Criminal Law Based on 2013 SC Syllabus

COVERAGE CRIMINAL LAW 2013 BAR EXAMINATIONS

I.

Revised Penal C de !RPC" and #ela$ed S%e&ial La's A. Book 1 (Articles 1-99, RPC; exclude the provisions on civil liabilit ! 1. "unda#ental principles ls * $) +,)$ in C#i-inal La' !1../"

Gene#al P#in&i%les( S&)

1! $hat are the di%%erent schools o% thou&ht or theories in Cri#inal 'a( and describe each brie%l . )! *o (hat theor does our Revised Penal Code belon&+ S0GGESTE1 ANSWER2 1*here are t(o schools o% thou&ht in Cri#inal 'a(, and these are (a! the C'A,,-CA' *./0R1, (hich si#pl #eans that the basis o% cri#inal liabilities is hu#an %ree (ill, and the purpose o% the penalt is retribution (hich #ust be proportional to the &ravit o% the o%%ense; and (b! the P0,-*-2-,* *./0R1, (hich considers #an as a social bein& and his acts are attributable not 3ust to his (ill but to other %orces o% societ . As such, punish#ent is not the solution, as he is not entirel to be bla#ed; la( and 3urisprudence should not be the ardstick in the i#position o% sanction, instead the underl in& reasons (ould be in4uired into. )$e %ollo( the classical school o% thou&ht althou&h so#e provisions o% e#inentl positivist in tendencies, like punish#ent o% i#possible cri#e, 5uvenile circu#stances, are incorporated in our Code. a! 6e%inition o% Cri#inal 'a( (i! 7ala in ,e and 7ala Prohibita Mala in Se vs. Mala P# )i3i$a !1..4" 1 ) 6istin&uish bet(een cri#es #ala in se and cri#es #ala prohibita. 7a an act be #alu# in se and be, at the sa#e ti#e, #alu# prohibitu#+

S0GGESTE1 ANSWER2 Cri#es #ala in se are %elonious acts co##itted b dolo or culpa as de%ined in the Revised Penal Code. 'ack o% cri#inal intent is a valid de%ense, except (hen the cri#e results %ro# cri#inal ne&li&ence. 0n the other hand, cri#es #ala prohibita are those considered (ron& onl because the are prohibited b statute. *he constitute violations o% #ere rules o% convenience desi&ned to secure a #ore orderl re&ulation o% the a%%airs o% societ . S0GGESTE1 ANSWER2 1es, an act #a be #alu# in se and #alu# prohibitu# at the sa#e ti#e. -n People v. Sunico, et aL. (CA 50 OG 5880) it (as held that the o#ission or %ailure o% election inspectors and poll clerks to include a voter8s na#e in the re&istr list o% voters is (ron& per se because it disen%ranchises a voter o% his ri&ht to vote. -n this re&ard it is considered as #alu# in se. ,ince it is punished under a special la( (,ec. 191 and 19:, Revised /lection Code!, it is considered #alu# prohibitu#. Mala in Se vs. Mala P# )i3i$a !1..." 6istin&uish ; #ala in se; %ro# ; #ala prohibita;(:<! S0GGESTE1 ANSWER2

-n ;#ala in se;, the acts constitutin& the cri#es are inherentl evil, bad or (ron&, and hence involves the #oral traits o% the o%%ender; (hile in ;#ala prohibita;, the acts constitutin& the cri#es are not inherentl bad, evil or (ron& but prohibited and #ade punishable onl %or public &ood. And because the #oral trait o% the o%%ender is -nvolved in ;#ala in se;. 7odi% in& circu#stances, the o%%ender8s extent o% participation in the cri#e, and the de&ree o% acco#plish#ent o% the cri#e are taken into account in i#posin& the penalt = these are not so in ;#ala prohibita; (here cri#inal liabilit arises onl (hen the acts are consu##ated. Mala in Se vs. Mala P# )i3i$a !2001" Brie%l state (hat essentiall distin&uishes a cri#e #ala prohibita %ro# a cri#e #ala in se. ()<! S0GGESTE1 ANSWER2 -n cri#es #ala prohibita, the acts are not b nature (ron&, evil or bad. *he are punished onl because there is a la( prohibitin& the# %or public &ood, and thus &ood %aith or lack o% cri#inal intent in doin& the prohibited act is not a de%ense. -n cri#es #ala in se, the acts are b nature (ron&, evil or bad, and so &enerall conde#ned. *he #oral trait o% the o%%ender is involved; thus, &ood %aith or lack o% cri#inal -ntent on the part o% the o%%ender is a de%ense, unless the cri#e is the result o% cri#inal ne&li&ence. Correspondin&l , #odi% in& circu#stances are considered in punishin& the o%%ender. Mala in Se vs. Mala P# )i3i$a !2003" 6istin&uish, in their respective concepts and le&al i#plications, bet(een cri#es #ala in se and cri#es #ala prohibits. >< S0GGESTE1 ANSWER2 In & n&e%$2 Cri#es #ala in se are those (here the acts or o#issions penali?ed are inherentl bad, evil, or (ron& that the are al#ost universall conde#ned. Cri#es #ala prohibita are those (here the acts penali?ed are not inherentl bad, evil, or (ron& but prohibited b la( %or public &ood, public (el%are or interest and (hoever violates the prohibition are penali?ed. In le,al i-%li&a$i ns2 -n cri#es #ala in se, &ood %aith or lack o% cri#inal intent@ ne&li&ence is a de%ense, (hile in cri#es #ala prohibita, &ood %aith or lack o% cri#inal intent or #alice is not a de%ense; it is enou&h that the prohibition (as voluntaril violated. Also, cri#inal liabilit is &enerall incurred in cri#es #ala in se even (hen the cri#e is onl atte#pted or %rustrated, (hile in cri#es #ala prohibita, cri#inal liabilit is &enerall incurred onl (hen the cri#e is consu##ated. Also in cri#es #ala in se, #iti&atin& and a&&ravatin& circu#stances are appreciated in i#posin& the penalties, (hile in cri#es #ala prohibita, such circu#stances are not appreciated unless the special la( has adopted the sche#e or scale o% penalties under the Revised Penal Code. Mala P# )i3i$a( A&$+al In5+#6 Re7+i#ed !2000" 7r. Carlos Aabisi, a custo#s &uard, and 7r. Rico 1to, a private -ndividual, (ent to the o%%ice o% 7r. 6iether 0cuarto, a custo#s broker, and represented the#selves as a&ents o% 7oon&lo( Co##ercial *radin&, an -#porter o% children8s clothes and to s. 7r. Aabisi and 7r. 1to en&a&ed 7r. 0cuarto to prepare and %ile (ith the Bureau o% Custo#s the necessar -#port /ntr and -nternal Revenue 6eclaration coverin& 7oon&lo(8s ship#ent. 7r. Aabisi and 7r. 1to sub#itted to 7r. 0cuarto a packin& list, a co##ercial invoice, a bill o% ladin& and a ,(orn -#port 6ut 6eclaration (hich declared the ship#ent as children8s to s, the taxes and duties o% (hich (ere co#puted at PB9,999.99. 7r. 0cuarto %iled the a%ore#entioned docu#ents (ith the 7anila -nternational Container Port. .o(ever, be%ore the ship#ent (as released, a spot check (as conducted b Custo#s ,enior A&ent 5a#es Bandido, (ho discovered that the contents o% the van (ship#ent! (ere not children8s to s as declared in the shippin& docu#ents but 1,999 units o% video cassette recorders (ith taxes and duties co#puted at PB99,999.99. A hold order and (arrant o% sei?ure and detention (ere then issued b the 6istrict Collector o% Custo#s. "urther investi&ation sho(ed that 7oon&lo( is non-existent. Conse4uentl , 7r. Aabisi and 7r. 1to (ere char&ed (ith and convicted %or violation o% ,ection :(e! o% R.A. :919 (hich #akes it unla(%ul a#on& others, %or public o%%icers to cause an undue -n3ur to an part , includin& the Aovern#ent. -n the dischar&e o% o%%icial %unctions throu&h #ani%est partialit , evident bad %aith or &ross inexcusable ne&li&ence. -n their #otion %or reconsideration, the accused alle&ed that the decision (as erroneous because the cri#e

(as not consu##ated but (as onl at an atte#pted sta&e, and that in %act the Aovern#ent did not su%%er an undue in3ur . a! -s the contention o% both accused correct+ /xplain. (:<! b! Assu#in& that the atte#pted or %rustrated sta&e o% the violation char&ed is not punishable, #a the accused be nevertheless convicted %or an o%%ense punished b the Revised Penal Code under the %acts o% the case+ /xplain. (:<! S0GGESTE1 ANSWER2 1es, the contention o% the accused that the cri#e (as not consu##ated is correct, RA. :919 is a special la( punishin& acts #ala prohibita. As a rule, atte#pted violation o% a special la( is not punished. Actual in3ur is re4uired. 1es, both are liable %or atte#pted esta%a thru %alsi%ication o% co##ercial docu#ents, a co#plex cri#e. Mal+- in Se vs. Mal+- P# )i3i$+- !2008" 6istin&uish #alu# in se %ro# #alu# prohibitu#. ()<! S0GGESTE1 ANSWER2 -n cri#es #alu# in se, an act is b nature (ron&, evil or bad, and so &enerall conde#ned. *he #oral trait o% the o%%ender is involved; thus, &ood %aith or lack o% cri#inal -ntent on the part o% the o%%ender is a de%ense, unless the cri#e is the result o% cri#inal ne&li&ence. Correspondin&l , #odi% in& circu#stances are considered in punishin& the o%%ender. -n cri#es #ala prohibitu#, an act is not b nature (ron&, evil or bad. 1et, it is punished because there is a la( prohibitin& the# %or public &ood, and thus &ood %aith or lack o% cri#inal intent in doin& the prohibited act is not a de%ense. M $ive vs. In$en$ !1../" 1 ) 6istin&uish intent %ro# #otive in Cri#inal 'a(. 7a cri#e be co##itted (ithout cri#inal intent+

S0GGESTE1 ANSWER2 1 7otive is the #ovin& po(er (hich i#pels one to action %or a de%inite result; (hereas intent is the purpose to use a particular #eans to e%%ect such results. 7otive is not an essential ele#ent o% a %elon and need not be proved %or purpose o% conviction, (hile intent is an essential ele#ent o% %elonies b dolo. ) 1es, a cri#e #a be co##itted (ithout cri#inal intent i% such is a culpable %elon , (herein -ntent is substituted b ne&li&ence or i#prudence, and also in a #alu# prohibitu# or i% an act is punishable b special la(. M $ive vs. In$en$ !1..." 1 ) 6istin&uish ;#otive; %ro# ;intent;. $hen is #otive relevant to prove a case+ $hen is it not necessar to be established+ /xplain. (:<!

S0GGESTE1 ANSWER2 1 ;7otive ; is the #ovin& po(er (hich i#pels a person to do an act %or a de%inite result; (hile ;intent; is the purpose %or usin& a particular #eans to brin& about a desired result. 7otive is not an ele#ent o% a cri#e but intent is an ele#ent o% intentional cri#es. 7otive, i% attendin& a cri#e, al(a s precede the intent. ) 7otive is relevant to prove a case (hen there is doubt as to the identit o% the o%%ender or (hen the act co##itted &ives rise to variant cri#es and there is the need to deter#ine the proper cri#e to be i#puted to the o%%ender. -t is not necessar to prove #otive (hen the o%%ender is positivel identi%ied or the cri#inal act did not &ive rise to variant cri#es. M $ive vs. In$en$ !2009" 6istin&uish clearl but brie%l bet(een intent and #otive in the co##ission o% an o%%ense. S0GGESTE1 ANSWER2 -ntent is the purpose %or usin& a particular #eans to achieve the desired result; (hile #otive is the #ovin& po(er (hich i#pels a person to act %or a de%inite result. -ntent is an in&redient o% dolo or #alice and thus an ele#ent o%

deliberate %elonies; (hile #otive is not an ele#ent o% a cri#e but onl considered (hen the identit o% the o%%ender is in doubt. M $ive( P# * $)e#e *( N $ Essen$ial( C nvi&$i n !200/" 7otive is essential in the deter#ination o% the co##ission o% a cri#e and the liabilities o% the perpetrators. $hat are the instances (here proo% o% #otive is not essential or re4uired to 3usti% conviction o% an accused+ Aive at least : instances. (C<! S0GGESTE1 ANSWER2 1 $hen there is an e e(itness or positive identi%ication o% the accused. ) $hen the accused ad#itted or con%essed to the co##ission o% the cri#e. : -n cri#es mala prohibita. > -n direct assault, (hen the victi#, (ho is a person in authorit or a&ent o% a person in authorit (as attacked in the actual per%or#ance o% his dut (Art. 1>D, Revised Penal Code!. C -n cri#es co##itted throu&h reckless i#prudence. (ii! Construction o% penal la(s b! ,cope o% application and characteristics o% Philippine cri#inal la( (i! Aeneralit (ii! *erritorialit Gene#al P#in&i%les( Te##i$ #iali$6 !1..9" Abe, #arried to 'i?a, contracted another #arria&e (ith Connie in ,in&apore. *herea%ter, Abe and Connie returned to the Philippines and lived as husband and (i%e in the ho#eto(n o% Abe in Cala#ba, 'a&una. 1! Can Abe be prosecuted %or bi&a# + S0GGESTE1 ANSWER2 1! Eo, Abe #a not be prosecuted %or bi&a# since the bi&a#ous #arria&e (as contracted or sole#ni?ed in ,in&apore, hence such violation is not one o% those (here the Revised Penal Code, under Art. ) thereo%, #a be applied extraterritoriall . *he &eneral rule on territorialit o% cri#inal la( &overns the situation. Gene#al P#in&i%les( Te##i$ #iali$6( :+#isdi&$i n ve# Vessel !2000" A%ter drinkin& one (1! case o% ,an 7i&uel beer and takin& t(o plates o% ;pulutan;, Bino , a "ilipino sea#an, stabbed to death ,io 7 , a ,in&aporean sea#an, aboard 7@2 ;Princess o% the Paci%ic;, an overseas vessel (hich (as sailin& in the ,outh China ,ea. *he vessel, althou&h Pana#anian re&istered, is o(ned b 'ucio , , a rich "ilipino business#an. $hen 7@2 ;Princess o% the Paci%ic; reached a Philippine Port at Cebu Cit , the Captain o% the vessel turned over the assailant Bino to the Philippine authorities. An in%or#ation %or ho#icide (as %iled a&ainst Bino in the Re&ional *rial Court o% Cebu Cit . .e #oved to 4uash the in%or#ation %or lack o% 3urisdiction. -% ou (ere the 5ud&e, (ill ou &rant the #otion+ $h + (C<! S0GGESTE1 ANSWER2 1es, the 7otion to Fuash the -n%or#ation should be &ranted. *he Philippine court has no 3urisdiction over the cri#e co##itted since it (as co##itted on the hi&h seas or outside o% Philippine territor and on board a vessel not re&istered or licensed in the Philippines (US v . !o"ler, # Phil $#%) -t is the re&istration o% the vessel in accordance (ith the la(s o% the Philippines, not the citi?enship o% her o(ner, (hich #akes it a Philippine ship. *he vessel bein& re&istered in Pana#a, the la(s o% Pana#a &overn (hile it is in the hi&h seas. (iii! Prospectivit (a! /%%ects o% repeal@a#end#ent o% penal la(

c! Constitutional li#itations on the po(er o% Con&ress to enact penal la(s (i! /4ual protection (ii! 6ue process 1+e P# &ess( W#i$ * A-%a# !200;" a! A%ter due hearin& on a petition %or a (rit o% a#paro %ounded on the acts o% en%orced disappearance and extrale&al killin& o% the son o% the co#plainant alle&edl done b the respondent #ilitar o%%icers, the court &ranted the petition. 7a the #ilitar o%%icers be cri#inall char&ed in court (ith en%orced disappearance and extrale&al killin&+ /xplain %ull . (:<! S0GGESTE1 ANSWER2 a! Eo. G/n%orced disappearance and extrale&al killin&H is not per se a cri#inal o%%ense althou&h it is (ron&%ul. *he &rant o% a (rit o% a#paro onl provides a relie%; it does not estalish a basis %or a cri#e. Inless the (rit (as ssued because o% speci%ic overt acts sho(n to have been co##itted b the respondent #ilitar o%%icers and such acts are cri#es under penal la(s, no cri#inal char&e #a be routinel %iled 3ust because the petition %or the (rit (as &ranted. b! Are hu#an ri&hts violations considered as cri#es in the Philippines+ /xplain. (:<! S0GGESTE1 ANSWER2 b! Eot necessaril , since there are hu#an ri&hts violations (hich do not a#ount to cri#inal o%%enses. -n this countr , there can be no cri#e (hen there is no la( punishin& an act or o#ission as a cri#e. (iii! Eon-i#position o% cruel and unusual punish#ent or excessive %ines (a! Act Prohibitin& the -#position o% 6eath Penalt in the Philippines (R.A. Eo. 9:>B! (iv! Bill o% attainder (v! /x post %acto la( ). "elonies a! Classi%ications o% %elonies b! /le#ents o% cri#inal liabilit C#i-inal Lia3ili$6( T)e*$ !200;" /#an, a va&rant, %ound a ba& containin& identi%ication cards and a dia#ond rin& alon& Roxas Blvd. Jno(in& that it (as not his, he (ent to the nearest police station to seek help in %indin& the o(ner o% the ba&. At the precint P01 7elvin attended to hi#. -n the investi&ation /#an proposed to P01 7elvin, Gin case ou don8t %ind the o(ner let8s 3ust pa(n the rin& and split the proceeds %i%t -%i%t (C9@C9!.H P01 7elvin then (ent strai&ht to the pa(nshop and pa(ned the rin& %or PC9,999. /#an never sa( P01 7elvin a&ain. a! $hat is the cri#inal liabilit o% /#an, i% an + /xplain. (:<! S0GGESTE1 ANSWER2 a! /#an has no cri#inal liabilit , unless he received part o% the proceeds o% the pa(ned rin&. *he %acts do not state that /#an received an part o% the PC9,999.99 proceeds o% the rin& pled&ed. *he %acts state that a%ter turnin& over the bad to P01 7elvin, /#an never sa( P01 7elvin a&ain. *he proposal /#an #ade to P01 7elvin is not a cri#e as to brin& about cri#inal liabilit . b! $hat is the cri#inal liabilit o% P01 7elvin, i% an + /xplain (:<! S0GGESTE1 ANSWER2

b! P01 7elvin is cri#inall liable %or the%t %or havin& pa(ned the rin&, (hich he does not o(n, and appropriatin& the proceeds thereo% (ithout the consent o% the o(ner thus de#onstratin& intent to &ain. P01 7elvin is si#pl substituted to the possession /#an had (hen the latter %ound the ba& containin& the rin&. .e (as under a le&al obli&ation to deliver it to its o(ner and his %ailure to do so a#ounts to a Gtakin&H (hich (ould constitute the%t (hen sho(n to be #otivated b intent to &ain (Art. :9D, par. 1, RPC; People v. Avila, >> Phil. K)9, K)KL19):M!. C#i-inal Lia3ili$6( RA /83.( < -i&ide( R 33e#6 !200;" $hile Carlos (as approachin& his car, he sa( it bein& driven a(a b Paolo, a thie%. Carlos tried to stop Paolo b shoutin& at hi#, but Paolo i&nored hi#. *o prevent his car %ro# bein& carnapped, Carlos dre( his &un, ai#ed at the rear (heel o% the car and %ired. *he shot ble( the tire (hich caused the car to veer out o% control and collide (ith an onco#in& tric cle, killin& the tric cle driver. a! $hat is the cri#inal liabilit o% Carlos, i% an + /xplain. (><! S0GGESTE1 ANSWER2 a! Carlos did not incur cri#inal liabilit because his act o% %irin& at the rear (heel o% the car to stop the vehicle and prevent Paolo %ro# takin& a(a his (Carlos8! car is neither done (ith dolo nor culpa. *he act does not constitute a cri#e; it is a reasonable exercise o% his ri&ht to prevent or repel an actual unla(%ul ph sical invasion or usurpation o% his propert pursuant to Art. )>9 o% the Civil Code. b! $hat is the cri#inal liabilit o% Paolo, i% an + /xplain. (><! S0GGESTE1 ANSWER2 b! Paolo is cri#inall liable %or (1! carnappin& under Rep. Act Eo. BC:9 %or drivin& a(a the #otor vehicle o% Carlos a&ainst the latter8s (ill and obviousl (ith intent to &ain and ()! %or ho#icide %or the death o% the tric cle driver (hich resulted %ro# the cri#inal act deliberatel bein& co##itted b Paolo ((hich is the carnappin&!. *he ho#icide (as the result o% praeter intentione# and not a co#ponent o% the cri#e o% carnappin& or a result o% reckless i#prudence or o% si#ple ne&li&ence. ANOT<ER S0GGESTE1 ANSWER2 b! Paolo is cri#inall liable %or 4uali%ied the%t because the ob3ect taken is a #otor vehicle (Art. :19, RPC! and the takin& (as si#pl (ithout the consent o% Carlos, the o(ner o% the #otor vehicle. ,ince the death o% the tric cle driver (as brou&ht b Paolo8s %elonious takin& Carlos8 car, Paolo is liable %or ho#icide because his act (as the proxi#ate cause thereo%. ANOT<ER ALTERNATIVE S0GGESTE1 ANSWER2 b! Paolo is liable %or the co#plex cri#e o% %rustrated robber , (ith ho#icide and da#a&e to propert (tric cle! in tr in& to rob the car. *his resulted in the shootin& o% the car b Carlos and the subse4uent collision destro in& the tric cle and the death o% the driver. C#i-inal Lia3ili$62 1es$#+&$ive A#s n !2000" A, B, C and 6, all ar#ed (ith ar#alites, proceeded to the house o% N. 1, a nei&hbor o% N, (ho happened to be passin& b , pointed to the %our culprits the roo# that N occupied. *he %our culprits peppered the roo# (ith bullets. Insatis%ied, A even thre( a hand &renade that totall destro ed N8s roo#. .o(ever, unkno(n to the %our culprits, N (as not inside the roo# and nobod (as hit or in3ured durin& the -ncident. Are A, B, C and 6 liable %or an cri#e+ /xplain. (:<!

S0GGESTE1 ANSWER2 1es. A, B. C and 6 are liable %or destructive arson because o% the destruction o% the roo# o% N (ith the use o% an explosive, the hand &renade. 'iabilit %or an i#possible cri#e is to be i#posed onl i% the act co##itted (ould not constitute an other cri#e under the Revised Penal Code. Althou&h the %acts involved are parallel to the case o% &nto' v . Court o( Appeal ()#5 SC*A 5)) , (here it (as ruled that the liabilit o% the o%%ender (as %or an i#possible cri#e, no hand &renade (as used in said case, (hich constitutes a #ore serious cri#e thou&h di%%erent %ro# (hat (as intended. C#i-inal Lia3ili$62 =el ni +s A&$ * S&a#in, !1../" Alexander, an escaped convict, ran a#uck on board a ,uperlines Bus bound %or 7anila %ro# Bicol and killed ten (19! persons. *erri%ied b the incident, Carol and Ben3a#in (ho are passen&ers o% the bus, 3u#ped out o% the (indo( and (hile l in& unconscious a%ter hittin& the pave#ent o% the road, (ere ran over and crushed to death b a %ast #ovin& 6esert "ox bus tailin& the ,uperlines Bus. Can Alexander be held liable %or the death o% Carol and Ben3a#in althou&h he (as co#pletel una(are that the t(o 3u#ped out o% the bus+ /xplain. S0GGESTE1 ANSWER2 1es, Alexander can be held liable %or the death o% Carol and Ben3a#in because o% %elonious act o% runnin& (as the proxi#ate cause o% the victi#8s death. *he rule is that (hen a person, b a %elonious act, &enerates in the #ind o% another a sense o% i##inent dan&er, pro#ptin& the latter to escape %ro# or avoid such dan&er and in the process, sustains in3uries or dies, the person co##ittin& the %elonious act is responsible %or such in3uries or death. (US v . +al'e,, %# Phil, #%-./ People v . Apra, ). SC*A #00..) C#i-inal Lia3ili$62 =el ni +s A&$( P# >i-a$e Ca+se !1../" 2icente hacked Anacleto (ith a bolo but the latter (as able to parr it (ith his hand, causin& upon hi# a t(o-inch (ound on his ri&ht pal#. 2icente (as not able to hack Anacleto %urther because three police#en arrived and threatened to shoot 2icente i% he did not drop his bolo. 2icente (as accordin&l char&ed b the police at the prosecutor8s o%%ice %or atte#pted ho#icide. *(ent -%ive da s later, (hile the preli#inar investi&ation (as in pro&ress, Anacleto (as rushed to the hospital because o% s #pto#s o% tetanus in%ection on the t(o-inch (ound in%licted b 2icente. Anacleto died the %ollo(in& da . Can 2icente be eventuall char&ed (ith ho#icide %or the death o% Anacleto+ /xplain. S0GGESTE1 ANSWER2 1es, 2icente #a be char&ed o% ho#icide %or the death o% Anacleto, unless the tetanus in%ection (hich developed t(ent %ive da s later, (as brou&ht about b an e%%icient supervenin& cause. 2icente8s %elonious act o% causin& a t(oinch (ound on Anacleto8s ri&ht pal# #a still be re&arded as the proxi#ate cause o% the latter8s death because (ithout such (ound, no tetanus in%ection could develop %ro# the victi#8s ri&ht pal#, and (ithout such tetanus in%ection the victi# (ould not have died (ith it. C#i-inal Lia3ili$6( =el ni +s A&$ * S&a#in, !2001" 7ar 3ane had t(o suitors - "elipe and Cesar. ,he did not openl sho( her pre%erence but on t(o occasions, accepted Cesar8s invitation to concerts b Re&ine and Pops. "elipe (as a (orkin& student and could onl ask 7ar to see a #ovie (hich (as declined. "elipe %elt insulted and #ade plans to &et even (ith Cesar b scarin& hi# o%% so#eho(. 0ne da , he entered Cesar8s roo# in their boardin& house and placed a rubber snake (hich appeared to be real in Cesar8s backpack. Because Cesar had a (eak heart, he su%%ered a heart attack upon openin& his backpack and seein& the snake. Cesar died (ithout re&ainin& consciousness. *he police investi&ation resulted in pinpointin& "elipe as the culprit and he (as char&ed (ith .o#icide %or Cesar8s death. -n his de%ense, "elipe clai#ed that he did not kno( about Cesar8s (eak heart and that he onl intended to pla a practical 3oke on Cesar. -s "elipe liable %or the death o% Cesar or (ill his de%ense prosper+ $h + (C<O S0GGESTE1 ANSWER2 1es, "elipe is liable %or the death o% Cesar but he shall be &iven the bene%it o% the #iti&atin& circu#stance that he did not intend to co##it so &rave a (ron& as that (hich (as co##itted (Art. 1:, par. :, RPC!.

$hen "elipe intruded into Cesar8s roo# (ithout the latter8s consent and took libert (ith the letter8s backpack (here he placed the rubber snake. "elipe (as alread co##ittin& a %elon . And an act done b hi# (hile co##ittin& a %elon is no less (ron&%ul, considerin& that the (ere part o% ;plans to &et even (ith Cesar;. "elipe8s clai# that he intended onl ;to pla a practical 3oke on Cesar; does not persuade, considerin& that the are not %riends but in %act rivals in courtin& 7ar 3ane. *his case is parallel to the case o% People v . Pu1a2, et al. ALTERNATIVE ANSWER2 Eo, "elipe is not liable because the act o% %ri&htenin& another is not a cri#e. $hat he did #a be (ron&, but not all (ron&s a#ount to a cri#e. Because the act (hich caused the death o% Cesar is not a cri#e, no cri#inal liabilit #a arise there%ro#. C#i-inal Lia3ili$6( =el ni +s A&$ * S&a#in, !2008" Belle sa( Aaston stealin& the pri?ed cock o% a nei&hbor and reported hi# to the police. *herea%ter, Aaston, (hile drivin& a car sa( Belle crossin& the street. -ncensed that Belle had reported hi#, Aaston decided to scare her b tr in& to #ake it appear that he (as about to run her over. .e revved the en&ine o% his car and drove to(ards her but he applied the brakes. ,ince the road (as slipper at that ti#e, the vehicle skidded and hit Belle causin& her death. $as &aston cri#inall liable+ $hat is the liabilit o% Aaston+ $h + (><! S0GGESTE1 ANSWER2 1es, Aaston is liable %or Belle8s death because even thou&h Aaston has no intent to kill Belle rather 3ust to scare Belle. ;*o scare; does not indicate intent to kill. .o(ever, under Art. > o% the Revised Penal Code, provides in part that cri#inal liabilit shall be incurred b an person co##ittin& a %elon althou&h the (ron&%ul act done be di%%erent %ro# that (hich he intended. -n other (ords, the rule is that (hen a person, b a %elonious act, &enerates in the #ind o% another a sense o% i##inent dan&er, pro#ptin& the latter to escape %ro# or avoid such dan&er and in the process, sustains in3uries or dies, the person co##ittin& the %elonious act is responsible %or such in3uries or death . (US v . +al'e,, %# Phil, #%-./ People v . Apra, ). SC*A #00..) ALTERNATIVE ANSWER2 1es, Aaston is liable %or Belle8s death because b his acts o% revvin& the en&ine o% his car and drivin& to(ards Belle is %elonious, and such %elonious act (as the proxi#ate cause o% the vehicle to skid and hit Belle, resultin& in the latter8s death. ,tated other(ise, the death o% Belle (as the direct, natural and lo&ical conse4uence o% Aaston8s %elonious act. (People v. Arpa, ). SC*A #00.). C#i-inal Lia3ili$6( =el ni +s A&$( I--edia$e Ca+se !2003" *he conduct o% (i%e A aroused the ire o% her husband B. -ncensed (ith an&er al#ost be ond his control, B could not help but in%lict ph sical in3uries on A. 7o#ents a%ter B started hittin& A (ith his %ists, A suddenl co#plained o% severe chest pains. B, reali?in& that A (as indeed in serious trouble, i##ediatel brou&ht her to the hospital. 6espite e%%orts to alleviate A8s pains, she died o% heart attack. -t turned out that she had been su%%erin& %ro# a lin&erin& heart ail#ent. $hat cri#e, i% an , could B be held &uilt o%+ D< S0GGESTE1 ANSWER2 B could be held liable %or parricide because his act o% hittin& his (i%e (ith %ist blo(s and there(ith in%lictin& ph sical in3uries on her, is %elonious. A person co##ittin& a %elonious act incurs cri#inal liabilit althou&h the (ron&%ul conse4uence is di%%erent %ro# (hat he intended (Art. >, par. 1, Revised Penal Code!. Althou&h A died o% heart attack, the said attack (as &enerated b B8s %elonious act o% hittin& her (ith his %ists. ,uch %elonious act (as the i##ediate cause o% the heart attack, havin& #ateriall contributed to and hastened A8s death. /ven thou&h B #a have acted (ithout intent to kill his (i%e, lack o% such intent is o% no #o#ent (hen the victi# dies. .o(ever, B #a be &iven the #iti&atin& circu#stance o% havin& acted (ithout intention to co##it so &rave a (ron& as that co##itted (Art. 1:, par. :, Revised Penal Code!. C#i-inal Lia3ili$6( =el ni +s A&$( P# >i-a$e Ca+se !1..9"

