roofing materials from PY and Sons was
worthless. Said bouncing check having been
issued in payment of a simultaneous
obligation constitutes estafa under the
Revised Penal Code and also the offense
punished under BP 22. There is no identity of
offenses. Damage is not an element of the
offense punished in BP 22 whereas in estafa
damage is an element. Estafa is an act mala
in se in which requires intent as an element
while theoffense punished in BP 22 is an act
mala prohibita where intent is not an
element.
Rodolfo, a policeman, was cleaning his
service pistol inside his house when it fell from
his hand and fired. The bullet hit a neighbor
on the stomach and a second neighbor on
the leg. The injuries sustained by the two
neighbors required thirty-five (35) days and
nine (9) days of medical attendance,
respectively. The investigating fiscal later
filed an information for frustrated homicide
and slight physical injuries through reckless
imprudence against Rodolfo. Is the charge
correct? Explain.
San Beda College Alabang School of Law
2017 Centralized Bar Operations
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The charge is not correct. One single act of
accidental shooting cannot give rise to two
felonies. One of which is intentional and the
other negligent. Frustrated homicide
presupposes intent to kill. The facts do not
show any intent to kill on the part of Rodolfo.
At most, he was careless, and therefore only
negligent. Two separate crimes of serious
physical injuries (against the first neighbor
whose injuries requires 35 days of medical
attendance), and slight physical injuries
(against the second neighbor), both through
reckless imprudence, were committed by
Rodolfo. Although both offenses were the
result of one single act, the crimes cannot be
complexed because it is only when a single
act constitutes two or more grave or less
grave felonies that a complex crime may be
committed under the first clause of article 48,
RPC. Slight physical injuries is not a grave or
less grave felony.
INDETERMINATE SENTENCE LAW
Andres is charged with an offense defined by
a special law. The penalty prescribed for the
offense is imprisonment of not less than five
(5) years but not more than ten [10) years.
Upon arraignment, he entered a plea of
guilty. In the imposition of the proper penalty,
should the Indeterminate Sentence Law be
applied? If you were the Judge trying the
case, what penalty would you impose on
Andres?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes, the Indeterminate Sentence Law should
be applied because the minimum term of
imprisonment is more than one (1) year. If I
were the Judge, I will impose an
indeterminate sentence, the maximum of
which shall not exceed the maximum fixed
by law and the minimum shall not be less
than the minimum penalty prescribed by the
same. I have the discretion to impose the
penalty within the said minimum and
maximum.
13
THREE- FOLD RULE
Roman and Wendy are neighbors. On
Valentine's Day, without prior notice, Roman
visited Wendy at her condo to invite her to
dinner, but Wendy turned him down and
abruptly left, leaving her condo door
unlocked. Roman attempted to follow, but
appeared to have second thoughts; he
simply went back to Wendy's condo, let
himself in, and waited for her return. On
Wendy's arrival later that evening, Roman
grabbed her from behind and, with a knife in
hand, forced her to undress. Wendy had no
choice but to comply. Roman then tied
Wendy's hands to her bed and sexually
assaulted her five (5) times that night. Roman
was charged with, and was convicted of, five
(5) counts of rape, but the judge did not
impose the penalty of reclusion perpetua for
each count. Instead, the judge sentenced
Roman to 40 years of imprisonment on the
basis of the three-fold rule. Was the judge
correct?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No. the three-fold rule is applicable only in
connection with the service of the sentence
not in the imposition of the proper penalties.
The court must impose all penalties for all the
crimes for which the accused have been
found guilty. Thus, the court should not make
a computation in it decision and sentence
the accused to not more than the three- fold
of the most severe of the penalties
imposable. The computation under the
three-fold rule is for the prison authorities to
make.
COMPUTATION OF PRESCRIPTION OF
OFFENSES
One fateful night in January 1990, while 5-
year old Albert was urinating at the back of
their house, he heard a strange noise coming
from the kitchen of their neighbor and
playmate, Ara. When he peeped inside, he
saw Mina, Ara's stepmother, very angry and
strangling the 5-year old Ara to death. Albert
saw Mina carry the dead body of Ara, place
it inside the trunk of her car and drive away.
The dead body of Ara was never found. Mina
spread the news in the neighborhood that
Ara went to live with her grandparents in
Ormoc City. For fear of his life, Albert did not
tell anyone, even his parents and relatives,
San Beda College Alabang School of Law
2017 Centralized Bar Operations
about what he witnessed. Twenty and a half
(20 & 1/2) years after the incident, and right
after his graduation in Criminology, Albert
reported the crime to NBI authorities. The
crime of homicide prescribes in 20 years.
Can the state still prosecute Mina for the
death of Ara despite the lapse of 20 & 1/2
years? Explain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes, the State can still prosecute Mina for the
death of Ara despite the lapse of 20 & 1/2
years. Under Article 91, RPC, the period of
prescription commences to run from the day
on which the crime is discovered by the
offended party, the authorities or their
agents. In the case at bar, the commission of
the crime was known only to Albert, who was
not the offended party nor an authority or an
agent of an authority. It was discovered by
the NBI authorities only when Albert revealed
to them the commission of the crime. Hence,
the period of prescription of 20 years for
homicide commenced to run only from the
time Albert revealed the same to the NBI
authorities.
CRIMINAL AND CIVIL ACTIONS
EXTINGUISHMENT OF CRIMINAL LIABILITY
For defrauding Lorna, Alma was charged
before the Municipal Trial Court of Malolos,
Bulacan. After a protracted trial, Alma was
convicted. While the case was pending
appeal in the Regional Trial Court of the same
province, Lorna who was then suffering from
breast cancer, died. Alma manifested to the
court that with Lorna's death, her (Alma's)
criminal and civil liabilities are now
extinguished. Is Alma's contention correct?
What if it was Alma who died, would it affect
her criminal and civil liabilities? Explain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No. Alma's contention is not correct. The
death of the offended party does not
extinguish the criminal liability of the
offender, because the offense is committed
against the State [People vs. Misola, 87 Phil.
830, 833). Hence, it follows that the civil
liability of Alma based on the offense
14
committed by her is not extinguished. The
estate of Lorna can continue the case.
If it were Alma who died pending appeal of
her conviction, her death extinguishes his
criminal liability as well as the civil liability
based solely on the offense committed.
On the other hand, the claim for civil liability
survives notwithstanding the death of
accused, if the same may also be
predicated on a source of obligation other
than delict enumerated under Article 1157 of
the Civil Code. (Law, Contracts, Quasi-
Contracts and Quasi-Delicts)
If the civil liability survives, an action for
recovery therefor may be pursued only by
way of filing a separate civil action and
subject to Section 1, Rule 111 of the 1985
Rules on Criminal Procedure as amended.
This separate civil action may be enforced
either against the executor/administrator or
the estate of the accused, depending on the
source of obligation upon which the same is
based as explained above. The private
offended party need not fear a forfeiture of
his right to file this separate civil action by
prescription, in cases where during the
prosecution of the criminal action and prior
to its extinction, the private-offended party
instituted together therewith the civil action.
In such case, the statute of limitations on the
civil liability is deemed interrupted during the
pendency of the criminal case. (People vs.
Bayotas, G.R. No. 102007, September 2, 1994)
PRESCRIPTION
A killed his wife and buried her in their
backyard. He immediately went into hiding
in the mountains. Three years later, the bones
of As wife were discovered by X, the
gardener. Since X had a standing warrant of
arrest, he hid the bones in an old clay jar and
kept quiet about it. After two years, Z, the
caretaker, found the bones and reported the
matter to the police. After 15 years of hiding,
A left the country but returned three years
later to take care of his ailing sibling. Six years
thereafter, he was charged with parricide but
raised the defense of prescription.
a. Under the Revised Penal Code, when
does the period of prescription of a
crime commence to run?
San Beda College Alabang School of Law
2017 Centralized Bar Operations
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Generally, the period of prescription of a
crime commences to run from the date it
was committed; but if the crime was
committed clandestinely, the period of
prescription of the crimes under the Revised
Penal Code commence to run from the day
on which the crime was discovered by the
offended party, the authorities or their agents
(Art. 91, RPC).
b. When is it interrupted?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The period of prescription shall be interrupted
by the filing of the complaint or information,
and shall commence to run again when such
proceedings terminate without the accused
being convicted or acquitted, or are
unjustifiably stopped for any reason not
imputable to him.
The prescription shall be interrupted when
proceedings are instituted against the guilty
person, and shall begin to run again if the
proceedings are dismissed for reasons not
constituting jeopardy. (Act No. 3326,
appropriately entitled An Act to Establish
Prescription for Violations of Special Acts and
Municipal Ordinances and to Provide When
Prescription Shall Begin) Any kind of
investigative proceeding instituted against
the guilty person which may ultimately lead
to his prosecution should be sufficient to toll
prescription. (Panaguiton vs. DOJ, G.R. No.
167571, November 25, 2008)
On June 1, 1988, a complaint for
concubinage committed in February 1987
was filed against Roberto in the Municipal
Trial Court of Tanza, Cavite for purposes of
preliminary investigation. For various reasons,
it was only on July 3, 1998 when the Judge of
said court decided the case by dismissing it
for lack of jurisdiction since the crime was
committed in Manila. The case was
subsequently filed with the City Fiscal of
Manila but it was dismissed on the ground
that the crime had already prescribed. The
law provides that the crime of concubinage
prescribes in ten (10) years. Was the dismissal
by the fiscal correct? Explain.
15
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, the Fiscal's dismissal of the case on
alleged prescription is not correct. The filing
of the complaint with the Municipal Trial
Court, although only for preliminary
investigation, interrupted and suspended the
period of prescription in as much as the
jurisdiction of a court in a criminal case is
determined by the allegations in the
complaint or information, not by the result of
proof. (People vs. Galano. 75 SCRA 193)
PARTIAL EXTINCTION OF CRIMINAL LIABILITY
a. How is criminal liability extinguished
partially?
b. If an accused is acquitted, does it
necessarily follows that no civil
liability arising from the acts
complained of may be awarded in
the same judgment?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
a. Article 94 of the Revised Penal Code
provides for the following causes of partial
extinction of criminal liability:
1. Condition pardon
2. Communication of sentence
3. Good conduct allowances during
confinement
4. Parole
5. Probation
b. If an accused acquitted, it does not
necessarily follow that no civil liability arising
from the acts complained of may be
awarded in the same judgment except: If
there is an express waiver of the liability; and
if there is a reservation of file a separate civil
action (Rule 107; Padilla vs. CA People vs.
Jalandoni).
CIVIL LIABILITY
A was a 17-year old working student who was
earning his keep as a cigarette vendor. B was
driving a car along busy Espana Street at
about 7:00 p.m. Beside B was C. The car
stopped at an intersection because of the
red signal of the traffic light. While waiting for
the green signal, C beckoned A to buy some
San Beda College Alabang School of Law
2017 Centralized Bar Operations
cigarettes. A approached the car and
handed two sticks of cigarettes to C. While
the transaction was taking place, the traffic
light changed to green and the car
immediately sped off. As the car continued
to speed towards Quiapo, A clung to the
window of the car but lost his grip and fell
down on the pavement. The car did not stop.
A suffered serious injuries which eventually
caused his death. C was charged with
ROBBERY with HOMICIDE. In the end, the
Court was not convinced with moral certainty
that the guilt of C has been established
beyond reasonable doubt and, thus,
acquitted him on the ground of reasonable
doubt.
Can the family of the victim still recover civil
damages in view of the acquittal of C?
Explain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes, as against C, A's family can still recover
civil damages despite C's acquittal. When
the accused in a criminal prosecution is
acquitted on the ground that his guilt has not
been proved beyond reasonable doubt, a
civil action for damages for the same act or
omission may be instituted. Such action
requires only a preponderance of evidence
{Art. 29, CC). If A's family can prove the
negligence of B by preponderance of
evidence, the civil action for damages
against B will prosper based on quasi-delict.
Whoever by act or omission causes damage
to another, there being fault or negligence,
is obliged to pay for the damage done. Such
fault or negligence, about pre-existing
contractual relation between the parties, is
called a quasi-delict [Art. 2176, CC). This is
entirely separate and distinct from civil
liability arising from negligence under the
Penal Code [Arts, 31, 2176, 2177, CC}.