Bhe eloped (ith ,cott. $hereupon, Bhe 8s %ather, Robin, and brother, Rusto#, (ent to ,cott8s house. Ipon reachin& the house, Rusto# in4uired %ro# ,cott about his sister8s (hereabouts, (hile Robin shouted and threatened to kill ,cott. *he latter then (ent do(nstairs but Rusto# held his (,cott8s! (aist. 7ean(hile 0live, the elder sister o% ,cott, carr in& her t(o-#onth old child, approached Rusto# and ,cott to paci% the#. 0live atte#pted to re#ove Rusto#8s hand %ro# ,cott8s (aist. But Rusto# pulled 0live8s hand causin& her to %all over her bab . *he bab then died #o#ents later. -s Rusto# cri#inall liable %or the death o% the child+ S0GGESTE1 ANSWER2 1es, Rusto# is cri#inall liable %or the death o% the child because his %elonious act (as the proxi#ate cause o% such death. -t (as Rusto#8s act o% pullin& 0live8s hand (hich caused the latter to %all on her bab . .ad -t not been %or said act o% Rusto#, (hich is undoubtedl %elonious (at least sli&ht coercion! there (as no cause %or 0live to %all over her bab . -n short, Rusto#8s %elonious act is the cause o% the evil caused. An person per%or#in& a %elonious act is cri#inall liable %or the direct, natural and lo&ical conse4uence thereo% althou&h di%%erent %ro# (hat he intended (Art. %, par. #, *!C/ People v , Pu1a2, et al, G* 3o. .%0)%, 3ov. #8, #-88). C#i-inal Lia3ili$6( =el ni +s A&$( P# >i-a$e Ca+se !1..4" $hile the cre( o% a stea#er prepared to raise anchor at the Pasi& River, A, evidentl i#patient (ith the pro&ress o% (ork, be&an to use abusive lan&ua&e a&ainst the #en. B, one o% the #e#bers o% the cre(, re#onstrated sa in& that the could (ork best i% the (ere not insulted. A took B8s attitude as a displa o% insubordination and, risin& in a ra&e, #oved to(ards B (ieldin& a bi& kni%e and threatenin& to stab B. At the instant (hen A (as onl a %e( %eet %ro# B, the latter, apparentl believin& hi#sel% to be in &reat and i##ediate peril, thre( hi#sel% into the (ater, disappeared beneath the sur%ace, and dro(ned. 7a A be held cri#inall liable %or the death o% B+ S0GGESTE1 ANSWER2 1es. A can be held cri#inall liable %or the death o% B, Article > o% the Revised Penal Code provides in part that cri#inal liabilit shall be incurred b an person co##ittin& a %elon althou&h the (ron&%ul act done be di%%erent %ro# that (hich he intended. -n U.S. v . +al'e, %# Phil. %-. . (here the victi# (ho (as threatened b the accused (ith a kni%e, 3u#ped into the river but because o% the stron& current or because he did not kno( ho( to s(i#, he dro(ned, the ,upre#e Court a%%ir#ed the conviction %or ho#icide o% the accused because, i% a person a&ainst (ho# a cri#inal assault is directed believes hi#sel% to be in dan&er o% death or &reat bodil har# and in order to escape 3u#ps into the (ater, i#pelled b the instinct o% sel%-preservation, the assailant is responsible %or the ho#icide in case death results b dro(nin&. C#i-inal Lia3ili$6( =el ni +s A&$( P# >i-a$e Ca+se !1..." 6urin& the robber in a d(ellin& house, one o% the culprits happened to %ire his &un up(ard in the ceilin& (ithout #eanin& to kill an one. *he o(ner o% the house (ho (as hidin& thereat (as hit and killed as a result. *he de%ense theori?ed that the killin& (as a #ere accident and (as not perpetrated in connection (ith, or %or purposes o%, the robber . $ill ou sustain the de%ense+ $h + (><! S0GGESTE1 ANSWER2 Eo, - (ill not sustain the de%ense. *he act bein& %elonious and the proxi#ate cause o% the victi#8s death, the o%%ender is liable there%ore althou&h it #a not be intended or di%%erent %ro# (hat he intended. *he o%%ender shall be prosecuted %or the co#posite cri#e o% robber (ith ho#icide, (hether the killin& (as intentional or accidental, as lon& as the killin& (as on occasion o% the robber . C#i-inal Lia3ili$6( =el ni +s A&$( P# >i-a$e Ca+se !2001" 'uis Cru? (as deepl hurt (hen his o%%er o% love (as re3ected b his &irl%riend 7arivella one a%ternoon (hen he visited her. $hen he le%t her house, he (alked as i% he (as sleep(alkin& so #uch so that a teena&e snatcher (as able to &rab his cell phone and %lee (ithout bein& chased b 'uis. At the next 'R* station, he boarded one o% the coaches bound %or Baclaran. $hile seated, he happened to read a ne(spaper le%t on the seat and noticed that the headlines (ere about the sinkin& o% the ,uper "err (hile on its (a to Cebu. .e (ent over the list o% #issin& passen&ers (ho (ere presu#ed dead and ca#e across the na#e o% his &rand%ather (ho had raised hi# %ro# childhood a%ter he (as orphaned. .e (as shocked and his #ind (ent blank %or a %e( #inutes, a%ter (hich he ran a#uck and, usin& his balison&, started stabbin& at the passen&ers (ho then sca#pered a(a , (ith three o% the# 5u#pin& out o% the train and

landin& on the road belo(. All the three passen&ers died later o% their in3uries at the hospital. -s 'uis liable %or the death o% the three passen&ers (ho 3u#ped out o% the #ovin& train+ ,tate our reasons. (C<! S0GGESTE1 ANSWER2 1es, 'uis is liable %or their deaths because he (as co##ittin& a %elon (hen he started stabbin& at the passen&ers and such (ron&%ul act (as the proxi#ate cause o% said passen&ers8 3u#pin& out o% the train; hence their deaths. Inder Article >, Revised Penal Code, an person co##ittin& a %elon shall incur cri#inal liabilit althou&h the (ron&%ul act done be di%%erent %ro# that (hich he intended. -n this case, the death o% the three passen&ers (as the direct, natural and lo&ical conse4uence o% 'uis8 %elonious act (hich created an i##ediate sense o% dan&er in the #inds o% said passen&ers (ho tried to avoid or escape %ro# it b 3u#pin& out o% the train. (People v . Arpa, ). SC*A #O0./ U.S. v . +al'e,, %# Phil. %-.4 C#i-inal Lia3ili$6( =el ni +s A&$( P# >i-a$e Ca+se !2009" 0n his (a ho#e %ro# o%%ice, PP rode in a 3eepne . ,ubse4uentl , NN boarded the sa#e 3eepne . Ipon reachin& a secluded spot in FC, NN pulled out a &renade %ro# his ba& and announced a hold-up. .e told PP to surrender his (atch, (allet and cellphone. "earin& %or his li%e, PP 3u#ped out o% the vehicle. But as he %ell, his head hit the pave#ent, causin& his instant death . -s NN liable %or PP8s death+ /xplain brie%l . (C<! S0GGESTE1 ANSWER2 1es, NN is liable %or PP8s death because his acts o% pullin& out a &renade and announcin& a hold-up, coupled (ith a de#and %or the (atch, (allet and cellphone o% PP is %elonious, and such %elonious act (as the proxi#ate cause o% PP8s 3u#pin& out o% the 3eepne , resultin& in the latter8s death. ,tated other(ise, the death o% PP (as the direct, natural and lo&ical conse4uence o% NN8s %elonious act (hich created an i##ediate sense o% dan&er in the #ind o% PP (ho tried to avoid such dan&er b 3u#pin& out o% the 3eepne (People v. Arpa, ). SC*A #00.). c! -#possible cri#e C#i-inal Lia3ili$62 I-% ssi3le C#i-es !2000" 1. ). $hat is an i#possible cri#e+ ()<! -s an i#possible cri#e reall a cri#e+ ()<!

S0GGESTE1 ANSWER2 1 An i#possible cri#e is an act (hich (ould be an o%%ense a&ainst person or propert , (ere i% not %or the inherent i#possibilit o% its acco#plish#ent or on account o% the e#plo #ent o% inade4uate or ine%%ectual #eans (Art. >, par. ), RPC! ) Eo, an i#possible cri#e is not reall a cri#e. -t is onl so-called because the act &ives rise to cri#inal liabilit . But actuall , no %elon is co##itted. *he accused is to be punished %or his cri#inal tendenc or propensit althou&h no cri#e (as co##itted. C#i-inal Lia3ili$6( I-% ssi3le C#i-e !2009" 0P and 10 (ere both courtin& their co-e#plo ee, ,I/. Because o% their bitter rivalr , 0P decided to &et rid o% 10 b poisonin& hi#. 0P poured a substance into 108s co%%ee thinkin& it (as arsenic. -t turned out that the substance (as (hite su&ar substitute kno(n as /4ual. Eothin& happened to 10 a%ter he drank the co%%ee. $hat cri#inal liabilit did 0P incur, i% an + /xplain brie%l . (C<! S0GGESTE1 ANSWER2 0P incurred cri#inal liabilit %or an i#possible cri#e o% #urder. Cri#inal liabilit shall be incurred b an person per%or#in& an act (hich (ould be an o%%ense a&ainst persons or propert , (ere it not %or the inherent i#possibilit o% its acco#plish#ent or on account o% the e#plo #ent o% inade4uate or ine%%ectual #eans (Art. >, par. ), RPC!. -n the proble# &iven, the i#possibilit o% acco#plishin& the cri#e o% #urder, a cri#e a&ainst persons, (as due to the e#plo #ent o% ine%%ectual #eans (hich 0P thou&ht (as poison. *he la( i#putes cri#inal liabilit to the o%%ender

althou&h no cri#e resulted, onl to suppress his cri#inal propensit because sub3ectivel , he is a cri#inal thou&h ob3ectivel , no cri#e (as co##itted. C#i-inal Lia3ili$6( I-% ssi3le C#i-es !1..9" 5P, Aries and Randal planned to kill /lsa, a resident o% Baran&a Pula, 'aurel, Batan&as. *he asked the assistance o% /lla, (ho is %a#iliar (ith the place. 0n April :, 199), at about 19=99 in the evenin&, 5P, Aries and Randal, all ar#ed (ith auto#atic (eapons, (ent to Baran&a Pula. /lla, bein& the &uide, directed her co#panions to the roo# in the house o% /lsa. $hereupon, 5P, Aries and Randal %ired their &uns at her roo#. "ortunatel , /lsa (as not around as she attended a pra er #eetin& that evenin& in another baran&a in 'aurel. 5P, et al, (ere char&ed and convicted o% atte#pted #urder b the Re&ional *rial Court at *anauan, Batan&as. 0n appeal to the Court o% Appeals, all the accused ascribed to the trial court the sole error o% %indin& the# &uilt o% atte#pted #urder. -% ou (ere the ponente, ho( (ill ou decide the appeal+ S0GGESTE1 ANSWER2 -% - (ere the ponente, - (ill set aside the 3ud&#ent convictin& the accused o% atte#pted #urder and instead %ind the# &uilt o% i#possible cri#e under Art. >, par. ), RPC, in relation to Art. C9, RPC. 'iabilit %or i#possible cri#e arises not onl (hen the i#possibilit is le&al, but like(ise (hen it is %actual or ph sical i#possibilit , as in the case at bar. /lsa8s absence %ro# the house is a ph sical i#possibilit (hich renders the cri#e intended -nherentl incapable o% acco#plish#ent. *o convict the accused o% atte#pted #urder (ould #ake Art. >, par. ) practicall useless as all circu#stances (hich prevented the consu##ation o% the o%%ense (ill be treated as an incident independent o% the actor8s (ill (hich is an ele#ent o% atte#pted or %rustrated %elon (&nto' v . CA, )#5 SC*A 5)). C#i-inal Lia3ili$62 I-% ssi3le C#i-es !1..;" Budd al(a s resented his class#ate, 5un. 0ne da . Budd planned to kill 5un b #ixin& poison in his lunch. Eot kno(in& (here he can &et poison, he approached another class#ate, 5err to (ho# he disclosed his evil plan. Because he hi#sel% harbored resent#ent to(ards 5un, 5err &ave Budd a poison, (hich Budd placed on 5un8s %ood. .o(ever, 5un did not die because, unkno(n to both Budd and 5err , the poison (as actuall po(dered #ilk. 1. $hat cri#e or cri#es, i% an , did 5err and Budd co##it+ L:<M ). ,uppose that, because o% his severe aller& to po(dered #ilk, 5un had to be hospitali?ed %or 19 da s %or in&estin& it. $ould our ans(er to the %irst 4uestion be the sa#e+ L)<M S0GGESTE1 ANSWER2 1. 5err and Budd are liable %or the so-called ;i#possible cri#e; because, (ith intent to kill, the tried to poison 5un and thus perpetrate 7urder, a cri#e a&ainst persons. 5un (as not poisoned onl because the (ould-be killers (ere una(are that (hat the #ixed (ith the %ood o% 5un (as po(dered #ilk, not poison. -n short, the act done (ith cri#inal intent b 5err and Budd , (ould have constituted a cri#e a&ainst persons (ere it not %or the inherent ine%%icac o% the #eans e#plo ed. Cri#inal liabilit is incurred b the# althou&h no cri#e resulted, because their act o% tr in& to poison 5un is cri#inal. ). Eo, the ans(er (ould not be the sa#e as above. 5err and Budd (ould be liable instead %or less serious ph sical in3uries %or causin& the hospitali?ation and #edical attendance %or 19 da s to 5un. *heir act o% #ixin& (ith the %ood eaten b 5un the #atter (hich re4uired such #edical attendance, co##itted (ith cri#inal intent, renders the# liable %or the resultin& in3ur . C#i-inal Lia3ili$6( I-% ssi3le C#i-es( ?idna%%in, !2000" Carla, > ears old, (as kidnapped b /nri4ue, the tric cle driver paid b her parents to brin& and %etch her to and %ro# school. /nri4ue (rote a ranso# note de#andin& PC99,999.99 %ro# Carla8s parents in exchan&e %or Carla8s %reedo#. /nri4ue sent the ranso# note b #ail. .o(ever, be%ore the ranso# note (as received b Carla8s parents, /nri4ue8s hideout (as discovered b the police. Carla (as rescued (hile /nri4ue (as arrested and incarcerated. Considerin& that the ranso# note (as not received b Carla8s parents, the investi&atin& prosecutor #erel %iled a case o% ;-#possible Cri#e to Co##it Jidnappin&; a&ainst /nri4ue. -s the prosecutor correct+ $h + (:<! S0GGESTE1 ANSWER2

Eo, the prosecutor is not correct in %ilin& a case %or ;i#possible cri#e to co##it kidnappin&; a&ainst /nri4ue. -#possible cri#es are li#ited onl to acts (hich (hen per%or#ed (ould be a cri#e a&ainst persons or propert . As kidnappin& is a cri#e a&ainst personal securit and not a&ainst persons or propert , /nri4ue could not have incurred an ;i#possible cri#e; to co##it kidnappin&. *here is thus no i#possible cri#e o% kidnappin&. d! ,ta&es o% execution e! Conspirac and proposal C ns%i#a&6 !1..4" A had a &rud&e a&ainst ". 6ecidin& to kill ", A and his %riends, B, C, and 6, ar#ed the#selves (ith knives and proceeded to the house o% ", takin& a taxicab %or the purpose. About )9 #eters %ro# their destination, the &roup ali&hted and a%ter instructin& /, the driver, to (ait, traveled on %oot to the house o% ". B positioned hi#sel% at a distance as the &roup8s lookout. C and 6 stood &uard outside the house. Be%ore A could enter the house, 6 le%t the scene (ithout the kno(led&e o% the others. A stealthil entered the house and stabbed ". " ran to the street but (as blocked b C, %orcin& hi# to %lee to(ards another direction. -##ediatel a%ter A had stabbed ", A also stabbed A (ho (as visitin& ". *herea%ter, A exiled %ro# the house and, to&ether (ith B and C, returned to the (aitin& taxicab and #otored a(a . A died. " survived. $ho are liable %or the death o% A and the ph sical in3uries o% "+ S0GGESTE1 ANSWER2 A alone should be held liable %or the death o% A. *he ob3ect o% the conspirac o% A. B, C, and 6 (as to kill " onl . ,ince B, C, and 6 did not kno( o% the stabbin& o% A b A, the cannot be held cri#inall there%or. /, the driver, cannot be also held liable %or the death o% A since the %or#er (as co#pletel una(are o% said killin&. "or the ph sical in3uries o% ", A, B and C. should be held liable there%ore. /ven i% it (as onl A (ho actuall stabbed and caused ph sical in3uries to A, B and C are nonetheless liable %or conspirin& (ith A and %or contributin& positive acts (hich led to the reali?ation o% a co##on cri#inal intent. B positioned hi#sel% as a lookout, (hile C blocked "8s escape. 6, ho(ever, althou&h part o% the conspirac , cannot be held liable because he le%t the scene be%ore A could enter the house (here the stabbin& occurred. Althou&h he (as earlier part o% the conspirac , he did not personall participate in the execution o% the cri#e b acts (hich directl tended to(ard the sa#e end (People v . 5omoro, et al %% Phil. 08), -n the sa#e breath, /, the driver, cannot be also held liable %or the in%liction o% ph sical in3uries upon " because there is no sho(in& that he had kno(led&e o% the plan to kill ". C ns%i#a&6( Av idan&e * G#ea$e# Evil !2009" BB and CC, both ar#ed (ith knives, attacked "*. *he victi#8s son, ,*, upon seein& the attack, dre( his &un but (as prevented %ro# shootin& the attackers b AA, (ho &rappled (ith hi# %or possession o% the &un. "* died %ro# kni%e (ounds. AA, BB and CC (ere char&ed (ith #urder. -n his de%ense, AA invoked the 3usti% in& circu#stance o% avoidance o% &reater evil or in3ur , contendin& that b preventin& ,* %ro# shootin& BB and CC, he #erel avoided a &reater evil. $ill AA8s de%ense prosper+ Reason brie%l . (C<! S0GGESTE1 ANSWER2 Eo, AA8s de%ense (ill not prosper because obviousl there (as a conspirac a#on& BB, CC and AA, such that the principle that (hen there is a conspirac , the act o% one is the act o% all, shall &overn. *he act o% ,*, the victi#8s son, appears to be a le&iti#ate de%ense o% relatives; hence, 3usti%ied as a de%ense o% his %ather a&ainst the unla(%ul a&&ression b BB and CC. ,*8s act to de%end his %ather8s li%e, cannot be re&arded as an evil inas#uch as it is, in the e es o% the la(, a la(%ul act. $hat AA did (as to stop a la(%ul de%ense, not &reater evil, to allo( BB and CC achieve their cri#inal ob3ective o% stabbin& "*. C ns%i#a&6( C @C ns%i#a$ # !1..;"

5uan and Arturo devised a plan to #urder 5oel. -n a narro( alle near 5oel8s house, 5uan (ill hide behind the bi& la#ppost and shoot 5oel (hen the latter passes throu&h on his (a to (ork. Arturo (ill co#e %ro# the other end o% the alle and si#ultaneousl shoot 5oel %ro# behind. 0n the appointed da , Arturo (as apprehended b the authorities be%ore reachin& the alle . $hen 5uan shot 5oel as planned, he (as una(are that Arturo (as arrested earlier. 6iscuss the cri#inal liabilit o% Arturo, i% an . LC<M S0GGESTE1 ANSWER2 Arturo, bein& one o% the t(o (ho devised the plan to #urder 5oel, thereb beco#es a co-principal b direct conspirac . $hat is needed onl is an overt act and both (ill incur cri#inal liabilit . Arturo8s liabilit as a conspirator arose %ro# his participation in 3ointl devisin& the cri#inal plan (ith 5uan, to kill 5ose. And it (as pursuant to that conspirac that 5uan killed 5oel. *he conspirac here is actual, not b in%erence onl . *he overt act (as done pursuant to that conspirac (hereo% Arturo is co-conspirator. *here bein& a conspirac , the act o% one is the act o% all. Arturo, there%ore, should be liable as a co-conspirator but the penalt on hi# #a be that o% an acco#plice onl (People v . 3ierra, -$ SC*A #/ People u . 6e'rano, ##% SC*A 005) because he (as not able to actuall participate in the shootin& o% 5oel, havin& been apprehended be%ore reachin& the place (here the cri#e (as co##itted. ALTERNATIVE ANSWER2 Arturo is not liable because he (as not able to participate in the killin& o% 5oel. Conspirac itsel% is not punishable unless expressl provided b la( and this is not true in the case o% 7urder. A co-conspirator #ust per%or# an overt act pursuant to the conspirac . C ns%i#a&6( C -- n =el ni +s P+#% se !1..9" At about 9=:9 in the evenin&, (hile 6ino and Ra%% (ere (alkin& alon& Padre "aura ,treet, 7anila. 5ohnn hit the# (ith a rock in3urin& 6ino at the back. Ra%% approached 6ino, but suddenl , Bobb , ,teve, 6ann and Eono surrounded the duo. *hen Bobb stabbed 6ino. ,teve, 6ann , Eono and 5ohnn kept on hittin& 6ino and Ra%% (ith rocks. As a result. 6ino died, Bobb , ,teve, 6ann , Eono and 5ohnn (ere char&ed (ith ho#icide. -s there conspirac in this case+ S0GGESTE1 ANSWER2 1es, there is conspirac a#on& the o%%enders, as #ani%ested b their concerted actions a&ainst the victi#s, de#onstratin& a co##on %elonious purpose o% assaultin& the victi#s. *he existence o% the conspirac can be in%erred or deduced %ro# the #anner the o%%enders acted in co##onl attackin& 6ino and Ra%% (ith rocks, thereb de#onstratin& a unit o% cri#inal desi&n to in%lict har# on their victi#s. C ns%i#a&6( C -%le> C#i-e 'i$) Ra%e !1../" 5ose, 6o#in&o, 7anolo, and "ernando, ar#ed (ith bolos, at about one o8clock in the #ornin&, robbed a house at a desolate place (here 6anilo, his (i%e, and three dau&hters (ere livin&. $hile the %our (ere in the process o% ransackin& 6anilo8s house, "ernando, noticin& that one o% 6anilo8s dau&hters (as tr in& to &et a(a , ran a%ter her and %inall cau&ht up (ith her in a thicket so#e(hat distant %ro# the house. "ernando, be%ore brin&in& back the dau&hter to the house, raped her %irst. *herea%ter, the %our carted a(a the belon&in&s o% 6anilo and his %a#il . a! $hat cri#e did 5ose, 6o#in&o, 7anolo and "ernando co##it+ /xplain. b! ,uppose, a%ter the robber , the %our took turns in rapin& the three dau&hters o% 6anilo inside the latter8s house, but be%ore the le%t, the killed the (hole %a#il to prevent identi%ication, (hat cri#e did the %our co##it+ /xplain. S0GGESTE1 ANSWER2 (a! 5ose, 6o#in&o, and 7anolo co##itted Robber , (hile "ernando co##itted co#plex cri#e o% Robber (ith Rape, Conspirac can be in%erred %ro# the #anner the o%%enders co##itted the robber but the rape (as co##itted b "ernando at a place ;distant %ro# the house; (here the robber (as co##itted, not in the presence o% the other conspirators. .ence, "ernando alone should ans(er %or the rape, renderin& hi# liable %or the special co#plex cri#e. (People v . Canturia et. al, G.*. #08%-0, )) 7une #--54 b! *he cri#e (ould be Robber (ith .o#icide ... (i#plied= there is still conspirac ! C ns%i#a&6( =li,)$ $ Evade A%%#e)ensi n !2003"

A and B, both store 3anitors, planned to kill their e#plo er C at #idni&ht and take the #one kept in the cash re&ister. A and B to&ether dre( the sketch o% the store, (here the kne( C (ould be sleepin&, and planned the se4uence o% their attack. ,hortl be%ore #idni&ht, A and B (ere read to carr out the plan. $hen A (as about to li%t C8s #os4uito net to thrust his da&&er, a police car (ith sirens blarin& passed b . ,cared, B ran out o% the store and %led, (hile A (ent on to stab C to death, put the #one in the ba&, and ran outside to look %or B. *he latter (as no(here in si&ht. Inkno(n to hi#, B had alread le%t the place. $hat (as the participation and correspondin& cri#inal liabilit o% each, i% an + Reasons. D< S0GGESTE1 ANSWER2 *here (as an expressed conspirac bet(een A and B to kill C and take the latter8s #one . *he planned killin& and takin& o% the #one appears to be inti#atel related as co#ponent cri#es, hence a special co#plex cri#e o% robber (ith ho#icide. *he conspirac bein& expressed, not 3ust i#plied, A and B are bound as co-conspirators a%ter the have planned and a&reed on the se4uence o% their attack even be%ore the co##itted the cri#e. *here%ore, the principle in la( that (hen there is a conspirac , the act o% one is the act o% all, alread &overns the#. -n %act, A and B (ere alread in the store to carr out their cri#inal plan. *hat B ran out o% the store and %led upon hearin& the sirens o% the police car, is not spontaneous desistance but %li&ht to evade apprehension. -t (ould be di%%erent i% B then tried to stop A %ro# continuin& (ith the co##ission o% the cri#e; he did not. ,o the act o% A in pursuin& the co##ission o% the cri#e (hich both he and B desi&ned, planned, and co##enced to co##it, (ould also be the act o% B because o% their expressed conspirac . Both are liable %or the co#posite cri#e o% robber (ith ho#icide. ALTERNATIVE ANSWER2 A shall incur %ull cri#inal liabilit %or the cri#e o% robber (ith ho#icide, but B shall not incur cri#inal liabilit because he desisted. B8s spontaneous desistance, #ade be%ore all acts o% execution are per%or#ed, is exculpator . Conspirac to rob and kill is not per se punishable. *he desistance need not be actuated b re#orse or &ood #otive. -t is enou&h that the discontinuance co#es %ro# the person (ho has be&un the co##ission o% the cri#e but be%ore all acts o% execution are per%or#ed. A person (ho has be&an the co##ission o% a cri#e but desisted, is absolved %ro# cri#inal liabilit as a re(ard to one, (ho havin& set %oot on the ver&e o% cri#e, heeds the call o% his conscience and returns to the path o% ri&hteousness. C ns%i#a&6( =li,)$ $ Evade A%%#e)ensi n !2003" A and B, both store 3anitors, planned to kill their e#plo er C at #idni&ht and take the #one kept in the cash re&ister. A and B to&ether dre( the sketch o% the store, (here the kne( C (ould be sleepin&, and planned the se4uence o% their attack. ,hortl be%ore #idni&ht, A and B (ere read to carr out the plan. $hen A (as about to li%t C8s #os4uito net to thrust his da&&er, a police car (ith sirens blarin& passed b . ,cared, B ran out o% the store and %led, (hile A (ent on to stab C to death, put the #one in the ba&, and ran outside to look %or B. *he latter (as no(here in si&ht. Inkno(n to hi#, B had alread le%t the place. $hat (as the participation and correspondin& cri#inal liabilit o% each, i% an + Reasons. D< S0GGESTE1 ANSWER2 *here (as an expressed conspirac bet(een A and B to kill C and take the latter8s #one . *he planned killin& and takin& o% the #one appears to be inti#atel related as co#ponent cri#es, hence a special co#plex cri#e o% robber (ith ho#icide. *he conspirac bein& expressed, not 3ust i#plied, A and B are bound as co-conspirators a%ter the have planned and a&reed on the se4uence o% their attack even be%ore the co##itted the cri#e. *here%ore, the principle in la( that (hen there is a conspirac , the act o% one is the act o% all, alread &overns the#. -n %act, A and B (ere alread in the store to carr out their cri#inal plan. *hat B ran out o% the store and %led upon hearin& the sirens o% the police car, is not spontaneous desistance but %li&ht to evade apprehension. -t (ould be di%%erent i% B then tried to stop A %ro# continuin& (ith the co##ission o% the cri#e; he did not. ,o the act o% A in pursuin& the co##ission o% the cri#e (hich both he and B desi&ned, planned, and co##enced to co##it, (ould also be the act o% B because o% their expressed conspirac . Both are liable %or the co#posite cri#e o% robber (ith ho#icide. ALTERNATIVE ANSWER2

A shall incur %ull cri#inal liabilit %or the cri#e o% robber (ith ho#icide, but B shall not incur cri#inal liabilit because he desisted. B8s spontaneous desistance, #ade be%ore all acts o% execution are per%or#ed, is exculpator . Conspirac to rob and kill is not per se punishable. *he desistance need not be actuated b re#orse or &ood #otive. -t is enou&h that the discontinuance co#es %ro# the person (ho has be&un the co##ission o% the cri#e but be%ore all acts o% execution are per%or#ed. A person (ho has be&an the co##ission o% a cri#e but desisted, is absolved %ro# cri#inal liabilit as a re(ard to one, (ho havin& set %oot on the ver&e o% cri#e, heeds the call o% his conscience and returns to the path o% ri&hteousness. C ns%i#a&6( I-%lied C ns%i#a&6 !1..;" $hat is the doctrine o% i#plied conspirac + L:<M S0GGESTE1 ANSWER2 *he doctrine o% i#plied conspirac holds t(o or #ore persons participatin& in the co##ission o% a cri#e collectivel responsible and liable as co-conspirators althou&h absent an a&ree#ent to that e%%ect, (hen the act in concert, de#onstratin& unit o% cri#inal intent and a co##on purpose or ob3ective. *he existence o% a conspirac shall be in%erred or deduced %ro# their cri#inal participation in pursuin& the cri#e and thus the act o% one shall be dee#ed the act o% all. C ns%i#a&6( I-%lied C ns%i#a&6( E**e&$s !2003" ,tate the concept o% ;i#plied conspirac ; and &ive its le&al e%%ects. >< S0GGESTE1 ANSWER2 An ;-7P'-/6 C0E,P-RAC1; is one (hich is onl in%erred or deduced %ro# the #anner the participants in the co##ission o% cri#e carried out its execution. $here the o%%enders acted in concert in the co##ission o% the cri#e, #eanin& that their acts are coordinated or s nchroni?ed in a (a indicative that the are pursuin& a co##on cri#inal ob3ective, the shall be dee#ed to be actin& in conspirac and their cri#inal liabilit shall be collective, not individual. *he le&al e%%ects o% an ;i#plied conspirac ; are= a! Eot all those (ho are present at the scene o% the cri#e (ill be considered conspirators; b! 0nl those (ho participated b cri#inal acts in the co##ission o% the cri#e (ill be considered as co- conspirators; and c! 7ere ac4uiescence to or approval o% the co##ission o% the cri#e, (ithout an act o% cri#inal participation, shall not render one cri#inall liable as co-conspirator. C ns%i#a&6 !2004" (a! 6istin&uish bet(een an acco#plice and a conspirator. S0GGESTE1 ANSWER2 (a! *he distinctions bet(een an acco#plice and a conspirator are= 1. An acco#plice incurs cri#inal liabilit b #erel cooperatin& in the execution o% the cri#e (ithout participatin& as a principal, b prior or si#ultaneous acts; (hereas a conspirator participates in the co##ission o% a cri#e as a coprincipal. ). An acco#plice incurs cri#inal liabilit in an individual capacit b his act alone o% cooperatin& in the execution o% the cri#e; (hile a conspirator incurs cri#inal liabilit not onl %or his individual acts in the execution o% the cri#e but also %or the acts o% the other participants in the co##ission o% the cri#e collectivel . *he acts o% the other participants in the execution o% the cri#e are considered also as acts o% a conspirator %or purposes o% collective cri#inal responsibilit . :. An acco#plice participates in the execution o% a cri#e (hen the cri#inal desi&n or plan is alread in place; (hereas a conspirator participates in the adoption or #akin& o% the cri#inal desi&n. >. An acco#plice is sub3ected to a penalt one de&ree lo(er than that o% a principal; (hereas a conspirator incurs the penalt o% a principal. C ns%i#a&6( C @C ns%i#a$ # !200;" Rick (as revie(in& %or the bar exa# (hen the co##ander o% a vi&ilante &roup ca#e to hi# and sho(ed hi# a list o% %ive police#en to be li4uidated b the# %or &ra%t and corruption. .e (as %urther asked i% an o% the# is innocent. A%ter

&oin& over the list, Rick pointed to t(o o% the police#en as honest. 'ater, the vi&ilante &roup li4uidated the three other police#en in the list. *he co##ander o% the vi&ilante &roup reported the li4uidation to Rick . -s Rick cri#inall liable+ /xplain. (K<! S0GGESTE1 ANSWER2 Eo, Rick is not cri#inall liable because he has not done an overt act that the la( punishes as a cri#e. .e did not conspire (ith the vi&ilante &roup. Althou&h his act o% pontin& out t(o police#en as honest #en #a i#pl his ac4uiescence to the vi&ilante8s conclusion that the others (ere corrupt and deserved to be killed, #ere ac4uiescence to a cri#e, absent an cri#inal participation, does not #ake one a co-conspirator. %! 7ultiple o%%enders (di%%erences, rules, e%%ects! (i! Recidivis# (ii! .abitualit (Reiteracion! (iii! Fuasi-Recidivis# (iv! .abitual 6elin4uenc <a3i$+al 1elin7+en&6 A Re&idivis- !2001" 5uan de Castro alread had three (:! previous convictions b %inal 3ud&#ent %or the%t (hen he (as %ound &uilt o% Robber (ith .o#icide. -n the last case, the trial 5ud&e considered a&ainst the accused both recidivis# and habitual delin4uenc . *he accused appealed and contended that in his last conviction, the trial court cannot consider a&ainst hi# a %indin& o% recidivis# and, a&ain, o% habitual delin4uenc . -s the appeal #eritorious+ /xplain. (C<! S0GGESTE1 ANSWER2 Eo, the appeal is not #eritorious. Recidivis# and habitual delin4uenc are correctl considered in this case because the basis o% recidivis# is di%%erent %ro# that o% habitual delin4uenc . 5uan is a recidivist ... .abitual delin4uenc , (hich brin&s about an additional penalt (hen an o%%ender is convicted a third ti#e or #ore %or speci%ied cri#es, is correctl considered because 5uan had alread three (:! previous convictions b %inal 3ud&#ent %or the%t and a&ain convicted %or Robber $ith .o#icide. And the cri#es speci%ied as basis %or habitual delin4uenc includes, inter alia, the%t and robber . &! Continuin& cri#es C n$in+in, O**ense v. 1eli$ C n$in+ad !1..9" 6i%%erentiate delito continuado %ro# a continuin& o%%ense. S0GGESTE1 ANSWER2 6/'-*0 C0E*-EIA60, or C0E*-EI0I, CR-7/, is a ter# used to denote as onl one cri#e a series o% %elonious acts arisin& %ro# a sin&le cri#inal resolution, not susceptible o% division, (hich are carried out in the sa#e place and at about the sa#e ti#e, and violatin& one and the sa#e penal provision. *he acts done #ust be i#pelled b one cri#inal intent or purpose, such that each act #erel constitutes a partial execution o% a particular cri#e, violatin& one and the sa#e penal provision. -t involves a concurrence o% %elonious acts violatin& a co##on ri&ht, a co##on penal provision, and i#pelled b a sin&le cri#inal i#pulse (People v . Le'e ma, .0 SC*A ..). 0n the other hand, a C0E*-EI-EA 0""/E,/ is one (hose essential in&redients took place in #ore than one #unicipalit or cit , so #uch so that the cri#inal prosecution #a be instituted and the case tried in the co#petent court o% an one o% such #unicipalit or cit . *he ter# ;C0E*-EI/6 CR-7/; or delito continuado #andates that onl one in%or#ation should be %iled a&ainst the o%%ender althou&h a series o% %elonious acts (ere per%or#ed; the ter# ;continuin& cri#e; is #ore pertinentl used (ith re%erence to the venue (here the cri#inal action #a be instituted.