BOOK TWO
PIRACY IN GENERAL AND MUTINY IN THE
HIGH SEAS
While SS Nagoya Mani was negotiating the
sea route from Hongkong towards Manila,
and while still 300 miles from Aparri,
Cagayan, its engine malfunctioned. The
16
Captain ordered the ship to stop for
emergency repairs lasting for almost 15
hours. Due to exhaustion, the officers and
crew fell asleep. While the ship was
anchored, a motorboat manned by
renegade Ybanags from Claveria, Cagayan,
passed by and took advantage of the
situation. They cut the ship's engines and took
away several heavy crates of electrical
equipment and loaded them in their
motorboat. Then they left hurriedly towards
Aparri. At daybreak, the crew found that a
robbery took place. They radioed the Aparri
Port Authorities resulting in the apprehension
of the culprits.
a. What crime was committed? Explain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The crime committed was piracy under Art.
122, Revised Penal Code, the essence of
which is robbery directed against a vessel
and/or its cargoes. The taking of the several
heavy crates of electrical equipment from a
vessel at sea, was effected by force and
undoubtedly with intent to gain. It is of no
moment that the vessel was anchored when
depredated so long as it was at sea.
b. Supposing that while the robbery was
taking place, the culprits stabbed a
member of the crew while sleeping.
What crime was committed? Explain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER
The crime was qualified piracy under Art. 123
of the Revised Penal Code because it was
attended by a killing committed by the same
culprits against a member of the crew of the
vessel.
DELAY ON THE DELIVERY OF DETAINED
PERSONS TO THE PROPER JUDICIAL
AUTHORITIES
Amy was apprehended and arrested by
Patrolman Bart for illegal parking. She was
detained at the police precint, underwent
investigation, and released only after 48
hours.
a) Patrolman Bart liable for any offense?
Explain your answer.
San Beda College Alabang School of Law
2017 Centralized Bar Operations
b) Suppose Amy resisted the arrest and
grappled with patrolman Bart, is she
criminally liable thereby? State your reasons.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
a. Patrolman Bart is liable for violation of
Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code
- Delay on the Delivery of Detained
Persons to the Proper Judicial
Authorities.
b. She is criminally liable for slight
disobedience under Article 151 of the
Revised Penal Code - Resistance and
disobedience to a person in authority
or the agents of such person.
COUP DTAT
If a group of persons belonging to the armed
forces makes a swift attack, accompanied
by violence, intimidation and threat against
a vital military installation for the purpose of
seizing power and taking over such
installation, what crime or crimes are they
guilty of?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The perpetrators, being persons belonging to
the Armed Forces, would be guilty of the
crime of coup d'etat, under Article 134-A of
the Revised Penal Code, as amended,
because their attack was against vital
military installations which are essential to the
continued possession and exercise of
governmental powers, and their purpose is to
seize power by taking over such installations.
If the attack is quelled but the leader is
unknown, who shall be deemed the leader
thereof?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The leader being unknown, any person who
in fact directed the others, spoke for them,
signed receipts and other documents issued
in their name, or performed similar acts, on
behalf of the group shall be deemed the
leader of said coup d'etat (Art 135, R.P.C.)
17
INCITING TO SEDITION
What are the different acts of inciting to
sedition?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The different acts which constitute the crime
of inciting to sedition are:
1. Inciting others through speeches,
writings, banners and other media of
representation to commit acts which
constitutes sedition;
2. Uttering seditious words, speeches or
circulating scurrilous libels against the
Government of the Philippines or any
of its duly constituted authorities,
which tend to disturb or obstruct the
performance of official functions, or
which tend to incite others to cabal
and meet for unlawful purposes;
3. Inciting through the same media of
representation rebellious conspiracies
or riots;
4. Stirring people to go against lawful
authorities, or disturb the peace and
public order of the community or of
the Government; or
Knowingly concealing any of the
aforestated evil practices (Art. 142, Revised
Penal Code).
DIRECT ASSULT
Jose was charged with slight physical injuries
before a Municipal Trial Judge. He listened
attentively as the Judge read the sentence.
When the Judge reached the dispositive
portion and pronounced Jose guilty, the
latter was enraged, got hold of an ashtray,
and threw it at the Judge hitting him in the
eye. As his defense lawyer Pedro attempted
to restrain him, Jose boxed him and knocked
him down. The judge became blind in one
eye as a consequence. What crime or crimes
did Jose commit?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Jose is liable for Qualified Direct Assault with
Serious Physical Injuries. The throwing of the
ashtray at the Judge hitting him in the eye is
laying of hands on the Judge who is a person
in authority while in the performance of
San Beda College Alabang School of Law
2017 Centralized Bar Operations
duties. Jose is also liable for qualified direct
assault when he boxed his defense lawyer,
knocking him down while in the act of
restraining him. Under Batas 873 a lawyer is
considered a person in authority if assaulted
while in the performance of duties.
Rigoberto gate-crashed the 71st birthday
party of Judge Lorenzo. Armed with a piece
of wood commonly known as dos por dos,
Rigoberto hit Judge Lorenzo on the back,
causing the latters hospitalization for 30
days. Upon investigation, it appeared that
Rigoberto had a grudge against Judge
Lorenzo who, two years earlier, had cited
Rigoberto in contempt and ordered his
imprisonment for three (3) days. (a) Is
Rigoberto guilty of Direct Assault? Why or why
not? (b) Would your answer be the same if
the reason for the attack was that when
Judge Lorenzo was still a practicing lawyer
ten years ago, he prosecuted Rigoberto and
succeeded in sending him to jail for one
year? Explain your answer.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
a. No, Rigoberto is not guilty of Direct Assault
because Judge Lorenzo has ceased to be a
judge when he was attacked. He has retired
(71 years old) from his position as a person in
authority when he was attacked. Hence, the
attack on him cannot be regarded as
against a person in authority anymore.
b. Yes, Rigorberto is guilty of Direct Assault
because the employment of violence was
by reason of an actual performance of a
duty by the offended party acting as a
practicing lawyer. Lawyers are considered
persons in authority by virtue of Batas
Pambansa Blg. 873, which states that lawyers
in the actual performance of their
professional duties or on the occasion of such
performance shall be deemed persons in
authority. But the crime having been
committed 10 years ago, may have already
prescribed because it is punishable by a
correctional penalty.
PERSONS IN AUTHORITY AND AGENTS OF
PERSONS IN AUTHORITY
Who are deemed to be persons in authority
and agents of persons in authority?
18
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Persons in authority are persons directly
vested with jurisdiction, whether as an
individual or as a member of some court or
government corporation, board, or
commission. Barrio captains and barangay
chairmen are also deemed persons in
authority. (Article 152, RPC) Agents of persons
in authority are persons who by direct
provision of law or by election or by
appointment by competent authority, are
charged with maintenance of public order,
the protection and security of life and
property, such as barrio councilman, barrio
policeman, barangay leader and any
person who comes to the aid of persons in
authority (Art. 152, RPC),
In applying the provisions of Articles 148 and
151 of the Rev. 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. (P.D. No. 299, and Batas
Pambansa Blg. 873).
DELIVERY OF PRISONER FROM JAIL
A, a detention prisoner, was taken to a
hospital for emergency medical treatment.
His followers, all of whom were armed, went
to the hospital to take him away or help him
escape. The prison guards, seeing that they
were outnumbered and that resistance
would endanger the lives of other patients,
deckled to allow the prisoner to be taken by
his followers.
What crime, if any, was committed by A's
followers? Why?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
A's followers shall be liable as principals in the
crime of delivery of prisoner from Jail (Art.
156, Revised Penal Code).
The felony is committed not only by removing
from any jail or penal establishment any
person confined therein but also by helping
in the escape of such person outside of said
establishments by means of violence,
intimidation, bribery, or any other means.
San Beda College Alabang School of Law
2017 Centralized Bar Operations
ILLEGAL POSSESSION AND USE OF FALSE
TREASURY OR BANK NOTES AND OTHER
INSTRUMENTS OF CREDIT
Is mere possession of false money bills
punishable under Article 168 of the Revised
Penal Code? Explain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No. Possession of false treasury or bank note
alone without an intent to use it, is not
punishable. But the circumstances of such
possession may indicate intent to utter,
sufficient to consummate the crime of illegal
possession of false notes.
The accused was caught in possession of 100
counterfeit P20 bills. He could not explain
how and why he possessed the said bills.
Neither could he explain what he intended to
do with the fake bills. Can he be held
criminally liable for such possession? Decide.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes. Knowledge that the note is counterfeit
and intent to use it may be shown by the
conduct of the accused. So, possession of
100 false bills reveal: (a) knowledge that the
bills are fake; and (b) intent to utter the same.
FALSIFICATION BY PRIVATE INDIVIDUAL AND
USE OF FALSIFIED DOCUMENTS
A falsified official or public document was
found in the possession of the accused. No
evidence was introduced to show that the
accused was the author of the falsification.
As a matter of fact, the trial court convicted
the accused of falsification of official or
public document mainly on the proposition
that "the only person who could have made
the erasures and the superimposition
mentioned is the one who will be benefited
by the alterations thus made" and that "he
alone could have the motive for making such
alterations". Was the conviction of the
accused proper although the conviction was
premised merely on the aforesaid
ratiocination? Explain your answer.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes, the conviction is proper because there is
a presumption in law that the possessor and
user of a falsified document is the one who
falsified the same.
19
PERJURY
M was forced by a policeman to sign a
document entitled Sinumpaang Salaysay
in which M implicated X as the brain behind
the robbery of a bank where P500,000.00
were lost. The document was prepared by
the policeman upon advice of B, the banks
lawyer, who was present when the
policeman asked M to sign the document. As
M refused to sign it, the policeman held him
by the neck and forced him to sign, which he
did as he was afraid he might be bodily
harmed. During the hearing of the robbery
before the Fiscals Office, B submitted the
Sinumpaang Salaysay as evidence, on the
basis of which X was included in the
information filed by the Fiscal in court.
When M testified in court, he repudiated the
document and told the court there was no
truth to its contents as he was merely forced
to sign it.
(a) May M be held liable for perjury?
(b) Did lawyer B commit any crime when he
used the Sinumpaang Salaysay as
evidence?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
a. M is not liable for perjury. He did not sign
the document freely and voluntarily but due
to the force employed by the policeman.
Peijury refers to deliberate distortion of truth.
The facts of the problem do not state that the
documents was signed before an officer
authorized to administer oath. It is, therefore,
doubtful that the facts would constitute
perjury.
b. The lawyer would be liable under Article
172 of the Revised Penal Code for the
offense of introducing a false document in a
judicial proceeding, as he knew the same to
be false.
Who are public officers?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Public Officers are persons who, by direct
provision of the law, popular election or
appointment by competent authority, takes
part in the performance of public functions in
San Beda College Alabang School of Law
2017 Centralized Bar Operations
the Government of the Philippines, or
performs in said Government or in any of its
branches public duties as an employee,
agent or subordinate official, of any rank or
class (Art. 203, RPC)
MALICIOUSLY REFRAINING FROM INSTITUTING
OR PROSECUTING AN OFFENDER
Manolo revealed to his friend Domeng his
desire to kill Cece. He likewise confided to
Domeng his desire to borrow his revolver.
Domeng lent it. Manolo shot Cece in Manila
with Domeng's revolver. As his gun was used
in the killing, Domeng asked Mayor Tan to
help him escape. The mayor gave Domeng
P5,000.00 and told him to proceed to
Mindanao to hide. Domeng went to
Mindanao. The mayor was later charged as
an accessory to Cece's murder. Can he be
held liable for the charge? Explain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
If Domeng is not the principal to the crime of
murder, the Mayor may not be held liable as
accessory since he merely assisted in the
escape of an accomplice. Par. 3 of Art. 19,
RPC speaks of harboring or assisting in the
escape of a principal. The mayor, however
can be held liable as principal in the crime of
maliciously refraining from instituting or
prosecuting an offender under Art. 208 of the
RPC.
DIRECT AND INDIRECT BRIBERY
Deputy Sheriff Ben Rivas received from the
RTC Clerk of Court a Writ of Execution in the
case of Ejectment filed by Mrs. Maria Estrada
vs. Luis Ablan. The judgment being in favor of
Estrada, Rivas went to her lawyer's office
where he was given the necessary amounts
constituting the sheriffs fees and expenses for
execution in the total amount of P550.00,
aside from P2,000.00 in consideration of
prompt enforcement of the writ from Estrada
and her lawyer. The writ was successfully
enforced.
a. What crime, if any, did the sheriff
commit?