h! Co#plex cri#es and special co#plex cri#es C -%le> C#i-e vs. C -% +nd C#i-e !2009" 6istin&uish clearl but brie%l = Bet(een co#pound and co#plex cri#es as concepts in the Penal Code. S0GGESTE1 ANSWER2 C07P0IE6 CR-7/, result (hen the o%%ender co##itted onl a sin&le %elonious act %ro# (hich t(o or #ore cri#es resulted. *his is provided %or in #odi%ied %or# in the %irst part o% Article >D, Revised Penal Code, li#itin& the resultin& cri#es to onl &rave and@or less &rave %elonies. .ence, li&ht %elonies are excluded even thou&h resultin& %ro# the sa#e sin&le act. C07P'/N CR-7/, result (hen the o%%ender has to co##it an o%%ense as a necessar #eans %or co##ittin& another o%%ense. 0nl one in%or#ation shall be %iled and i% proven, the penalt %or the #ore serious cri#e shall be i#posed. C -%le> C#i-e vs. S%e&ial C -%le> C#i-e vs. 1eli$ C n$in+ad !2008" 6istin&uish the %ollo(in& %ro# each other= S0GGESTE1 ANSWER2 An 0R6-EAR1 C07P'/N CR-7/ is #ade up o% t(o or #ore cri#es bein& punished in distinct provisions o% the Revised Penal Code but alle&ed in one in%or#ation either because the (ere brou&ht about b a sin&le %elonious act or because one o%%ense is a necessar #eans %or co##ittin& the other o%%ense or o%%enses. *he are alle&ed in one in%or#ation so that onl one penalt shall be i#posed. As to penalties, ordinar co#plex cri#e, the penalt %or the #ost serious cri#e shall be i#posed and in its #axi#u# period. A ,P/C-A' C07P'/N CR-7/, on the other hand, is #ade up o% t(o or #ore cri#es (hich are considered onl as co#ponents o% a sin&le indivisible o%%ense bein& punished in one provision o% the Revised Penal Code. As to penalties, special co#plex cri#e, onl one penalt is speci%icall prescribed %or all the co#ponent cri#es (hich are re&arded as one indivisible o%%ense. *he co#ponent cri#es are not re&arded as distinct cri#es and so the penalt %or the #ost serious cri#e is not the penalt to be i#posed nor in its #axi#u# period. -t is the penalt speci%icall provided %or the special co#plex cri#e that shall be applied accordin& to the rules on i#position o% the penalt . 6/'-*0 C0E*-EIA60, or C0E*-EI0I, CR-7/, is a ter# used to denote as onl one cri#e a series o% %elonious acts arisin& %ro# a sin&le cri#inal resolution, not susceptible o% division, (hich are carried out in the sa#e place and at about the sa#e ti#e, and violatin& one and the sa#e penal provision. *he acts done #ust be i#pelled b one cri#inal intent or purpose, such that each act #erel constitutes a partial execution o% a particular cri#e, violatin& one and the sa#e penal provision. -t involves a concurrence o% %elonious acts violatin& a co##on ri&ht, a co##on penal provision, and -#pelled b a sin&le cri#inal i#pulse (People v . Le'e ma, .0 SC*A ..). C -%le> C#i-e( A3e##a$i i&$+s vs. e## # in %e#s nae !1..9" 6istin&uish aberratio ictus %ro# error in personae. S0GGESTE1 ANSWER2 Aberratio ictus or #istake in the blo( occurs (hen a %elonious act #issed the person a&ainst (ho# it (as directed and hit instead so#ebod (ho (as not the intended victi#. /rror in personae, or #istake in identit occurs (hen the %elonious act (as directed at the person intended, but (ho turned out to be so#ebod else. Aberratio ictus brin&s about at least t(o ()! %elonious conse4uence, ie. the atte#pted %elon on the intended victi# (ho (as not hit and the %elon on the unintended victi# (ho (as hit. A co#plex cri#e o% the %irst %or# under Art. >D, RPC &enerall result. -n error in personae onl one cri#e is co##itted. C -%le> C#i-e( A3e##a$i I&$+sB E## # In Pe#s nae A P#ae$e# In$en$i ne- !1..." $hat do ou understand b aberratio ictus= error in personae; and praeter intentione#+ 6o the alter the cri#inal liabilit o% an accused+ /xplain. (><! S0GGESTE1 ANSWER2

AB/RRA*-0 -C*I, or #istake in the blo( occurs (hen the o%%ender delivered the blo( at his intended victi# but #issed, and instead such blo( landed on an unintended victi#. *he situation &enerall brin&s about co#plex cri#es (here %ro# a sin&le act, t(o or #ore &rave or less &rave %elonies resulted, na#el the atte#pt a&ainst the intended victi# and the conse4uence on the unintended victi#. As co#plex cri#es, the penalt %or the #ore serious cri#e shall be the one i#posed and in the #axi#u# period. -t is onl (hen the resultin& %elonies are onl li&ht that co#plex cri#es do not result and the penalties are to be i#posed distinctl %or each resultin& cri#e. /RR0R -E P/R,0EA/ or #istake in identit occurs (hen the o%%ender actuall hit the person to (ho# the blo( (as directed but turned out to be di%%erent %ro# and not the victi# intended. *he cri#inal liabilit o% the o%%ender is not a%%ected, unless the #istake in identit resulted to a cri#e di%%erent %ro# (hat the o%%ender intended to co##it, in (hich case the lesser penalt bet(een the cri#e intended and the cri#e co##itted shall be i#posed but in the #axi#u# period (Art. %-, *!C). PRA/*/R -E*/E*-0E/7 or (here the conse4uence (ent be ond that intended or expected. *his is a #iti&atin& circu#stance (Art. 1:. par. :, RPC! (hen there is a notorious disparit bet(een the act or #eans e#plo ed b the o%%ender and the resultin& %elon , i,e., the resultin& %elon could not be reasonabl anticipated or %oreseen b the o% %ender %ro# the act or #eans e#plo ed b hi#. C -%le> C#i-e( A3e##a$i I&$+s( A$$e-%$ed M+#de# 'i$) < -i&ide !2000" 6espite the #assive advertisin& ca#pai&n in #edia a&ainst %irecrackers and &un-%irin& durin& the Ee( 1ear8s celebrations, 5onas and 5a3a bou&ht ten boxes o% super lolo and pla-pla in Bocaue, Bulacan. Be%ore #idni&ht o% 6ece#ber :1, 1999, 5onas and 5a3a started their celebration b havin& a drinkin& spree at 5ona8s place b explodin& their hi&h-po(ered %irecrackers in their nei&hborhood. -n the course o% their conversation, 5onas con%ided to 5a3a that he has been keepin& a lon&-ti#e &rud&e a&ainst his nei&hbor 5epo in vie( o% the latter8s re%usal to lend hi# so#e #one . $hile under the in%luence o% li4uor, 5onas started thro(in& li&hted super lolos inside 5epo 8s %ence to irritate hi# and the sa#e exploded inside the latter8s ard. Ipon kno(in& that the thro(in& o% the super lolo (as deliberate, 5epo beca#e %urious and sternl (arned 5onas to stop his #alicious act or he (ould &et (hat he (anted. A heated ar&u#ent bet(een 5onas and 5epo ensued but 5a3a tried to cal# do(n his %riend. At #idni&ht, 5onas convinced 5a3a to lend hi# his .>C caliber pistol so that he could use it to knock do(n 5epo and to end his arro&ance. 5onas thou&ht that a%ter all, explosions (ere ever (here and nobod (ould kno( (ho shot 5epo . A%ter 5a3a lent his %irear# to 5onas, the latter a&ain started thro(in& li&hted super lolos and pla-plas at 5epo 8s ard in order to provoke hi# so that he (ould co#e out o% his house. $hen 5epo ca#e out, 5onas i##ediatel shot hi# (ith 5a3a8s .>C caliber &un but #issed his tar&et. -nstead, the bullet hit 5epo 8s %ive ear old son (ho (as %ollo(in& behind hi#, killin& the bo instantaneousl , a! $hat cri#e or cri#es can 5onas and 5a3a be char&ed (ith+ /xplain. ()<! S0GGESTE1 ANSWER2 5onas and 5a3a, can be char&ed (ith the co#plex cri#e o% atte#pted #urder (ith ho#icide because a sin&le act caused a less &rave and a &rave %elon (Art. >D. RPC!. Atte#pted #urder is a less &rave %elon , (hile consu##ated ho#icide is a &rave %elon = both are punishable b a%%lictive penalties. C -%le> C#i-e( 1 &$#ine * A3e##a$i I&$+s( N $ A%%li&a3le !1../" At the hei&ht o% an altercation, Pedrito shot Paulo but #issed, hittin& *iburcio instead, resultin& in the death o% the latter. Pedrito, invokin& the doctrine o% aberratio ictus, clai#s exe#ption %ro# cri#inal liabilit . -% ou (ere the 3ud&e, ho( (ould ou decide the case+ S0GGESTE1 ANSWER2 -% - (ere the 5ud&e, - (ill convict Pedrito and %ind hi# &uilt o% the co#plex cri#e o% .o#icide (ith Atte#pted .o#icide. *he sin&le act o% %irin& at Paulo resulted in the co##ission o% t(o %elonies, one &rave (ho#icide! and the other less &rave (atte#pted ho#icide! thus %allin& s4uarel under Art. >D, RPC; hence, the penalt (ould be %or the #ore serious cri#e (ho#icideO in its #axi#u# period (1K ears > #onths and 1 da to )9 ears!. Aberratio ictus (#istake in the blo(! could not be used as a de%ense as it is not an exe#ptin& circu#stance. Pedrito is liable under the principle o% Art. >, RPC, (hich #akes a person cri#inall liable %or all the natural and lo&ical conse4uences o% his %elonious act.

C -%le> C#i-es( C +% dCe$a$ A #e3elli n A sedi$i n !2003" 1! Can there be a co#plex cri#e o% coup d8etat (ith rebellion+ )< )! Can there be a co#plex cri#e o% coup d8etat (ith sedition+ )< S0GGESTE1 ANSWER2 1! 1es, i% there (as conspirac bet(een the o%%ender@ o%%enders co##ittin& the coup d8etat and the o%%enders co##ittin& the rebellion. B conspirac , the cri#e o% one (ould be the cri#e o% the other and vice versa. *his is possible because the o%%ender in coup d8etat #a be an person or persons belon&in& to the #ilitar or the national police or a public o%%icer, (hereas rebellion does not so re4uire. 7oreover, the cri#e o% coup d8etat #a be co##itted sin&l , (hereas rebellion re4uires a public uprisin& and takin& up ar#s to overthro( the dul constituted &overn#ent. ,ince the t(o cri#es are essentiall di%%erent and punished (ith distinct penalties, there is no le&al i#pedi#ent to the application o% Art. >D o% the Revised Penal Code. 1es, coup d8etat can be co#plexed (ith sedition because the t(o cri#es are essentiall di%%erent and distinctl punished under the Revised Penal Code. ,edition #a not be directed a&ainst the Aovern#ent or non-political in ob3ective, (hereas coup d8etat is al(a s political in ob3ective as it is directed a&ainst the Aovern#ent and led b persons or public o%%icer holdin& public o%%ice belon&in& to the #ilitar or national police. Art. >D o% the Code #a appl under the conditions therein provided.

)!

ALTERNATIVE ANSWER2 *he cri#e o% coup d8etat cannot be co#plexed (ith the cri#e o% rebellion because both cri#es are directed a&ainst the Aovern#ent or %or political purposes, althou&h the principal o%%enders are di%%erent. *he essence #a be the sa#e and thus constitute onl one cri#e. -n this situation, the t(o cri#es are not distinct and there%ore, #a not be proper to appl Article >D o% the Code. C -%le> C#i-es( 1e$e#-ina$i n * $)e C#i-e !1..." A, actuated b #alice and (ith the use o% a %ull auto#atic 7-1> sub-#achine &un, shot a &roup o% persons (ho (ere seated in a cockpit (ith one burst o% successive, continuous, auto#atic %ire. "our (>! persons (ere killed thereb , each havin& hit b di%%erent bullets co#in& %ro# the sub-#achine &un o% A. "our (>! cases o% #urder (ere %iled a&ainst A. *he trial court ruled that there (as onl one cri#e co##itted b A %or the reason that, since A per%or#ed onl one act, he havin& pressed the tri&&er o% his &un onl once, the cri#e co##itted (as #urder. Conse4uentl , the trial 3ud&e sentenced A to 3ust one penalt o% reclusion perpetua. $as the decision o% the trial 3ud&e correct+ /xplain. (><! S0GGESTE1 ANSWER2 *he decision o% the trial 3ud&e is not correct. $hen the o%%ender #ade use o% an auto#atic %irear#, the acts co##itted are deter#ined b the nu#ber o% bullets dischar&ed inas#uch as the %irear# bein& auto#atic, the o%%ender need onl press the tri&&er once and it (ould %ire continuall . "or each death caused b a distinct and separate bullet, the accused incurs distinct cri#inal liabilit . .ence, it is not the act o% pressin& the tri&&er (hich should be considered as producin& the several %elonies, but the nu#ber o% bullets (hich actuall produced the#. C -%le> C#i-es( Na$+#e A Penal$6 Inv lved !1..." $hat constitutes a co#plex cri#e+ .o( #an cri#es #a be involved in a co#plex cri#e+ $hat is the penalt there%or+ (><! S0GGESTE1 ANSWER2 A co#plex cri#e is constituted (hen a sin&le act caused t(o or #ore &rave or less &rave %elonies or (hen an o%%ense is co##itted as a necessar #eans to co##it another o%%ense (Art. >D, RPC!. At least t(o ()! cri#es are involved in a co#plex cri#e; either t(o or #ore &rave or less &rave %elonies resulted %ro# a sin&le act, or an o%%ense is co##itted as a necessar #eans %or co##ittin& another. *he penalt %or the #ore serious cri#e shall be i#posed and in its #axi#u# period. (Art. >D, RPC! C -%le> C#i-es( O#dina#6 C -%le> C#i-e vs. S%e&ial C -%le> C#i-e !2003"

6istin&uish bet(een an ordinar co#plex cri#e and a special co#plex cri#e as to their concepts and as to the i#position o% penalties. )< S0GGESTE1 ANSWER2 IN CONCEPT D An 0R6-EAR1 C07P'/N CR-7/ is #ade up o% t(o or #ore cri#es bein& punished in distinct provisions o% the Revised Penal Code but alle&ed in one -n%or#ation either because the (ere brou&ht about b a sin&le %elonious act or because one o%%ense is a necessar #eans %or co##ittin& the other o%%ense or o%%enses. *he are alle&ed in one -n%or#ation so that onl one penalt shall be i#posed. A ,P/C-A' C07P'/N CR-7/, on the other hand, is #ade up o% t(o or #ore cri#es (hich are considered onl as co#ponents o% a sin&le indivisible o%%ense bein& punished in one provision o% the Revised Penal Code. AS TO PENALTIES --n 0R6-EAR1 C07P'/N CR-7/, the penalt %or the #ost serious cri#e shall be i#posed and in its #axi#u# period. -n ,P/C-A' C07P'/N CR-7/, onl one penalt is speci%icall prescribed %or all the co#ponent cri#es (hich are re&arded as one indivisible o%%ense. *he co#ponent cri#es are not re&arded as distinct cri#es and so the penalt %or the #ost serious cri#e is not the penalt to be i#posed nor in its #axi#u# period. -t is the penalt speci%icall provided %or the special co#plex cri#e that shall be applied accordin& to the rules on i#position o% the penalt . Penal$ies2 =ine # I-%#is n-en$ vs. S+3sidia#6 I-%#is n-en$ !2008" / and 7 are convicted o% a penal la( that i#poses a penalt o% %ine or i#prison#ent or both %ine and i#prison#ent. *he 3ud&e sentenced the# to pa the %ine, 3ointl and severall , (ith subsidiar i#prison#ent in case o% insolvenc . -s the penalt proper+ /xplain. S0GGESTE1 ANSWER2 *he penalt is not proper. *he t(o accused #ust separatel pa the %ine, (hich is their penalt . ,olidar liabilit applies onl to civil liabilities. ALTERNATIVE ANSWER2 E0, because in penal la( (hen there are several o%%enders, the court in the exercise o% its discretion shall deter#ine (hat shall be the share o% each o%%ender dependin& upon the de&ree o% participation Q as principal, acco#plice or accessor . -% (ithin each class o% o%%ender, there are #ore o% the#, such as #ore than one principal or #ore than one acco#plice or accessor , the liabilit in each class o% o%%ender shall be subsidiar . An one o% the #a be re4uired to pa the civil liabilit pertainin& to such o%%ender (ithout pre3udice to recover %ro# those (hose share have been paid b another. 7a the 3ud&e i#pose an alternative penalt o% %ine or i#prison#ent+ /xplain. (><! S0GGESTE1 ANSWER2 Eo. A %ine, (hether i#posed as a sin&le or as an alternative penalt , should not and cannot be reduced or converted into a prison ter#. *here is no rule %or trans#utation o% the a#ount o% a %ine into a ter# o% i#prison#ent. (People v. 6acu cu , A.R. Eo. '->C1)K 7a C, 19D9! :. Circu#stances a%%ectin& cri#inal liabilit a! 5usti% in& circu#stances

:+s$i*6in,( 1e*ense * < n #( Re7+isi$es !2002"

$hen A arrived ho#e, he %ound B rapin& his dau&hter. Ipon seein& A, B ran a(a . A took his &un and shot B, killin& hi#. Char&ed (ith ho#icide, A clai#ed he acted in de%ense o% his dau&hter8s honor. -s A correct+ -% not, can A clai# the bene%it o% an #iti&atin& circu#stance or circu#stances+ (:<! S0GGESTE1 ANSWER2 Eo, A cannot validl invoke de%ense o% his dau&hter8s honor in havin& killed B since the rape (as alread consu##ated; #oreover, B alread ran a(a , hence, there (as no a&&ression to de%end a&ainst and no de%ense to speak o%. A #a , ho(ever, invoke the bene%it o% the #iti&atin& circu#stance o% havin& acted in i##ediate vindication o% a &rave o%%ense to a descendant, his dau&hter, under par. C, Article 1: o% the Revised Penal Code, as a#ended. :+s$i*6in,( 1e*ense * S$#an,e# !2002" A chanced upon three #en (ho (ere attackin& B (ith %ist blo(s. C, one o% the #en, (as about to stab B (ith a kni%e. Eot kno(in& that B (as actuall the a&&ressor because he had earlier challen&ed the three #en to a %i&ht, A shot C as the latter (as about to stab B. 7a A invoke the de%ense o% a stran&er as a 3usti% in& circu#stance in his %avor+ $h + ()<! S0GGESTE1 ANSWER2 1es. A #a invoke the 3usti% in& circu#stance o% de%ense o% stran&er since he (as not involved in the %i&ht and he shot C (hen the latter (as about to stab B. *here bein& no indication that A (as induced b reven&e, resent#ent or an other evil #otive in shootin& C, his act is 3usti%ied under par :, Article 11 o% the Revised Penal Code, as a#ended. :+s$i*6in,( =+l*ill-en$ * 1+$6( Re7+isi$es !2000" 'ucresia, a store o(ner, (as robbed o% her bracelet in her ho#e. *he %ollo(in& da , at about C o8clock in the a%ternoon, a nei&hbor, ))- ear old 5un-5un, (ho had an unsavor reputation, ca#e to her store to bu bottles o% beer. 'ucresia noticed her bracelet (ound around the ri&ht ar# o% 5un-5un. As soon as the latter le%t, 'ucresia (ent to a nearb police station and sou&ht the help o% a police#an on dut , Pat. $illie Re es. .e (ent (ith 'ucresia to the house o% 5un-5un to con%ront the latter. Pat. Re es introduced hi#sel% as a police#an and tried to &et hold o% 5un-5un (ho resisted and ran a(a . Pat. Re es chased hi# and %ired t(o (arnin& shots in the air. 5un-5un continued to run and (hen he (as about K #eters a(a , Pat, Re es shot hi# in the ri&ht le&. 5un-5un (as hit and he %ell do(n but he cra(led to(ards a %ence, intendin& to pass throu&h an openin& underneath. $hen Pat. Re es (as about C #eters a(a , he %ired another shot at 5un-5un hittin& hi# at the ri&ht lo(er hip. Pat. Re es brou&ht 5un-5un to the hospital, but because o% pro%use bleedin&, he eventuall died. Pat Re es (as subse4uentl char&ed (ith ho#icide. 6urin& the trial, Pat Re es raised the de%ense, b (a o% exoneration, that he acted in the %ul%ill#ent o% a dut . -s the de%ense tenable+ /xplain. (:<! S0GGESTE1 ANSWER2 Eo, the de%ense o% Pat. Re es is not tenable. *he de%ense o% havin& acted in the %ul%ill#ent o% a dut re4uires as a condition, inter alia, that the in3ur or o%%ense co##itted be the unavoidable or necessar conse4uence o% the due per%or#ance o% the dut (People v . Oani , et.al., .% Phil. )5.) . -t is not enou&h that the accused acted in %ul%ill#ent o% a dut . A%ter 5un-5un (as shot in the ri&ht le& and (as alread cra(lin&, there (as no need %or Pat, Re es to shoot hi# %urther. Clearl , Pat. Re es acted be ond the call o% dut (hich brou&ht about the cause o% death o% the victi#. :+s$i*6in,( S1( 1e*ense * < n #( Re7+isi$es !1..;" 0ne ni&ht, Ina, a oun& #arried (o#an, (as sound asleep in her bedroo# (hen she %elt a #an on top o% her. *hinkin& it (as her husband *ito, (ho ca#e ho#e a da earl %ro# his business trip, Ina let hi# have sex (ith her. A%ter the act, the #an said, ;- hope ou en3o ed it as #uch as - did.; Eot reco&ni?in& the voice, it da(ned upon 'ina that the #an (as not *ito, her husband. "urious, Ina took out *ito8s &un and shot the #an. Char&ed (ith ho#icide Ina denies culpabilit on the &round o% de%ense o% honor. -s her clai# tenable+ LC<M S0GGESTE1 ANSWER2

Eo, Ina8s clai# that she acted in de%ense o% honor, is not tenable because the unla(%ul a&&ression on her honor had alread ceased. 6e%ense o% honor as included in sel%-de%ense, #ust have been done to prevent or repel an unla(%ul a&&ression. *here is no de%ense to speak o% (here the unla(%ul a&&ression no lon&er exists. :+s$i*6in,( 1e*ense * < n #( Ele-en$s !2000" 0san&, a #arried (o#an in her earl t(enties, (as sleepin& on a bani& on the %loor o% their nipa hut beside the seashore (hen she (as a(akened b the act o% a #an #ountin& her. *hinkin& that it (as her husband, Aardo,(ho had returned %ro# %ishin& in the sea, 0san& continued her sleep but allo(ed the #an, (ho (as actuall their nei&hbor, 5ulio, to have sexual intercourse (ith her. A%ter 5ulio satis%ied hi#sel%, he said ;,ala#at 0san&; as he turned to leave. 0nl then did 0san& reali?e that the #an (as not her husband. /nra&ed, 0san& &rabbed a balison& %ro# the (all and stabbed 5ulio to death. $hen tried %or ho#icide, 0san& clai#ed de%ense o% honor. ,hould the clai# be sustained+ $h + (C<! S0GGESTE1 ANSWER2 Eo, 0san&;s clai# o% de%ense o% honor should not be sustained because the a&&ression on her honor had ceased (hen she stabbed the a&&ressor. -n de%ense o% ri&hts under para&raph 1, Art. 11 o% the RPC, -t is re4uired inter alia that there be (1! unla(%ul a&&ression, and ()! reasonable necessit o% the #eans e#plo ed to prevent or repel it. *he unla(%ul a&&ression #ust be continuin& (hen the a&&ressor (as in3ured or disabled b the person #akin& a de%ense. But i% the a&&ression that (as be&un b the in3ured or disabled part alread ceased to exist (hen the accused attacked hi#, as in the case at bar, the attack #ade is a retaliation, and not a de%ense. Para&raph 1, Article 11 o% the Code does not &overn. .ence, 0san&8s act o% stabbin& 5ulio to death a%ter the sexual intercourse (as %inished, is not de%ense o% honor but an i##ediate vindication o% a &rave o%%ense co##itted a&ainst her, (hich is onl #iti&atin&. :+s$i*6in,( S1( 1e*ense * P# %e#$6( Re7+isi$es !1../" A securit &uard, upon seein& a #an scale the (all o% a %actor co#pound (hich he (as &uardin&, shot and killed the latter. Ipon investi&ation b the police (ho therea%ter arrived at the scene o% the shootin&, it (as discovered that the victi# (as unar#ed. $hen prosecuted %or ho#icide, the securit &uard clai#ed that he #erel acted in sel%-de%ense o% propert and in the per%or#ance o% his dut as a securit &uard. -% ou (ere the 3ud&e, (ould ou convict hi# o% ho#icide+ /xplain. S0GGESTE1 ANSWER2 1es. - (ould convict the securit &uard %or .o#icide i% - (ere the 5ud&e, because his clai# o% havin& acted in de%ense o% propert and in per%or#ance o% a dut cannot %ull be 3usti%ied. /ven assu#in& that the victi# (as scalin& the (all o% the %actor co#pound to co##it a cri#e inside the sa#e, shootin& hi# is never 3usti%iable, even ad#ittin& that such act is considered unla(%ul a&&ression on propert ri&hts. -n People v . 3arvae , #)# SC*A 0)-, a person is 3usti%ied to de%end his propert ri&hts, but all the ele#ents o% sel%-de%ense under Art. 11, #ust be present. -n the instant case, 3ust like in Earvaes, the second ele#ent (reasonable necessit o% the #eans e#plo ed! is absent. .ence, he should be convicted o% ho#icide but entitled to inco#plete sel%-de%ense. :+s$i*6in,( S1( 1e*ense * P# %e#$6( Re7+isi$es !2003" *he accused lived (ith his %a#il in a nei&hborhood that o%ten (as the scene o% %re4uent robberies. At one ti#e, past #idni&ht, the accused (ent do(nstairs (ith a loaded &un to investi&ate (hat he thou&ht (ere %ootsteps o% an uninvited &uest. A%ter seein& (hat appeared to hi# an ar#ed stran&er lookin& around and out to rob the house, he %ired his &un seriousl in3urin& the #an. $hen the li&hts (ere turned on, the un%ortunate victi# turned out to be a brother-in-la( on his (a to the kitchen to &et so#e li&ht snacks. *he accused (as indicted %or serious ph sical in3uries. ,hould the accused, &iven the circu#stances, be convicted or ac4uitted+ $h + >< S0GGESTE1 ANSWER2 *he accused should be convicted because, even assu#in& the %acts to be true in his belie%, his act o% shootin& a bur&lar (hen there is no unla(%ul a&&ression on his person is not 3usti%ied. 6e%ense o% propert or propert ri&ht does not 3usti% the act o% %irin& a &un at a bur&lar unless the li%e and li#b o% the accused is alread in i##inent and i##ediate dan&er. Althou&h the accused acted out o% a #isapprehension o% the %acts, he is not absolved %ro# cri#inal liabilit .

ALTERNATIVE ANSWER2 Considerin& the &iven circu#stances, na#el ; the %re4uent robberies in the nei&hborhood, the ti#e (as past #idni&ht, and the victi# appeared to be an ar#ed bur&lar in the dark and inside his house, the accused could have entertained an honest belie% that his li%e and li#b or those o% his %a#il are alread in i##ediate and i##inent dan&er. .ence, it #a be reasonable to accept that he acted out o% an honest #istake o% %act and there%ore (ithout cri#inal intent. An honest #istake o% %act ne&atives cri#inal intent and thus absolves the accused %ro# cri#inal liabilit . (i! Anti-2iolence A&ainst $o#en and *heir Children Act o% )99> (R.A. Eo. 9)B)! (a! Battered (o#an s ndro#e

b! /xe#ptin& circu#stances E>e-%$in, Ci#&+-s$an&es( C ve#a,e !2000" A, brother o% B, (ith the intention o% havin& a ni&ht out (ith his %riends, took the coconut shell (hich is bein& used b B as a bank %or coins %ro# inside their locked cabinet usin& their co##on ke . "orth(ith, A broke the coconut shell outside o% their ho#e in the presence o% his %riends. 1. $hat is the cri#inal liabilit o% A, i% an + /xplain. (:<! ). -s A exe#pted %ro# cri#inal liabilit under Article ::) o% the Revised Penal Code %or bein& a brother o% B+ /xplain. ()<! S0GGESTE1 ANSWER2 a! A is cri#inall liable %or Robber (ith %orce upon thin&s..... b! Eo, A is not exe#pt %ro# cri#inal liabilit under Art. ::) because said Article applies onl to the%t, s(indlin& or #alicious #ischie%. .ere, the cri#e co##itted is robber . (i! 5uvenile 5ustice and $el%are Act o% )99B (R.A. Eo. 9:>>!; also re%er to Child and 1outh $el%are Code (P.6. B9:, as a#ended! (a! 6e%inition o% child in con%lict (ith the la( (b! 7ini#u# a&e o% cri#inal responsibilit (c! 6eter#ination o% a&e (d! /xe#ption %ro# cri#inal liabilit (e! *reat#ent o% child belo( a&e o% responsibilit (%! ,tatus o%%enses under ,ec. CK o% R.A. Eo. 9:>> (&! 0%%enses not applicable to children under ,ec. CD o% R.A. Eo. 9:>>

E>e-%$in, Ci#&+-s$an&es( Min #i$6 !1..;" 5ohn, an ei&ht- ear old bo , is %ond o% (atchin& the television pro&ra# ;Peo Ran&ers.; 0ne evenin& (hile he (as en&rossed (atchin& his %avorite television sho(, Petra, a #aid chan&ed the channel to enable her to (atch ;.o#e Alon& the Riles.; *his enra&ed 5ohn (ho &ot his %ather8s revolver, and (ithout (arnin&, shot Petra at the back o% her head causin& her instantaneous death. -s 5ohn cri#inall liable+ L)<M S0GGESTE1 ANSWER2 Eo, 5ohn is not cri#inall liable %or killin& Petra because he is onl D ears old (hen he co##itted the killin&. A #inor belo( nine (9! ears old is absolutel exe#pt %ro# cri#inal liabilit althou&h not %ro# civil liabilit . (Art. 1), par. ), RPC!. E>e-%$in,( Min #i$6( 11 6#s Old( A3sen&e * 1is&e#n-en$ !2000" $hile the (ere standin& in line a(aitin& their vaccination at the school clinic, Po#pin& repeatedl pulled the pon tail o% Jatreena, his 11 ears, ) #onths and 1: da s old class#ate in Arade C at the ,a#paloc /le#entar ,chool. -rritated, Jatreena turned around and s(un& at Po#pin& (ith a ball pen. *he top o% the ball pen hit the ri&ht e e o% Po#pin&