20
b. Was there any crime committed by
Estrada and her lawyer and if so, what
crime?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
a. The sheriff committed the crime of Direct
Bribery under the second paragraph of
Article 210, Revised Penal Code, since the
P2,000 was received by him "in consideration"
of the prompt enforcement of the writ of
execution which is an official duty of the
sheriff to do.
b. On the part of the plaintiff and her lawyer
as giver of the bribe-money, the crime is
Corruption of Public Officials under Article
212, Revised Penal Code.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
On the premise that even without the P2,000,
Sheriff Ben Rivas had to carry out the writ of
execution and not that he would be
implementing the writ only because of the
P2,000.00, the receipt of the amount by said
sheriff may be regarded as a gift received by
reason of his office and not as a
"consideration" for the performance of an
official duty; hence, only indirect Bribery
would be committed by said sheriff.
QUALIFIED BRIBERY
Commissioner Marian Torres of the Bureau of
Internal Revenue (BIR) wrote solicitation
letters addressed to the Filipino-Chinese
Chamber of Commerce and Industry and to
certain CEOs ofvarious multinational
corporations requesting donations of gifts for
her office Christmas party. She used the
Bureau's official stationery. The response was
prompt and overwhelming so much so that
Commissioner Torres' office was
overcrowded with rice cookers, radio sets,
freezers, electric stoves and toasters. Her staff
also received several envelopes containing
cash money for the employees' Christmas
luncheon.
Has Commissioner Torres committed any
impropriety or irregularity? What laws or
decrees did she violate? 5%
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes, Commissioner Torres committed an
impropriety. She violated Sec. 7(d) of Rep.
Act 6713 otherwise known as the Code of
San Beda College Alabang School of Law
2017 Centralized Bar Operations
Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public
Officials and Employees. Sec. 7(d)
mandates that public officials and
employees shall not solicit or accept directly
or indirectly any gift, favor, entertainment,
loan or anything of monetary value from any
person in the course of her official duties or
any transaction which may be affected by
the functions of their office.
ANOTHER SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The solicitation for her office Christmas Party
violates Pres. Decree 46 which makes it
punishable for any public official or
employee to receive, directly or indirectly,
any gift, present or other valuable thing on
any occasion, including Christmas when
such gift or present is given by reason of her
official position.
MALVERSATION
Dencio, who is the Municipal Treasurer of the
town, was also the treasurer of a charity ball
of the church. Because he was short of
payroll funds for the municipal employees,
he used part of the church funds to replenish
the payroll funds with the intention of
returning the same when the public funds
came.
a. Is Dencio guilty of malversation under
the revised Penal Code? State your
reasons.
b. Assuming that he failed to replenish
the church funds, may he be held
criminally liable thereby? Explain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
a. No. The church funds used by Dencio do
not constitute public funds which are the
proper subject of malversation. Neither does
said funds constitute the so-called private
funds, which could be the proper subject of
malversation under Article 222, Revised Penal
Code which pertain to private property
placed in the custody of public officers by
reason of their office.
b. Yes, momentarily use of funds, since there
is defraudation, is tantamount to estafa
under Article 215 of the Revised Penal Code.
This is because he received the funds in his
fiduciary capacity as treasurer and there was
21
temporary damage caused. Personal
benefit is not an element of the crime of
estafa.
INFIDELITY IN THE CUSTODY OF A PRISONER
Ernani was accused of estafa. Unable to post
a bail bond for his provisional liberty pending
trial of his case, he was detained in the city
jail. On the date of the hearing of the estafa
case, Daniel, a policeman detailed in the city
jail, escorted Ernani to the city hall for the trial.
Daniel removed the handcuffs of Ernani and
allowed him to sit on one of the chairs inside
the courtroom. As Daniel was talking to a
lawyer inside the courtroom, Ernani, with the
help of a cigarette vendor, Meynardo, who
used his cigarette container as cover,
surreptitiously moved out of the room and
escaped. Ernani and Meynardo went to the
comfort room for a while, then went down the
stairs and lost themselves in the crowd. What
crime or crimes were committed by Ernani,
Daniel and Meynardo? Give your reasons.
SUGGESTEDANSWER:
Daniel, the policeman, committed the crime
of EVASION THRU NEGLIGENCE, one of the
forms of Infidelity in the custody of Prisoner. All
the elements are present, Daniel, a
policeman detailed in the city jail, is a public
officer. As the escort for Ernani in the latters
trial, he had custody of charge of a
detention prisoner. Ernanis escape was thru
his negligence because after removing
Eraanis handcuffs and allowing him to sit in
one of the chairs inside the courtroom, he
should have taken the necessary
precautions to prevent Ernanis escape by
keeping an eye on him. Instead, he provided
the opportunity for the escape by talking
with a lawyer and not keeping watch over his
prisoner.
Meynardo, not being a public officer, is guilty
of the crime of DELIVERING PRISONERS FROM
JAILS (Art. 156), which is committed by any
person who either removes from any jail or
penal establishment any person confined
therein, or WHO HELPS the escape of such
person by means of violence, intimidation,
bribery of OTHER MEANS. The act of
Meynardo in giving to Ernani his cigarette
San Beda College Alabang School of Law
2017 Centralized Bar Operations
container is helping in the latters escape by
OTHER MEANS.
Ernani, the escaped prisoner himself is not
criminally liable for any offense. The
detention prisoner who escapes from
detention does not commit any crime. If he
were a convict by final judgment who is
serving a sentence which consists of
deprivation of liberty and he escapes during
term of his sentence, he would be liable for
EVASION OF SERVICE OF SENTENCE (Art. 157).
PARRICIDE
A killed: (1) a woman with whom he lived
without benefit of clergy, (2) their child who
was only two days old, (3) their daughter, and
(4) their adopted son. What crime or crimes
did A commit?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
A committed the following crimes:
1. HOMICIDE or murder as the case may
be, for the killing of his common-law
wife who is not legally considered a
"spouse"
2. INFANTICIDE for the killing of the child
as said child is less than three (3) days
old. (Art. 255, RPC) However, the
penalty corresponding to parricide
shall be imposed since A is related to
the child within the degree defined in
the crime of parricide.
3. PARRICIDE for the killing of their
daughter, whether legitimate or
illegitimate, as long as she is not less
than three (3) days old at the time of
the killing.
4. MURDER for the killing of their
adopted son as the relationship
between A and the said son must be
by blood in order for parricide to
arise.
In 1975, Pedro, then a resident of Manila,
abandoned his wife and their son, Ricky, who
was then only three years old. Twenty years
later, an affray took place in a bar in
Olongapo City between Pedro and his
companions, on one hand, and Ricky and his
friends, upon the other, without the father and
son knowing each other. Ricky stabbed and
killed Pedro in the fight, only to find out, a
22
week later, when his mother arrived from
Manila to visit him in jail, that the man whom
he killed was his own father.
1. What crime did Ricky commit? Explain.
2. Suppose Ricky knew before the killing that
Pedro is his father, but he nevertheless killed
him out of bitterness for having abandoned
him and his mother, what crime did Ricky
commit? Explain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
1. Ricky committed parricide because the
person killed was his own father, and the law
punishing the crime (Art. 246, RPC) does not
require that the crime be "knowingly"
committed. Should Ricky be prosecuted and
found guilty of parricide, the penalty to be
imposed is Art. 49 of the Revised Penal Code
for Homicide (the crime he intended to
commit) but in its maximum period.
2. The crime committed should be parricide
if Ricky knew before the killing that Pedro is
his father, because the moral basis for
punishing the crime already exists. His having
acted out of bitterness for having been
abandoned by his father may be considered
mitigating.
DEATH OR PHYSICAL INJURIES INFLICTED
UNDER EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCE
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
was on and that the bedroom window was
open. Approaching the front door, he was
surprised to hear sighs and giggles inside the
bedroom. He opened the door very carefully
and peeped inside where he saw his wife B
having sexual intercourse with their neighbor
C. A rushed inside and grabbed C but the
latter managed to wrest himself free and
jumped out of the window, A followed suit
and managed to catch C again and after a
furious struggle, managed also to strangle
him to death. A then rushed back to his
bedroom where his wife B was cowering
under the bed covers. Still enraged, A hit B
with fist blows and rendered her unconscious.
The police arrived after being summoned by
San Beda College Alabang School of Law
2017 Centralized Bar Operations
their neighbors and arrested A, who was
detained, inquested and charged for the
death of C and serious physical Injuries of B.
a. Is A liable for C's death? Why?
b. Is A liable for B's injuries? Why?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
a. Yes, A is liable for C's death but under
the exceptional circumstances in
Article 247 of the Revised Penal
Code, where only destierro is
prescribed. Article 247 governs since
A surprised his wife B in the act of
having sexual intercourse with C, and
the killing of C was "Immediately
thereafter" as the discovery, escape,
pursuit and killing of C form one
continuous act. (U.S. vs. Vargas, 2 Phil.
194)
b. Likewise, A is liable for the serious
physical injuries he inflicted on his wife
B but under the same exceptional
circumstances in Article 247 of the
Revised Penal Code, for the same
reasons.
MURDER
Candido stabbed an innocent bystander
who accidentally bumped him. The
innocent bystander died as a result of the
stabbing. Candido was arrested and was
tested to be positive for the use of shabu" at
the time he committed the stabbing. What
should be the proper charge against
Candido? Explain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Candido should be charged with murder
qualified by treachery because the
suddenness of the stabbing caught the
victim by surprise and was totally
defenseless. Being under the influence of
dangerous drugs is a qualifying aggravating
circumstance in the commission of a crime
(Sec. 25, Rep Act 9165 Comprehensive
Dangerous Drug Act of 2002); hence, the
penalty for murder shall be imposed in the
maximum.
PH killed OJ, his political rival in the election
campaign for Mayor of their town. The
Information against PH alleged that he used
23
an unlicensed firearm in the killing of the
victim, and this was proved beyond
reasonable doubt by the prosecution. The
trial court convicted PH of two crimes: murder
and illegal possession of firearms. Is the
conviction correct? Reason briefly.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, the conviction of PH for two crimes,
murder and illegal possession of firearm is not
correct. Under the new law on illegal
possession of firearms and explosives, Rep.
Act No. 8294, a person may only be criminally
liable for illegal possession of firearm if no
other crime is committed therewith; if a
homicide or murder is committed with the
use of an unlicensed firearm, such use shall
be considered as an aggravating
circumstance. PH therefore may only be
convicted of murder and the use of an
unlicensed firearm in its commission may only
be appreciated as a special aggravating
circumstance, provided that such use is
alleged specifically in the information for
Murder.
HOMICIDE
Bruno was charged with homicide for killing
the 75-year old owner of his boarding house.
The prosecution proved that Bruno stabbed
the owner causing his death; and that the
killing happened at 10 in the evening in the
house where the victim and Bruno lived.
Bruno, on the other hand, successfully
proved that he voluntarily surrendered to the
authorities; that he pleaded guilty to the
crime charged; that it was the victim who first
attacked and did so without any provocation
on his (Bruno's) part, but he prevailed
because he managed to draw his knife with
which he stabbed the victim. The penalty for
homicide is reclusion temporal. Assuming a
judgment of conviction and after considering
the attendant circumstances, what penalty
should the judge impose?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Bruno is entitled to one privileged mitigating
circumstance of incomplete self-defense
under Article 69 in relation to Article 13
paragraph 1.
San Beda College Alabang School of Law
2017 Centralized Bar Operations
Thus, the Indeterminate Sentence shall be
prision correccional in any of its period as
minimum, to prision mayor with a period
depending on the presence of mitigating
circumstance or aggravating circumstance
after offsetting.
Boy Bala was a notorious gang leader who
had previously killed a policeman. The Chief
of Police ordered his vice squad headed by
Captain Aniceto, to arrest Boy Bala and
shoud he resist arrest, to shoot and kill him.
Acting upon an informer's tip, Aniceto and
two (2) of his trusted men went to the
Corinthian nightclub where they saw Boy
Bala dancing with a hostess. Without any
warning, Aniceto shot Boy Bala who slumped
on the dance floor. As Aniceto aimed
another shot at Boy Bala, the brother of the
latter, Pedro, who was seated at a table
nearby, got hold of a table knife and stabbed
Aniceto killing him instantly. The Chief of
Police filed a homicide case against Pedro
for the death of Aniceto. On the other hand,
Pedro filed a complaint for murder against
the Chief of Police for the death of Boy Bala
alleging that the issuance of the shoot-to-kill
order was illegal and the Chief of Police was
liable as a principal by inducement. How
tenable are the respective claims of the
Chief of Police and Pedro? Explain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The charge for murder against the Chief of
Police for the death of Boy Bala is not
tenable. Although, the Chief of Police is the
superior on Captain Aniceto who shot Boy
Bala in cold blood, he cannot be held
accountable for the act of Aniceto. His order
was specific; to arrest Boy Bala and should he
resist arrest, to shoot and kill him. Aniceto did
not act in compliance with this order. He shot
Boy Bala without warning, without even
attempting to make an arrest. Consequently,
it could not be said that the killing of Bala by
Aniceto was induced by the Chief of Police
so as to make the latter criminally liable as a
co-principal by inducement. The liability for
the death of Bala is individual and not
collective.
On the other hand, the charge of homicide
against Pedro for the stabbing of Aniceto is
24
likewise not tenable. Pedro acted in
legitimate defense of relative, he being the
brother of Boy Bala.
ARTICLE 253 - GIVING ASSISTANCE TO
SUICIDE
Francis and Joan were sweethearts, but their
parents had objected to their relationship
because they were first cousins. They forged
a pact in writing to commit suicide. The
agreement was to shoot each other in the
head which they did. Joan died. Due to
medical assistance, Francis survived. Is
Francis criminally liable for the death of
Joan? Explain
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes. Francis is criminally liable for assisting in
the suicide of Joan, as evidenced by their
written pact (Art. 253, RPC)
LESS SERIOUS PHYSICAL INJURIES
Charlie hated his classmate, Brad, because
the latter was assiduously courting Lily,
Charlies girlfriend. Charlie went to a
veterinarian and asked for some poison on
the pretext that it would be used to kill a very
sick, old dog. Actually, Charlie intended to
use the poison on Brad. The veterinarian
mistakenly gave Charlie a non-toxic powder
which, when mixed with Brads food, did not
kill Brad. Would your answer be the same if
Brad proved to be allergic to the powder,
and after ingesting it with his food, fell ill and
was hospitalized for ten (10) days? Explain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, the answer would not be the same.
Charlie would be criminally liable for less
serious physical injuries because his act of
mixing the powder with Brads food was
done with felonious intent and was the
proximate cause of Brads illness for 10 days.
It cannot constitute attempted murder,
although done with intent to kill, because the
means employed is inherently ineffectual to
cause death and the crime committed must
be directly linked to the means employed,
not to the intent. Liability for an impossible
crime can only arise from a consummated
act.
San Beda College Alabang School of Law
2017 Centralized Bar Operations
During a concert of Gary V. and in order to
prevent the crowd from rushing to the stage,
Rafael Padilla {a security guard} pointed his
gun at the onrush of people. When the crowd
still pushed forward, Rafael fired his gun into
air to scare them off. However, the bullet hit
one of the metal roof supports, ricocheted
and then hit one of the stage crew members,
causing injuries which resulted in the latters
confinement in a hospital for twelve days.
What crime/s did Rafael commit? Explain
your answer
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The crime committed by Rafael is Simple
Negligence Resulting in Less Serious Physical
Injuries. Rafael is a security guard and was on
duty when he discharged the firearm. The
discharged of the firearm was not calculated
to cause alarm or danger but simply to ward
off the unruly crowd which persisted in
moving forward, thereby challenging the
duty he was to fulfill there. The discharge of
the firearm, therefore, should neither
constitute a crime of Alarms and Scandal
under Art. 155 of the Revised Penal Code nor
may such discharge amount to a crime of
Illegal Discharge of Firearms under Art. 254 of
the Code since it was not directed towards a
particular person when the firearm was
discharged. However, the physical injuries
resulting from the discharge of the firearm
betrays a lack of precaution in a situation
where the danger to the discharge of the
firearm is not clearly manifest, thus
considered as simple imprudence only. The
crime committed is Simple Imprudence
Resulting In Less Serious Physical Injuries, since
the physical injuries required only twelve (12)
days of medical attention.
SLIGHT PHYSICAL INJURIES
Aki and Ben, while walking together, met
Caloy. There was an altercation between Ben
and Caloy so that Ben chased and stabbed
Caloy with a knife hitting his right aim thereby
causing slight physical injury. Ben desisted
from further assaulting Caloy, but Aki lunged
at Caloy and felled him this time with a bolo
which mortally wounded Caloy. Thus, he
died.
a. What is the criminal liability of Aki? How
about that of Ben? Explain your answers.
25
b. Assuming no conspiracy is established, will
your answer in problem (a) be the same?
Explain your answer.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
a. Aki is liable for homicide because, while it
is clear that he intentionally caused the
deafh of Caloy, none of the circumstances
attendant to murder are present. Intent to kill
is clear as Aki lunged at Caloy, after the latter
was inflicted a wound at the right arm, and
gave him a mortal wound. Ben is guilty only
of slight physical injuries as it is evident from
the wound he inflicted upon Caloy that he
did not intend to kill the latter. Also, there was
no other act on the part of Ben to show such
intent.
b. No, there being no conspiracy each will
be liable for their own individual act. This time
both will be liable for homicide because in
conspiracy, the act of one is the act of all
(People v. Damaso, G.R. Nos. L-30116-7, 20
November 1978).
RAPE
A, a male, takes B, another male, to a motel
and there, through threat and intimidation,
succeeds in inserting his penis into the anus
of B. What, if any, is As criminal liability?
Why?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
A shall be criminally liable for rape by sexual
assault against B, by inserting his penis into
the anus of the latter. Even a man may be a
victim of rape by sexual assault under par. 2
of Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code,
as amended, "when the offender's penis is
inserted into his mouth or anal orifice."
Flordeluna boarded a taxi on her way home
to Quezon City which was driven by Roger.
Flordeluna noticed that Roger was always
placing his car freshener in front of the car
aircon ventilation but did not bother asking
Roger why. Suddenly, Flordeluna felt dizzy
and became unconscious. Instead of
bringing her to Quezon City, Roger brought
Flordeluna to his house in Cavite where she
was detained for two (2) weeks. She was
raped for the entire duration of her detention.
San Beda College Alabang School of Law
2017 Centralized Bar Operations
May Roger be charged and convicted of the
crime of rape with serious illegal detention?
Explain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, Roger may not be charged and
convicted of the crime of rape with serious
illegal detention. Roger may be charged
and convicted of multiple rapes. Each rape
is a distinct offense and should be punished
separately. Evidently, his principal intention
was to abuse Flordeluna; the detention was
only incidental to the rape.
AJ, a medical student, was a boarder in the
house of Mr. and Mrs. M who had a good-
looking 25-year old retarded daughter with
the mental age of an 11-year old. One day
when the couple were out, Perlita, the
retarded daughter, entered AJs room, came
near him and started kissing him. He tried to
avoid her. But she persisted. They had sexual
intercourse. This was repeated every time
Perlitas parents were out until Perlita got
pregnant. Mr and Mrs. M filed a complaint of
rape against AJ who claimed that it was
Perlita who seduced him; that Perlita was
intelligent, clearly understood what she was
doing; and that since Perlita was already 25
years old did not herself file the complaint,
her parents had no personality to file the
complaint for rape. How would you resolve
the case?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The contention of AJ cannot be sustained.
Sexual intercourse with Perlita, who is a
mental retardate, although 25 years old but
with a mental age of 11-year old girl is rape.
She is the same class as a woman deprived
of reason or others wise unconscious. (People
vs. Sunga L-45683 June 24, 1985). Since she is
suffering from an incapacity, being
incompetent on account of her mental age,
the parents have the right to file the
complaint for rape.
ANTI RAPE LAW OF 1997
The Anti-Rape Law of 1997 reclassified rape
from a crime against honor, a private offense,
to that of a crime against persons. Will the
subsequent marriage of the offender and the
26
offended party extinguish the criminal action
or the penalty imposed? Explain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes. By express provision of Article 266-C of
the Revised Penal Code, as amended, the
subsequent valid marriage between the
offender and offended party shall extinguish
the criminal action or the penalty imposed,
although rape has been reclassified from a
crime against chastity, to that of a crime
against persons.
KIDNAPPING AND SERIOUS ILLEGAL
DETENTION
Jaime, Andy and Jimmy, laborers in the
noodles in the noodles factory of Luke Tan,
agreed to kill him due to his arrogance and
miserliness. One afternoon, they seized him
and loaded him in a taxi driven by Mario.
They told Mario they will only teach Luke a
lesson in Christian humility. Mario drove them
to-a fishpond in Navotas where Luke was
entrusted to Emil and Louie, the fishpond
caretakers, asking them to hide Luke in their
shack because he was running from the NBI.
The trio then left in Marios car for Manila
where they called up Lukes family and
threatened them to kill Luke unless they give
a ransom within 24 hours. Unknown to them,
because of a leak, the kidnapping was
announced over the radio and TV. Emil and
Louie heard the broadcast and panicked,
especially when the announcer stated that
there is a shoot-to-kill order for the
kidnappers. Emil and Louie took Luke to the
seashore of Dagat-dagatan where they
smashed his head with a shovel and buried
him in the sand. However, they were seen by
a barangay kagawad who arrested them
and brought them to the police station. Upon
interrogation they confessed and pointed to
Jaime, Andy, Jimmy and Mario as those
responsible for the kidnapping. Later, the 4
were arrested and charged. What crime or
crimes did the 6 suspects commit?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Jaime, Andy and Jimmy committed the
crime of kidnapping for ransom having
seized Luke and causing his detention by Emil
and Louie in the latters place. Although the
agreement among Jaime, Andy and Jimmy
was to kill Luke, the agreement appears to
San Beda College Alabang School of Law
2017 Centralized Bar Operations
have been abandoned when they left Luke
to Emil and Louie to be kept and detained by
the latter, while they called up Lukes family
and demanded ransom.
Mario, the taxi driver, only cooperated as an
accomplice by taking Luke to the fishpond
after having learned of the unlawful purpose
disclosed to him by Jaime, Andy and Jimmy.
There was no indication, however, that Mario
knew of the demand for ransom. Hence, he
may only be held liable as an accomplice to
the crime of slight illegal detention under Art.
268 of the Code.
Emil and Louie should be liable for serious
illegal detention with homicide (Art. 267 last
par., RPC) since the detention was attended
by a killing. Their crime would have been
slight illegal detention only under Art. 268 of
the Code were it not for the killing of the
victim.
a. An armed group, avowed to
overthrow the duly constituted
authorities, captured five officers and
five members of the armed forces
and held them in their mountain lair
for seventy-five days and then
voluntarily released them in
consideration of the promise of
medical treatment to be given to
some of their comrades who were
under detention by the authorities.
What crime or crimes had been
committed? Reasons.
b. In the course of proceeding during a
so-called public hearing held before
a crowd in a place open to the
public, the leaders of the meeting
tried certain public officials and
thereafter sentenced them to
death by assassination or
ambuscades. Are the leaders
criminally liable? Decide the case.
c. Two Japanese were passing through
immigration and customs
preparatory to their departure for
Japan at the Ninoy Aquino
International Airport. A bundle of
P2,000 peso bills was discovered in
27
one of them, and to prevent their
being delayed, his companion took
the bundle of bills and then and there
tore up the bills.
As City Fiscal of Pasay, what crimes, if any,
would you charge the two Japanese?
Explain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
a. Rebellion was committed because their
purpose was to overthrow the government
and all other acts committed in the further of
this purpose are absorbed by rebellion.
The armed group committed the crime of
kidnapping and serious illegal detention in
violation of Aticle 267 of the Revised Penal
Code which provides that kidnapping and
serious illegal detention. Any private
individual who shall kidnap another, or in any
other manner deprive him of his liberty, shall
suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua to
death....
b. The leaders are criminally liable for the
crime of libel by theatrical exhibition. Article
355 of the Revised Penal Code provides:
libel by means of writing or similar means.
A libel committed by means of writing,
printing lithography, engraving, radio,
phornographs, painting, theatrical exhibition,
cinematographic exhibition, or any similar
means, shall be punished by prision
correctional
c. The two Japanese cannot be charged of
any crime. They committed no crime. Article
164 of the Revised Penal Code on mutilation
of coins cannot be applied to the Japanese
because said article refers to coins and not
to bills.