(hich bled pro%usel . Reali?in& (hat she had caused. Jatreena i##ediatel helped Po#pin&. $hen investi&ated, she %reel ad#itted to the school principal that she (as responsible %or the in3ur to Po#pin&8s e e. A%ter the incident, she executed a state#ent ad#ittin& her culpabilit . 6ue to the in3ur . Po#pin& lost his ri&ht e e. a! -s Jatreena cri#inall liable+ $h + (:<! b! 6iscuss the attendant circu#stances and e%%ects thereo%. ()<! S0GGESTE1 ANSWER2 a! Eo, Jatreena is not cri#inall liable althou&h she is civill liable. Bein& a #inor less than %i%teen (1C! ears old althou&h over nine (9! ears o% a&e, she is &enerall exe#pt %ro# cri#inal liabilit . *he exception is (here the prosecution proved that the act (as co##itted (ith discern#ent. *he burden is upon the prosecution to prove that the accused acted (ith discern#ent. *he presu#ption is that such #inor acted (ithout discern#ent, and this is stren&thened b the %act that Jatreena onl reacted (ith a ballpen (hich she #ust be usin& in class at the ti#e, and onl to stop Po#pin&8s vexatious act o% repeatedl pullin& her pon tail. -n other (ords, the in3ur (as accidental. b! *he attendant circu#stances (hich #a be considered are= 1 7inorit o% the accused as an exe#ptin& circu#stance under Article 1). para&raph :, Rev. Penal Code, (here she shall be exe#pt %ro# cri#inal liabilit , unless it (as proved that she acted (ith discern#ent. S)e is ) 'eve# &ivill6 lia3le; ) -% %ound cri#inall liable, the #inorit o% the accused as a privile&ed #iti&atin& circu#stance. A discretionar penalt lo(er b at least t(o ()! de&rees than that prescribed %or the cri#e co##itted shall be i#posed in accordance (ith Article BD. para&raph 1, Rev. Penal Code. *he sentence, ho(ever, should auto#aticall be suspended in accordance (ith ,ection C(a! o% Rep. Act Eo. D:B9 other(ise kno(n as the ;"a#il Courts Act o% 199K;; 1 Also i% %ound cri#inall liable, the ordinar #iti&atin& circu#stance o% not -ntendin& to co##it so &rave a (ron& as that co##itted, under Article 1:, para&raph :, Rev. Penal Code; and ) *he ordinar #iti&atin& circu#stance o% su%%icient provocation on the part o% the o%%ended part i##ediatel preceded the act. :+s$i*6in, vs. E>e-%$in, Ci#&+-s$an&es !2009" 6istin&uish clearl but brie%l = Bet(een 3usti% in& and exe#ptin& circu#stances in cri#inal la(. S0GGESTE1 ANSWER2 5usti% in& circu#stance a%%ects the act, not the actor; (hile exe#ptin& circu#stance a%%ects the actor, not the act. -n 3usti% in& circu#stance, no cri#inal and, &enerall , no civil liabilit is incurred; (hile in exe#ptin& circu#stance, civil liabilit is &enerall incurred althou&h there is no cri#inal liabilit . 5usti% in& vs. /xe#ptin& Circu#stances (199D! 6istin&uish bet(een 3usti% in& and exe#ptin& circu#stances. L:<M S0GGESTE1 ANSWER2 -n :+s$i*6in, Ci#&+-s$an&es= 1 ) : > *he circu#stance a%%ects the act, not the actor; *he act is done (ithin le&al bounds, hence considered as not a cri#e; ,ince the act is not a cri#e, there is no cri#inal; *here bein& no cri#e nor cri#inal, there is no cri#inal nor civil liabilit . $hereas, in an

E>e-%$in, Ci#&+-s$an&es= 1 ) : cri#e; > *he circu#stance a%%ects the actor, not the act; *he act is %elonious and hence a cri#e but the actor acted (ithout voluntariness; Althou&h there is a cri#e, there is no cri#inal because the actor is re&arded onl as an instru#ent o% the *here bein& a (ron& done but no cri#inal. c! 7iti&atin& circu#stances

Mi$i,a$in,( N n@In$ >i&a$i n !2000" 6espite the #assive advertisin& ca#pai&n in #edia a&ainst %irecrackers and &un-%irin& durin& the Ee( 1ear8s celebrations, 5onas and 5a3a bou&ht ten boxes o% super lolo and pla-pla in Bocaue, Bulacan. Be%ore #idni&ht o% 6ece#ber :1, 1999, 5onas and 5a3a started their celebration b havin& a drinkin& spree at 5ona8s place b explodin& their hi&h-po(ered %irecrackers in their nei&hborhood. -n the course o% their conversation, 5onas con%ided to 5a3a that he has been keepin& a lon&-ti#e &rud&e a&ainst his nei&hbor 5epo in vie( o% the latter8s re%usal to lend hi# so#e #one . $hile under the in%luence o% li4uor, 5onas started thro(in& li&hted super lolos inside 5epo 8s %ence to irritate hi# and the sa#e exploded inside the latter8s ard. Ipon kno(in& that the thro(in& o% the super lolo (as deliberate, 5epo beca#e %urious and sternl (arned 5onas to stop his #alicious act or he (ould &et (hat he (anted. A heated ar&u#ent bet(een 5onas and 5epo ensued but 5a3a tried to cal# do(n his %riend. At #idni&ht, 5onas convinced 5a3a to lend hi# his .>C caliber pistol so that he could use it to knock do(n 5epo and to end his arro&ance. 5onas thou&ht that a%ter all, explosions (ere ever (here and nobod (ould kno( (ho shot 5epo . A%ter 5a3a lent his %irear# to 5onas, the latter a&ain started started thro(in& li&hted super lolos and pla-plas at 5epo 8s ard in order to provoke hi# so that he (ould co#e out o% his house. $hen 5epo ca#e out, 5onas i##ediatel shot hi# (ith 5a3a8s .>C caliber &un but #issed his tar&et. -nstead, the bullet hit 5epo 8s %ive ear old son (ho (as %ollo(in& behind hi#, killin& the bo instantaneousl , a! $hat cri#e or cri#es can 5onas and 5a3a be char&ed (ith+ /xplain. ()<! b! -% ou (ere 5onas8 and 5a3a8s la( er, (hat possible de%enses (ould ou set up in %avor o% our clients+ /xplain. ()<! c! -% ou (ere the 5ud&e, ho( (ould ou decide the case+ /xplain. (1<! S0GGESTE1 ANSWER2 a! 5onas and 5a3a, can be char&ed (ith the co#plex cri#e o% atte#pted #urder (ith ho#icide because a sin&le act caused a less &rave and a &rave %elon (Art. >D. RPC!.... b! -% - (ere 5onas8 and 5a3a8s la( er, - (ill use the %ollo(in& de%enses= 1 *hat the accused had no intention to co##it so &rave a (ron& as that co##itted as the #erel intended to %ri&hten 5epo ; ) *hat 5onas co##itted the cri#e in a state o% intoxication thereb i#pairin& his (ill po(er or capacit to understand the (ron&%ulness o% his act. Eon-intentional intoxication is a #iti&atin& circu#stance (People u . !ortich, )8# SC*A $00 (#--.)/ Art. #5, *PC.). Mi$i,a$in,( Plea * G+il$6 !1..." An accused char&ed (ith the cri#e o% ho#icide pleaded ;not &uilt ; durin& the preli#inar investi&ation be%ore the 7unicipal Court. Ipon the elevation o% the case to the Re&ional *rial Court the Court o% co#petent 3urisdiction, he pleaded &uilt %reel and voluntaril upon arrai&n#ent. Can his plea o% &uilt be%ore the R*C be considered spontaneous and thus entitle hi# to the #iti&atin& circu#stance o% spontaneous plea o% &uilt under Art. 1:(K!, RPC+ (:<! S0GGESTE1 ANSWER2 1es, his plea o% &uilt be%ore the Re&ional *rial Court can be considered spontaneous, %or (hich he is entitled to the #iti&atin& circu#stance o% plea o% &uilt . .is plea o% not &uilt be%ore the 7unicipal Court is i##aterial as it (as #ade durin& preli#inar investi&ation onl and be%ore a court not co#petent to render 3ud&#ent. Mi$i,a$in,( Plea * G+il$6( Re7+isi$es !1..." -n order that the plea o% &uilt #a be #iti&atin&, (hat re4uisites #ust be co#plied (ith+ ()<! S0GGESTE1 ANSWER2 "or plea o% &uilt to be #iti&atin&, the re4uisites are= 1 *hat the accused spontaneousl pleaded &uilt to the cri#e char&ed; ) *hat such plea (as #ade be%ore the court co#petent to tr the case and render 3ud&#ent; and : *hat such plea (as #ade prior to the presentation o% evidence %or the prosecution. Mi$i,a$in,( Plea * G+il$6( V l+n$a#6 S+##ende# !1..4" A%ter killin& the victi#, the accused absconded. .e succeeded in eludin& the police until he sur%aced and surrendered to the authorities about t(o ears later. Char&ed (ith #urder, he pleaded not &uilt but, a%ter the prosecution had

presented t(o (itnesses i#plicatin& hi# to the cri#e, he chan&ed his plea to that o% &uilt . ,hould the #iti&atin& circu#stances o% voluntar surrender and plea o% &uilt be considered in %avor o% the accused+ S0GGESTE1 ANSWER2 2oluntar surrender should be considered as a #iti&atin& circu#stance. A%ter t(o ears, the police (ere still una(are o% the (hereabouts o% the accused and the latter could have continued to elude arrest. Accordin&l , the surrender o% the accused should be considered #iti&atin& because it (as done spontaneousl , indicative o% the re#orse or repentance on the part o% said accused and there%ore, b his surrender, the accused saved the Aovern#ent expenses, e%%orts, and ti#e. ALTERNATIVE ANSWER2 2oluntar surrender #a not be appreciated in %avor o% the accused. *(o ears is too lon& a ti#e to consider the surrender as spontaneous (People u . Ablao, #80 SC*A $58). "or sure the &overn#ent had alread incurred considerable e%%orts and expenses in lookin& %or the accused. Plea o% &uilt can no lon&er be appreciated as a #iti&atin& circu#stance because the prosecution had alread started (ith the presentation o% its evidence (Art. 1:, par. K. Revised Penal Code!. Mi$i,a$in,( V l+n$a#6 S+##ende# !1../" .ilario, upon seein& his son en&a&ed in a scu%%le (ith Rene, stabbed and killed the latter. A%ter the stabbin&, he brou&ht his son ho#e. *he Chie% o% Police o% the to(n, acco#panied b several police#en, (ent to .ilario8s house, .ilario, upon seein& the approachin& police#en, ca#e do(n %ro# his house to #eet the# and voluntaril (ent (ith the# to the Police ,tation to be investi&ated in connection (ith the killin&. $hen eventuall char&ed (ith and convicted o% ho#icide, .ilario, on appeal, %aulted the trial court %or not appreciatin& in his %avor the #iti&atin& circu#stance o% voluntar surrender. -s he entitled to such a #iti&atin& circu#stance+ /xplain. S0GGESTE1 ANSWER2 1es, .ilario is entitled to the #iti&atin& circu#stance o% voluntar surrender. *he crux o% the issue is (hether the %act that .ilario (ent ho#e a%ter the incident, but ca#e do(n and #et the police o%%icers and (ent (ith the# is considered ;2oluntar surrender,; *he voluntariness o% surrender is tested i% the sa#e is spontaneous sho(in& the intent o% the accused to sub#it hi#sel% unconditionall to the authorities. *his #ust be either (a! because he ackno(led&es his &uilt, or (b! because he (ishes to save the# the trouble and expenses necessaril incurred in his search and capture. (*e2e 8 Commentarie , p. 000). *hus, the act o% the accused in hidin& a%ter co##ission o% the cri#e, but voluntaril (ent (ith the police#en (ho had &one to his hidin& place to investi&ate, (as held to be #iti&atin& circu#stance.( People v . 9a2rit, cite' in *e2e 8 Commentarie , p. )--) Mi$i,a$in,( V l+n$a#6 S+##ende#( Ele-en$s !1..." $hen is surrender b an accused considered voluntar , and constitutive o% the #iti&atin& circu#stance o% voluntar surrender+ (:<! S0GGESTE1 ANSWER2 A surrender b an o%%ender is considered voluntar unconditionall to the authorities. *o be #iti&atin&, the surrender #ust be= 1 ) and : spontaneous, i.e., indicative o% ackno(led&#ent o% &uilt and not %or convenience nor conditional; #ade be%ore the &overn#ent incurs expenses, ti#e and e%%ort in trackin& do(n the o%%ender8s (hereabouts; #ade to a person in authorit or the latter8s a&ents. d! A&&ravatin& circu#stances A,,#ava$in, Ci#&+-s$an&es( Gene#is vs. E+ali*6in, !1..." 6istin&uish &eneric a&&ravatin& circu#stance %ro# 4uali% in& a&&ravatin& circu#stance. (hen it is spontaneous, indicative o% an intent to sub#it

S0GGESTE1 ANSWER2 Gene#i& A,,#ava$in, Ci#&+-s$an&es= 1 a%%ects onl the i#position o% the penalt prescribed, but not the nature o% the cri#e co##itted; ) can be o%%set b ordinar #iti&atin& circu#stances; : need not be alle&ed in the -n%or#ation as lon& as proven durin& the trial, the sa#e shall be considered in i#posin& the sentence. E+ali*6in, A,,#ava$in, Ci#&+-s$an&es2 1 ) : #ust be alle&ed in the -n%or#ation and proven durin& trial; cannot be o%%set b #iti&atin& circu#stances; a%%ects the nature o% the cri#e or brin&s about a penalt hi&her in de&ree than that ordinaril prescribed.

A,,#ava$in, Ci#&+-s$an&es( ?inds A Penal$ies !1..." Ea#e the %our (>! kinds o% a&&ravatin& circu#stances and state their e%%ect on the penalt o% cri#es and nature thereo%. (:<! S0GGESTE1 ANSWER2 *he %our (>! kinds o% a&&ravatin& circu#stances are= 1! A/E/R-C AAARA2A*-EA or those that can &enerall appl to all cri#es, and can be o%%set b #iti&atin& circu#stances, but i% not o%%set, (ould a%%ect onl the #axi#u# o% the penalt prescribed b la(; )! ,P/C-"-C AAARA2A*-EA or those that appl onl to particular cri#es and cannot be o%%set b #iti&atin& circu#stances= :! FIA'-"1-EA C-RCI7,*AEC/, or those that chan&e the nature o% the cri#e to a &raver one, or brin&s about a penalt next hi&her in de&ree, and cannot be o%%set b #iti&atin& circu#stances; >! -E./R/E* AAARA2A*-EA or those that essentiall acco#pan the co##ission o% the cri#e and does not a%%ect the penalt (hatsoever. A,,#ava$in,( M+s$ 3e alle,ed in $)e in* #-a$i n !2000" Rico, a #e#ber o% the Alpha Rho %raternit , (as killed b Pocholo, a #e#ber o% the rival &roup, ,i&#a Phi 0#e&a. Pocholo (as prosecuted %or ho#icide be%ore the Re&ional *rial Court in Binan, 'a&una. 6urin& the trial, the prosecution (as able to prove that the killin& (as co##itted b #eans o% poison in consideration o% a pro#ise or re(ard and (ith cruelt . -% ou (ere the 5ud&e, (ith (hat cri#e (ill ou convict Pocholo+ /xplain. ()<! S0GGESTE1 ANSWER2 Pocholo should be convicted o% the cri#e o% ho#icide onl because the a&&ravatin& circu#stances (hich should 4uali% the cri#e to #urder (ere not alle&ed in the -n%or#ation. *he circu#stances o% usin& poison, in consideration o% a pro#ise or re(ard, and cruelt (hich attended the killin& o% Rico could onl be appreciated as &eneric a&&ravatin& circu#stances since none o% the# have been alle&ed in the in%or#ation to 4uali% the killin& to #urder. A 4uali% in& circu#stance #ust be alle&ed in the -n%or#ation and proven be ond reasonable doubt durin& the trial to be appreciated as such. (i! Aeneric A,,#ava$in, Ci#&+-s$an&es !1../" 5ose, 6o#in&o, 7anolo, and "ernando, ar#ed (ith bolos, at about one o8clock in the #ornin&, robbed a house at a desolate place (here 6anilo, his (i%e, and three dau&hters (ere livin&. $hile the %our (ere in the process o% ransackin& 6anilo8s house, "ernando, noticin& that one o% 6anilo8s dau&hters (as tr in& to &et a(a , ran a%ter her and %inall cau&ht up (ith her in a thicket so#e(hat distant %ro# the house. "ernando, be%ore brin&in& back the dau&hter to the house, raped her %irst. *herea%ter, the %our carted a(a the belon&in&s o% 6anilo and his %a#il . 1 $hat cri#e did 5ose, 6o#in&o, 7anolo and "ernando co##it+ /xplain.

) ,uppose, a%ter the robber , the %our took turns in rapin& the three dau&hters o% 6anilo inside the latter8s house, but be%ore the le%t, the killed the (hole %a#il to prevent identi%ication, (hat cri#e did the %our co##it+ /xplain. : Inder the %acts o% the case, (hat a&&ravatin& circu#stances #a be appreciated a&ainst the %our+ /xplain. S0GGESTE1 ANSWER2 a! 5ose, 6o#in&o, and 7anolo co##itted Robber , (hile "ernando co##itted co#plex cri#e o% Robber (ith Rape... b! *he cri#e (ould be Robber (ith .o#icide because the killin&s (ere b reason (to prevent identi%ication! and on the occasion o% the robber . *he #ultiple rapes co##itted and the %act that several persons (ere killed Lho#icide!, (ould be considered as a&&ravatin& circu#stances. *he rapes are s non #ous (ith -&no#in and the additional killin& s non #ous (ith cruelt , (People v . Soli , #8) SC*A/ People v . Pla1a, )0) SC*A 50#) c! *he a&&ravatin& circu#stances (hich #a be considered in the pre#ises are= 1. Band because all the %our o%%enders are ar#ed; ). Eoctu#it because evidentl the o%%enders took advanta&e o% ni&htti#e; :. d(ellin&; and >. Ininhabited place because the house (here the cri#es (ere co##itted (as ;at a desolate place; and obviousl the o%%enders took advanta&e o% this circu#stance in co##ittin& the cri#e. A,,#ava$in,( C#+el$6( Rela$i ns)i% !1..9" Ben, a (ido(er, driven b bestial desire, poked a &un on his dau&hter Pen , %orcibl undressed her and tied her le&s to the bed. .e also burned her %ace (ith a li&hted ci&arrete. 'ike a #ad#an, he lau&hed (hile rapin& her. $hat a&&ravatin& circu#stances are present in this case+ S0GGESTE1 ANSWER2 a! Cruelt , %or burnin& the victi#8s %ace (ith a li&hted ci&arrete, thereb deliberatel au&#entin& the victi#8s su%%erin& b acts clearl unnecessar to the rape, (hile the o%%ender deli&hted and en3o ed seein& the victi# su%%er in pain (People v . Luca , #8# SC*A 0#$). b! Relationship, because the o%%ended part is a descendant (dau&hter! o% the o%%ender and considerin& that the cri#e is one a&ainst chastit . A,,#ava$in,( Ni,)$$i-e( Band !1..9" At about 9=:9 in the evenin&, (hile 6ino and Ra%% (ere (alkin& alon& Padre "aura ,treet, 7anila. 5ohnn hit the# (ith a rock in3urin& 6ino at the back. Ra%% approached 6ino, but suddenl , Bobb , ,teve, 6ann and Eono surrounded the duo. *hen Bobb stabbed 6ino. ,teve, 6ann , Eono and 5ohnn kept on hittin& 6ino and Ra%% (ith rocks. As a result. 6ino died, Bobb , ,teve, 6ann , Eono and 5ohnn (ere char&ed (ith ho#icide. Can the court appreciate the a&&ravatin& circu#stances o% ni&htti#e and band+ S0GGESTE1 ANSWER2 Eo, ni&htti#e cannot be appreciated as an a&&ravatin& circu#stance because there is no indication that the o%%enders deliberatel sou&ht the cover o% darkness to %acilitate the co##ission o% the cri#e or that the took advanta&e o% ni&htti#e (People v . 9e lo *e2e , )00 SC*A .0.). Besides, 3udicial notice can be taken o% the %act that Padre "aura ,treet is (ell-li&hted. .o(ever, band should be considered as the cri#e (as co##itted b #ore than three ar#ed #ale%actors; in a recent ,upre#e Court decision, stones or rocks are considered deadl (eapons. A,,#ava$in,( Re&idivis- !2001" 5uan de Castro alread had three (:! previous convictions b %inal 3ud&#ent %or the%t (hen he (as %ound &uilt o% Robber (ith .o#icide. -n the last case, the trial 5ud&e considered a&ainst the accused both recidivis# and habitual delin4uenc . *he accused appealed and contended that in his last conviction, the trial court cannot consider a&ainst hi# a %indin& o% recidivis# and, a&ain, o% habitual delin4uenc . -s the appeal #eritorious+ /xplain. (C<!

S0GGESTE1 ANSWER2 Eo, the appeal is not #eritorious. Recidivis# and habitual delin4uenc are correctl considered in this case because the basis o% recidivis# is di%%erent %ro# that o% habitual delin4uenc . 5uan is a recidivist because he had been previousl convicted b %inal 3ud&#ent %or the%t and a&ain %ound &uilt %or Robber (ith .o#icide, (hich are both cri#es a&ainst propert , e#braced under the sa#e *itle (*itle *en, Book *(oM o% the Revised Penal Code. *he i#plication is that he is speciali?in& in the co##ission o% cri#es a&ainst propert , hence a&&ravatin& in the conviction %or Robber (ith .o#icide. .abitual delin4uenc , (hich brin&s about an additional penalt (hen an o%%ender is convicted a third ti#e or #ore %or speci%ied cri#es, is correctl considered. A,,#ava$in,( Re&idivis- vs. E+asi@Re&idivis- !1..;" 6istin&uish bet(een recidivis# and 4uasi-recidivis#. L)<M S0GGESTE1 ANSWER2 -n #e&idivis- 1 ) *he convictions o% the o%%ender are %or cri#es e#braced in the sa#e *itle o% the Revised Penal Code; and *his circu#stance is &eneric a&&ravatin& and there%ore can be e%%ect b an ordinar #iti&atin& circu#stance.

$hereas in 7+asi@#e&idivls- 1 *he convictions are not %or cri#es e#braced in the sa#e *itle o% the Revised Penal Code, provided that it is a %elon that (as co##itted b the o%%ender be%ore servin& sentence b %inal 3ud&#ent %or another cri#e or (hile servin& sentence %or another cri#e; and ) *his circu#stance is a special a&&ravatin& circu#stance (hich cannot be o%%set b an #iti&atin& circu#stance. A,,#ava$in,( T#ea&)e#6 A 0nla'*+l En$#6 !1..4" *he accused and the victi# occupied ad3acent apart#ents, each bein& a separate d(ellin& unit o% one bi& house. *he accused suspected his (i%e o% havin& an illicit relation (ith the victi#. 0ne a%ternoon, he sa( the victi# and his (i%e to&ether on board a vehicle. -n the evenin& o% that da , the accused (ent to bed earl and tried to sleep, but bein& so anno ed over the suspected relation bet(een his (i%e and the victi#, he could not sleep. 'ater in the ni&ht, he resolved to kill victi#. .e rose %ro# bed and took hold o% a kni%e. .e entered the apart#ent o% the victi# throu&h an unlocked (indo(. -nside, he sa( the victi# soundl asleep. .e thereupon stabbed the victi#, in%lictin& several (ounds, (hich caused his death (ithin a %e( hours. $ould ou sa that the killin& (as attended b the 4uali% in& or a&&ravatin& circu#stances o% evident pre#editation, treacher , ni&htti#e and unla(%ul entr + S0GGESTE1 ANSWER2 1. /vident pre#editation cannot be considered a&ainst the accused because he resolved to kill the victi# ;later in the ni&ht; and there (as no su%%icient lapse o% ti#e bet(een the deter#ination and execution, to allo( his conscience to overco#e the resolution o% his (ill. ). *R/AC./R1 #a be present because the accused stabbed the victi# (hile the latter (as sound asleep. Accordin&l , he e#plo ed #eans and #ethods (hich directl and speciall insured the execution o% the act (ithout risk hi#sel% arisin& %ro# the de%ense (hich the victi# #i&ht have #ade (People v . 9e:uina. $0 Phil. ).- People v . 6iran'a, et at. -0 Phil. -#). :. Ei&htti#e cannot be appreciated because there is no sho(in& that the accused deliberatel sou&ht or availed o% ni&htti#e to insure the success o% his act. *he -ntention to co##it the cri#e (as conceived shortl be%ore its co##ission (People v Par'o. .- Phil, 5$8). 7oreover, ni&htti#e is absorbed in treacher . >. IE'A$"I' /E*R1 #a be appreciated as an a&&ravatin& circu#stance, inas#uch as the accused entered the roo# o% the victi# throu&h the (indo(, (hich is not the proper place %or entrance into the house ( Art. #%. par. #8.

*evi e' Penal Co'e, People v . ;aru1a $# Phil. 0#8). A,,#ava$in, Ci#&+-s$an&es !200;" Ro&er, the leader o% a cri#e s ndicate in 7alate, 7anila, de#anded the pa #ent b Antonio, the o(ner o% a #otel in that area, o% P19,999 a #onth as Gprotection #one H. $ith the #onthl pa #ents, Ro&er assured, the s ndicate (ould provide protection to Antonio, his business, and his e#plo ees. ,hould Antonio re%use, Ro&er (arned, the #otel o(ner (ould either be killed or his establish#ent destro ed. Antonio re%used to pa the protection #one . 6a s later, at around :=99 in the #ornin&, 7auro, a #e#ber o% the cri#inal s ndicate, arrived at Antonio8s ho#e and hurled &renade into an open (indo( o% the bedroo# (here Antonio, his (i%e and their three ear-old dau&hter (ere sleepin&. All three o% the# (ere killed instantl (hen the &renade exploded. ,tate, (ith reasons, the cri#e or cri#es that had been co##itted as (ell as the a&&ravatin& circu#stances, i% an , attendant thereto. (K<! S0GGESTE1 ANSWER2 B de#andin& Gprotection #one H under the threat and inti#idation that the business #an (Antonio! (ould be killed or his establish#ent destro ed i% he (ould re%use to pa the protection #one , the cri#e o% &rave threats is co##itted b Ro&er, the leader o% the cri#e s ndicate. "or killin& the business#an, his (i%e and three ear-old dau&hter, the co#plex cri#e o% #ultiple #urder (as co##itted b 7auro, a #e#ber o% the sa#e cri#e s ndicate. *he killin& is 4uali%ied b the use o% an explosive (hand &renade!. *he treacher attendin& the killin& shall be separatel appreciated as another a&&ravatin& circu#stance aside %ro# the use o% explosive as the 4uali% in& circu#stance. 0ther a&&ravatin& circu#stances (hich #a be appreciated are= 1. 6(ellin&, because the killin&s (ere co##itted in the ho#e o% the victi#s (ho had not &iven an provocation; ). Eocturnit , considerin& that the o%%enders carried out the killin& at around :=99 A7, indicative o% a deliberate choice o% ni&htti#e %or the co##ission o% the cri#e; :. *reacher , under Art. 1>, par. 1B, RPC, #entioned above, considerin& that victi#s (ere all asleep (hen killed; and >. *he o%%ense (as co##itted b a person (ho belon&s to an or&ani?ed@s ndicated cri#e &roups under the .einous Cri#es 'a( (,ec. ): R.A. KBC9!, a#endin& %or this purposed Art. B)(1! o% the Revised Penal Code. (ii! Fuali% in& E+ali*6in,( Ele-en$s * a C#i-e !2003" $hen (ould 4uali% in& circu#stances be dee#ed, i% at all, ele#ents o% a cri#e+ >< S0GGESTE1 ANSWER2 A 4uali% in& circu#stance (ould be dee#ed an ele#ent o% a cri#e (hen 1 ) : it chan&es the nature o% the cri#e, brin&in& about a #ore serious cri#e and a heavier penalt ; it is essential to the cri#e involved, other(ise so#e other cri#e is co##itted; and it is speci%icall alle&ed in the -n%or#ation and proven durin& the trial.

ALTERNATIVE ANSWER2 A 4uali% in& circu#stance is dee#ed an ele#ent o% a cri#e (hen it is speci%icall stated b la( as included in the de%inition o% a cri#e, like treacher in the cri#e o% #urder. (a! 6ecree Codi% in& the 'a(s on -lle&al@ Inla(%ul Possession,

7anu%acture, 6ealin& in, Ac4uisition or 6isposition, o% "irear#s, A##unition or /xplosives (P.6. 1DBB, as a#ended b R.A. Eo. D)9>! as an a&&ravatin& circu#stance (b! *he Co#prehensive 6an&erous 6ru&s Act o% )99) (R.A. Eo. 91BC! (i! As a 4uali% in& a&&ravatin& circu#stance (ii! -##unit %ro# prosecution and punish#ent, covera&e (iii! 7inor o%%enders (iv! Application@ Eon application o% RPC provisions (,ec. 9D, R.A. Eo. 91BC! provisions (,ec. 9D! c%. Art. 19, RPC e! Alternative circu#stances

Al$e#na$ive Ci#&+-s$an&es( In$ >i&a$i n !2002" A (as invited to a drinkin& spree b %riends. A%ter havin& had a drink too #an , A and B had a heated ar&u#ent, durin& (hich A stabbed B. As a result, B su%%ered serious ph sical in3uries. 7a the intoxication o% A be considered a&&ravatin& or #iti&atin&+ (C<! S0GGESTE1 ANSWER2 *he intoxication o% A #a be pri#a %acie considered #iti&atin& since it (as #erel incidental to the co##ission o% the cri#e. -t #a not be considered a&&ravatin& as there is no clear indication %ro# the %acts o% the case that it (as habitual or intentional on the part o% A. A&&ravatin& circu#stances are not to be presu#ed; the should be proved be ond reasonable doubt %! Absolutor cause >. Persons cri#inall liable@ 6e&ree o% participation

C#i-inal Lia3ili$6 !200;" 7anolo revealed to his %riend 6o#en& his desire to kill Cece. .e like(ise con%ided to 6o#en& his desire to borro( his revolver. 6o#en& lent it. 7anolo shot Cece in 7anila (ith 6o#en&8s revolver. As his &un (as used in the killin&, 6o#en& asked 7a or *an to help hi# escape. *he #a or &ave 6o#en& PC,999 and told hi# to proceed to 7indanao to hide. 6o#en& (ent to 7indanao. *he #a or (as later char&ed as an accessor to Cece8s #urder. a! Can he be held liable %or the char&e+ /xplain. (><! S0GGESTE1 ANSWER2 a! Aivin& 6o#en& the bene%it o% a #ilder cri#inal responsibilit o% an acco#plice, not o% a co-principal b indispensable cooperation o% 7anolo, 7a or *an could not be liable as an accessor to Cece8s #urder. *o incur cri#inal liabilit o% an accessor %or helpin& or assistin& in the escape o% an o%%ender, he #ust be a principal o% the cri#e co##itted. Inless 6o#en& (ould be considered as a co-principal b indispensable cooperation in the co##ission o% the #urder, the 7a or b assistin& hi# to escape, (ould be an accessor to the %elon . b! Can he be held liable %or an other o%%ense+ /xplain %ull . (:<! S0GGESTE1 ANSWER2 b! Althou&h the #a or #a not be held liable as an accessor to the killin& o% Cece, he #a be held liable %or obstruction o% 3ustice under Presidential 6ecree Eo. 1D)9 %or assistin& 6o#en&, (ho (as involved in the co##ission o% a cri#e, to escape %ro# 7anila to 7indanao. C#i-inal Lia3ili$6( N n@E>e-%$i n as A&&ess #6 !2009" 6CB, the dau&hter o% 7CB, stole the earrin&s o% N1P, a stran&er. 7CB pa(ned the earrin&s (ith *B- Pa(nshop as a pled&e %or PC99 loan. 6urin& the trial, 7CB raised the de%ense that bein& the #other o% 6CB, she cannot be held liable as an accessor . $ill 7CB8s de%ense prosper+ Reason brie%l . (C<! S0GGESTE1 ANSWER2

Eo, 7CB8s de%ense (ill not prosper because the exe#ption %ro# cri#inal liabilit o% an accessor b virtue o% relationship (ith the principal does not cover accessories (ho the#selves pro%ited %ro# or assisted the o%%ender to pro%it b the e%%ects or proceeds o% the cri#e. *his non-exe#ption o% an accessor , thou&h related to the principal o% the cri#e, is expressl provided in Art. )9 o% the Revised Penal Code. C#i-inal Lia3ili$6( P#in&i%al 36 1i#e&$ Pa#$i&i%a$i n( C @P#in&i%al 36 Indis%ensa3le C %e#a$i n !2000" 6espite the #assive advertisin& ca#pai&n in #edia a&ainst %irecrackers and &un-%irin& durin& the Ee( 1ear8s celebrations, 5onas and 5a3a bou&ht ten boxes o% super lolo and pla-pla in Bocaue, Bulacan. Be%ore #idni&ht o% 6ece#ber :1, 1999, 5onas and 5a3a started their celebration b havin& a drinkin& spree at 5ona8s place b explodin& their hi&h-po(ered %irecrackers in their nei&hborhood. -n the course o% their conversation, 5onas con%ided to 5a3a that he has been keepin& a lon&-ti#e &rud&e a&ainst his nei&hbor 5epo in vie( o% the latter8s re%usal to lend hi# so#e #one . $hile under the in%luence o% li4uor, 5onas started thro(in& li&hted super lolos inside 5epo 8s %ence to irritate hi# and the sa#e exploded inside the latter8s ard. Ipon kno(in& that the thro(in& o% the super lolo (as deliberate, 5epo beca#e %urious and sternl (arned 5onas to stop his #alicious act or he (ould &et (hat he (anted. A heated ar&u#ent bet(een 5onas and 5epo ensued but 5a3a tried to cal# do(n his %riend. At #idni&ht, 5onas convinced 5a3a to lend hi# his .>C caliber pistol so that he could use it to knock do(n 5epo and to end his arro&ance. 5onas thou&ht that a%ter all, explosions (ere ever (here and nobod (ould kno( (ho shot 5epo . A%ter 5a3a lent his %irear# to 5onas, the latter a&ain started started thro(in& li&hted super lolos and pla-plas at 5epo 8s ard in order to provoke hi# so that he (ould co#e out o% his house. $hen 5epo ca#e out, 5onas i##ediatel shot hi# (ith 5a3a8s .>C caliber &un but #issed his tar&et. -nstead, the bullet hit 5epo 8s %ive ear old son (ho (as %ollo(in& behind hi#, killin& the bo instantaneousl , -% ou (ere the 5ud&e, ho( (ould ou decide the case+ /xplain. (1<! S0GGESTE1 ANSWER2 - (ould convict 5onas as principal b direct participation and 5a3a as co-principal b -ndispensable cooperation %or the co#plex cri#e o% #urder (ith ho#icide. 5a3a should be held liable as co-principal and not onl as an acco#plice because he kne( o% 5onas8 cri#inal desi&n even be%ore he lent his %irear# to 5onas and still he concurred in that cri#inal desi&n b providin& the %irear#. C#i-inal Lia3ili$6( P#in&i%al 36 Ind+&e-en$ !2002" A asked B to kill C because o% a &rave in3ustice done to A b C. A pro#ised B a re(ard. B (as (illin& to kill C, not so #uch because o% the re(ard pro#ised to hi# but because he also had his o(n lon&-standin& &rud&e a&ainst C, (ho had (ron&ed hi# in the past. -% C is killed b B, (ould A be liable as a principal b induce#ent+ (C<! S0GGESTE1 ANSWER2 Eo. A (ould not be liable as a principal b induce#ent because the re(ard he pro#ised B is not the sole i#pellin& reason (hich #ade B to kill C. *o brin& about cri#inal liabilit o% a co-principal, the induce#ent #ade b the inducer #ust be the sole consideration (hich caused the person induced to co##it the cri#e and (ithout (hich the cri#e (ould not have been co##itted. *he %acts o% the case indicate that B, the killer supposedl induced b A, had his o(n reason to kill C out o% a lon& standin& &rud&e. C#i-inal Lia3ili$6( P#in&i%al( Ind+&e-en$ A Pa#$i&i%a$i n !1..9" *ata o(ns a three-store buildin& located at Eo. : .erran ,treet. Paco, 7anila. ,he (anted to construct a ne( buildin& but had no #one to %inance the construction. ,o, she insured the buildin& %or P:,999,999.99. ,he then ur&ed 1obo and 1on&si, %or #onetar consideration, to burn her buildin& so she could collect the insurance proceeds. 1obo and 1on&si burned the said buildin& resultin& to its total loss. $hat is their respective cri#inal liabilit + S0GGESTE1 ANSWER2 *ata is a principal b induce#ent because she directl induced 1obo and 1on&si, %or a price or #onetar consideration, to co##it arson (hich the latter (ould not have co##itted (ere it not %or such reason. 1obo and 1on&si are principals b direct participation (Art. #., par . )# an' 0, *PC). 1es$#+&$ive A#s n !1..9" *ata o(ns a three-store buildin& located at Eo. : .erran ,treet. Paco, 7anila. ,he (anted to construct a ne( buildin& but had no #one to %inance the construction. ,o, she insured the buildin& %or P:,999,999.99. ,he then ur&ed 1obo

and 1on&si, %or #onetar consideration, to burn her buildin& so she could collect the insurance proceeds. 1obo and 1on&si burned the said buildin& resultin& to its total loss. $hat cri#e did *ata, 1obo and 1on&si co##it+ S0GGESTE1 ANSWER2 *ata, 1obo and 1on&si co##itted the cri#e o% destructive arson because the collectivel caused the destruction o% propert b #eans o% %ire under the circu#stances (hich exposed to dan&er the li%e or propert o% others (Art, 0)0, par. 5, *PC. a amen'e' b2 *A 3o. .$5-). a! 6ecree Penali?in& 0bstruction o% Apprehension and Prosecution o% Cri#inal 0%%enders (P.6. 1D)9! (i! Punishable acts (ii! Co#pare (ith Art. )9, RPC (accessories exe#pt %ro# cri#inal liabilit ! C. Penalties a! Aeneral principles Penal$ies !2004" $hat are the penalties that #a be served si#ultaneousl + S0GGESTE1 ANSWER2 *he penalties that #a be served si#ultaneousl are i#prison#ent@destierro and= 1. Perpetual absolute dis4uali%ication; ). Perpetual special dis4uali%ication; :. *e#porar absolute dis4uali%ication >. *e#porar special dis4uali%ication C. ,uspension %ro# public o%%ice, the ri&ht to vote and be voted %or, and the ri&ht to %ollo( pro%ession or callin&; B. "ine; and an principal penalt (ith its accessor penalties. Penal$ies2 Pe&+nia#6 Penal$ies vs. Pe&+nia#6 Lia3ili$ies !2008" 6istin&uish pecuniar penalties %ro# pecuniar liabilities. ()<! S0GGESTE1 ANSWER= Pecuniar liabilities do not include restitution, but include reparation o% da#a&es caused, the inde#ni%ication %or conse4uential da#a&es, as (ell as %ines and cost o% the proceedin&s. Pecuniar penalties include %ines and cost o% the proceedin&s. Penal$ies( C -%le> C#i-e * Es$a*a !1..4" A (as convicted o% the co#plex cri#e o% esta%a throu&h %alsi%ication o% public docu#ent. ,ince the a#ount -nvolved did not exceed P)99.99, the penalt prescribed b la( %or esta%a is arresto #a or in its #ediu# and #axi#u# periods. *he penalt prescribed b la( %or %alsi%ication o% public docu#ent is prision #a or plus %ine not to exceed PC,999.99. -#pose the proper prison penalt . S0GGESTE1 ANSWER2 *he proper penalt is AE1 RAEA/ $-*.-E prision correccional (six (B! #onths and one (1! da to six (B! ears! as 7-E-7I7, to AE1 RAEA/ (ithin prision #a or #axi#u# (ten (19! ears and one (1! da to t(elve (1)! ears! as

7AN-7I7. *his is in accordance (ith People us, Aon?ales, K: Phil, C>9, (here -t (as ruled that %or the purpose o% deter#inin& the penalt next lo(er in de&ree, the penalt that should be considered as a startin& point is the (hole o% prision #a or, it bein& the penalt prescribed b la(, and not prision #a or in its #axi#u# period, (hich is onl the penalt actuall applied because o% Article >D o% the Revised Penal Code. *he penalt next lo(er in de&ree there%or is prision correccional and it is (ithin the ran&e o% this penalt that the #ini#u# should be taken. Penal$ies( =a&$ #s $ C nside# !1..1" -#a&ine that ou are a 5ud&e tr in& a case, and based on the evidence presented and the applicable la(, ou have decided on the &uilt o% t(o ()! accused. -ndicate the %ive (C! steps ou (ould %ollo( to deter#ine the exact penalt to be i#posed. ,tated di%%erentl , (hat are the %actors ou #ust consider to arrive at the correct penalt + S0GGESTE1 ANSWER2 1 ) : > C the cri#e co##itted; ,ta&e o% execution and de&ree o% participation; 6eter#ine the penalt ; Consider the #odi% in& circu#stances; 6eter#ine (hether -ndeter#inate ,entence 'a( is applicable or not.

Penal$ies( < -i&ide 'F M di*6in, Ci#&+-s$an&e !1..8" .o#er (as convicted o% ho#icide. *he trial court appreciated the %ollo(in& #odi% in& circu#stances= the a&&ravatin& circu#stance o% nocturnit , and the #iti&atin& circu#stances o% passion and ob%uscation, no intent to co##it so &rave a (ron&, illiterac and voluntar surrender. *he i#posable penalt %or ho#icide is reclusion te#poral the ran&e o% (hich is t(elve (1)! ears and one (1! da to t(ent ()9! ears. *akin& into account the attendant a&&ravatin& and #iti&atin& circu#stances, and appl in& the -ndeter#inate ,entence 'a(, deter#ine the proper penalt to be i#posed on the accused. S0GGESTE1 ANSWER2 -t appears that there is one a&&ravatin& circu#stance (nocturnit !, and %our #iti&atin& circu#stances (passion and ob%uscation, no intent to co##it so &rave a (ron& as that co##itted and voluntar surrender!. Par. >, Art. B> should be applied. .ence there (ill be o%%-settin& o% #odi% in& circu#stances, (hich (ill no( result in the excess o% three #iti&atin& circu#stances. *his (ill there%ore 3usti% in reducin& the penalt to the #ini#u# period. *he existence o% an a&&ravatin& circu#stance, albeit there are %our a&&ravatin&, (ill not 3usti% the lo(erin& o% the penalt to the next lo(er de&ree under para&raph C o% said Article, as this is applicable onl i% *./R/ -, E0 AAARA2A*-EA C-RCI7,*AEC/ present. ,ince the cri#e co##itted is .o#icide and the penalt there%or is reclusion te#poral, the 7AN-7I7 sentence under the -ndeter#inate ,entence 'a( should be the #ini#u# o% the penalt , (hich is 1) ears and 1 da to 1> ears and D #onths. *he 7-E-7I7 penalt (ill thus be the penalt next lo(er in de&ree, (hich is prision #a or in its %ull extent (B ears and 1 da to 1) ears!. /r&o, the proper penalt (ould be B ears and 1 da , as #ini#u#, to 1) ears and 1 da , as #axi#u#. - believe that because o% the re#ainin& #iti&atin& circu#stances a%ter the o%%-settin& it (ould be ver lo&ical to i#pose the #ini#u# o% the 7-E-7I7 sentence under the -,' and the #ini#u# o% the 7AN-7I7 sentence. Penal$ies( Mi$i,a$in, Ci#&+-s$an&es 'F +$ A,,#ava$in, Ci#&+-s$an&e !1..4" Assu#e in the precedin& proble# that there (ere t(o #iti&atin& circu#stances and no a&&ravatin& circu#stance. -#pose the proper prison penalt . S0GGESTE1 ANSWER2

*here bein& t(o ()! #iti&atin& circu#stances (ithout an a&&ravatin& circu#stance, the proper prison penalt is arresto #a or (in an o% its periods, ie. ran&in& %ro# one (1! #onth and one (1! da to six (B! #onths! as 7-E-7I7 to prision correccional in its #axi#u# period %our (>! ears, t(o ()! #onths, and one (1! da to six (B! ears as 7AN-7I7. Inder Art. B>, par. C o% the Revised Penal Code, (hen a penalt contains three periods, each one o% (hich %or#s a period in accordance (ith Article KB and KK o% the sa#e Code, and there are t(o or #ore #iti&atin& circu#stances and no a&&ravatin& circu#stances, the penalt next lo(er in de&ree should be i#posed. "or purposes o% the -ndeter#inate ,entence 'a(, the penalt next lo(er in de&ree should be deter#ined (ithout re&ard as to (hether the basic penalt provided b the Revised Penal Code should be applied in its #axi#u# or #ini#u# period as circu#stances #odi% in& liabilit #a re4uire. *he penalt next lo(er in de&ree to prision correccional. *here%ore, as previousl stated, the #ini#u# should be (ithin the ran&e o% arresto #a or and the #axi#u# is (ithin the ran&e o% prision correctional in its #axi#u# period. Penal$ies( Pa##i&ide 'F Mi$i,a$in, Ci#&+-s$an&e !1..4" A and B pleaded &uilt to the cri#e o% parricide. *he court %ound three #iti&atin& circu#stances, na#el , plea o% &uilt , lack o% -nstruction and lack o% intent to co##it so &rave a (ron& as that co##itted. *he prescribed penalt %or parricide is reclusion perpetua to death. -#pose the proper principal penalt . S0GGESTE1 ANSWER2 *he proper penalt is reclusion perpetua. /ven i% there are t(o or #ore #iti&atin& circu#stances, a court cannot lo(er the penalt b one de&ree (Art. B:. par. :, Revised Penal Code; People vs. "or#i&ones, DK Phil. BDC!. -n I.,. vs. Relador B9 Phil. C9:, (here the cri#e co##itted (as parricide (ith the t(o ()! #iti&atin& circu#stances o% illiterac and lack o% intention to co##it so &rave a (ron&, and (ith no a&&ravatin& circu#stance, the ,upre#e Court held that the proper, penalt to be i#posed is reclusion perpetua. Penal$ies( P#even$ive I-%#is n-en$ !1..9" 1! $hen is there preventive i#prison#ent+ )! $hen is the accused credited (ith the %ull ti#e o% his preventive i#prison#ent, and (hen is he credited (ith >@C thereo%+ S0GGESTE1 ANSWER2 1! *here is preventive i#prison#ent (hen La! an o%%ender is detained (hile the cri#inal case a&ainst hi# is bein& heard, either because the cri#e co##itted is a capital o%%ense and not bailable, or even i% the cri#e co##itted (as bailable, the o%%ender could not post the re4uired bail %or his provisional libert . )! An accused is credited (ith the %ull ti#e o% his preventive i#prison#ent i% he voluntaril a&reed in (ritin& to abide b the rules o% the institution i#posed upon its prisoners, provided that= a! the penalt i#posed on hi# %or the cri#e co##itted consists o% a deprivation o% libert ; b! he is not dis4uali%ied %ro# such credit %or bein& a recidivist, or %or havin& been previousl convicted %or t(o or #ore ti#es o% an cri#e, or %or havin& %ailed to surrender voluntaril %or the execution o% the sentence upon bein& so su##oned (Art. )9, RPC!. $here the accused ho(ever did not a&ree he (ould onl be credited (ith >@C o% the ti#e he had under&one preventive i#prison#ent. Penal$ies( Re&l+si n Pe#%e$+a !RA" N . 4.8. !2008" Inder Article )K o% the Revised Penal Code, as a#ended b Republic Act (RA! Eo. K9C9, reclusion perpetua shall be %ro# )9 ears and 1 da to >9 ears. 6oes this #ean that reclusion perpetua is no( a divisible penalt + /xplain. ()<! S0GGESTE1 ANSWER2

Eo, because the ,upre#e Court has repeatedl called the attention o% the Bench and the Bar to the %act that the penalties o% reclusion perpetua and li%e i#prison#ent are not s non #ous and should be applied correctl and as #a be speci%ied b the applicable la(. Reclusion perpetua has a speci%ic duration o% )9 ears and 1 da to >9 ears (Art. )K! and accessor penalties (Art. >1!, (hile li%e i#prison#ent has no de%inite ter# or accessor penalties. Also, li%e i#prison#ent is i#posable on cri#es punished b special la(s, and not on %elonies in the Code (People vs. 6e Au?#an, A.R. Eos. C1:DC-DB, 5an. )), 199:; People vs. /strella, A.R. Eos. 9)C9B-9K, April )D, 199:; People vs. Alvero, A.R. Eo. K):19, 5une :9,199:; People vs. 'apiroso, A.R. Eo. 1))C9K, "eb. )C, 1999!.Lsee Cri#inal 'a( Conspectus, pa&e 1CBM Penal$ies( Re&l+si n Pe#%e$+a vs. Li*e I-%#is n-en$ !1..9" 6i%%erentiate reclusion perpetua %ro# li%e i#prison#ent. S0GGESTE1 ANSWER2 R/C'I,-0E P/RP/*IA is that penalt provided %or in the Revised Penal Code %or cri#es de%ined in and penali?ed therein except %or so#e cri#es de%ined b special la(s (hich i#pose reclusion perpetua, such as violations o% Republic Act B>)C, as a#ended b Republic Act KBC9 or o% P6 1DB9; (hile '-"/ -7PR-,0E7/E* is a penalt usuall provided %or in special la(s. Reclusion perpetua has a duration o% t(ent ()9! ears and one (1! da to %ort L>9M ears under Republic Act KBC9, (hile li%e i#prison#ent has no duration; reclusion perpetua #a be reduced b one or t(o de&rees; reclusion perpetuates accessor penalties (hile li%e i#prison#ent does not have an accessor penalties (People vs. Ba&uio, 19B ,CRA >C9, People vs. Panellos, )9C ,CRA C>B!. Penal$ies( Re&l+si n Pe#%e$+a vs. Li*e I-%#is n-en$ !2001" A%ter trial, 5ud&e 5uan 'a a o% the 7anila R*C %ound Ben3a#in Aarcia &uilt o% 7urder, the victi# havin& sustained several bullet (ounds in his bod so that he died despite #edical assistance &iven in the 0spital n& 7anila. Because the (eapon used b Ben3a#in (as unlicensed and the 4uali% in& circu#stance o% treacher (as %ound to be present. 5ud&e 'a a rendered his decision convictin& Ben3a#in and sentencin& hi# to ;reclusion perpetua or li%e i#prison#ent;. Are ;reclusion perpetua; and li%e i#prison#ent the sa#e and can be i#posed interchan&eabl as in the %ore&oin& sentence+ 0r are the totall di%%erent+ ,tate our reasons. (:<! S0GGESTE1 ANSWER2 *he penalt o% reclusion perpetua and the penalt o% li%e -#prison#ent are totall di%%erent %ro# each other and there%ore, should not be used interchan&eabl . Reclusion perpetua is a penalt prescribed b the Revised Penal Code, (ith a %ixed duration o% i#prison#ent %ro# )9 ears and 1 da to >9 ears, and carries it (ith accessor penalties. 'i%e i#prison#ent, on the other hand, is a penalt prescribed b special la(s, (ith no %ixed duration o% i#prison#ent and (ithout an accessor penalt . (i! Act Prohibitin& the -#position o% 6eath Penalt in the Philippines (R.A. Eo. 9:>B! 1ea$) Penal$6 !2009" A. *he death penalt cannot be in%licted under (hich o% the %ollo(in& circu#stances= 1! $hen the &uilt person is at least 1D ears o% a&e at the ti#e o% the co##ission o% the cri#e. )! $hen the &uilt person is #ore than K9 ears o% a&e. :! $hen, upon appeal to or auto#atic revie( b the ,upre#e Court, the re4uired #a3orit %or the i#position o% the death penalt is not obtained. >! $hen the person is convicted o% a capital cri#e but be%ore execution beco#es

insane. C! $hen the accused is a (o#an (hile she is pre&nant or (ithin one ear a%ter deliver . /xplain our ans(er or choice brie%l . (C<! S0GGESTE1 ANSWER2 A. Inderstandin& the (ord ;in%licted; to #ean the i#position o% the death penalt , not its execution, the circu#stance in (hich the death penalt cannot be in%licted is no. )= ;(hen the &uilt person is #ore than K9 ears o% a&e; (Art. >K, Revised Penal Code!. -nstead, the penalt shall be co##uted to reclusion perpetua, (ith the accessor penalties provided in Article >9, RPC. -n circu#stance no. 1 (hen the &uilt person is at least 1D ears o% a&e at the ti#e o% the co##ission o% the cri#e, the death penalt can be i#posed since the o%%ender is alread o% le&al a&e (hen he co##itted the cri#e. Circu#stance no. : no lon&er operates, considerin& the decision o% the Supreme Court in People v . <(ren 6ateo (G.*. #%.$.8=8., 7ul2 ., )00%) providin& an inter#ediate revie( %or such cases (here the penalt i#posed is death, reclusion perpetua or li%e i#prison#ent be%ore the are elevated to the ,upre#e Court. -n circu#tances nos. > R C, the death penalt can be i#posed i% prescribed b the la( violated althou&h its execution shall be suspended (hen the convict beco#es insane be%ore it could be executed and (hile he is insane. 'ike(ise, the death penalt can be i#posed upon a (o#an but its execution shall be suspended durin& her pre&nanc and %or one ear a%ter her deliver . ALTERNATIVE ANSWER2 *he (ord ;-E"'-C*/6; is %ound onl in Art. D: to the e%%ect that the death penalt #a not be ;-E"'-C*/6; upon a pre&nant (o#an, such penalt is to be suspended. -% ;-E"'-C*/6; is to be construed as ;/N/CI*-0E;, then Eo. C is the choice. 1ea$) Penal$6( E+ali*ied Ra%e( Re7+isi$es !2009" A2 (as convicted o% rapin& *C, his niece, and he (as sentenced to death. -t (as alle&ed in the in%or#ation that the victi# (as a #inor belo( seven ears old, and her #other testi%ied that she (as onl six ears and ten #onths old, (hich her aunt corroborated on the (itness stand. *he in%or#ation also alle&ed that the accused (as the victi#8s uncle, a %act proved b the prosecution A2 (as convicted o% rapin& *C, his niece, and he (as sentenced to death. -t (as alle&ed in the in%or#ation that the victi# (as a #inor belo( seven ears old, and her #other testi%ied that she (as onl six ears and ten #onths old, (hich her aunt corroborated on the (itness stand. *he in%or#ation also alle&ed that the accused (as the victi#8s uncle, a %act proved b the prosecution. 0n auto#atic revie( be%ore the ,upre#e Court, accused-appellant contends that capital punish#ent could not be i#posed on hi# because o% the inade4uac o% the char&es and the insu%%icienc o% the evidence to prove all the ele#ents o% the heinous cri#e o% rape be ond reasonable doubt. -s appellant8s contention correct+ Reason brie%l . (C<! S0GGESTE1 ANSWER2 1es, appellant8s contention is correct inso%ar as the a&e o% the victi# is concerned. *he a&e o% the victi# raped has not been proved be ond reasonable doubt to constitute the cri#e as 4uali%ied rape and deservin& o% the death penalt . *he &uidelines in appreciatin& a&e as a 4uali% in& circu#stance in rape cases have not been #et, to (it= 1! *he pri#ar evidence o% the a&e o% the victi# is her birth certi%icate; )! -n the absence o% the birth certi%icate, a&e o% the victi# #a be proven b authentic docu#ent, such as baptis#al certi%icate and school records; :! -% the a%oresaid docu#ents

are sho(n to have been lost or destro ed or other(ise unavailable, the testi#on , i% clear and credible o% the victi#8s #other or an #e#ber o% the %a#il , b consan&uinit or a%%init , (ho is 4uali%ied to testi% on #atters respectin& pedi&ree such as the exact a&e or date o% birth o% the o%%ended part pursuant to ,ection >9, Rule 1:9 o% the Rules on /vidence shall be su%%icient but onl under the %ollo(in& circu#stances= (a! -% the victi# is alle&ed to be belo( : ears o% a&e and (hat is sou&ht to be proved is that she is less than K ears old; (b! -% the victi# is alle&ed to be belo( K ears o% a&e and (hat is sou&ht to be proved is that she is less than 1) ears old; (c! -% the victi# is alle&ed to be belo( 1) ears o% a&e and (hat is sou&ht to be proved is that she is less than 1D ears old. >! -n the absence o% a certi%icate o% live birth, authentic docu#ent, or the testi#on o% the victi#8s #other or relatives concernin& the victi#8s a&e under the circu#stances above-stated, co#plainant8s sole testi#on can su%%ice, provided that it is expressl and clearl ad#itted b the accused (People u . Pruna, 0-0 SC*A 5.. >)00)?). b! Purposes c! Classi%ication d! 6uration and /%%ect e! Application (i! -ndeter#inate ,entence 'a( (R.A. Eo. >19:, as a#ended! Inde$e#-ina$e Sen$en&e La' !1..9" -tos (as convicted o% an o%%ense penali?ed b a special la(. *he penalt prescribed is not less than six ears but not #ore than t(elve ears. Eo #odi% in& circu#stance attended the co##ission o% the cri#e. -% ou (ere the 3ud&e, (ill ou appl the -ndeter#inate ,entence 'a(+ -% so, ho( (ill ou appl it+ S0GGESTE1 ANSWER2 -% - (ere the 3ud&e, - (ill appl the provisions o% the -ndeter#inate ,entence 'a(, as the last sentence o% ,ection 1 Act >19:, speci%icall provides the application thereo% %or violations o% special la(s. Inder the sa#e provision, the #ini#u# #ust not be less than the #ini#u# provided therein (six ears and one da ! and the #axi#u# shall not be #ore than the #axi#u# provided therein, i.e. t(elve ears. (People v . *o alina *e2e , #8$ SC*A #8%) Inde$e#-ina$e Sen$en&e La' !1..." Andres is char&ed (ith an o%%ense de%ined b a special la(. *he penalt prescribed %or the o%%ense is i#prison#ent o% not less than %ive (C! ears but not #ore than ten L19! ears. Ipon arrai&n#ent, he entered a plea o% &uilt . -n the i#position o% the proper penalt , should the -ndeter#inate ,entence 'a( be applied+ -% ou (ere the 5ud&e tr in& the case, (hat penalt (ould ou i#pose on Andres+ (><! S0GGESTE1 ANSWER2 1es, the -ndeter#inate ,entence 'a( should be applied because the #ini#u# i#prison#ent is #ore than one (1! ear. -% - (ere the 5ud&e, - (ill i#pose an indeter#inate sentence, the #axi#u# o% (hich shall not exceed the #axi#u# %ixed b la( and the #ini#u# shall not be less than the #ini#u# penalt prescribed b the sa#e. - have the discretion to i#pose the penalt (ithin the said #ini#u# and #axi#u#. Inde$e#-ina$e Sen$en&e La' !1..." A (as convicted o% ille&al possession o% &rease &uns and t(o *ho#pson sub-#achine &uns punishable under the old la( LRA Eo,>M (ith i#prison#ent o% %ro# %ive (C! to ten (19! ears. *he trial court sentenced the accused to su%%er i#prison#ent o% %ive (C! ears and one (1! da . -s the penalt thus i#posed correct+ /xplain. (:<!

S0GGESTE1 ANSWER2 -ndeter#inate ,entence 'a( does not appl to= *he penalt i#posed, bein& onl a strai&ht penalt , is not correct because it does not co#pl (ith the -ndeter#inate ,entence 'a( (hich applies to this case. ,aid la( re4uires that i% the o%%ense is punished b an la( other than the Revised Penal Code, the court shall sentence the accused to an indeter#inate sentence, the #axi#u# ter# o% (hich shall not exceed the #axi#u# penalt %ixed b the la( and the #ini#u# shall not be less than the #ini#u# penalt prescribed b the sa#e. Inde$e#-ina$e Sen$en&e La' !2002" .o( are the #axi#u# and the #ini#u# ter#s o% the indeter#inate sentence %or o%%enses punishable under the Revised Penal Code deter#ined+ (:<! S0GGESTE1 ANSWER2 "or cri#es punished under the Revised Penal Code, the #axi#u# ter# o% the -ndeter#inate sentence shall be the penalt properl i#posable under the sa#e Code a%ter considerin& the attendin& #iti&atin& and@or a&&ravatin& circu#stances accordin& to Art, B> o% said Code. *he #ini#u# ter# o% the sa#e sentence shall be %ixed (ithin the ran&e o% the penalt next lo(er in de&ree to that prescribed %or the cri#e under the said Code. Inder the la(, (hat is the purpose %or %ixin& the #axi#u# and the #ini#u# ter#s o% the indeter#inate sentence+ ()<! S0GGESTE1 ANSWER2 *he purpose o% the la( in %ixin& the #ini#u# ter# o% the sentence is to set the &race period at (hich the convict #a be released on parole %ro# i#prison#ent, unless b his conduct he is not deservin& o% parole and thus he shall continue servin& his prison ter# in 5ail but in no case to &o be ond the #axi#u# ter# %ixed in the sentence. Inde$e#-ina$e Sen$en&e La' !2008" .arold (as convicted o% a cri#e de%ined and penali?ed b a special penal la( (here the i#posable penalt is %ro# B #onths, as #ini#u#, to : ears, as #axi#u#. ,tate (ith reasons (hether the court #a correctl i#pose the %ollo(in& penalties= a! a strai&ht penalt o% 19 #onths; S0GGESTE1 ANSWER2 1es, because the penalt is less than one ear, a strai&ht penalt #a be i#posed. (People v. Arellano, A.R. Eo, >BC91, 0ctober C, 19:9! ALTERNATIVE ANSWER2 Inder the -ndeter#inate ,entence 'a(, the #ini#u# i#posable penalt shall be i#posed but the #axi#u# shall not exceed the #axi#u# i#posable b la(. b! B #onths, as #ini#u#, to 11 #onths, as #axi#u#; S0GGESTE1 ANSWER2 Eo, because -ndeter#inate ,entence 'a( does not appl (hen the penalt i#posed is less than one ear (,ec. ), Art.

>19:, as a#ended!. c! a strai&ht penalt o% ) ears. (C<! S0GGESTE1 ANSWER2 Eo, because the -ndeter#inate ,entence 'a( (ill appl (hen the #ini#u# o% the penalt exceeds one ear. ALTERNATIVE ANSWER. -% the i#position o% strai&ht penalt (hich consists o% the #ini#u# period o% the penalt prescribed b la(, then it #a be allo(ed because it %avors the accused. Inde$e#-ina$e Sen$en&e La'( E>&e%$i ns !1..." Inder (hat circu#stances is the -ndeter#inate ,entence 'a( not applicable+ ()<! S0GGESTE1 ANSWER2 1! Persons convicted o% o%%enses punished (ith death penalt or li%e i#prison#ent; )! *hose convicted o% treason, conspirac or proposal to co##it treason; :! *hose convicted o% #isprision o% treason, rebellion, sedition or espiona&e; >! *hose convicted o% pirac ; C! *hose (ho are habitual delin4uents; B! *hose (ho shall have escaped %ro# con%ine#ent or evaded sentence; K! *hose (ho violated the ter#s o% conditional pardon &ranted to the# b the Chie% /xecutive; D! *hose (hose #axi#u# ter# o% i#prison#ent does not exceed one ear; Cri#inal 'a( Bar /xa#ination F R A (199>-)99B!; 9! *hose (ho, upon the approval o% the la( (6ece#ber C, 19::!. had been sentenced b %inal 5ud&#ent; 19! *hose sentenced to the penalt o% destierro or suspension. Inde$e#-ina$e Sen$en&e La'( E>&e%$i ns !2003" $hen (ould the -ndeter#inate ,entence 'a( be inapplicable+ >< S0GGESTE1 ANSWER2 *he -ndeter#inate ,entence 'a( is not applicable to= 1! )! :! >! C! B! K! D! 9! 19! those persons convicted o% o%%enses punished (ith death penalt or li%e-i#prison#ent or reclusion perpetua; those convicted o% treason, conspirac or proposal to co##it treason; those convicted o% #isprision o% treason, rebellion, sedition or espiona&e; those convicted o% pirac ; those (ho are habitual delin4uents; those (ho shall have escaped %ro# con%ine#ent or evaded sentence; those (ho havin& been &ranted conditional pardon b the Chie% /xecutive shall have violated the ter#s thereo%; those (hose #axi#u# ter# o% i#prison#ent does not exceed one ear; 9! those alread sentenced b %inal 3ud&#ent at the ti#e o% approval o% this Act; and 19! those (hose sentence i#poses penalties (hich do not involve i#prison#ent, like destierro.

Inde$e#-ina$e Sen$en&e La'( M+#de# !2004" 7ack , a securit &uard, arrived ho#e late one ni&ht a%ter renderin& overti#e. .e (as shocked to see 5o , his (i%e, and Jen, his best %riend, in the act o% havin& sexual intercourse. 7ack pulled out his service &un and shot and killed Jen. 7ack (as char&ed (ith #urder %or the death o% Jen.

*he court %ound that Jen died under exceptional circu#stances and exonerated 7ack o% #urder but sentenced hi# to destierro, con%or#abl (ith Article )>K o% the Revised Penal Code. *he court also ordered 7ack to pa inde#nit to the heirs o% the victi# in the a#ount o% PC9,999. (a! 6id the court correctl order 7ack to pa inde#nit even thou&h he (as exonerated o% #urder+ /xplain our ans(er. S0GGESTE1 ANSWER2 (a! Eo, the court did not act correctl in orderin& the accused to inde#ni% the victi#. ,ince the killin& o% Jen (as co##itted under the exceptional circu#stances in Article )>K, Revised Penal Code, it is in the consensus that no cri#e (as co##itted in the li&ht o% the pronounce#ent in People v. Cosicor (K9 Phil. BK) L19>KM! is intended #ore %or the protection o% the o%%ender rather than as a penalt . ,ince the civil liabilit under the Revised Penal Code is conse4uence o% cri#inal liabilit , there (ould be no le&al basis %or the a(ard o% inde#nit (hen there is no cri#inal liabilit . ALTERNATIVE ANSWER2 1es, because the cri#e punishable b destierro (as co##itted, (hich is death under exceptional circu#stances under Art. )>K o% the Revised Penal Code. (b! $hile servin& his sentence, 7ack entered the prohibited area and had a pot session (ith -v (5o 8s sister!. -s 7ack entitled to an indeter#inate sentence in case he is %ound &uilt o% use o% prohibited substances+ /xplain our ans(er. S0GGESTE1 ANSWER2 (b! Eo, 7ack is not entitled to the bene%it o% the -ndeter#inate ,entence 'a( (Act >19:, as a#ended! %or havin& evaded the sentence (hich banished or placed hi# on destierro. ,ec. ) o% the said la( expressl provides that the la( shall not appl to those (ho shall have Gevaded sentenceH. ALTERNATIVE ANSWER2 Eo, because the penalt %or use o% an dan&erous dru& b a %irst o%%ender is not i#prison#ent but rehabilitation in a &overn#ent center %or a #ini#u# period o% six (B! #onths (,ec. 1C, R.A. 91BC!. *he -ndeter#inate ,entence 'a( does not appl (hen the penalt is i#prison#ent not exceedin& one ear. (a! Application on the i#posed sentence (b! Covera&e (c! Conditions o% parole (ii! *hree-%old rule (iii! ,ubsidiar i#prison#ent %! /xecution and service (i! Probation 'a( (P.6. 9BD, as a#ended! (a! 6e%inition o% ter#s (b! Purpose (c! Arant o% probation, #anner and conditions (d! Criteria o% placin& an o%%ender on probation (e! 6is4uali%ied o%%enders (%! Period o% probation (&! Arrest o% probationer (h! *er#ination o% probation; exception (i! *he Co#prehensive 6an&erous 6ru&s Act o% )99) (R.A. Eo. 91BC! (ii!