Virgilio, armed with a gun, stopped a van
along a major thoroughfare in Manila,
pointed the gun at the driver and shouted:
"Tigil! Kidnap ito!" Terrified, the driver, Juanito,
stopped the van and allowed Virgilio to
board. Inside the van were Jeremias, a 6-
year-old child, son of a multi-millionaire, and
Daday, the childs nanny. Virgilio told Juanito
to drive to a deserted place, and there,
ordered the driver to alight. Before Juanito
San Beda College Alabang School of Law
2017 Centralized Bar Operations
was allowed to go, Virgilio instructed him to
tell Jeremias parents that unless they give a
ransom of P10-million within two (2) days,
Jeremias would be beheaded. Daday was
told to remain in the van and take care of
Jeremias until the ransom is paid. Virgilio then
drove the van to his safehouse. What crime
or crimes, if any, did Virgilio commit? Explain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The crime committed against Jeremias, the 6
year-old child, is Kidnapping with Serious
Illegal Dtention under Art. 267(4), RPC. The
evident criminal intent of the offender,
Virgilio, is to lock up the child to demand
ransom. Whether or not the ransom was
eventually obtained will not affect the crime
committed because the demand for ransom
is not an element of the crime; it only qualifies
the penalty to death but the imposition of the
penalty is now prohibited by Rep. Act. No.
9346. As to Daday, the nanny of the child
who was told to remain in the van and take
care of the child until the ransom is paid, the
crime committed is Serious Illegal Detention
because the offended party deprived of
liberty is a female (Art. 267, par.4, RPC). As to
Juanito, the driver of the van who was
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 (Art. 286, RPC) and Slight Illegal
Detention (Art. 268, RPC) for holding the
driver before he was allowed to go.
KIDNAPPING AND FAILURE TO RETURN A
MINOR
A and B were legally separated. Their child C,
a minor, was placed in the custody of A the
mother, subject to monthly visitations by B,
his father. On one occasion, when B had C in
his company, B decided not to return C to his
mother. Instead, B took C with him to the
United States where he intended for them to
reside permanently. What crime, if any, did B
commit? Why?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
B committed the crime of kidnapping and
failure to return a minor under Article 271, in
relation to Article 270, of the Revised Penal
28
Code, as amended. Article 271 expressly
penalizes any parent who shall take from and
deliberately fail to restore his or her minor
child to the parent or guardian to whom
custody of the minor has been placed. Since
the custody of C, the minor, has been given
to the mother and B has only the right of
monthly visitation, the latter's act of taking C
to the United States, to reside there
permanently, constitutes a violation of said
provisions of law.
GRAVE THREATS
A, B, C D, and E were members of a gang
operating in Mindanao with Gorio as over-all
leader, Gorio assigned A B, and C to get
money from Pedro, a businessman from
Agusan. As instructed, A, B. and C, armed
with guns, went to see Pedro and demanded
PI00,000.00. When Pedro refused, A pointed
his gun at him while B hit him with the butt of
his gun. Pedro gave the amount demanded.
After the three (3) left, Pedro went to the PC
Command to tel! them what happened. On
the way, he met Orlando, also a
businessman. Orlando told him that D and E,
week earlier, wrote him a letter asking
P50.000.00 and threatening to kill his son and
wife should he fail to give the amount. Afraid
that the two would make good their threat,
he gave the money when D
called him that day. Orlando was also on his
way to the PC to report what happened.
a. What crime did A, B, and C commit?
b. What crime did D and E commit?
c. Did Gorio commit any crime?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
A, B, and C committed robbery. They were
able to make Pedro give them the PI00,000
that they demanded when A pointed his gun
at Pedro because he refused at first to
accede to their demand and B hit him with
the butt of his gun. They employed violence
and intimidation in the taking of the money
with intent to gain.
b. D and E committed Grave Threats. The
reason is the intimidation employed refers to
the killings of the wife and son of Orlando
should he failed to give the amount of
P50,000 demanded in the latter which D and
San Beda College Alabang School of Law
2017 Centralized Bar Operations
E sent him. The distinction between robbery
and grave threats when the purpose is the
same, that is, to extort money, is that in
robbery, the intimidation is actual and imme-
diate whereas on grave threats, the
intimidation is future and conditional.
c. Gorio, being the over-all leader of the
group, is a principal by inducement in the
robbery committed against Pedro. He has no
liability regarding the grave threats
committed by D and E against Orlando
because the facts of the problem do not
specifically mention his intervention in the
activities of D and E.
GRAVE COERCION
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
was on and that the bedroom window was
open. Approaching the front door, he was
surprised to hear sighs and giggles inside the
bedroom. He opened the door very carefully
and peeped inside where he saw his wife B
having sexual intercourse with their neighbor
C. A rushed inside and grabbed C but the
latter managed to wrest himself free and
jumped out of the window, A followed suit
and managed to catch C again and after a
furious struggle, managed also to strangle
him to death. A then rushed back to his
bedroom where his wife B was cowering
under the bed covers. Still enraged, A hit B
with fist blows and rendered her unconscious.
The police arrived after being summoned by
their neighbors and arrested A, who was
detained, inquested and charged for the
death of C and serious physical Injuries of B.
a. Is A liable for C's death? Why?
b. Is A liable for B's injuries? Why?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
a. Yes, A is liable for C's death but under the
exceptional circumstances in Article 247 of
the Revised Penal Code, where only destierro
is prescribed. Article 247 governs since A
surprised his wife B in the act of having sexual
intercourse with C, and the killing of C was
29
"Immediately thereafter" as the discovery,
escape, pursuit and killing of C form one
continuous act. (U.S. vs. Vargas, 2 Phil. 194)
b. Likewise, A is liable for the serious physical
injuries he inflicted on his wife B but under the
same exceptional circumstances in Article
247 of the Revised Penal Code, for the same
reasons.
LIGHT COERCION AND UNJUST VEXATION
Eduardo Quintos, a widower for the past 10
years, felt that his retirement at the age of 70
gave him the opportunity to engage in his
favorite pastime - voyeurism. If not using his
high-powered binoculars to peep at his
neighbors homes and domestic activities,
his second choice was to follow sweet young
girls. One day, he trailed a teenage girl up to
the LRT station at EDSA-Buendia.
While ascending the stairs, he stayed one
step behind her and in a moment of
bravado, placed his hand on her left hip and
gently massaged it. She screamed and
shouted for help. Eduardo was arrested and
charged with acts of lasciviousness. Is the
designation of the crime correct?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, the designation of the crime charged is
not correct because the overt act
committed by Eduardo still falls short of the
crime of acts of lasciviousness. The nature of
the act done does not manifest sexual
desire. Lewd designs cannot be inferred
from his overt act. It is more appropriate to
consider such overt act as mere annoyance
or vexation, constituting a crime of light
coercion, commonly referred to as unjust
vexation. The Revised Penal Code favors a
milder criminal responsibility.
CRIMES AGAINST PROPERTY
Christopher, John, Richard, and Luke are
fraternity brothers. To protect themselves
from rival fraternities, they all carry guns
wherever they go. One night, after attending
a party, they boarded a taxicab, held the
driver at gunpoint and took the latters
earnings. What crime, if any, did the four
San Beda College Alabang School of Law
2017 Centralized Bar Operations
commit? Enumerate the elements of the
crime.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The crime committed is robbery by a band
since there were four (4) offenders acting in
concert in committing the robbery and all
the four were armed. The elements of this
crime are:
1. Unlawful taking of personal property
belonging to another (the earnings of the
taxi-driver);
2. Intent to gain in the taking (of the earnings
which belong to the taxi-driver);
3. Violence against or intimidation of person
or force upon things was employed in the
taking; and
4. There were more than three armed
malefactors taking part in the commission of
the robbery (Art. 296 in relation to Art. 294,
Revised Penal Code)
A, B, C, D and B were in a beerhouse along
MacArthur Highway having a drinking spree.
At about 1 o'clock in the morning, they
decided to leave and so asked for the bill.
They pooled their money together but they
were still short of P2,000.00. E then
orchestrated a plan whereby A, B, C and D
would go out, flag a taxicab and rob the taxi
driver of all his money while E would wait for
them in the beerhouse. A. B, C and D agreed.
All armed with balisongs, A, B, C and D hailed
the first taxicab they encountered. After
robbing X, the driver, of his earnings, which
amounted to P1,000.00 only, they needed P1
,000.00 more to meet their bill. So, they
decided to hail another taxicab and they
again robbed driver T of his hard-earned
money amounting to P1,000. On their way
back to the beerhouse, they were
apprehended by a police team upon the
complaint of X, the driver of the first cab. They
pointed to E as the mastermind. What crime
or crimes, if any, did A, B, C, D and B commit?
Explain fully.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
A, B, C, D and E are liable for two (2) counts
of robbery under Article 294 of the Rev. Penal
30
Code; not for highway Robbery under PD
532. The offenders are not brigands but only
committed the robbery to raise money to
pay their bill because it happened that they
were short of money to pay the same.
A, brother of B, with the intention of having a
night out with his friends, took the coconut
shell which is being used by B as a bank for
coins from inside their locked cabinet using
their common key. Forthwith, A broke the
coconut shell outside of their home in the
presence of his friends.
a. What is the criminal liability of A, if any?
Explain.
b. Is A exempted from criminal liability under
Article 332 of the Revised Penal Code for
being a brother of B? Explain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
a. A is criminally liable for Robbery with force
upon things, because the coconut shell with
the coins inside, was taken with intent to gain
and broken outside of their home, (Art. 299
(b) (2). RPC).
b. No, A is not exempt from criminal liability
under Art. 332 because said Article applies
only to theft, swindling or malicious mischief.
Here, the crime committed is robbery.
On her way home, Eva Marie saw an injured
chow chow puppy behind a bush. Since the
puppy did not have a collar, she brought it
home so she could have it as a pet. Her son
in fact begged Eva Marie to keep the puppy.
The following day, Eva Marie bought a collar
for the puppy and brought it to a veterinarian
for treatment. Did Eva Marie incur criminal
liability in bringing the puppy home as a pet?
Explain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes, Eva Marie incurred criminal liability for
the crime of simple theft. The puppy is
personal property which is susceptible of
taking and has pecuniary value. Obviously,
she took it with intent to own it; hence, with
intent to gain.
San Beda College Alabang School of Law
2017 Centralized Bar Operations
A fire broke out in a department store, A,
taking advantage of the confusion, entered
the store and carried away goods which he
later sold. What crime, if any, did he commit?
Why?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
A committed the crime of qualified theft
because he took the goods on the occasion
of and taking advantage of the fire which
broke out in the department store. The
occasion of a calamity such as fire, when the
theft was committed, qualifies the crime
under Article 310 of the Revised Penal Code,
as amended.
A vehicular accident occurred on the
national highway in Bulacan. Among the first
to arrive at the scene of the accident was A,
who found one of the victims already dead
and the others unconscious. Before rescuers
could come, A, taking advantage of the
helpless condition of the victims, took their
wallets and jewelry. However, the police,
who responded to the report of the accident,
caught A.
What crime or crimes did A commit? Why?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
A committed the crime of qualified theft
because he took the wallets and jewelry of
the victims with evident intent to gain and on
the occasion of a vehicular accident
wherein he took advantage of the helpless
condition of the victims. But only one crime
of qualified theft was committed although
there were more than one victim divested of
their valuables, because all the taking of the
valuables were made on one and the same
occasion, thus constituting a continued
crime.
a. Jorge is the owner of 10 hectares of land in
the foothills which he planted to lanzones. On
his last visit there he was shocked to discover
that his land had been taken over by a group
of 15 families whose members had forcibly
driven away his caretaker, had appropriated
the fruits for themselves, and were now
threatening to kill him should he try to eject
31
them. What crime should Jorge charge these
15 families? Explain.
b. Five laborers were hired by Manuel Diong
to harvest coconuts from a plantation which
he told them belonged to him. Unknown to
them, the ownership of the land was in
dispute, and the registered owner
subsequently filed a case of qualified theft
against them. How would you defend them?
Explain briefly.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
a. Jorge can charge the 15 families of 2
separate crimes namely:
1) Violation of Article 282 which provides
that Grave threats. Any person who
shall threaten another with the infliction
upon the person, honor or property of
the latter or of his family of any wrong
amounting to a crime shall suffer... and
2) Violation of Article 312 which provides
that: Occupation of real property or
usurpation of real rights in property.