5uvenile 5ustice and $el%are Act o% )99B (R.A. Eo. 9:>>!; also re%er to Child and 1outh $el%are Code (P.6. B9:, as a#ended! (a! 6e%inition o% child in con%lict (ith the la( (b! /xe#ption %ro# cri#inal liabilit (c! 5uvenile 3ustice and (el%are s ste# P# 3a$i n La'2 P# %e# Pe#i d !2008" 7a&anda (as char&ed (ith violation o% the Bouncin& Checks 'a( (BP ))! punishable b i#prison#ent o% not less than :9 da s but not #ore than 1 ear or a %ine o% not less than but not #ore than double the a#ount o% the check, (hich %ine shall not exceed P)99,999.99, or both. *he court convicted her o% the cri#e and sentenced her to pa a %ine o% PC9,999.99 (ith subsidiar i#prison#ent in case o% insolvenc , and to pa the private co#plainant the a#ount o% the check. 7a&anda (as unable to pa the %ine but %iled a petition %or probation. *he court &ranted the petition sub3ect to the condition, a#on& others, that she should not chan&e her residence (ithout the courtSs prior approval. a! $hat is the proper period o% probation+ S0GGESTE1 ANSWER2 *he period shall not be less than t(ice the total nu#ber o% da s o% subsidiar i#prison#ent. Inder Act Eo. 1K:), subsidiar i#prison#ent %or violations o% special la(s shall not exceed B #onths at the rate o% one da o% i#prison#ent %or ever ").C9. .ence, the proper period o% probation should not be less than (B #onths nor #ore than 1) #onths. ,ince PC9,999.99 %ine is #ore than the #axi#u# subsidiar i#prison#ent o% B #onths at P).C9 a da . b! ,upposin& be%ore the 0rder o% 6ischar&e (as issued b the court but a%ter the lapse o% the period o% probation, 7a&anda trans%erred residence (ithout prior approval o% the court. 7a the court revoke the 0rder o% Probation and order her to serve the subsidiar i#prison#ent+ /xplain. S0GGESTE1 ANSWER2 1es. *he Court #a revoke her probation. Probation is not coter#inous (ith its period. *here #ust %irst be issued b the court an order o% %inal dischar&e based on the report and reco##endation o% the probation o%%icer. 0nl then can the case o% the probationer be ter#inated. (Bala v. 7artine?, A.R. Eo. BK:91, 5anuar )9, 1999, citin& ,ec. 1B o% P.6. Eo. 9BD! P# 3a$i n La'( Ba##ed 36 A%%eal !1..9" 0n "ebruar :, 19DB, Roberto (as convicted o% arson throu&h reckless i#prudence and sentenced to pa a %ine o% P1C,999.99, (ith subsidiar i#prison#ent in case o% insolvenc b the Re&ional *rial Court o% Fue?on Cit . 0n "ebruar 19, 19DB, he appealed to the Court o% Appeals. ,everal #onths later, he %iled a #otion to (ithdra( the appeal on the &round that he is appl in& %or probation. 0n 7a K, 19DK, the Court o% Appeals &ranted the #otion and considered the appeal (ithdra(n. 0n 5une 19, 19DK, the records o% the case (ere re#anded to the trial court. Roberto %iled a ;7otion %or Probation; pra in& that execution o% his sentence be suspended, and that a probation o%%icer be ordered to conduct an -nvesti&ation and to sub#it a report on his probation. *he 3ud&e denied the #otion on the &round that pursuant to Presidential 6ecree Eo. 1999, (hich took e%%ect on 5ul 1B,19DB, no application %or probation shall be entertained or &ranted i% the de%endant has per%ected an appeal %ro# the 3ud&#ent o% conviction. -s the denial o% Roberto8s #otion correct+

S0GGESTE1 ANSWER2 1es. /ven i% at the ti#e o% his conviction Roberto (as 4uali%ied %or probation but that at the ti#e o% his application %or probation, he is no lon&er 4uali%ied, he is not entitled to probation. *he 4uali%ication %or probation #ust be deter#ined as o% the ti#e the application is %iled in Court (Bernardo vs. 5ud&e, etal. AREo. 'DBCB1,Eov, 19. 199); /d(in de la Cru? vs. 5ud&e Calle3o. et al, ,P-19BCC, April 1D, 1999, citin& 'la#ado vs. CA, et al, AR Eo. D>DC9, 5une )D, 19D9; Bernardo us. 5ud&e Bala&ot, etal, AR DBCB1, Eov. 19, 199)!. P# 3a$i n La'( Ba##ed 36 A%%eal !2001" A, a subdivision developer, (as convicted b the R*C o% 7akati %or %ailure to issue the subdivision title to a lot bu er despite %ull pa #ent o% the lot, and sentenced to su%%er one ear -#prison#ent. A appealed the decision o% the R*C to the Court o% Appeals but his appeal (as dis#issed. 7a A still appl %or probation+ /xplain. (C<! S0GGESTE1 ANSWER2 Eo, A is no lon&er 4uali%ied to appl %or probation a%ter he appealed %ro# the 3ud&#ent o% conviction b the R*C. *he probation la( (P6 9BD, as a#ended b P61999! no( provides that no application %or probation shall be entertained or &ranted i% the accused has per%ected an appeal %ro# the 3ud&#ent o% conviction (,ec. >, P6 9BD!. P# 3a$i n La'( Ma>i-+- Te#- vs. T $al Te#- !1..4" *he accused (as %ound &uilt o% &rave oral de%a#ation in sixteen (1B! in%or#ations (hich (ere tried 3ointl and (as sentenced in one decision to su%%er in each case a prison ter# o% one (1! ear and one (1! da to one (1! ear and ei&ht (D! #onths o% prision correccional. $ithin the period to appeal, he %iled an application %or probation under the Probation 'a( o% 19KB, as a#ended. Could he possibl 4uali% %or probation+ S0GGESTE1 ANSWER2 1es. -n "rancisco vs. Court o% Appeals, )>: ,CRA :D>, the ,upre#e Court held that in case o% one decision i#posin& #ultiple prison ter#s, the totalit o% the prison ter#s should not be taken into account %or the purposes o% deter#inin& the eli&ibilit o% the accused %or the probation. *he la( uses the (ord ;#axi#u# ter#;, and not total ter#. -t is enou&h that each o% the prison ter#s does not exceed six ears. *he nu#ber o% o%%enses is i##aterial %or as lon& as the penalties i#posed, (hen taken individuall and separatel , are (ithin the probationable period. P# 3a$i n La'( O#de# 1en6in, P# 3a$i n( N $ A%%eala3le !2002" A (as char&ed (ith ho#icide. A%ter trial, he (as %ound &uilt and sentenced to six (B! ears and one (1! da in prision #a or, as #ini#u#, to t(elve (1)! ears and one (1! da o% reclusion te#poral, as #axi#u#. Prior to his conviction, he had been %ound &uilt o% va&ranc and i#prisoned %or ten (19! da s o% arresto #anor and %ined %i%t pesos (PC9.99!. -s he eli&ible %or probation+ $h + (:<! S0GGESTE1 ANSWER2 Eo, he is not entitled to the bene%its o% the Probation 'a( (P6 9BD, as a#ended! does not extend to those sentenced to serve a #axi#u# ter# o% i#prison#ent o% #ore than six ears (,ec. 9a!. -t is o% no #o#ent that in his previous conviction A (as &iven a penalt o% onl ten (19! da s o% arresto #a or and a %ine o% PC9.99. B. 7a a probationer appeal %ro# the decision revokin& the &rant o% probation or #odi% in& the ter#s and conditions thereo%+ ()<! S0GGESTE1 ANSWER2

Eo. Inder ,ection > o% the Probation 'a(, as a#ended, an order &rantin& or den in& probation is not appealable. P# 3a$i n La'( Pe#i d C ve#ed !2009" PN (as convicted and sentenced to i#prison#ent o% thirt da s and a %ine o% one hundred pesos. Previousl , PN (as convicted o% another cri#e %or (hich the penalt i#posed on hi# (as thirt da s onl . -s PN entitled to probation+ /xplain brie%l . (C<! S0GGESTE1 ANSWER2 1es, PN #a appl %or probation. .is previous conviction %or another cri#e (ith a penalt o% thirt da s i#prison#ent or not exceedin& one (1! #onth does not dis4uali% hi# %ro# appl in& %or probation; the penalt %or his present conviction does not dis4uali% hi# either %ro# appl in& %or probation, since the i#prison#ent does not exceed six (B! ears (,ec. 9, Pres. 6ecree Eo. 9BD!. P# 3a$i n La'( Ri,)$( Ba##ed 36 A%%eal !1..8" -n a case %or violation o% ,ec. D, RA B>)C, other(ise kno(n as the 6an&erous 6ru&s Act, accused 2incent (as &iven the bene%it o% the #iti&atin& circu#stances o% voluntar plea o% &uilt and drunkenness not other(ise habitual. .e (as sentenced to su%%er a penalt o% six (B! ears and one (1! da and to pa a %ine o% PB,999.99 (ith the accessor penalties provided b la(, plus costs. 2incent applied %or probation. *he probation o%%icer %avorabl reco##ended his application. 1. -% ou (ere the 5ud&e, (hat action (ill ou take on the application+ 6iscuss %ull . ). ,uppose that 2incent (as convicted o% a cri#e %or (hich he (as sentenced to a #axi#u# penalt o% ten (19! ears. Inder the la(, he is not eli&ible %or probation. .e seasonabl appealed his conviction. $hile a%%ir#in& the 3ud&#ent o% conviction, the appellate court reduced the penalt to a #axi#u# o% %our (>! ears and %our (>! #onths takin& into consideration certain #odi% in& circu#stances. 2incent no( applies %or probation. .o( (ill ou rule on his application+ 6iscuss %ull . S0GGESTE1 ANSWER2 1. -% - (ere the 3ud&e, - (ill den the application %or probation. *he accused is not entitled to probation as ,ec. 9 o% the Probation 'a(, P6 E0. 9BD, as a#ended, speci%icall #entions that those (ho ;are sentenced to serve a #axi#u# ter# o% i#prison#ent o% #ore than six ears; are not entitled to the bene%its o% the la(. ). *he la( and 3urisprudence are to the e%%ect that appeal b the accused %ro# a sentence o% conviction %or%eits his ri&ht to probation.(,ec. >, P6 Eo. 9BD. as a#ended b P6 1999; Bernardo us. Bala&ot; "rancisco vs. CA= 'la#ado vs. CA; 6e la Cru? vs. 5ud&e Calle3o, CA case!. *his is the second consecutive ear that this 4uestion (as asked. -t is the sincere belie% o% the Co##ittee that there is a need to re-exa#ine the doctrine. "irstl , #uch as the accused (anted to appl %or probation he is proscribed %ro# doin& so as the #axi#u# penalt is E0* PR0BA*-0EAB'/. ,econdl , (hen the #axi#u# penalt (as reduced to one (hich allo(s probation it is but %air and 3ust to &rant hi# that ri&ht because it is apparent that the trial 3ud&e co##itted an error and %or (hich the accused should not be #ade to su%%er. 5udicial tribunals in this 3urisdiction are not onl courts o% la( but also o% e4uit . *hirdl , the 3ud&#ent o% the appellate court should be considered a ne( decision as the trial court8s decision (as vacated; hence, he could take advanta&e o% the la( (hen the decision is re#anded to the trial court %or execution (Please see 6issentin& opinion in "rancisco vs. CA!. -t is su&&ested, there%ore, that an exa#inee ans(erin& in this tenor should be credited (ith so#e points. P# 3a$i n La'( Ri,)$( Ba##ed 36 A%%eal !2003"

5uan (as convicted o% the Re&ional *rial Court o% a cri#e and sentenced to su%%er the penalt o% i#prison#ent %or a #ini#u# o% ei&ht ears. .e appealed both his conviction and the penalt i#posed upon hi# to the Court o% Appeals. *he appellate court ulti#atel sustained 5uan8s conviction but reduced his sentence to a #axi#u# o% %our ears and ei&ht #onths i#prison#ent. Could 5uan %orth(ith %ile an application %or probation+ /xplain. D< S0GGESTE1 ANSWER2 Eo, 5uan can no lon&er avail o% the probation because he appealed %ro# the 3ud&#ent o% conviction o% the trial court, and there%ore, cannot appl %or probation an #ore. ,ection > o% the Probation 'a(, as a#ended, #andates that no application %or probation shall be entertained or &ranted i% the accused has per%ected an appeal %ro# the 3ud&#ent o% conviction. S+s%ensi n * Sen$en&e( Ad+l$sFMin #s !200/" *here are at least K instances or situations in cri#inal cases (herein the accused, either as an adult or as a #inor, can appl %or and@or be &ranted a suspended sentence. /nu#erate at least C o% the#. (C<! S0GGESTE1 ANSWER2 1. ,uspension o% sentence o% #inor under P.6. B9: as a#ended b R.A. 9:>>. ). ,uspension o% sentence o% #inor above 1C but belo( 1D ears o% a&e at the ti#e o% trial under R.A. 9:>>. :. ,uspension o% sentence o% #inor above 1C but belo( 1D ears o% a&e at the co##ission o% the o%%ense, (hile actin& (ith discern#ent. >. ,uspension o% sentence b reason o% insanit (Art. K9, Revised Penal Code!. C. ,uspension o% sentence %or %irst o%%ense o% a #inor violatin& R52. 91BC. (,ec. :)! B. ,uspension o% sentence under the probation la(. (P.6. 9BD! K. ,uspension o% death sentence o% a pre&nant (o#an. (Art. D:, Revised Penal Code! (E0*A B/E/= R.A. 9:>> is outside the covera&e o% the exa#ination! S+s%ensi n * Sen$en&e( Min #s !2003" A (as ) #onths belo( 1D ears o% a&e (hen he co##itted the cri#e. .e (as char&ed (ith the cri#e : #onths later. .e (as ): (hen he (as %inall convicted and sentenced. -nstead o% preparin& to serve a 3ail ter#, he sou&ht a suspension o% the sentence on the &round that he (as a 3uvenile o%%ender. ,hould he be entitled to a suspension o% sentence+ Reasons. >< S0GGESTE1 ANSWER2 Eo, A is not entitled to a suspension o% the sentence because he is no lon&er a #inor at the ti#e o% pro#ul&ation o% the sentence. "or purposes o% suspension o% sentence, the o%%ender8s a&e at the ti#e o% pro#ul&ation o% the sentence is the one considered, not his a&e (hen he co##itted the cri#e. ,o althou&h A (as belo( 1D ears old (hen he co##itted the cri#e, but he (as alread ): ears old (hen sentenced, he is no lon&er eli&ible %or suspension o% the sentence. Can 3uvenile o%%enders, (ho are recidivists, validl ask %or suspension o% sentence+ /xplain. >< S0GGESTE1 ANSWER2 1es, so lon& as the o%%ender is still a #inor at the ti#e o% the pro#ul&ation o% the sentence. *he la( establishin& "a#il Courts, Rep. Act D:B9, provides to this e%%ect= that i% the #inor is %ound &uilt , the court should pro#ul&ate the sentence and ascertain an civil liabilit (hich the accused #a have incurred. .o(ever, the sentence shall be suspended (ithout the need o% application pursuant to P6 B9:, other(ise kno(n as the ;Child and 1outh $el%are Code; (RA D:B9, ,ec. Ca!, -t is under P6 B9: that an application %or suspension o% the sentence is re4uired and thereunder it is one o% the conditions %or suspension o% sentence that the o%%ender be a %irst ti#e convict= this has been

displaced b RA D:B9. S+s%ensi n * Sen$en&e( G +$)*+l O**ende# !1..8" 2ictor, Rick , Rod and Ronnie (ent to the store o% 7an& Pando . 2ictor and Rick entered the store (hile Rod and Ronnie posted the#selves at the door. A%ter orderin& beer Rick co#plained that he (as shortchan&ed althou&h 7an& Pando vehe#entl denied it. ,uddenl Rick (hipped out a kni%e as he announced ;.old-up itoT; and stabbed 7an& Pando to death. Rod boxed the store8s sales&irl 'uc to prevent her %ro# helpin& 7an& Pando . $hen 'uc ran out o% the store to seek help %ro# people next door she (as chased b Ronnie. As soon as Rick had stabbed 7an& Pando , 2ictor scooped up the #one %ro# the cash box. *hen 2ictor and Rick dashed to the street and shouted, ;*u#akbo na ka oT; Rod (as 1> and Ronnie (as 1K. *he #one and other articles looted %ro# the store o% 7an& Pando (ere later %ound in the houses o% 2ictor and Rick . 1. 6iscuss %ull the cri#inal liabilit o% 2ictor, Rick , Rod and Ronnie. ). Are the #inors Rod and Ronnie entitled to suspended sentence under *he Child and 1outh $el%are Code+ /xplain. S0GGESTE1 ANSWER2 1. All are liable %or the special co#plex cri#e o% robber (ith ho#icide.... ). Eo, because the bene%its o% suspension o% sentence is not available (here the outh%ul o%%ender has been convicted o% an o%%ense punishable b li%e i#prison#ent or death, pursuant to P.6. Eo. B9:, Art. 19). *he co#plex cri#e o% robber (ith ho#icide is punishable b reclusion perpetua to death under Art. )9> (1!, R"C LPeople vs. Aalit. ):9 ,CRA >DB!. B. 7odi%ication and extinction o% cri#inal liabilit

E>$in&$i n( C#i-inal A Civil Lia3ili$ies( E**e&$s( 1ea$) * a&&+sed %endin, a%%eal !2009" AN (as convicted o% reckless i#prudence resultin& in ho#icide. *he trial court sentenced hi# to a prison ter# as (ell as to pa P1C9,999 as civil inde#nit and da#a&es. $hile his appeal (as pendin&, AN #et a %atal accident. .e le%t a oun& (ido(, ) children, and a #illion-peso estate. $hat is the e%%ect, i% an , o% his death on his cri#inal as (ell as civil liabilit + /xplain brie%l . (C<! S0GGESTE1 ANSWER2 *he death o% AN (hile his appeal %ro# the 3ud&#ent o% the trial court is pendin&, extin&uishes his cri#inal liabilit . *he civil liabilit inso%ar as it arises %ro# the cri#e and recoverable under the Revised Penal Code is also extin&uished; but inde#nit and da#a&es #a be recovered in a civil action i% predicated on a source o% obli&ation under Art. 11CK, Civil Code, such as la(, contracts, 4uasi-contracts and 4uasi-delicts, but not on the basis o% delicts. (People v. Ba otas, ):B ,CRA ):9 !. Civil inde#nit and da#a&es under the Revised Penal Code are recoverable onl i% the accused had been convicted (ith %inalit be%ore he died. E>$in&$i n( C#i-inal A Civil Lia3ili$ies( E**e&$s( 1ea$) * O**ended Pa#$6 !2000" "or de%raudin& 'orna, Al#a (as char&ed be%ore the 7unicipal *rial Court o% 7alolos, Bulacan. A%ter a protracted trial, Al#a (as convicted. $hile the case (as pendin& appeal in the Re&ional *rial Court o% the sa#e province, 'orna (ho (as then su%%erin& %ro# breast cancer, died. Al#a #ani%ested to the court that (ith 'orna8s death, her (Al#a8s! cri#inal and civil liabilities are no( extin&uished. -s Al#a8s contention correct+ $hat i% it (ere Al#a (ho died, (ould it a%%ect her cri#inal and civil liabilities+ /xplain. (:<!

S0GGESTE1 ANSWER2 Eo. Al#a8s contention is not correct. *he death o% the o%%ended part does not extin&uish the cri#inal liabilit o% the o%%ender, because the o%%ense is co##itted a&ainst the ,tate LPeople vs. 7isola, DK Phil. D:9, D::!. .ence, it %ollo(s that the civil liabilit o% Al#a based on the o%%ense co##itted b her is not extin&uished. *he estate o% 'orna can continue the case. 0n the other hand, i% it (ere Al#a (ho died pendin& appeal o% her conviction, her cri#inal liabilit shall be extin&uished and there(ith the civil liabilit under the Revised Penal Code (Art. D9, par. 1, RPC!. .o(ever, the clai# %or civil inde#nit #a be instituted under the Civil Code (Art. 11CK! i% predicated on a source o% obli&ation other than delict, such as la(, contracts, 4uasi-contracts and 4uasi-delicts (People vs. Ba otas ):B ,CRA ):9, A.R. 1C)99K, ,epte#ber ). 199>! a! Prescription o% cri#e; Prescription o% 2iolations o% ,pecial 'a(s (Act. Eo. ::)B!

P#es&#i%$i n * C#i-es( Bi,a-6 !1..8" 5oe and 7arc (ere #arried in Batanes in 19CC. A%ter t(o ears, 5oe le%t 7arc and settled in 7indanao (here he later #et and #arried 'inda on 1) 5une 19B9. *he second #arria&e (as re&istered in the civil re&istr o% 6avao Cit three da s a%ter its celebration. 0n 19 0ctober 19KC 7arc (ho re#ained in Batanes discovered the #arria&e o% 5oe to 'inda. 0n 1 7arch 19KB 7arc %iled a co#plaint %or bi&a# a&ainst 5oe. *he cri#e o% bi&a# prescribed in %i%teen ears co#puted %ro# the da the cri#e is discovered b the o%%ended part , the authorities or their a&ents. 5oe raised the de%ense o% prescription o% the cri#e, #ore than %i%teen ears havin& elapsed %ro# the celebration o% the bi&a#ous #arria&e up to the %ilin& o% 7arc 8s co#plaint. .e contended that the re&istration o% his second #arria&e in the civil re&istr o% 6avao Cit (as constructive notice to the (hole (orld o% the celebration thereo% thus bindin& upon 7arc . .as the cri#e o% bi&a# char&ed a&ainst 5oe alread prescribed+ 6iscuss %ull . S0GGESTE1 ANSWER2 Eo. *he prescriptive period %or the cri#e o% bi&a# is co#puted %ro# the ti#e the cri#e (as discovered b the o%%ended part , the authorities or their a&ents. *he principle o% constructive notice (hich ordinaril applies to land or propert disputes should not be applied to the cri#e o% bi&a# , as #arria&e is not propert . *hus (hen 7arc %iled a co#plaint %or bi&a# on K 7arch 19KB, it (as (ell (ithin the re&la#entar period as it (as barel a %e( #onths %ro# the ti#e o% discover on 19 0ctober 19KC. (,er#onia vs. CA, ):: ,CRA 1CC! P#es&#i%$i n * C#i-es( C --en&e-en$ !2000" 0ne %ate%ul ni&ht in 5anuar 1999, (hile C- ear old Albert (as urinatin& at the back o% their house, he heard a stran&e noise co#in& %ro# the kitchen o% their nei&hbor and pla #ate, Ara. $hen he peeped inside, he sa( 7ina, Ara8s step#other, ver an&r and stran&lin& the C- ear old Ara to death. Albert sa( 7ina carr the dead bod o% Ara, place it inside the trunk o% her car and drive a(a . *he dead bod o% Ara (as never %ound. 7ina spread the ne(s in the nei&hborhood that Ara (ent to live (ith her &randparents in 0r#oc Cit . "or %ear o% his li%e, Albert did not tell an one, even his parents and relatives, about (hat he (itnessed. *(ent and a hal% ()9 R 1@)! ears a%ter the incident, and ri&ht a%ter his &raduation in Cri#inolo& , Albert reported the cri#e to EB- authorities. *he cri#e o% ho#icide prescribes in )9 ears. Can the state still prosecute 7ina %or the death o% Ara despite the lapse o% )9 R 1@) ears+ /xplain, (C<! S0GGESTE1 ANSWER2 1es, the ,tate can still prosecute 7ina %or the death o% Ara despite the lapse o% )9 R 1@) ears. Inder Article 91, RPC, the period o% prescription co##ences to run %ro# the da on (hich the cri#e is discovered b the o%%ended part , the authorities or their a&ents. -n the case at bar, the co##ission o% the cri#e (as kno(n onl to Albert, (ho (as not the o%%ended part nor an authorit or an a&ent o% an authorit . -t (as discovered b the EB- authorities onl (hen Albert

revealed to the# the co##ission o% the cri#e. .ence, the period o% prescription o% )9 ears %or ho#icide co##enced to run onl %ro# the ti#e Albert revealed the sa#e to the EB- authorities. P#es&#i%$i n * C#i-es( C --en&e-en$ !2009" 0$ is a private person en&a&ed in cattle ranchin&. 0ne ni&ht, he sa( A7 stab C2 treacherousl , then thro( the dead #an8s bod into a ravine. "or )C ears, C2s bod (as never seen nor %ound; and 0$ told no one (hat he had (itnessed. 1esterda a%ter consultin& the parish priest, 0$ decided to tell the authorities (hat he (itnessed, and revealed that A7 had killed C2 )C ears a&o. Can A7 be prosecuted %or #urder despite the lapse o% )C ears+ Reason brie%l . (C<! S0GGESTE1 ANSWER2 1es, A7 can be prosecuted %or #urder despite the lapse o% )C ears, because the cri#e has not et prescribed and le&all , its prescriptive period has not even co##enced to run. *he period o% prescription o% a cri#e shall co##ence to run onl %ro# the da on (hich the cri#e has been discovered b the o%%ended part , the authorities or their a&ents (Art. 91, Revised Penal Code!. 0$, a private person (ho sa( the killin& but never disclosed it, is not the o%%ended part nor has the cri#e been discovered b the authorities or their a&ents. P#es&#i%$i n * C#i-es( C n&+3ina,e !2001" 0n 5une 1, 19DD, a co#plaint %or concubina&e co##itted in "ebruar 19DK (as %iled a&ainst Roberto in the 7unicipal *rial Court o% *an?a, Cavite %or purposes o% preli#inar investi&ation. "or various reasons, it (as onl on 5ul :, 199D (hen the 5ud&e o% said court decided the case b dis#issin& it %or lack o% 3urisdiction since the cri#e (as co##itted in 7anila. *he case (as subse4uentl %iled (ith the Cit "iscal o% 7anila but it (as dis#issed on the &round that the cri#e had alread prescribed. *he la( provides that the cri#e o% concubina&e prescribes in ten (19! ears. $as the dis#issal b the %iscal correct+ /xplain, (C<! S0GGESTE1 ANSWER2 Eo, the "iscal8s dis#issal o% the case on alle&ed prescription is not correct. *he %ilin& o% the co#plaint (ith the 7unicipal *rial Court, althou&h onl %or preli#inar investi&ation, interrupted and suspended the period o% prescription in as #uch as the 3urisdiction o% a court in a cri#inal case is deter#ined b the alle&ations in the co#plaint or in%or#ation, not b the result o% proo%. (People vs. Aalano. KC ,CRA 19:! P#es&#i%$i n * C#i-es( =alse Tes$i- n6 !1..9" Paolo (as char&ed (ith ho#icide be%ore the Re&ional *rial Court o% 7anila. Andre(, a prosecution (itness, testi%ied that he sa( Paolo shoot Abb durin& their heated ar&u#ent. $hile the case is still pendin&, the Cit .all o% 7anila burned do(n and the entire records o% the case (ere destro ed. 'ater, the records (ere reconstituted. Andre( (as a&ain called to the (itness stand. *his ti#e he testi%ied that his %irst testi#on (as %alse and the truth (as he (as abroad (hen the cri#e took place. *he 3ud&e i##ediatel ordered the prosecution o% Andre( %or &ivin& a %alse testi#on %avorable to the de%endant in a cri#inal case. 1 $ill the case a&ainst Andre( prosper+ ) Paolo (as ac4uitted. *he decision beca#e %inal on 5anuar 19, 19DK. 0n 5une 1D, 199> a case o% &ivin& %alse testi#on (as %iled a&ainst Andre(. As his la( er, (hat le&al step (ill ou take+ S0GGESTE1 ANSWER2 1! 1es. ... )! As la( er o% Andre(, - (ill %ile a #otion to 4uash the -n%or#ation on the &round o% prescription. *he cri#e o% %alse testi#on under Art. 1D9 has prescribed because Paolo, the accused in the principal case, (as ac4uitted on 5anuar 19, 19DK and there%ore the penalt prescribed %or such cri#e is arresto #a or under Art. 1D9, par. >, RPC. Cri#es punishable b arresto #a or prescribes in %ive (C! ears (Art. 99, par. :, RPC!. But the case a&ainst Andre( (as %iled onl on 5une 1D, 199>, (hereas the principal cri#inal case (as decided (ith %inalit on 5anuar 19, 19DK

and, thence the prescriptive period o% the cri#e co##enced to run. "ro# 5anuar 19, 19DK to 5une 1D, 199> is #ore than %ive (C! ears. P#es&#i%$i n * C#i-es( Si-%le Slande# !1..4" A (as char&ed in an in%or#ation (ith the cri#e o% &rave oral de%a#ation but a%ter trial, the court %ound hi# &uilt onl o% the o%%ense o% si#ple slander. .e %iled a #otion %or reconsideration contendin& that, under the la(, the cri#e o% si#ple slander (ould have prescribed in t(o #onths %ro# co##ission, and since the in%or#ation a&ainst hi# (as %iled #ore than %our #onths a%ter the alle&ed co##ission o% the cri#e, the sa#e had alread prescribed. *he ,olicitor Aeneral opposed the #otion on t(o &rounds= %irst, in deter#inin& the prescriptive period, the nature o% the o%%ense char&ed in the -n%or#ation should be considered, not the cri#e proved; second, assu#in& that the o%%ense had alread prescribed, the de%ense (as (aived b the %ailure o% A to raise it in a #otion to 4uash. Resolve the #otion %or reconsideration. S0GGESTE1 ANSWER2 *he #otion %or reconsideration should be &ranted.a! *he accused cannot be convicted o% the o%%ense o% si#ple slander althou&h it is necessaril included in the o%%ense o% &rave slander char&ed in the in%or#ation, because, the lesser o%%ense had alread prescribed at the ti#e the in%or#ation (as %iled (People us. Raran&, (CA! B) 0.A. B>BD; "rancisco vs. CA, 1)) ,CRA C:D; 7a&at vs. People. )91 ,CRA )1! other(ise prosecutors can easil circu#vent the rule o% prescription in li&ht o%%enses b the si#ple expedi#ent o% %ilin& a &raver o%%ense (hich includes such li&ht o%%ense. b! $hile the &eneral rule is the %ailure o% an accused to %ile a #otion to 4uash be%ore he pleads to the co#plaint or in%or#ation, shall be dee#ed a (aiver o% the &rounds o% a #otion to 4uash, the exceptions to this are= (1! no o%%ense (as char&ed in the co#plaint or in%or#ation; ()! lack o% 5urisdiction; (:! extinction o% the o%%ense or penalt ; and (>! double 3eopard . ,ince the &round invoked b the accused in his #otion %or reconsideration is extinction o% the o%%ense, then it can be raised even a%ter plea. -n %act, it #a even be invoked on appeal (People vs. Bala&tas! C-2-' '-AB-'-*1 b! Prescription o% penalties c! Pardon b o%%ended part d! Pardon b the Chie% /xecutive Pa#d n( E**e&$( Civil In$e#di&$i n !2009" *R1 (as sentenced to death b %inal 3ud&#ent. But subse4uentl he (as &ranted pardon b the President. *he pardon (as silent on the perpetual dis4uali%ication o% *R1 to hold an public o%%ice. A%ter his pardon, *R1 ran %or o%%ice as 7a or o% APP, his ho#eto(n. .is opponent sou&ht to dis4uali% hi#. *R1 contended he is not dis4uali%ied because he (as alread pardoned b the President unconditionall . -s *R18, contention correct+ Reason brie%l . (C<! S0GGESTE1 ANSWER2 Eo, *R18s contention is not correct. Article >9 o% the Revised Penal Code expressl provides that (hen the death penalt is not executed b reason o% co##utation or pardon, the accessor penalties o% perpetual absolute dis4uali%ication and civil interdiction durin& thirt (:9! ears %ro# the date o% the sentence shall re#ain as e%%ects thereo%, unless such accessor penalties have been expressl re#itted in the pardon. *his is because pardon onl excuses the convict %ro# servin& the sentence but does not relieve hi# o% the e%%ects o% the conviction unless expressl re#itted in the pardon. Pa#d n( E**e&$( Reins$a$e-en$ !1..9" 'inda (as convicted b the ,andi&anba an o% esta%a, throu&h %alsi%ication o% public docu#ent. ,he (as sentenced accordin&l and ordered to pa , a#on& others, PC,999.99 representin& the balance o% the a#ount de%rauded. *he case reached the ,upre#e Court (hich a%%ir#ed the 3ud&#ent o% conviction. 6urin& the pendenc o% 'inda8s

#otion %or reconsideration in the said Court, the President extended to her an absolute pardon (hich she accepted. B reason o% such pardon, she (rote the 6epart#ent o% "inance re4uestin& that she be restored to her %or#er post as assistant treasurer, (hich is still vacant. *he 6epart#ent ruled that 'inda #a be reinstated to her %or#er position (ithout the necessit o% a ne( appoint#ent and directed the Cit *reasurer to see to it that the su# o% PC,999.99 be satis%ied. Clai#in& that she should not be #ade to pa PC,999.99, 'inda appealed to the 0%%ice o% the President. *he 0%%ice o% the President dis#issed the appeal and held that ac4uittal, not absolute pardon. -s the onl &round %or reinstate#ent to one8s %or#er position and that the absolute pardon does not exe#pt the culprit %ro# pa #ent o% civil liabilit . -s 'inda entitled to reinstate#ent+ S0GGESTE1 ANSWER2 Eo, 'inda is not entitled to reinstate#ent to her %or#er position inas#uch as her ri&ht thereto had been relin4uished or %or%eited b reason o% her conviction. *he absolute pardon #erel extin&uished her cri#inal liabilit , re#oved her dis4uali%ication, and restored her eli&ibilit %or appoint#ent to that o%%ice. ,he has to re-appl %or such position and under the usual procedure re4uired %or a ne( appoint#ent. 7oreover, the pardon does not extin&uish the civil liabilit arisin& %ro# the cri#e. (7onsanto vs."actoran, 5r., 1K9 ,CRA 191!; see Art. :B, RPC! e! A#nest A-nes$6 vs. P1 11/0 !200/" Can %or#er 6,$6 ,ecretar 6ink ,oli#an appl %or a#nest + .o( about colu#nist Rand 6avid+ (1ou are supposed to kno( the cri#es or o%%enses ascribed to the# as published in al#ost all ne(spapers %or the past several #onths.! ().C<! S0GGESTE1 ANSWER2 Procla#ation 11B9, (hich a#ended Procla#ation K)>, applies onl to o%%enses co##itted prior to 1999. *hus, their applications shall be ine%%ectual and useless. Aeneral 'i# and Aeneral Fuerubin o% the ,cout Ran&ers and Philippine 7arines, respectivel , (ere chan&ed (ith conduct unbeco#in& an o%%icer and a &entle#an under the Articles o% $ar. Can the appl %or a#nest + ().C<! S0GGESTE1 ANSWER2 Procla#ation 11B9, (hich a#ended Procla#ation K)>, applies onl to o%%enses co##itted prior to 1999. *hus, their applications shall be ine%%ectual and useless. A-nes$6( C#i-es C ve#ed !200/" Inder Presidential Procla#ation Eo. K)>, a#endin& Presidential Procla#ation Eo. :>K, certain cri#es are covered b the &rant o% a#nest . Ea#e at least C o% these cri#es. ().C<! S0GGESTE1 ANSWER2 Cri#es covered under Presidential Procla#ation Eo. K)>= 1. ). :. >. C. B. K. D. Coup d8etat, Rebellion or insurrection; 6islo alt o% public o%%icers or e#plo ees; -ncitin& to rebellion or insurrection; Conspirac to co##it rebellion or insurrection; Proposal to co##it rebellion or insurrection; ,edition; Conspirac to co##it sedition;

9. 19. 11. 1). 1:. 1>. 1C. 1B. 1K. 1D.