Any person who, by means of violence
against or intimidation of persons, shall
take possession of any real property or
shall usurp any real rights in property
belonging to another, in addition to the
penalty incurred for violence executed
by him, shall be punished by a fine from
P50.00...
b. I would defend them by citing U.S. vs.
Ah Chong (15 Phil. 488) on mistake of
facts and charge the owner with
violation of Article 282 on grave threats.
In U.S. vs. Ah Chong, the accused was
exempted from criminal liability because
he performed an act which would be
lawful had it been true as he believed
that Grave threats. Any person who
shall threaten another with the infliction
upon the person, honor or property of
the latter or of his family of any wrong
amounting to a crime, shall suffer..
Fe is the manager of a rice mill in Bulacan. In
order to support a gambling debt, Fe made it
appear that the rice mill was earning less
than it actually was by writing in a "talaan" or
ledger a figure lower than what was
collected and paid by their customers. Fe
San Beda College Alabang School of Law
2017 Centralized Bar Operations
then pocketed the difference. What crime/s
did Fe commit, If any? Explain your answer.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
If the talaan or ledger which Fe made to
show a falsehood was a private document,
the only crime that Fe committed was estafa
thru abuse of confidence or unfaithfulness.
Criminal liability for falsification of a private
document does not arise without damage or
at least proof of intent to cause damage. It
cannot co-exist with the crime of estafa
which is also essentially requires damage or
at least proof of intent to cause damage.
Since the talaan was falsified to cover-up
or conceal the misappropriation of the
amount involved, whatever damage or
intent to cause damage attends the
falsification, it will be the same damage or
intent to cause damage that will attend the
estafa.
If such talaan or ledger was a commercial
document, damage or proof of intent to
cause damage is not necessary. The
falsification alone if done with intent to
pervert the truth, would bring about criminal
liability for falsification of a commercial
document. Damage or intent to cause
damage, would sustain the estafa
independently of the falsification of the
commercial document. In this case, two (2)
separate crimes are committed; namely,
estafa and falsification of the commercial
document. The falsification should not be
complexed with the estafa since it was not
committed as a necessary means to commit
the estafa but rather resorted to, to conceal
or hide the misappropriation of the amount
she pocketed.
Is there such a crime as estafa through
negligence? Explain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
There is no such crime as estafa through
negligence. In estafa, the profit or gain must
be obtained by the accused personally,
through his own acts, and his mere
negligence in allowing another to take
advantage of or benefit from the entrusted
chattel cannot constitute estafa. (People v.
Nepomuceno, CA, 46OG 6135)
32
Aurelia introduced Rosa to Victoria, a dealer
in jewelry who does business in Timog,
Quezon City. Rosa, a resident of Cebu City,
agreed to sell a diamond ring and bracelet
to Victoria on a commission basis, on
condition that, if these items cannot be sold,
they may be returned to Victoria forthwith.
Unable to sell the ring and bracelet, Rosa
delivered both items to Aurelia in Cebu City
with the understanding that Aurelia shall, in
turn, return the items to Victoria in Timog,
Quezon City. Aurelia dutifully returned the
bracelet to Victoria but sold the ring, kept the
cash proceeds thereof to herself, and issued
a check to Victoria which bounced. Victoria
sued Rosa for estafa under Article 315, R.P.C.,
Victoria insisting that delivery to a third
person of the thing held in trust is not a
defense in estafa. Is Rosa criminally liable for
estafa under the circumstances? Explain
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, Rosa cannot be held criminally liable for
estafa. Although she received the jewelry
from Victoria under an obligation to return
the same or deliver the proceeds thereof,
she did not misappropriate it. In fact, she
gave them to Aurelia specifically to be
returned to Victoria. The misappropriation
was done by Aurelia, and absent the
showing of any conspiracy between Aurelia
and Rosa, the latter cannot be held
criminally liable for Amelia's acts.
Furthermore, as explained above, Rosa's
negligence which may have allowed Aurelia
to misappropriate the jewelry does not make
her criminally liable for estafa.
A, B, C and D, all armed with armalites,
proceeded to the house of X. Y, a neighbor
of X, who happened to be passing by,
pointed to the four culprits the room that X
occupied. The four culprits peppered the
room with bullets. Unsatisfied, A even threw a
hand grenade that totally destroyed X's
room. However, unknown to the four culprits,
X was not inside the room and nobody was
hit or injured during the Incident. Are A, B, C
and D liable for any crime? Explain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes. A, B, C, and D are liable for destructive
arson because of the destruction of the room
of X with the use of an explosive, the hand
San Beda College Alabang School of Law
2017 Centralized Bar Operations
grenade. Liability for an impossible crime is to
be imposed only if the act committed would
not constitute any other crime under the
Revised Penal Code. Although the facts
involved are parallel to the case of Intod vs.
Court of Appeals (215 SCRA 52), where it was
ruled that the liability of the offender was for
an impossible crime, no hand grenade was
used in said case, which constitutes a more
serious crime though different from what was
intended.
One early evening, there was a fight
between Eddie Gutierrez and Mario Cortez.
Later that evening, at about 11 o'clock, Eddie
passed by the house of Mario carrying a
plastic bag containing gasoline, threw the
bag at the house of Mario who was inside the
house watching television, and then lit it. The
front wall of the house started blazing and
some neighbors yelled and shouted.
Forthwith, Mario poured water on the burning
portion of the house. Neighbors also rushed
in to help put the fire under control before
any great damage could be inflicted and
before the flames have extensively spread.
Only a portion of the house was burned.
Discuss Eddie's liability.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Eddie is liable for destructive arson in the
consummated stage. It is destructive arson
because fire was resorted to in destroying the
house of Mario which is an inhabited house
or dwelling. The arson is consummated
because the house was in fact already
burned although not totally. In arson, it is not
required that the premises be totally burned
for the crime to be consummated. It is
enough that the premises suffer destruction
by burning.
A is married to the sister of B, and the 3
live together in a house located a Caloocan
City. On several occasions, Bs dog would
bark at A everytime he arrives at past
midnight. One time, after arriving in the house
at around 2 oclock in the morning, Bs dog
barked continuously at A. In a fit of anger,
A entered the house, took a bolo and killed
the dog. What crime was committed and
what is liability of A? Explain,
33
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The crime committed by A is malicious
mischief. The dements of this are:
a. The offender caused damages to the
property of other
b. The damage caused did not
constitute arson or any other crime
involving destruction and
c. The damage was caused by the
offender (Caballes vs. DAR, GR
78214,5 Dec. 88).
As act of killing the dog is characterized by
malice, it being a product of anger and
resentment. However, A is exempt from
criminal liability for the crime committed by
him because he is the brother-in-law of the
offended party and they are both living
together under the same roof. Under Art. 332
of the RPC, no criminal, but only civil, liability
shall result from the commission of the crime
of THEFT, SWINDLING or MALICIOUS MISCHIEF
committed or caused mutually by among
others, brothers and sisters and brothers-in-
law and sisters-in-law, if living together.
PERSONS EXEMPT FROM CRIMINAL LIABILITY
IN CRIMES AGAINST PROPERTY
Dennis leased his apartment to Myla for
P10,000 a month. Myla failed to pay the rent
for 3 months. 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.
Can Gabriel invoke his relationship with
Dennis to avoid criminal liability? Explain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No. Gabriel cannot invoke Art. 332, RPC
(Persons exempt from criminal liability). It is
Myla, not the father Dennis, who is the
offended party under Art. 315 (2)(a) (Luis B.
Reyes, The Revised Penal Code, Volume II,
page 853,16th Edition [2006]).
CRIMES AGAINST CHASTITY
A, a married woman, had sexual intercourse
with a man who was not her husband. The
man did not know she was married. What
San Beda College Alabang School of Law
2017 Centralized Bar Operations
crime, if any, did each of them commit?
Why?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
A, the married woman, committed the crime
of adultery under Article 333 of the Revised
Penal Code, as amended, for having sexual
intercourse with a man not her husband
while her marriage is still subsisting. But the
man who had carnal knowledge of her, not
knowing her to be married, shall not be liable
for adultery.
Suspecting that her husband of twenty years
was having an affair, Leilanie hired a private
investigator to spy on him. After two weeks,
the private investigator showed Leilanie a
video of her husband having sexual
intercourse with another woman in a room of
a five-star hotel. Based on what she saw on
the video, Leilanie accused her husband of
concubinage. Will the case of concubinage
prosper? Explain
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, a case for concubinage will not prosper
because said crime may be committed only
by a husband in 3 ways:
1. By keeping a mistress in the conjugal
dwelling;
2. By having sexual intercourse with a
woman not his wife under scandalous
circumstances;
3. By cohabiting with a woman not his
wife in any other place (Art. 334,
RPC).
The facts of the case given do not
constitute any of the situations
above- stated.
A with lewd designs, took a 13-year old girl to
a nipa hut in his farm and there had sexual
intercourse with her. The girl did not offer any
resistance because she was infatuated with
the man, who was good-looking and
belonged to a rich and prominent family in
the town. What crime, if any, was committed
by A? Why?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
A committed the crime of consented
abduction under Article 343 of the Revised
Penal Code, as amended. The said Article
34
punishes the abduction of a virgin over 12
and under 18 years of age, carried out with
her consent and with lewd designs. Although
the problem did not indicate the victim to be
virgin, virginity should not be understood in its
material sense, as to exclude a virtuous
woman of good reputation, since the
essence of the crime is not the injury to the
woman but the outrage and alarm to her
family. (Valdepenas vs. People, 16 SCRA 871
[1966]).
CRIMES AGAINST CIVIL STATUS OF PERSONS
A childless couple, A and B, wanted to have
a child they could call their own. C, an
unwed mother, sold her newborn baby to
them. Thereafter, A and B caused their names
to be stated in the birth certificate of the child
as his parents. This was done in connivance
with the doctor who assisted in the delivery of
C. What are the criminal liabilities, if any, of
the couple A and B, C and the doctor?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The couple A and B, and the doctor shall be
liable for the crime of simulation of birth,
penalized under Article 347 of the Revised
Penal Code, as amended. The act of making
it appear in the birth certificate of a child that
the persons named therein are the parents of
the child when they are not really the
biological parents of said child constitutes
the crime of simulation of birth. C, the unwed
mother is criminally liable for "child
trafficking", a violation of Article IV, Sec. 7 of
Rep. Act No. 7610. The law punishes inter alia
the act of buying and selling of a child.
If you were the judge in a bigamy case
where the defense was able to prove that the
first marriage was null and void or a nullity,
would you render a judgment of conviction
or acquittal? Explain your answer
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
I will render a judgment of conviction. Proof
that the first marriage is null and void is not a
defense in bigamy. As long as the previous
marriage was not lawfully dissolved or
judicially declared as null and void,
contracting a new marriage constitute
bigamy (People v. Manuel, supra).
San Beda College Alabang School of Law
2017 Centralized Bar Operations
Raissa and Martin are married to each other
but had been separated for the last five
years. Raissa decided to wed Juan, her suitor.
Who had no inkling that she was married.
Raissa and Juan accomplished an
application for marriage license which they
subscribed and swore to before the Local
Civil Registrar. Raissa declared, in the
application, that she is single. The marriage
licensed was issued. In due time, the couple
were married by the mayor. Raissa and Juan
had their first sexual intercourse later in the
evening. What crime or crimes, if any, did
Raissa commit? Explain briefly.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Raissa committed bigamy for contracting a
second marriage while her first marriage is still
subsisting (Art. 349, RPC). She is also guilty of
perjury for making untruthful statements
under oath or executing an affidavit upon a
material matter, when she declared she was
not married in the application for marriage
license a public document (Art. 171, RPC).
Lastly, she is also guilty of adultery (Art. 333,
RPC) for having sexual intercourse with Juan,
although she is a married woman.
At the time Josefas husband, Pedro Coipuz,
died, she was eight months pregnant. As she
was afraid she could not support her child
with Pedro, Josefa accepted Pablos
proposal for marriage. One week after the
marriage, Josefa gave birth to a boy whom
they named, Pedro Coipuz, Jr. Prosecuted for
contracting premature marriage under Act.
351 of the Revised Penal Code. She has
engaged your services as a lawyer. How
would you argue for her acquittal?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
I would argue for the acquittal of Josefa. She
is not liable for contracting premature
marriage under Article 351 of the Revised
Penal Code. This article does not apply as
Josefa knew she was pregnant (eight
months) when Pedro Corpuz, her husband,
died. When she married Pablo, and as a
matter of fact, one week after the marriage,
she gave birth to a boy the paternity of the
child was not in doubt Article 351 punishes
premature marriage in order to prevent
doubtful paternity. (People vs. Rosal 49 Phil.