-ncitin& to sedition; -lle&al Asse#bl ; -lle&al Association; 6irect Assault; -ndirect Assault; Resistance and disobedience to a person in authorit ; *u#ults and other disturbances; Inla(%ul use o% #eans o% publications and unla(%ul utterrances; Alar# and scandal; -lle&al Possession o% %irear#s.

Pa#d n vs. A-nes$6 !200/" /nu#erate the di%%erences bet(een pardon and a#nest . ().C<! S0GGESTE1 ANSWER2 a! PAR60E includes an cri#e and is exercised individuall b the President, (hile A7E/,*1 applies to classes o% persons or co##unities (ho #a be &uilt o% political o%%enses. b! PAR60E is exercised (hen the person is alread convicted, (hile A7E/,*1 #a be exercised even be%ore trial or investi&ation. c! PAR60E looks %or(ard and relieves the o%%ender o% the penalt o% the o%%ense %or (hich he has been convicted; it does not (ork %or the restoration o% the ri&hts to hold public o%%ice, or the ri&ht o% su%%ra&e, unless such ri&hts are expressl restored b #eans o% pardon, (hile A7E/,*1 looks back(ard and abolishes the o%%ense and its e%%ects, as i% the person had co##itted no o%%ense. d! PAR60E does not alter the %act that the accused is cri#inall liable as it produces onl the extinction o% the penalt , (hile A7E/,*1 re#oves the cri#inal liabilit o% the o%%ender because it obliterates ever vesti&e o% the cri#e. e! PAR60E bein& a private act b the President, #ust be pleaded and proved b the person pardoned, (hile A7E/,*1 (hich is a Procla#ation o% the Chie% /xecutive (ith the concurrence o% Con&ress is a public act o% (hich the courts should take 3udicial notice.

B.

Book -- (Articles 11>-:BC, RPC! and speci%icall included ,pecial 'a(s 1. Cri#es A&ainst Eational ,ecurit (Arts. 11>-1):! -nclude= a! Anti-Pirac and Anti- .i&h(a 6e%inition o% ter#s (ii! Punishable acts Robber (P.6. C:)! (i!

b! Anti-.i3ackin& 'a( (P.6. B):C! (i! Punishable acts c! .u#an ,ecurit Act o% )99K (R.A. Eo. 9:K)! (i! Punishable acts o% terroris# (ii! $ho are liable

Pi#a&6 in $)e <i,) Seas A E+ali*ied Pi#a&6 !200/" $hile the ,.,. Ea&o a 7aru (as ne&otiatin& the sea route %ro# .on&kon& to(ards 7anila, and (hile still :99 #iles %ro# Aparri, Ca&a an, its en&ines #al%unctioned. *he Captain ordered the ship to stop %or e#er&enc repairs lastin& %or al#ost 1C hours. 6ue to exhaustion, the o%%icers and cre( %ell asleep. $hile the ship (as anchored, a #otorboat #anned b rene&ade 1bana&s %ro# Claveria, Ca&a an, passed b and took advanta&e o% the situation. *he cut the ship8s en&ines and took a(a several heav crates o% electrical e4uip#ent and loaded the# in their #otorboat. *hen the le%t hurriedl to(ards Aparri. At da break, the cre( %ound that a robber took place. *he radioed the Aparri Port

Authorities resultin& in the apprehension o% the culprits. $hat cri#e (as co##itted+ /xplain. ().C<! S0GGESTE1 ANSWER2 Pirac in the hi&h seas (as co##itted b the rene&ade 1bana&s. *he culprits, (ho are neither #e#bers o% the co#ple#ent nor passen&ers o% the ship, sei?ed part o% the e4uip#ent o% the vessel (hile it (as three hundred #iles a(a %ro# Aparri, Ca&a an (Art. 1)), Revised Penal Code!. ,upposin& that (hile the robber (as takin& place, the culprits stabbed a #e#ber o% the cre( (hile sleepin&. $hat cri#e (as co##itted+ /xplain. ().C<! S0GGESTE1 ANSWER2 *he cri#e co##itted is 4uali%ied pirac , because it (as acco#panied b ph sical in3uries@ho#icide. *he culprits stabbed a #e#ber o% the cre( (hile sleepin& (Art. 1):, Revised Penal Code!. Pi#a&6 in $)e <i,) Seas A E+ali*ied Pi#a&6 !200/" *he inter-sland vessel 7@2 2iva 'ines -, (hile cruisin& o%% Batanes, (as %orced to seek shelter at the harbor o% Jaoshiun&, *ai(an because o% a stron& t phoon.. (hile anchored in said harbor, 7ax, Baldo and Bo&art arrived in a speedboat, %ired a ba?ooka at the bo( o% the vessel, boarded it and divested the passen&ers o% their #one and 3e(elr . A passen&er o% 7@2 2iva 'ines -, 6odon&, took advanta&e o% the con%usion to settle an old &rud&e (ith another passen&er, and killed hi#. A%ter their apprehension, all %our (ere char&ed (ith 4uali%ied pirac be%ore a Philippine court. a! $as the char&e o% 4uali%ied pirac a&ainst the three persons (7ax, Baldo and Bo&art! (ho boarded the inter-island vessel correct+ /xplain. (><! S0GGESTE1 ANSWER2 a! *he char&e is correct. Fuali%ied Pirac (as co##itted (hen the o%%enders sei?ed the vessel b %irin& on or boardin& the sa#e. -n the proble#, the even (ent %urther b divestin& the passen&ers o% their #one and 3e(elr . *he vessel (as anchored in the harbor o% Jaoshiun&, *ai(an and it is sub#itted that the cr#e (as co##itted (ithin the territorial 3urisdiction o% another countr . *he ,upre#e Court has ruled that the hi&h seas conte#plated under Art. 1)) o% the Revised Penal Code includes the three-#ile li#it o% an state LPeople v. 'ol-lo, et al., >: Phil. 19L19))M!. 7oreover, pirac is an o%%ense that can be tried an (here because it is a cri#e a&ainst 'a( o% Eations. ANOT<ER S0GGESTE1 ANSWER2 a! Eo, because the territorialit principle o% cri#inal la( applies. *he cri#e happened in *ai(an (here the vessel (as anchored. -t (as not co##itted in the hi&h seas or in Philippine (aters. b! $as 6odon& correctl char&ed be%ore the Philippine court %or 4uali%ied pirac + /xplain. (:<! S0GGESTE1 ANSWER2 b! Eo, 6odon& (as not correctl char&ed (ith 4uali%ied pirac because co##ittin& pirac (as never in his #ind nor did he have an involve#ent in the pirac co##itted. .e #erel took advanta&e o% the situation in killin& the passen&er. .e should be char&ed (ith #urder since there (as evident pre#editation and intent to kill. ). Cri#es A&ainst the "unda#ental 'a(s o% the ,tate (Articles 1)>-1::! -nclude= a! .u#an ,ecurit Act o% )99K (R.A. Eo. 9:K)! (i! Period o% detention

b! Anti-*orture Act o% )999 (R.A. Eo. 9K>C! (i! Punishable acts (ii! $ho are liable Vi la$i n * 1 -i&ile vs. T#es%ass $ 1'ellin, !2002" $hat is the di%%erence bet(een violation o% do#icile and trespass to d(ellin&+ ()<! S0GGESTE1 ANSWER2 *he di%%erences bet(een violation o% do#icile and trespass to d(ellin& are= 1! *he o%%ender in violation o% do#icile is a public o%%icer actin& under color o% authorit ; in trespass to d(ellin&, the o%%ender is a private person or public o%%icer actin& in a private capacit . )! 2iolation o% do#icile is co##itted in : di%%erent (a s= (1! b enterin& the d(ellin& o% another a&ainst the (ill o% the latter; ()! searchin& papers and other e%%ects inside the d(ellin& (ithout the previous consent o% the o(ner; or (:! re%usin& to leave the pre#ises (hich he entered surreptitiousl , a%ter bein& re4uired to leave the pre#ises. :! *respass to d(ellin& is co##itted onl in one (a ; that is, b enterin& the d(ellin& o% another a&ainst the express or i#plied (ill o% the latter. :. Cri#es A&ainst Public 0rder (Articles 1:>-1B9! -nclude= a! 6ecree Codi% in& the 'a(s on -lle&al @ Inla(%ul Possession, 7anu%acture, 6ealin& in, Ac4uisition or 6isposition o% "irear#s, A##unition or /xplosives (P.6. 1DBB, as a#ended b R.A. Eo. D)9>! as an ele#ent o% the cri#es o% rebellion, insurrection, sedition, or atte#pted coup dSetat. b! .u#an ,ecurit Act o% )99K (R.A. Eo. 9:K)! (i! Punishable acts o% terroris# (ii! $ho are liable (iii! Absorption principle in relation to co#plex cri#es A#$ 139( Re3elli n( P li$i&all6 M $iva$ed( C --i$$ed 36 NPA Me-3e#s !1..;" 0n 7a C, 199), at about B=99 a.#., (hile Aovernor Ale&re o% 'a&una (as on board his car travelin& alon& the Eational .i&h(a o% 'a&una, 5oselito and 2icente shot hi# on the head resultin& in his instant death. At that ti#e, 5oselito and 2icente (ere #e#bers o% the li4uidation s4uad o% the Ee( People8s Ar# and the killed the &overnor upon orders o% their senior o%%icer. Co##ander *ia&o. Accordin& to 5oselito and 2icente, the (ere ordered to kill Aovernor Ale&re because o% his corrupt practices. -% ou (ere the prosecutor, (hat cri#e (ill ou char&e 5oselito and 2icente+ LC<5 S0GGESTE1 ANSWER2 -% - (ere the prosecutor, - (ould char&e 5oselito and 2icente (ith the cri#e o% rebellion, considerin& that the killers (ere #e#bers o% the li4uidation s4uad o% the Ee( People8s Ar# and the killin& (as upon orders o% their co##ander; hence, politicall -#otivated. *his (as the rulin& in People vs. Avila, )9K ,CRA 1CBD involvin& identical %acts (hich is a #ove#ent taken 3udicial notice o% as en&a&ed in rebellion a&ainst the Aovern#ent. ALTERNATIVE ANSWER2 -% - (ere the prosecutor, - (ould char&e 5oselito and 2icente %or the cri#e o% #urder as the purpose o% the killin& (as because o% his ;corrupt practices ;, (hich does not appear to be politicall #otivated. *here is no indication as to ho( the killin& (ould pro#ote or %urther the ob3ective o% the Ee( Peoples Ar# . *he killin& is #urder because it (as co##itted (ith treacher . ALTERNATIVE ANSWER2

*he cri#e should be rebellion (ith #urder considerin& that Art. 1:C o% the Revised Penal Code has alread been a#ended b Rep. Act Eo. B9BD, deletin& %ro# said Article, co##on cri#es (hich used to be punished as part and parcel o% the cri#e o% rebellion. *he rulin& in People vs. .ernande?, 99 Phil. C1C (199>!, that rebellion #a not be co#pleted (ith co##on cri#es co##itted in %urtherance thereo%, (as because the co##on cri#es (ere then penali?ed in Art. 1:C to&ether (ith the rebellion, (ith one penalt and Art. >D o% the Rev. Penal Code cannot be applied. Art. 1:C o% said Code re#ained exactl the sa#e (hen the case o% /nrile vs, ,ala?ar, 1DB ,CRA )1K (1999! (as resolved. Precisel %or the reason that Art. >D cannot appl because the co##on cri#es (ere punished as part o% rebellion in Art. 1:C, that this Article (as a#ended, deletin& the co##on cri#es there%ro#. *hat the co##on cri#es (ere deleted %ro# said Article, de#onstrates a clear le&islative intention to treat the co##on cri#es as distinct %ro# rebellion and re#ove the le&al i#pedi#ent to the application o% Art. >D. -t is note(orth that in /nrile vs. ,ala?ar (supra! the ,upre#e Court said these= ;*here is an apparent need to restructure the la( on rebellion, either to raise the penalt there%or or to clearl de%ine and deli#it the other o%%enses to be considered as absorbed thereb , so that i% it cannot be convenientl utili?ed as the u#brella %or ever sort o% ille&al activit undertaken in its na#e. *he Court has no po(er to e%%ect such chan&e, %or it can onl interpret the la( as it stands at an &iven ti#e, and (hat is needed lies be ond interpretation. .ope%ull , Con&ress (ill perceive the need %or pro#ptl sei?in& the initiative in this #atter, (hich is purel (ith in its province,; And si&ni%icantl the said a#end#ent to Art. 1:C o% the Rev. Penal Code (as #ade at around the ti#e the rulin& in ,ala?ar (as handled do(n, obviousl to neutrali?e the .ernande? and the ,ala?ar rulin&s. *he a#end#ent (as sort o% a rider to the coup d8etat la(, Rep. Act Eo B9BD. A#$ 139@A2 C +% dC e$a$ A Ra%e( =#+s$#a$ed !2008" *akin& into account the nature and ele#ents o% the %elonies o% coup dS etat and rape, #a one be cri#inall liable %or %rustrated coup dS etat or %rustrated rape+ /xplain. ()<! S0GGESTE1 ANSWER2 Eo, one cannot be cri#inall liable %or %rustrated coup dS etat or %rustrated rape because in coup dS etat the #ere attack directed a&ainst the dul constituted authorities o% the Republic o% the Philippines, or an #ilitar ca#p or installation, co##unication net(orks, public utilities or other %acilities needed %or the exercise and continued possession o% po(er (ould consu##ate the cri#e. *he ob3ective #a not be to overthro( the &overn#ent but onl to destabili?e or paral ?e the &overn#ent throu&h the sei?ure o% %acilities and utilities essential to the continued possession and exercise o% &overn#ental po(ers. 0n the other hand, in the cri#e o% rape there is no %rustrated rape it is either atte#pted or consu##ated rape. -% the accused (ho placed hi#sel% on top o% a (o#an, raisin& her skirt and unbuttonin& his pants, the endeavor to have sex (ith her ver apparent, is &uilt o% Atte#pted rape. 0n the other hand, entr on the labia or lips o% the %e#ale or&an b the penis, even (ithout rupture o% the h #en or laceration o% the va&ina, consu##ates the cri#e o% rape. 7ore so, it has lon& abandoned its Gstra H decision in People vs. /rina C9 Phil 99D (here the accused (as %ound &uilt o% %rustrated rape. A#$ 139@A( C +% dCe$a$ !2002" -% a &roup o% persons belon&in& to the ar#ed %orces #akes a s(i%t attack, acco#panied b violence, inti#idation and threat a&ainst a vital #ilitar installation %or the purpose o% sei?in& po(er and takin& over such installation, (hat cri#e or cri#es are the &uilt o%+ (:<! S0GGESTE1 ANSWER2 *he perpetrators, bein& persons belon&in& to the Ar#ed "orces, (ould be &uilt o% the cri#e o% coup d8etat, under Article 1:>-A o% the Revised Penal Code, as a#ended, because their attack (as a&ainst vital #ilitar installations (hich are essential to the continued possession and exercise o% &overn#ental po(ers, and their purpose is to sei?e po(er b takin& over such installations. B. -% the attack is 4uelled but the leader is unkno(n, (ho shall be dee#ed the leader thereo%+ ()<! S0GGESTE1 ANSWER2 *he leader bein& unkno(n, an person (ho in %act directed the others, spoke %or the#, si&ned receipts and other docu#ents issued in their na#e, or per%or#ed si#ilar acts, on behal% o% the &roup shall be dee#ed the leader o% said

coup d8etat (Art 1:C, R.P.C.! A#$ 139@A( C +% dCe$a$( Ne' =i#ea#-s La' !1..;" 1. .o( is the cri#e o% coup d8etat co##itted+ L:<M ). ,upposin& a public school teacher participated in a coup d8etat usin& an unlicensed %irear#. $hat cri#e or cri#es did he co##it+ L)<M S0GGESTE1 ANSWER2 1. *he cri#e o% coup d8etat is co##itted b a s(i%t attack, acco#panied b violence, inti#idation, threat, strate& or stealth a&ainst the dul constituted authorities o% the Republic o% the Philippines, #ilitar ca#ps and installations, co##unication net(orks, public utilities and %acilities needed %or the exercise and continued possession o% po(er, carried out sin&l or si#ultaneousl an (here in the Philippines b persons belon&in& to the #ilitar or police or holdin& public o%%ice, (ith or (ithout civilian support or participation, %or the purpose o% sei?in& or di#inishin& state po(er. (Art 1:>-A, RPC!. ). *he public school teacher co##itted onl coup d8etat %or his participation therein. .is use o% an unlicensed %irear# is absorbed in the coup d8etat under the ne( %irear#s la( (Rep. Act Eo. D)9>!. A#$ 13/( C ns%i#a&6 $ C --i$ Re3elli n !1..9" 2C, 5A. AA and 5A conspired to overthro( the Philippine Aovern#ent. 2A (as reco&ni?ed as the titular head o% the conspirac . ,everal #eetin&s (ere held and the plan (as %inali?ed. 55, bothered b his conscience, con%essed to "ather Abraha# that he, 2A, 5A and AA have conspired to overthro( the &overn#ent. "ather Abraha# did not report this in%or#ation to the proper authorities. 6id "ather Abraha# co##it a cri#e+ -% so, (hat cri#e (as co##itted+ $hat is his cri#inal liabilit + S0GGESTE1 ANSWER2 Eo, "ather Abraha# did not co##it a cri#e because the conspirac involved is one to co##it rebellion, not a conspirac to co##it treason (hich #akes a person cri#inall liable under Art 11B, R"C. And even assu#in& that it (ill %all as #isprision o% treason, "ather Abraha# is exe#pted %ro# cri#inal liabilit under Art. 1), par. K, as his %ailure to report can be considered as due to ;insuperable cause;, as this involves the sanctit and inviolabilit o% a con%ession. Conspirac to co##it rebellion results in cri#inal liabilit to the co-conspirators, but not to a person (ho learned o% such and did not report to the proper authorities (I, vs. 2er&ara, : Phil. >:); People vs. Atien?a. CB Phil. :C:!. In&i$in, $ Sedi$i n !2004" $hat are the di%%erent acts o% incitin& to sedition+ S0GGESTE1 ANSWER2 *he di%%erent acts (hich constitute the cri#e o% incitin& to sedition are= 1. -ncitin& others throu&h speeches, (ritin&s, banners and other #edia o% representation to co##it acts (hich constitute sedition; ). Itterin& seditious (ords, speeches or circulatin& scurrilous libels a&ainst the Aovern#ent o% the Philippines or an o% its dul constituted authorities, (hich tend to disturb or obstruct the per%or#ance o% o%%icial %unctions, or (hich tend to incite others to cabal and #eet %or unla(%ul purposes; :. -ncitin& throu&h the sa#e #edia o% representation rebellious conspiracies or riots; >. ,tirrin& people to &o a&ainst la(%ul authorities, or disturb the peace and public order o% the co##unit or o% the Aovern#ent; or C. Jno(in&l concealin& an o% the a%orestated evil practices (Art. 1>), Rev. Penal Code! A#$ 19;( 1i#e&$ Assa+l$ vs. Resis$an&e A 1is 3edien&e !2001" A, a teacher at 7apa .i&h ,chool, havin& &otten #ad at N, one o% his pupils, because o% the latter8s thro(in& paper

clips at his class#ates, t(isted his ri&ht ear. N (ent out o% the classroo# cr in& and proceeded ho#e located at the back o% the school. .e reported to his parents 1 and P (hat A had done to hi#. 1 and P i##ediatel proceeded to the school buildin& and because the (ere runnin& and talkin& in loud voices, the (ere seen b the baran&a chair#an, B, (ho %ollo(ed the# as he suspected that an unto(ard incident #i&ht happen. Ipon seein& A inside the classroo#, N pointed hi# out to his %ather, 1, (ho ad#inistered a %ist blo( on A, causin& hi# to %all do(n. $hen 1 (as about to kick A, B rushed to(ards 1 and pinned both o% the latter8s ar#s. ,eein& his %ather bein& held b B, N (ent near and punched B on the %ace, (hich caused hi# to lose his &rip on 1. *hrou&hout this incident, P shouted (ords o% encoura&e#ent at 1, her husband, and also threatened to slap A. ,o#e securit &uards o% the school arrived, intervened and surrounded N, 1 and P so that the could be investi&ated in the principal8s o%%ice. Be%ore leavin&, P passed near A and thre( a s#all %lo(er pot at hi# but it (as de%lected b B. a! $hat, i% an , are the respective cri#inal liabilit o% N 1 and P+ (B<! b! $ould our ans(er be the sa#e i% B (ere a baran&a tanod onl + (><! S0GGESTE1 ANSWER2 a! N is liable %or 6irect Assault onl , assu#in& the ph sical in3uries in%licted on B, the Baran&a Chair#an, to be onl sli&ht and hence, (ould be absorbed in the direct assault. A Baran&a Chair#an is a person in authorit (Art. 1C), RPC! and in this case, (as per%or#in& his dut o% #aintainin& peace and order (hen attacked. 1 is liable %or the co#plex cri#es o% 6irect Assault $ith 'ess ,erious Ph sical -n3uries %or the %ist blo( on A, the teacher, (hich caused the latter to %all do(n. "or purposes o% the cri#es in Arts. 1>D and 1C1 o% the Revised Penal Code, a teacher is considered a person in authorit , and havin& been attacked b 1 b reason o% his per%or#ance o% o%%icial dut , direct assault is co##itted (ith the resultin& less serious ph sical in3uries co#pleted. P, the #other o% N and (i%e o% 1 #a onl be liable as an acco#plice to the co#plex cri#es o% direct assault (ith less serious ph sical in3uries co##itted b 1. .er participation should not be considered as that o% a co-principal, since her reactions (ere onl incited b her relationship to N and 1. as the #other o% N and the (i%e o% 1. b! -% B (ere a Baran&a *anod onl , the act o% N o% la in& hand on hi#, bein& an a&ent o% a person in authorit onl , (ould constitute the cri#e o% Resistance and 6isobedience under Article 1C1, since N, a hi&h school pupil, could not be considered as havin& acted out o% conte#pt %or authorit but #ore o% helpin& his %ather &et %ree %ro# the &rip o% B. 'a in& hand on an a&ent o% a person in authorit is not ipso %acto direct assault, (hile it (ould al(a s be direct assault i% done to a person in authorit in de%iance to the latter is exercise o% authorit . A#$ 19;( 1i#e&$ Assa+l$( Tea&)e#s A P# *ess #s !2002" A, a lad pro%essor, (as &ivin& an exa#ination. ,he noticed B, one o% the students, cheatin&. ,he called the student8s attention and con%iscated his exa#ination booklet, causin& e#barrass#ent to hi#. *he %ollo(in& da , (hile the class (as &oin& on, the student, B, approached A and, (ithout an (arnin&, slapped her. B (ould have in%licted %urther in3uries on A had not C, another student, co#e to A8s rescue and prevented B %ro# continuin& his attack. B turned his ire on C and punched the latter. $hat cri#e or cri#es, i% an , did B co##it+ $h + (C<! S0GGESTE1 ANSWER2 B co##itted t(o ()! counts o% direct assault= one %or slappin& the pro%essor, A, (ho (as then conductin& classes and thus exercisin& authorit ; and another one %or the violence on the student C, (ho ca#e to the aid o% the said pro%essor. B express provision o% Article 1C), in relation to Article 1>D o% the Revised Penal Code, teachers and pro%essors o% public or dul reco&ni?ed private schools, colle&es and universities in the actual per%or#ance o% their pro%essional duties or on the occasion o% such per%or#ance are dee#ed persons in authorit %or purposes o% the cri#es o% direct assault and o% resistance and disobedience in Articles 1>D and 1C1 o% said Code. And an person (ho co#es to the aid o% persons in authorit shall be dee#ed an a&ent o% a person in authorit . Accordin&l , the attack on C is, in the e es o% the la(, an attack on an a&ent o% a person in authorit , not 3ust an attack on a student. A#$ 19;( Pe#s ns in A+$) #i$6FA,en$s * Pe#s ns in A+$) #i$6 !2000" $ho are dee#ed to be persons in authorit and a&ents o% persons in authorit + (:<! S0GGESTE1 ANSWER2 Persons in authorit are persons directl vested (ith 3urisdiction, (hether as an individual or as a #e#ber o% so#e court or &overn#ent corporation, board, or co##ission. Barrio captains and baran&a chair#en are also dee#ed persons in authorit . (Article 1C), RPC! A&ents o% persons in authorit are persons (ho b direct provision o% la( or b election or b appoint#ent b co#petent authorit , are char&ed (ith #aintenance o% public order, the protection and securit o% li%e and propert ,

such as barrio council#an, barrio police#an, baran&a leader and an person (ho co#es to the aid o% persons in authorit (Art. 1C), RPC!, -n appl in& the provisions o% Articles 1>D and 1C1 o% the Rev. Penal Code, teachers, pro%essors and persons char&ed (ith the supervision o% public or dul reco&ni?ed private schools, colle&es and universities, and la( ers in the actual per%or#ance o% their pro%essional duties or on the occasion o% such per%or#ance, shall be dee#ed persons in authorit . (P.6. Eo. )99, and Batas Pa#bansa Bl&. DK:!. A#$ 18/( 1elive#6 * P#is ne#s *# - :ail !2002" A, a detention prisoner, (as taken to a hospital %or e#er&enc #edical treat#ent. .is %ollo(ers, all o% (ho# (ere ar#ed, (ent to the hospital to take hi# a(a or help hi# escape. *he prison &uards, seein& that the (ere outnu#bered and that resistance (ould endan&er the lives o% other patients, deckled to allo( the prisoner to be taken b his %ollo(ers. $hat cri#e, i% an , (as co##itted b A8s %ollo(ers+ $h + (:<! S0GGESTE1 ANSWER2 A8s %ollo(ers shall be liable as principals in the cri#e o% deliver o% prisoner %ro# 5ail (Art. 1CB, Revised Penal Code!. *he %elon is co##itted not onl b re#ovin& %ro# an 3ail or penal establish#ent an person con%ined therein but also b helpin& in the escape o% such person outside o% said establish#ents b #eans o% violence, inti#idation, briber , or an other #eans. A#$ 184( Evasi n * Se#vi&e * Sen$en&e !1..;" 7ann killed his (i%e under exceptional circu#stances and (as sentenced b the Re&ional *rial Court o% 6a&upan Cit to su%%er the penalt o% destierro durin& (hich he (as not to enter the cit . $hile servin& sentence, 7ann (ent to 6a&upan Cit to visit his #other. 'ater, he (as arrested in 7anila. 1. 6id 7ann co##it an cri#e+ L:<M ). -% so, (here should he be prosecuted+ L)<M S0GGESTE1 ANSWER2 1. 1es. 7ann co##itted the cri#e o% evasion o% service o% sentence (hen he (ent to 6a&upan Cit , (hich he (as prohibited %ro# enterin& under his sentence o% destierro. A sentence i#posin& the penalt o% destierro is evaded (hen the convict enters an o% the place@places he is prohibited %ro# enterin& under the sentence or co#e (ithin the prohibited radius. Althou&h destierro does not involve i#prison#ent, it is nonetheless a deprivation o% libert . (People vs. Abilon&. D) Phil. 1K)!. ). 7ann #a be prosecuted in 6a&upan Cit or in 7anila (here he (as arrested. *his is so because evasion o% service o% sentence is a continuin& o%%ense, as the convict is a %u&itive %ro# 3ustice in such case. (Parulan vs. 6ir. o% Prisons, '-)DC19, 1K "eb. 19BD! A#$. 139( Re3elli n vs. C +% dHe$a$ !2009" 6istin&uish clearl but brie%l = Bet(een rebellion and coup d8etat, based on their constitutive ele#ents as cri#inal o%%enses. S0GGESTE1 ANSWER2 R/B/''-0E is co##itted (hen a #ultitude o% persons rise publicl in ar#s %or the purpose o% overthro(in& the dul constituted &overn#ent, to be replaced b a &overn#ent o% the rebels. -t is carried out b %orce and violence, but need not be participated in b an #e#ber o% the #ilitar , national police or an public o%%icer. C0IP 68/*A* is co##itted (hen #e#bers o% the #ilitar , Philippine Eational Police, or public o%%icer, actin& as principal o%%enders, launched a s(i%t attack thru strate& , stealth, threat, violence or inti#idation a&ainst dul constituted authorities o% the Republic o% the Philippines, #ilitar ca#p or installation, co##unication net(orks, public %acilities or utilities needed %or the exercise and continued possession o% &overn#ental po(ers, %or the purpose o% sei?in& or di#inishin& state po(ers.