539
35
CRIMES AGAINST HONOR
In her weekly gossip column in a tabloid, Gigi
wrote an unflattering article about Pablo, a
famous singer, and his bitter separation from
his wife. The article portrayed Pablo as an
abusive husband and caused him to lose
lucrative endorsement contracts. Pablo
charged Gigi with libel. In her defense, Gigi
countered that she did not commit libel
because Pablo has attained the status of a
public figure so that even his personal life has
become a legitimate subject of public
interest and comment. Is Gigi correct?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, Gigi is not correct. Although wider
latitude is given to defamatory utterances
against public figures in relation to matters of
public interest involving them, such
defamatory utterances do not automatically
fall within the ambit of constitutionally
protected speech. If the utterances are false,
malicious or unrelated to a public figures
work, the same may give rise to criminal
liablity. (Fermin v. People, GR No. 157643,
March 28, 2008). Any attack upon the private
character of the public figure on matters
which are not related to their works may
constitute liber under Article 355 (Sazon v.
Hon. Court of Appeals, GR No. 120715, March
29, 1996). Here, Gigi was attacking the
personal life of Pablo as a husband and not
his public life as a famous singer.
A was nominated Secretary of a Department
in the Executive Branch of the government.
His nomination was thereafter submitted to
the Commission on Appointments for
confirmation. While the Commission was
considering the nomination, a group of
concerned citizens caused to be published
in the newspapers a full-page statement
objecting to A's appointment They alleged
that A was a drug dependent, that he had
several mistresses, and that he was corrupt,
having accepted bribes or favors from
parties transacting business in his previous
office, and therefore he was unfit for the
position to which he had been nominated. As
a result of the publication, the nomination
was not confirmed by the Commission on
Appointments. The official sued the
concerned citizens and the newspapers for
San Beda College Alabang School of Law
2017 Centralized Bar Operations
libel and damages on account of his non-
confirmation.
How will you decide the case?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
I will acquit the concerned citizens and the
newspapers involved, from the crime of libel,
because obviously they made the
denunciation out of a moral or social duty
and thus there is absence of malice. Since A
was a candidate for a very important public
position of a Department Secretary, his
moral, mental and physical fitness for the
public trust in such position becomes a public
concern as the interest of the public is at
stake. It is pursuant to such concern that the
denunciation was made; hence, bereft of
malice.
a. Lando and Marco are candidates in the
local elections. In his speeches, Lando
attacked his opponent Marco alleging that
he is the son of Nanding, a robber and a thief
who amassed his wealth through shady
deals. May Marco file a case against Lando
for grave oral defamation? State your
reasons.
b. Suppose Marco also delivered a speech
stating therein that he had charged Lando of
estafa through falsification in the
Tanodbayan so much so that since his
(Lando's) integrity is doubtful he should not
be elected. May Marco also be held liable
for grave oral defamation? State your
reasons.
SUGGESTED ANSWERS:
a. Marco cannot file a case for grave oral
defamation. If at all, he may file a case for
light slander. In the case of People v. Laroga
(40 O.G. 123), it was held that defamation in
a political meeting, when feelings are
running high and people could not think
clearly, only amount to light slander.
b. No, Marco cannot be held liable for grave
oral defamation considering that Lando was
merely stating what appears in a public
record, referring to the exercise of a legal
right to file suit. Moreover, his statement
36
against Marco pertains to a person who is
running for public office wherein a wider
latitude is given.
Romeo Cunanan, publisher of the Baguio
Daily, was sued by Pedro Aguas for libel for
the public publication of his picture with the
notice that: This is to inform the public that
Mr. Pedro Aguas whose picture appears
above has ceased to be connected with the
Sincere Insurance Company as underwriter
as of December 31, 1987. Any transaction
entered into by him after said date will not be
honored.
Is the publication defamatory? Explain
briefly.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The publication is not defamatory because
the element of intent to defame is absent.
This is a mere announcement and does not
carry any implication.
For some time, bad blood had existed
beween the two families of Maria Razon and
Judge Gadioma who were neighbors. First,
there was a boundary dispute between them
which was still pending in court. Marias
mother also filed an administrative complaint
against the judge which was however
dismissed. The Razons also felt intimidated by
the position and alleged influence of their
neighbor. Fanning fire to the situation was the
practice of the Gadiomas of throwing
garbage and animal excrement into the
Razons premises. In an explosion of anger,
Maria called Judge Gadioma land
grabber, shameless, and hypocrite."
What crime was committed by Maria, if any?
Explain briefly
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Maria committed the crime of slander or
slight defamation only because she was
under the influence of anger. When Maria
called Judge Gadioma a hypocrite and land
grabber she imputed to him the commission
of crimes.
San Beda College Alabang School of Law
2017 Centralized Bar Operations

True or False. In the crime of libel, truth is an
absolute defense.
SUGGESTEDANSWER:
False, Art. 361 of the RPC provides that proof
of truth shall be admissible in libel cases only
if the same imputes a crime or is made
against a public officer with repect to fact
related to the discharge of their official
duties, and moreover must have been
published with good motives and for
justifiable ends. Hence, truth as a defense,
on its own, is not enough.
CRIMINAL NEGLIGENCE; RECKLESS
IMPRUDENCE RESULTING IN HOMICIDE
Olimpio caught a cold and was running a
fever. His doctor prescribed paracetamol.
Olimpio went to a drug store with the
prescription, and the 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.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The charge was improper. The pharmacist
should be charged with criminal negligence,
or reckless imprudence resulting in homicide,
because there was not intent to kill Olimpio.
The accused inexcusably lacked precaution
in failing to dispense the proper medicine to
the victim which caused his death (Art. 365,
RPC).
P.D. 1613 ANTI-ARSON LAW
CD is the stepfather of FEL. One day, CD got
very mad at FEL for failing in his college
courses. In his fury, CD got the leather
suitcase of FEL and burned it together with all
its contents.
a. What crime was committed by CD?
b. Is CD criminally liable? Explain briefly.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
a. The crime committed by CD is arson under
37
Pres. Decree No. 1613 (the new Arson Law)
which punishes any person who bums or sets
fire to the property of another (Section 1 of
Pres. Decree No. 1613).
b. CD is criminally liable although he is the
stepfather of FEL whose property he burnt,
because such relationship is not exempting
from criminal liability in the crime of arson but
only in crimes of theft, swindling or estafa,
and malicious mischief (Article 332, Revised
Penal Code). The provision (Art. 323) of the
Code to the effect that burning property of
small value should be punished as malicious
mischief has long been repealed by Pres.
Decree 1613; hence, there is no more legal
basis to consider burning property of small
value as malicious mischief.
R.A. 7610 ANTI-CHILD ABUSE LAW
Mrs. MNA was charged of child abuse. It
appears from the evidence that she failed to
give immediately the required medical
attention to her adopted child, BPO, when he
was accidentally bumped by her car,
resulting in his head injuries and impaired
vision that could lead to night blindness. The
accused, according to the social worker on
the case, used to whip him when he failed to
come home on time from school. Also, to
punish him for carelessness in washing
dishes, she sometimes sent him to bed
without supper.
She moved to quash the charge on the
ground that there is no evidence she
maltreated her adopted child habitually. She
added that the accident was caused by her
driver's negligence. She did punish her ward
for naughtiness or carelessness, but only
mildly. Is her motion meritorious? Reason
briefly.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, the motion to quash is not meritorious. It
is not necessary that movant's maltreatment
of a child be habitual" to constitute child
abuse. The wrongful acts penalized as "Child
Abuse" under Rep. Act No. 7610 refers to the
maltreatment of the child, "whether habitual
or not": this is expressly stated in Sec. 2(b) of
the said Law. Mrs. MNA should be liable for
child abuse.
San Beda College Alabang School of Law
2017 Centralized Bar Operations
Aling Maria received an urgent telephone
call from Junior, her eldest son, asking for
P2,000.00 to complete his semestral tuition
fees preparatory to his final exams in
Commerce. Distressed and disturbed, she
borrowed money from her compadre Mang
Juan with the assurance to pay him within 2
months. Two months lapsed but Aling Maria
failed to settle her obligation. Mang Juan told
Aling Maria that she does not have to pay the
loan if she will allow her youngest 10-year old
daughter Annie to work as a housemaid in his
house for 2 months at PI,000.00 a month.
Despite Aling Marias objection, Mang Juan
insisted and brought Annie to his house to
work as a maid.
Was a crime committed by Mang Juan when
he brought Annie to his house as maid for the
purpose of repaying her mother's loan?
If Aling Maria herself was made to work as a
housemaid in Mang Juans household to pay
her loan, did he commit a crime?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes, Mang Juan violated RA 7610 which
prohibits employment of children below 15
years of age, in relation to the crime of
Exploitation of Child Labor under Art. 273,
Revised Penal Code. Annie is only 10 years
old and under the pretext of reimbursing
himself of a debt owed by Annies mother,
Mang Juan took Annie to his house to work
as a maid despite her mother's objection.
Annie could not have given consent to the
exploitation since she was only ten (10) years
old and thus could not give any valid
consent.
If it was against her will that Aling Maria was
made to work as a housemaid in Mang
Juans household to pay her debt to him, the
latter would be committing a crime under
Art. 274 of the Revised Penal Code, which
punishes any person who shall compel a
debtor to work for him as a household
servant against her will just to enforce
payment of a debt.
38
ANTI-FENCING LAW; FENCING P.D. 1612
True or False. In a prosecution for fencing
under P.D. 1612, it is a complete defense for
the accused to prove that he had no
knowledge that the goods or articles found in
his possession had been the subject of
robbery.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
False, fencing is committed if the accused
should have known that the goods or
articles had been the subject of theft or
robbery (P.D. No. 1612[a]). Mere possession
of the stolen goods gives rise to the prima
facie presumption of fencing.
Roberto bought a Toyota Fortuner from Iigo
for P500,000. While driving his newly-bought
car, Roberto met a minor accident that made
the examination of his vehicle's Registration
Certificate necessary. When the policeman
checked the plate, chassis and motor
numbers of the vehicle against those
reflected in the Registration Certificate, he
found the chassis and motor numbers to be
different from what the Registration
Certificate stated. The Deed of Sale covering
the sale of the Fortuner, signed by Iigo, also
bore the same chassis and motor numbers as
Roberto's Registration Certificate. The chassis
and motor numbers on the Fortuner were
found, upon verification with the Land
Transportation Office, to correspond to a
vehicle previously reported as carnapped.
Roberto claimed that he was in good faith;
Iigo sold him a carnapped vehicle and he
did not know that he was buying a
carnapped vehicle. If you were the
prosecutor, would you or would you not
charge Roberto with a crime?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
I will charge Roberto with violation of Anti-
Fencing Law. The elements of fencing are:
1) a robbery or theft has been committed; 2)
the accused, who took no part in the robbery
or theft, buys, receives, possesses, keeps,
acquires, conceals, sells or disposes, or buys
and sells, or in any manner deals in any article
or object taken during that robbery or theft;
3) the accused knows or should have known
of that the thing was derived form that crime;
and 4) by the deal he makes he intends to
San Beda College Alabang School of Law
2017 Centralized Bar Operations
gain for himself or for another. Here,
someone carnapped the vehicle, old it to
Roberto who did not take part in the crime.
Roberto should have known also that the car
was stolen because it was not properly
documented as the deed of sale and
registration certificate did not reflect the
correct numbers of the vehicles engine and
chassis. Apparently, he made no effort to
check the papers covering his purchase.
Lastly, Robertos defense of good faith is
flawed because Presidential Decree 1612 is a
special law and, therefore, its violation in
regarded as malum prohibitum, requiring no
proof of criminal intent (Dimat v. People, GR
No. 181184, January 25, 2012).
ANTI-GRAFT & CORRUPT PRACTICES RA
3019
Proserfina, an assistant public high school
principal, acted to facilitate the release of
salary differentials and election duty per
diem of classroom teachers with the
agreement that they would reimburse her for
her expenses. Did Proserfina commit a
crime?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes, Proserfina committed violation of Sec.
3(b) of Rep. Act No. 3019 which considers as
a corrupt practice, the act of: (b) Directly or
indirectly requesting or receiving any gift,
present, share percentage, or benefit, for
himself or for any other person, in connection
with any contact or transaction between the
Government and any other party, wherein
the public officer in his official capacity ha to
intervene under the law. Being the assistant
public high school principal, it is her duty to
intervene in the release of salary differentials
and per diem of classroom teachers under
her. Her act of doing so, made with a request
for a share or benefit therefor constitutes
graft or corrupt practices under Sec. 3(b) of
Rep. Act No. 3019. Considering that the acts
prohibited or punished under this law are
mala prohibita, and thus punishable
thereunder, whether done with criminal
intent or not.
39
RA 8049 ANTI HAZING LAW
What is hazing as defined by law?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Hazing, as defined by law, is an initiation rite
or practice as a prerequisite for admission
into membership in a fraternity, sorority or
organization by placing the recruit,
neophyte or applicant in some embarrassing
or humiliating situations such as forcing him to
do menial, silly, foolish and similar tasks or
activities or otherwise subjecting him to
physical or psychological suffering or injury.
What does the law require before initiation
rites may be performed?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Section 2 of Rep. Act No. 8049 (Anti-Hazing
Law) requires that before hazing or initiation
rites may be performed, notice to the school
authorities or head of organizations shall be
given seven (7) days before the conduct of
such rites. The written notice shall indicate:
a. The period of the initiation activities,
not exceeding three (3) days;
(b) the names of those to be
subjected to such activities, and
(c) an undertaking that no physical
violence shall be employed by anybody
during such initiation rites.
ANTI- PIRACY AND HIGHWAY ROBBERY PD
532
A postal van containing mail matters,
including checks and treasury warrants, was
hijacked along a national highway by ten (1
0) men, two (2) of whom were armed. They
used force, violence and intimidation against
three (3) postal employees who were
occupants of the van, resulting in the
unlawful taking and transportation of the
entire van and its contents. If you were the
defense counsel, what are the elements of
the crime of highway robbery that the
prosecution should prove to sustain a
conviction?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Under Section 2 of P.D. 532, highway robbery
is defined as he seizure of any person for
San Beda College Alabang School of Law
2017 Centralized Bar Operations
ransom, extortion or other unlawful purposes,
or the taking away of the property of another
by means of violence against or intimidation
of person or force upon things or other
unlawful means, committed by any person
on any Philippine highway. Hence, the
elements of highway robbery are:
a. Intent to gain;
b. Unlawful taking of property of
another;
c. Violence against or intimidation
of any person;
d. Committed on a Philippine highway;
e. Indiscriminate victim
To obtain a conviction for highway robbery,
the prosecution must prove that the accused
were organized for the purpose of
committing robbery indiscriminately. If the
purpose is only a particular robbery, the
crime is only robbery, or robbery in a band if
there are at least four armed participants
(See: People v. Mendoza, G.R. No. 104461,
February 23, 1996)
ANTI - TORTURE ACT (RA 9745)
AA was arrested for committing a bailable
offense and detained in solitary confinement.
He was able to post bail after two (2) weeks
of defection. During the period of detention,
he was not given any food. Such deprivation
caused him physically discomfort. What
crime, if any, was committed in connection
with the solitary confinement and food
deprivation of AA? Explain your answer.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Food deprivation and confinement in solitary
cell are considered as physical torture under
Section 4 (2) R.A. No. 9745. Hence, the crime
committed is torture.
ANTI-BOUNCING CHECKS LAW B.P. NO. 22
A and B agreed to meet at the latter's house
to discuss Bs financial problems. On his way,
one of As car tires blew up. Before A left
following the meeting, he asked B to lend him
money to buy a new spare tire. B had
temporarily exhausted his bank deposits,
40
leaving a zero balance. Anticipating,
however, a replenishment of his account
soon, B issued A a postdated check with
which A negotiated for a new tire. When
presented, the check bounced for lack of
funds. The tire company filed a criminal case
against A and B. What would be the criminal
liability, if any, of each of the two accused?
Explain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
A, who negotiated the unfunded check of B
in buying a new tire for his car may only be
prosecuted for estafa if he was aware at the
time of such negotiation that the check has
no sufficient funds in the drawee bank;
otherwise, he is not criminally liable.
B who accommodated A with his check may
nevertheless be prosecuted under BP 22 for
having issued the check, knowing at the time
of issuance that it has no funds in the bank
and that A will negotiate it to buy a new tire,
i.e., for value. B may not be prosecuted for
estafa because the facts indicate that he is
not actuated by intent to defraud in issuing
the check which A negotiated. Obviously, B
issued the postdated check only to help A:
criminal intent or dolo is absent.
Frank borrowed P1,000,000 from his brother
Eric. To pay the loan, Frank issued a post-
dated check to be presented for payment a
month after the transaction. Two days before
maturity, Frank called Eric telling him he had
insufficient funds and requested that the
deposit of the check be deferred.
Nevertheless, Eric deposited the check and it
was dishonored. When Frank failed to pay
despite demand, Eric filed a complaint
against him for violation of Batas Pambansa
Big. 22 (The Bouncing Checks Law). Was the
charge brought against Frank correct?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes, the charges brought against Frank is
correct. Violation of BP 22 is malum
prohibitum which is committed by mere
issuance of a check. Good faith is not a
defense. As long as the check was issued on
account or for value, the purpose for which
the check was issued, the terms and
conditions relating to the issuance are
San Beda College Alabang School of Law
2017 Centralized Bar Operations
irrelevant to the prosecution of the offender.
For this reason, the request of Frankto defer
the deposit of the check as it as insufficient
funds will not militate against his prosecution
for BP 22. Despite notice, Frank can still be
charged.
If what is charged is Estafa, Frank, being a
brother of the offended party, cannot be
held criminally liable under Article 332, RPC.
COMPREHENSIVE DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT
R.A. 9165
Tiburcio asked Anastacio to join their group
for a "session". Thinking that it was for a
mahjong session, Anastacio agreed. Upon
reaching Tiburcios house, Anastacio
discovered that it was actually a shabu
session. At that precise time, the place was
raided by the police, and Anastacio was
among those arrested. What crime can
Anastacio be charged with, if any? Explain
your answer.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Anastacio may not be charged of any crime.
Sec. 7 of Rep. Act 9155 on the
Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs of 2002
punishes employees and visitors of a den,
dive or resort where dangerous drugs are
used in any form. But for a visitor of such
place to commit the crime, it is a requisite
that he is aware of the nature of the place
as such and shall knowingly visit the same.
These requisites are absent in the facts given.
ENTRAPMENT AND INSTIGATION;
DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT
At about 9 o'clock in the morning, a Narcom
Group laid a plan to entrap and apprehend
X, a long suspected drug dealer, through a
"buy-bust" operation. At the appointed time,
the poseur-buyer approached X, who was
then with Y. A marked P100 bill was handed
over to X who in turn, gave the poseur-buyer
one (1) tea bag of marijuana leaves. The
members of the team, who were then
positioned behind thick leaves, closed in but
evidently were not swift enough since X and
Y were able to run away. Two days later, X
41
was arrested in connection with another
incident. It appears that during the
operations, the police officers were not able
to seize the marked money but were able to
get possession of the marijuana tea bag. X
was subsequently prosecuted for violation of
Section 4, Article II of Republic Act No. 6425,
otherwise known as the Dangerous Drugs
Act, During the trial, the marked money was
not presented. Can X be held liable? Explain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes. X can be held liable. The absence of the
marked money will not create a hiatus in the
prosecution's evidence as long as the sale of
the dangerous drugs is adequately proven
and the drug subject of the transaction is
presented before the court. (People vs. Ong
Co, 245 SCRA 733; People vs. Zervoulakos,
241 SCRA 625).
A and his fianc B were walking in the plaza
when they met a group of policemen who
had earlier been tipped off that A was in
possession of prohibited drugs. Upon seeing
the policemen and sensing that they were
after him, A handed a sachet containing
shabu to his fianc B, telling her to hide it in
her handbag. The policemen saw B placing
the sachet inside her handbag.
If B was unaware that A was a drug user or
pusher or that what was inside the sachet
given to her was shabu, is she nonetheless
liable under the Dangerous Drugs Act?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, B will not be criminally liable because she
is unaware that A was a drug user or pusher
or of the content of the sachet handed to her
by A, and therefore the criminal intent to
possess the drug in violation of the
Dangerous Drugs Act is absent. There would
be no basis to impute criminal liability to her
in the absence of animus possidendi.
CHAIN OF CUSTODY
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
San Beda College Alabang School of Law
2017 Centralized Bar Operations
evidence because the police officers who
conducted the buy-bust 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?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Chain of Custody requirement in drug
offense refers to the duly recorded,
authorized movement and custody of seized
dangerous drugs, controlled chemicals,
plant sources of dangerous drugs, and
laboratory equipment of dangerous drugs
from the time 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
(Dangerous Drugs Board Regulation No. 1
Series of 2002). 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 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 to be. Failure to observe
the chain of custody requirement renders
the evidence questionable, not trustworthy
and insufficient to prove the corpus delicti
beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, Tommy
would be acquitted on reasonable doubt.
COMPREHENSIVE LAW ON FIREARMS AND
AMMUNITION
A has long been wanted by the police
authorities for various crimes committed by
him. Acting on information by a tipster, the
police proceeded to an apartment where A
was often seen. The tipster also warned the
policemen that A was always armed. At the
given address, a lady who introduced herself
as the elder sister of A, opened the door and
let the policemen in inside, the team found A
sleeping on the floor. Immediately beside
him was a clutch bag which, when opened,
contained a .38 caliber paltik revolver and a
42
hand grenade. After verification, the
authorities discovered that A was not a
licensed holder of the .38 caliber paltik
revolver. As for the hand grenade, it was
established that only military personnel are
authorized to carry hand grenades.
Subsequently, A was charged with the crime
of Illegal Possession of Firearms and
Ammunition. During trial, A maintained that
the bag containing the unlicensed firearm
and hand grenade belonged to his friend,
and that he was not in actual possession
thereof at the time he was arrested.
Are the allegations meritorious? Explain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
A's allegations are not meritorious. Ownership
is not an essential element of the crime 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 where the firearm and explosive
are subject to one's control and
management. (People us. De Grecia, 233
SCRA 716; U.S. vs. Juan, 23 Phil. 105: People
vs. Soyag, 110 Phil. 565).
R.A. 9344 JUVENILE JUSTICE AND WELFARE
ACT
INTERVENTION VS. DIVERSION
Joe was 17 years old when he committed
homicide in 2005. The crime is punishable by
reclusion temporal. After two years in hiding,
he was arrested and appropriately charged
in May 2007. Since Republic Act 9344
(Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of 2006)
was already in effect, Joe moved to avail of
the process of intervention or diversion. What
is intervention or diversion? Is Joe entitled to
intervention or diversion? Explain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The two terms are different. Intervention
refers to a series of activities which are
designed to address issues that caused the
child to commit an offense. It may take the
form of an individualized treatment program
which may include counseling, skills training,
education, and other activities that will
enhance his/her psychological, emotional
and psycho-social well-being. This is
available to a child 15 years old or less at the
San Beda College Alabang School of Law
2017 Centralized Bar Operations
time of the commission or although over 15
but below 18 years old at the time of
commission of the crime, the child acted
without discernment. Diversion refers to an
alternative, child-appropriate process of
determining the responsibility and treatment
of a child in conflict with the law on the basis
of his/her social, cultural, economic,
psychological or educational background
without resorting to formal court
proceedings. This process governs when the
child is over 15 years old but below 18 at the
time of the commission of the crime and has
acted with discernment. Yes, Joe is entitled
to diversion. Being only 12 years old at the
time he committed the crime of homicide,
he is treated as a child in conflict with the law
under RA 9344.

PROBATION LAW

A was charged with homicide. After trial, he

was found guilty and sentenced to 6 years
and 1 day in prision mayor, as minimum, to
12 years and 1 day of reclusion temporal, as
maximum. Prior to his conviction, he had
been found guilty of vagrancy and
imprisoned for 10 days of arresto manor and
fined P50.00. Is he eligible for probation?
Why?

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No. The benefits of the Probation Law (PD
968, as amended) do not extend to those
sentenced to serve a maximum term of
imprisonment of more than six years (Sec.
9a). It is of no moment that in his previous
conviction A was given a penalty of only ten
(10) days of arresto mayor and a fine of
P50.00.

43 San Beda College Alabang School of Law

2017 Centralized Bar Operations