Inlike rebellion (hich re4uires a public uprisin&, coup d8etat #a be carried out sin&l or si#ultaneousl and the principal o%%enders #ust be #e#bers o% the #ilitar , national police or public o%%icer, (ith or (ithout civilian support. *he cri#inal ob3ective need not be to overthro( the existin& &overn#ent but onl to destabili?e or paral ?e the existin& &overn#ent. C -%le> C#i-e( 1i#e&$ Assa+l$ 'i$) -+#de# !2000" Because o% the approachin& to(n %iesta in ,an 7i&uel, Bulacan, a dance (as held in Baran&a Ca#ias. A, the Baran&a Captain, (as invited to deliver a speech to start the dance. $hile A (as deliverin& his speech. B, one o% the &uests, (ent to the #iddle o% the dance %loor #akin& obscene dance #ove#ents, brandishin& a kni%e and challen&in& ever one present to a %i&ht. A approached B and ad#onished hi# to keep 4uiet and not to disturb the dance and peace o% the occasion. B, instead o% heedin& the advice o% A, stabbed the latter at his back t(ice (hen A turned his back to proceed to the #icrophone to continue his speech. A %ell to the &round and died. At the ti#e o% the incident A (as not ar#ed. $hat cri#e (as co##itted+ /xplain. ()<! S0GGESTE1 ANSWER2 *he co#plex cri#e o% direct assault (ith #urder (as co##itted. A, as a Baran&a Captain, is a person in authorit and (as actin& in an o%%icial capacit (hen he tried to #aintain peace and order durin& the public dance in the Baran&a , b ad#onishin& B to keep 4uiet and not to disturb the dance and peace o% the occasion. $hen B, instead o% heedin& A8s advice, attacked the latter, B acted in conte#pt and la(less de%iance o% authorit constitutin& the cri#e o% direct assault, (hich characteri?ed the stabbin& o% A. And since A (as stabbed at the back (hen he (as not in a position to de%end hi#sel% nor retaliate, there (as treacher in the stabbin&. .ence, the death caused b such stabbin& (as #urder and havin& been co##itted (ith direct assault, a co#plex cri#e o% direct assault (ith #urder (as co##itted b B. A#$ 19;( 1i#e&$ Assa+l$ 'i$) -+#de# !1..8" Pascual operated a rice thresher in Baran&a Eapnud (here he resided. Renato, a resident o% the nei&hborin& Baran&a Auiha#an, also operated a #obile rice thresher (hich he o%ten brou&ht to Baran&a Eapnud to thresh the pala o% the %ar#ers there. *his (as bitterl resented b Pascual, one a%ternoon Pascual, and his t(o sons con%ronted Renato and his #en (ho (ere operatin& their #obile rice thresher alon& a %eeder road in Eapnud. A heated ar&u#ent ensued. A baran&a captain (ho (as %etched b one o% Pascual8s #en tried to appease Pascual and Renato to prevent a violent con%rontation. .o(ever, Pascual resented the intervention o% the baran&a captain and hacked hi# to death. $hat cri#e (as co##itted b Pascual+ 6iscuss %ull . S0GGESTE1 ANSWER2 Pascual co##itted the co#plex cri#e o% ho#icide (ith assault upon a person in authorit (Arts. 1>D and )>9 in relation to Art, >D, RPC!. A baran&a chair#an, is in la( (Art. 1C)!, a person in authorit and i% he is attacked (hile in the per%or#ance o% his o%%icial duties or on the occasion thereo% the %elon o% direct assault is co##itted. Art. >D, RPC, on the other hand, provides that i% a sin&le act produces t(o or #ore &rave or less &rave %elonies, a co#plex cri#e is co##itted. .ere, the sin&le act o% the o%%ender in hackin& the victi# to death resulted in t(o %elonies, ho#icide (hich is &rave and direct assault (hich is less &rave. >. Cri#es A&ainst Public -nterest (Articles 1B1-1DK! -nclude= a! R.A. Eo. 919> Q Anti-7one 'aunderin& Act (i! Punishable Acts (ii! Covered *ransactions (iii! ,uspicious *ransactions =alse N $es( Ille,al P ssessi n !1..." 1. -s #ere possession o% %alse #one bills punishable under Article 1BD o% the Revised Penal Code+ /xplain. (:<! ). *he accused (as cau&ht in possession o% 199 counter%eit P)9 bills. .e could not explain ho( and (h he possessed the said bills. Eeither could he explain (hat he intended to do (ith the %ake bills. Can he be held cri#inall liable %or such possession+ 6ecide. (:<O

S0GGESTE1 ANSWER2 1. Eo. Possession o% %alse treasur or bank note alone (ithout an intent to use it, is not punishable. But the circu#stances o% such possession #a indicate intent to utter, su%%icient to consu##ate the cri#e o% ille&al possession o% %alse notes. ). 1es. Jno(led&e that the note is counter%eit and intent to use it #a be sho(n b the conduct o% the accused. ,o, possession o% 199 %alse bills reveal= (a! kno(led&e that the bills are %ake; and (b! intent to utter the sa#e. =alse Tes$i- n6 !1..9" Paolo (as char&ed (ith ho#icide be%ore the Re&ional *rial Court o% 7anila. Andre(, a prosecution (itness, testi%ied that he sa( Paolo shoot Abb durin& their heated ar&u#ent. $hile the case is still pendin&, the Cit .all o% 7anila burned do(n and the entire records o% the case (ere destro ed. 'ater, the records (ere reconstituted. Andre( (as a&ain called to the (itness stand. *his ti#e he testi%ied that his %irst testi#on (as %alse and the truth (as he (as abroad (hen the cri#e took place. *he 3ud&e i##ediatel ordered the prosecution o% Andre( %or &ivin& a %alse testi#on %avorable to the de%endant in a cri#inal case. 1.M $ill the case a&ainst Andre( prosper+ ).M Paolo (as ac4uitted. *he decision beca#e %inal on 5anuar 19, 19DK. 0n 5une 1D, 199> a case o% &ivin& %alse testi#on (as %iled a&ainst Andre(. As his la( er, (hat le&al step (ill ou take+ S0GGESTE1 ANSWER2 1! 1es. "or one to be cri#inall liable under Art. 1D1, R"C, it is not necessar that the cri#inal case (here Andre( testi%ied is ter#inated %irst. -t is not even re4uired o% the prosecution to prove (hich o% the t(o state#ents o% the (itness is %alse and to prove the state#ent to be %alse b evidence other than the contradictor state#ents (People vs. Ara?ola, 1: Court o% Appeals Report, )nd series, p. D9D!. )! As la( er o% Andre(, - (ill %ile a #otion to 4uash the -n%or#ation on the &round o% prescription. *he cri#e o% %alse testi#on under Art. 1D9 has prescribed because Paolo, the accused in the principal case, (as ac4uitted on 5anuar 19, 19DK and there%ore the penalt prescribed %or such cri#e is arresto #a or under Art. 1D9, par. >, RPC. Cri#es punishable b arresto #a or prescribes in %ive (C! ears (Art. 99, par. :, RPC!. But the case a&ainst Andre( (as %iled onl on 5une 1D, 199>, (hereas the principal cri#inal case (as decided (ith %inalit on 5anuar 19, 19DK and, thence the prescriptive period o% the cri#e co##enced to run. "ro# 5anuar 19, 19DK to 5une 1D, 199> is #ore than %ive (C! ears. =alsi*i&a$i n( P#es+-%$i n * =alsi*i&a$i n !1..." A %alsi%ied o%%icial or public docu#ent (as %ound in the possession o% the accused. Eo evidence (as introduced to sho( that the accused (as the author o% the %alsi%ication. As a #atter o% %act, the trial court convicted the accused o% %alsi%ication o% o%%icial or public docu#ent #ainl on the proposition that ;the onl person (ho could have #ade the erasures and the superi#position #entioned is the one (ho (ill be bene%ited b the alterations thus #ade; and that ;he alone could have the #otive %or #akin& such alterations;. $as the conviction o% the accused proper althou&h the conviction (as pre#ised #erel on the a%oresaid ratiocination+ /xplain our ans(er. (:<! S0GGESTE1 ANSWER2 1es, the conviction is proper because there is a presu#ption in la( that the possessor and user o% a %alsi%ied docu#ent is the one (ho %alsi%ied the sa#e.

= #,e#6 A =alsi*i&a$i n !1..." .o( are ;%or&in&; and ;%alsi%ication; co##itted+ (:<! S0GGESTE1 ANSWER2 "0RA-EA or %or&er is co##itted b &ivin& to a treasur or bank note or an instru#ent pa able to bearer or to order the appearance o% a true and &enuine docu#ent; or b erasin&, substitutin&, counter%eitin&, or alterin& b an #eans the %i&ures, letters, (ords or si&ns contained therein. "A',-"-CA*-0E, on the other hand, is co##itted b = 1. Counter%eitin& or i#itatin& an hand(ritin&, si&nature or rubric; ). Causin& it to appear that persons have participated in an act or proceedin& (hen the did not in %act so participate; :. Attributin& to persons (ho have participated in an act or proceedin& state#ents other than those in %act #ade b the#; >. 7akin& untruth%ul state#ents in a narration o% %acts; C. Alterin& true dates; B. 7akin& an alteration or intercalation in a &enuine docu#ent (hich chan&es its #eanin&; K. -ssuin& in an authenticated %or# a docu#ent purportin& to be a cop o% an ori&inal docu#ent (hen no such ori&inal exists, or includin& in such cop a state#ent contrar to, or di%%erent %ro#, that o% the &enuine ori&inal; or D. -ntercalatin& an instru#ent or note relative to the issuance thereo% in a protocol, re&istr , or o%%icial book. G#ave S&andal !1../" Pia, a bold actress livin& on top %loor o% a plush condo#iniu# in 7akati Cit sunbathed naked at its penthouse ever ,unda #ornin&. ,he (as una(are that the business executives holdin& o%%ice at the ad3oinin& tall buildin&s reported to o%%ice ever ,unda #ornin& and, (ith the use o% po(er%ul binoculars, kept on &a?in& at her (hile she sunbathed. /ventuall , her sunbathin& beca#e the talk o% the to(n. 1! $hat cri#e, i% an , did Pia co##it+ /xplain, )! $hat cri#e, i% an , did the business executives co##it+ /xplain. S0GGESTE1 ANSWER2 1! Pia did not co##it a cri#e, the %elon closest to #akin& Pia cri#inall liable is Arave ,candal, but then such act is not to be considered as hi&hl scandalous and o%%ensive a&ainst decenc and &ood custo#s. -n the %irst place, it (as not done in a public place and (ithin public kno(led&e or vie(. As a #atter o% %act it (as discovered b the executives accidentall and the have to use binoculars to have public and %ull vie( o% Pia sunbathin& in the nude. )! *he business executives did not co##it an cri#e. *heir acts could not be acts o% lasciviousness Las there (as no overt lust%ul act!, or slander, as the eventual talk o% the to(n, resultin& %ro# her sunbathin&, is not directl i#puted to the business executives, and besides such topic is not intended to de%a#e or put Pia to ridicule. Pe#5+#6 !1../" ,isenando purchased the share o% the stockholders o% /strella Corporation in t(o install#ents, #akin& hi# the #a3orit stockholder thereo% and eventuall , its president. Because the stockholders (ho sold their stocks %ailed to co#pl (ith their (arranties attendant to the sale, ,isenando (ithheld pa #ent o% the second install#ent due on the shares and deposited the #one in escro( instead, sub3ect to release once said stockholders co#pl (ith their (arranties. *he stockholders concerned, in turn, rescinded the sale in 4uestion and re#oved ,isenando %ro# the Presidenc o% the /strella Corporation, ,isenando then %iled a veri%ied co#plaint %or da#a&es a&ainst said stockholders in his capacit as president and principal stockholder o% /strella Corporation. -n retaliation, the stockholders concerned, a%ter petitionin& the ,ecurities and /xchan&e Co##ission to declare the rescission valid, %urther %iled a cri#inal case %or per3ur a&ainst ,isenando, clai#in& that the latter per3ured hi#sel% (hen he stated under oath in the veri%ication o% his co#plaint %or da#a&es that he is the President o% the /strella Corporation (hen in %act he had

alread been re#oved as such. Inder the %acts o% the case, could ,isenando be held liable %or per3ur + /xplain. S0GGESTE1 ANSWER2 Eo, ,isenando #a not be held liable %or per3ur because -t cannot be reasonabl #aintained that he (ill%ull and deliberatel #ade an assertion o% a %alsehood (hen he alle&ed in the co#plaint that he is the President o% the Corporation, obviousl , he #ade the alle&ation on the pre#ise that his re#oval %ro# the presidenc is not valid and that is precisel the issue brou&ht about b his co#plaint to the ,/C. -t is a %act that ,isenando has been the President o% the corporation and it is %ro# that position that the stockholders concerned purportedl re#oved hi#, (hereupon he %iled the co#plaint 4uestionin& his re#oval. *here is no (ill%ul and deliberate assertion o% a %alsehood (hich is a re4uisite o% per3ur . Pe#5+#6 !1..4" A, a &overn#ent e#plo ee, (as ad#inistrativel char&ed (ith i##oralit %or havin& an a%%air (ith B, a coUe#plo ee in the sa#e o%%ice (ho believed hi# to be sin&le. *o exculpate hi#sel%, A testi%ied that he (as sin&le and (as (illin& to #arr B, .e induced C to testi% and C did testi% that B (as sin&le. *he truth, ho(ever, (as that A had earlier #arried 6, no( a nei&hbor o% C. -s A &uilt o% per3ur + Are A and C &uilt o% subordination o% per3ur + S0GGESTE1 ANSWER2 Eo. A is not &uilt o% per3ur because the (ill%ul %alsehood asserted b hi# is not #aterial to the char&e o% i##oralit . $hether A is sin&le or #arried, the char&e o% i##oralit a&ainst hi# as a &overn#ent e#plo ee could proceed or prosper. -n other (ords, A8s civil status is not a de%ense to the char&e o% i##oralit , hence, not a #aterial #atter that could in%luence the char&e. *here is no cri#e o% subornation o% per3ur . *he cri#e is no( treated as plain per3ur (ith the one inducin& another as the principal induce#ent, and the latter, as principal b direct participation (People vs. Podol BB Phil. :BC!. ,ince in this case A cannot be held liable %or per3ur , the #atter that he testi%ied to bein& i##aterial, he cannot there%ore be held responsible as a principal b induce#ent (hen he induced C to testi% on his status. Conse4uentl , C is not liable as principal b direct participation in per3ur , havin& testi%ied on #atters not #aterial to an ad#inistrative case. Pe#5+#6 !2008" Al Chua, a Chinese national, %iled a petition under oath %or naturali?ation, (ith the Re&ional *rial Court o% 7anila. -n his petition, he stated that he is #arried to 'eni Chua; that he is livin& (ith her in ,a#paloc, 7anila; that he is o% &ood #oral character; and that he has conducted hi#sel% in an irreproachable #anner durin& his sta in the Philippines. .o(ever, at the ti#e o% the %ilin& o% the petition, 'eni Chua (as alread livin& in Cebu, (hile Al (as livin& (ith Babes *oh in 7anila, (ith (ho# he has an a#orous relationship. A%ter his direct testi#on , Al Chua (ithdre( his petition %or naturali?ation. $hat cri#e or cri#es, i% an , did Al Chua co##it+ /xplain. (C<! S0GGESTE1 ANSWER2 Al Chua co##itted per3ur . .is declaration under oath %or naturali?ation that he is o% &ood #oral character and residin& at ,a#paloc, 7anila are %alse. *his in%or#ation is #aterial to his petition %or naturali?ation. .e co##itted per3ur %or this (ill%ul and deliberate assertion o% %alsehood (hich is contained in a veri%ied petition #ade %or a le&al purpose. (Choa v. People, A.R. Eo. 1>)911, 7arch 1>, )99:! C. Cri#es Relative to 0piu# and 0ther Prohibited 6ru&s a! *he Co#prehensive 6an&erous 6ru&s Act o% )99) (R.A. Eo. 91BC! (i! Punishable acts (ii! $ho are liable (iii! Atte#pt or conspirac , e%%ect on liabilit

(iv! -##unit %ro# prosecution and punish#ent (iv! Custod and disposition o% con%iscated, sei?ed and@or surrendered dan&erous dru&s (,ection )1, R.A. Eo. 91BC! b! -#ple#entin& Rules and Re&ulations (-RR! o% R.A. Eo. 91BC C. Cri#es A&ainst Public 7orals (Articles )99-)9)! -nclude= a! P.6. 1B9) Q Anti-Aa#blin& Act as a#ended b R.A. 9)DK Q -lle&al Eu#bers Aa#e Q (hich repealed Articles 19C-199 o% the RPC (i! Punishable Acts b! Anti-*ra%%ickin& in Persons Act o% )99: (R.A. Eo. 9)9D! (i! Punishable Acts

B. Cri#es Co##itted b Public 0%%icers (Articles )9:-)>C! -nclude= a! Anti-Ara%t and Corrupt Practices Act (R.A. Eo. :919, as a#ended! (i! Covera&e (ii! Punishable acts (iii! /xceptions

b! Anti-Plunder Act (R.A. Eo. K9D9, as a#ended! (i! 6e%inition o% ter#s (ii! -ll-&otten (ealth (iii! Plunder (iv! ,eries@Co#bination (v! Pattern c! .u#an ,ecurit Act o% )99K (R.A. Eo. 9:K)! (i! "ailure to deliver suspect to proper 3udicial authorit (ii! -n%idelit in the custod o% detained persons (iii! "alse prosecution

B#i3e#6 A C ##+%$i n * P+3li& O**i&ial !2001" 6eput ,heri%% Ben Rivas received %ro# the R*C Clerk o% Court a $rit o% /xecution in the case o% /3ect#ent %iled b 7rs. 7aria /strada vs. 'uis Ablan. *he 3ud&#ent bein& in %avor o% /strada, Rivas (ent to her la( er8s o%%ice (here he (as &iven the necessar a#ounts constitutin& the sheri%%s %ees and expenses %or execution in the total a#ount o% PCC9.99, aside %ro# P),999.99 in consideration o% pro#pt en%orce#ent o% the (rit %ro# /strada and her la( er. *he (rit (as success%ull en%orced. a! $hat cri#e, i% an , did the sheri%% co##it+ (:<! b! $as there an cri#e co##itted b /strada and her la( er and i% so, (hat cri#e+ ()<! S0GGESTE1 ANSWER2 a! *he sheri%% co##itted the cri#e o% 6irect Briber under the second para&raph o% Article )19, Revised Penal Code, since the P),999 (as received b hi# ;in consideration; o% the pro#pt en%orce#ent o% the (rit o% execution (hich is an o%%icial dut o% the sheri%% to do. ALTERNATIVE ANSWER( a! 0n the pre#ise that even (ithout the P),999, ,heri%% Ben Rivas had to carr out the (rit o% execution and not that he (ould be i#ple#entin& the (rit onl because o% the P),999.99, the receipt o% the a#ount b said sheri%% #a be re&arded as a &i%t received b reason o% his o%%ice and not as a ;consideration; %or the per%or#ance o% an o%%icial dut ; hence, onl indirect Briber (ould be co##itted b said sheri%%.

b! 0n the part o% the plainti%% and her la( er as &iver o% the bribe-#one , the cri#e is Corruption o% Public 0%%icials under Article )1), Revised Penal Code. 1i#e&$ B#i3e#62 In*ideli$6 in $)e C+s$ d6 * 1 &+-en$s !2008" 6urin& a PEP bu -bust operation, Cao ,hih (as arrested %or sellin& )9 &ra#s o% #etha#pheta#ine h drochloride (shabu! to a poseur-bu er. Cao ,hih, throu&h an inter#ediar , paid Patrick, the /vidence Custodian o% the PEP "orensic Che#istr ,ection, the a#ount o% PC99,999.99 in consideration %or the destruction b Patrick o% the dru&. Patrick #ana&ed to destro the dru&. ,tate (ith reasons (hether Patrick co##itted the %ollo(in& cri#es= (K<! 1.M 6irect Briber ; S0GGESTE1 ANSWER2 Patrick co##itted the cri#es o% 6irect Briber and -n%idelit in the Custod o% 6ocu#ents. $hen a public o%%icer is called upon to per%or# or re%rain %ro# per%or#in& an o%%icial act in exchan&e %or a &i%t, present or consideration &iven to hi# (Art. )19, Revised Penal Code!, the cri#e co##itted is direct briber . ,econdl , he destro ed the shabu (hich is an evidence in his o%%icial custod , thus, constitutin& in%idelit in the custod o% docu#ents under Art. ))B o% the Revised Penal Code. ).M -ndirect briber ;

S0GGESTE1 ANSWER2 -ndirect briber (as not co##itted because he did not receive the bribe because o% his o%%ice but in consideration o% a cri#e in connection (ith his o%%icial dut . :.M ,ection :(e! o% RA :919 (Anti-Ara%t and Corrupt Practices Act!;

S0GGESTE1 ANSWER2 ,ee. :(e!, R.A. Eo. D919 (as not co##itted because there (as no actual in3ur to the &overn#ent. $hen there is no speci%ic 4uanti%ied in3ur , violation is not co##itted. (Aarcia-Rueda vs A#or, et al., A.R. Eo. 11B9:D, ,epte#ber )9, )991! >.M 0bstruction o% 5ustice under P6 1D)9;

S0GGESTE1 ANSWER2 Patrick co##itted the cri#e o% obstruction o% 3ustice althou&h the %ei&ner penalt i#posable on direct briber or in%idelit in the custod o% docu#ents shall be i#posed. ,ec. 1 o% P.6. Eo. 1D)9 re%ers #erel to the i#position o% the hi&her penalt and does not preclude prosecution %or obstruction o% 3ustice, even i% the sa#e not constitute another o%%ense. ALTERNATIVE ANSWER2 0bstruction o% 5ustice is not co##itted in this case, because the act o% destro in& the evidence in his custod is alread penali?ed b another la( (hich i#poses a hi&her penalt . (,ec. 1, P.-!. Eo. 1D)9! :+#isdi&$i n( I-%ea&)a3le P+3li& O**i&e#s !200/" 5ud&e Rod Re es (as appointed b %or#er President "idel Ra#os as 6eput 0#buds#an %or the 2isa as %or a ter# o%

K ears co##encin& on 5ul C,199C. ,ix #onths therea%ter, a lad steno&rapher %iled (ith the 0%%ice o% the 0#buds#an a co#plaint %or acts o% lasciviousness and (ith the ,upre#e Court a petition %or disbar#ent a&ainst hi#. "orth(ith, he %iled separate #otions to dis#iss the co#plaint %or acts o% lasciviousness and petition %or disbar#ent, clai#in& lack o% 3urisdiction over his person and o%%ice. Are both #otions #eritorious+ (C<! S0GGESTE1 ANSWER2 *he #otion to dis#iss the co#plaint o% the 6eput 0#buds#an %or the acts o% lasciviousness should be denied as onl the 0#buds#an is included in the list o% i#peachable o%%icers %ound in Article N- o% the 19DK Constitution. *here%ore, the ,andi&anba an has 3urisdiction over his prosecution (0%%ice o% the 0#buds#an vs. CA, A.R. 1>B>DB, 7arch >, )99C!. 'ike(ise, the ,upre#e Court has 3urisdiction over the petition %or disbar#ent, as he is a #e#ber o% the bar. .is #otion to dis#iss should be denied (,ee Rule 1:9 and 1:9 o% the Rules o% Court!. Malve#sa$i n !1..9" Rand , an EB- a&ent, (as issued b the EB- an ar#alite ri%le (7lB! and a ,#ith and $esson Revolver. Cal. :D. A%ter a ear, the EB- 6irector #ade an inspection o% all the %irear#s issued. Rand , (ho reported %or (ork that #ornin&, did not sho( up durin& the inspection. .e (ent on absence (ithout leave (A$0'!. A%ter t(o ears, he surrendered to the EB- the t(o %irear#s issued to hi#. .e (as char&ed (ith #alversation o% &overn#ent propert be%ore the ,andi&anba an. Rand put up the de%ense that he did not appropriate the ar#alite ri%le and the revolver %or his o(n use, that the dela in accountin& %or the# does not constitute conversion and that actuall the %irear#s (ere stolen b his %riend, Chitin&. 6ecide the case. S0GGESTE1 ANSWER2 Rand is &uilt as char&ed under Art. )1K, RPC. .e is accountable %or the %irear#s the issued to hi# in his o%%icial capacit . *he %ailure o% Rand to sub#it the %irear#s upon de#and created the presu#ption that he converted the# %or his o(n use. /ven i% there is no direct evidence o% #isappropriation, his %ailure to account %or the &overn#ent propert is enou&h %actual basis %or a %indin& o% #alversation. -ndeed, even his explanation that the &uns (ere stolen is incredible. "or i% the %irear#s (ere actuall stolen, he should have reported the #atter i##ediatel to the authorities. (People vs. Ba&uiran , )9 ,CRA >C:; "elicilda us. Arospe, AR Eo. 19)9>, 5ul :, 199)! Malve#sa$i n !1..." $hat constitutes the cri#e o% #alversation o% public %unds or propert + ()<! S0GGESTE1 ANSWER2 7alversation o% public %unds or propert is co##itted b an public o%%icer (ho, b reason o% the duties o% his o%%ice, is accountable %or public %unds or propert , shall take or #isappropriate or shall consent, or throu&h abandon#ent or ne&li&ence, shall per#it an other person to take such public %unds or propert , (holl or partiall , or shall other(ise be &uilt o% the #isappropriation or #alversation o% such %unds or propert , (Art, )1K, RPC! Malve#sa$i n !1..." A 7unicipal *reasurer, accountable %or public %unds or propert , encashed (ith public %unds private checks dra(n in %avor o% his (i%e. *he checks bounced, the dra(er not havin& enou&h cash in the dra(ee bank. *he 7unicipal *reasurer, in encashin& private checks %ro# public %unds, violated re&ulations o% his o%%ice. Eot(ithstandin& restitution o% the a#ount o% the checks, can the 7unicipal *reasurer nevertheless be cri#inall liable+ $hat cri#e did he co##it+ /xplain. ()<!

S0GGESTE1 ANSWER2 1es, not(ithstandin& the restitution o% the a#ount o% the check, the 7unicipal *reasurer (ill be cri#inall liable as restitution does not ne&ate cri#inal liabilit althou&h it #a be considered as a #iti&atin& circu#stance si#ilar or analo&ous to voluntar surrender. (People vs. 2elas4ue?, K: Phil 9D!, .e (ill be cri#inall liable %or #alversation. .o(ever, i% the restitution (as #ade i##ediatel , under vehe#ent protest a&ainst an i#putation o% #alversation and (ithout leavin& the o%%ice, he #a not be cri#inall liable. Malve#sa$i n !2001" Alex Re es, to&ether (ith 5ose ,antos, (ere %or#er (arehouse#en o% the Rustan 6epart#ent ,tore. -n 19DB, the PCAA se4uestered the assets, %und and properties o% the o(ners-incorporators o% the store, alle&in& that the constitute ;-ll-&otten (ealth; o% the 7arcos %a#il . Ipon their application, Re es and ,antos (ere appointed as %iscal a&ents o% the se4uestered %ir# and the (ere &iven custod and possession o% the se4uestered buildin& and its contents, includin& various vehicles used in the %ir#8s operations. A%ter a %e( #onths, an inventor (as conducted and it (as discovered that t(o ()! deliver vans (ere #issin&. A%ter de#and (as #ade upon the#, Re es and ,antos %ailed to &ive an satis%actor explanation (h the vans (ere #issin& or to turn the# over to the PCAA; hence, the (ere char&ed (ith 7alversation o% Public Propert . 6urin& the trial, the t(o accused clai#ed that the are not public accountable o%%icers and, i% an cri#e (as co##itted, it should onl be /sta%a under Art. :1C, par. l(b! o% the Revised Penal Code. $hat is the proper o%%ense co##itted+ ,tate the reason(s! %or our ans(er. (C<! S0GGESTE1 ANSWER2 *he proper o%%ense co##itted (as 7alversation o% Public Propert , not esta%a, considerin& that Re es and ,antos, upon their application, (ere constituted as ;%iscal a&ents; o% the se4uestered %ir# and (ere ;&iven custod and possession; o% the se4uestered properties, includin& the deliver vans (hich later the could not account %or. *he (ere thus #ade the depositar and ad#inistrator o% properties deposited b public authorit and hence, b the duties o% their o%%ice@position, the are accountable %or such properties. ,uch properties, havin& been se4uestered b the Aovern#ent throu&h the PCAA, are in custodia le&is and there%ore i#pressed (ith the character o% public propert , even thou&h the properties belon& to a private individual (Art. ))), RPC!. *he %ailure o% Re es and ,antos to &ive an satis%actor explanation (h the vans (ere #issin&, is pri#a %acie evidence that the had put the sa#e to their personal use. Malve#sa$i n !200/" 1. -n 19D), the Philippine Eational Bank (PEB!, then a &overn#ent bankin& institution, hired .enr dela Renta, a CPA, as Re&ional Bank Auditor. -n 199), he resi&ned and (as e#plo ed b the Philippine 6eposit -nsurance Corporation (P6-C!, another &overn#ent-o(ned and controlled corporation. -n 199C, a%ter the PEB #ana&e#ent unearthed #an irre&ularities and violations o% the bank8s rules and re&ulations, dela Renta (as %ound to have #anipulated certain accounts involvin& trust %unds and ti#e deposits o% depositors. A%ter investi&ation, he (as char&ed (ith #alversation o% public %unds be%ore the ,andi&anba an. .e %iled a #otion to dis#iss contendin& he (as no lon&er an e#plo ee o% the PEB but o% the P6-C. -s dela Renta8s contention tenable+ ().C<! S0GGESTE1 ANSWER2 *he contention o% .enr dela Renta is not tenable. 6ela Renta #a be prosecuted %or #alversation even i% he had ceased to be an e#plo ee o% the PEB. At the ti#e o% the co##ission o% the o%%ense, PEB (as a &overn#ent o(ned and controlled corporation and there%ore, an cri#e co##itted b the Re&ional Bank Auditor, (ho is a public o%%icer, is sub3ect to the 3urisdiction o% the ,andi&anba an (,ee R.A. K9KC as a#ended b RA. D)>9!. ). A%ter his arrai&n#ent, the prosecution %iled a #otion %or his suspension pendente lite, to (hich he %iled an opposition clai#in& that he can no lon&er be suspended as he is no lon&er an e#plo ee o% the PEB but that o% the P6-C. /xplain (hether he #a or #a not be suspended. ().C<!

S0GGESTE1 ANSWER2 6ela Renta #a still be suspended pendente lite despite holdin& a di%%erent public o%%ice, the P6-C, (hen he (as char&ed. *he ter# ;o%%ice; in ,ec. 1: o% R.A. :919 applies to an o%%ice (hich the o%%icer #i&ht currentl be holdin& and not necessaril the o%%ice or position in relation to (hich he is char&ed (,e&ovia v. ,andi&anba an, A.R. Eo. 1))K>9, 7arch :9,199D!. Malve#sa$i n !200;" /liseo, the deput sheri%%, conducted the execution sale o% the propert o% Andres to satis% the 3ud&#ent a&ainst hi# in %avor o% ABC Corporation, a &overn#ent-o(ned or controlled corporation (ith an ori&inal charter. .o(ever, the representative o% the corporation %ailed to attend the auction sale. Aon?alo, the (innin& bidder, purchased the propert %or P199,999 (hich he paid to /liseo. -nstead o% re#ittin& the a#ount to Clerk o% Court as ex-o%%icio Provincial ,heri%%, /liseo lent the a#ount to 7 rna, his o%%ice#ate, (ho pro#ised to repa the a#ount (ithin t(o #onths, (ith interest thereon. .o(ever, 7 rna rene&ed on her pro#ise. 6espite de#ands o% ABC Corporation, /liseo %ailed to re#it the said a#ount. a! ,tate (ith reasons, the cri#e or cri#es, i% an , co##itted b /liseo. (><! S0GGESTE1 ANSWER2 *he cri#e co##itted b /liseo is #alversation since he is a public o%%icer (ho received the a#ount in his o%%icial capacit ; thus he is accountable %or it. b! $ould our ans(er to the %irst 4uestion be the sa#e i% ABC Corporation (ere a private corporation+ /xplain. (:<! S0GGESTE1 ANSWER2 b! *he cri#e (ould still be #alversation even i% ABC Corporation, in (hose %avor the 3ud&#ent (as rendered, (ere a private corporation. *his is because the P199,999.99 ca#e %ro# the sale o% propert levied upon or sei?ed upon execution ordered b the court. *he proper (as in custodia le&is. Althou&h not strictl public propert , it has beco#e i#pressed (ith the character o% public propert (hen /liseo, in his o%%icial capacit , conducted the execution sale and received its proceeds. As lon& as /liseo has not accounted %or and turned over the proceeds o%%iciall , he is not relieved o% his o%%icial accountabilit . Malve#sa$i n vs. Es$a*a !1..." .o( is #alversation distin&uished %ro# esta%a+ S0GGESTE1 ANSWER2 7alversation di%%ers %ro# esta%a in that #alversation is co##itted b an accountable public o%%icer involvin& public %unds or propert under his custod and accountabilit ; (hile esta%a is co##itted b non-accountable public o%%icer or private individual involvin& %unds or propert %or (hich he is not accountable to the &overn#ent. Malve#sa$i n2 An$i@=en&in,2 Ca#na%%in, !2008" Allan, the 7unicipal *reasurer o% the 7unicipalit o% Aerona, (as in a hurr to return to his o%%ice a%ter a da -lon& o%%icial con%erence. .e ali&hted %ro# the &overn#ent car (hich (as o%%iciall assi&ned to hi#, leavin& the i&nition ke and the car unlocked, and rushed to his o%%ice. 5ules, a b stander, drove o%% (ith the car and later sold the sa#e to his brother, 6ann %or P)9,999.99, althou&h the car (as (orth PD99,999.99.

$hat are the respective cri#es, i% an , co##itted b Allan, 6ann and 5ules+ /xplain. S0GGESTE1 ANSWER2 Allan, the #unicipal treasurer is liable %or #alversation co##itted throu&h ne&li&ence or culpa. *he &overn#ent car (hich (as assi&ned to hi# is public propert under his accountabilit b reason o% his duties. B his act o% ne&li&ence, he per#itted the takin& o% the car b another person, resultin& in #alversation, consistent (ith the lan&ua&e o% Art. )1K o% the Revised Penal Code. 6ann violated the Anti-"encin& 'a(. .e is in possession o% an ite# (hich is the sub3ect o% thiever . P.6. Eo. 1B1) (Anti-"encin& 'a(! under ,ection C provides that #ere possession o% an &ood, article, ite#, ob3ect or an thin& o% value (hich has been the sub3ect o% robber or thiever shall be pri#a %acie, evidence o% %encin&. 5ules is &uilt o% carnappin&. .e took the #otor vehicle belon&in& to another (ithout the latter8s consent. (R.A. Eo. BC:9! $hat, i% an , are their respective civil liabilities+ /xplain. (C<! S0GGESTE1 ANSWER2 Allan is under obli&ation to restitute the vehicle or #ake reparation i% not possible. 5ules #ust pa the a#ount he &ained %ro# the sale o% the car (hich is P)9,999.99. 6ann #ust #ake reparation correspondin& to the value o% the car (hich is PD99,999.99. Malve#sa$i n( P# %e#$ies( C+s$ dia Le,is !2001" Accused 5uan ,antos, a deput sheri%% in a Re&ional *rial Court, levied on the personal properties o% a de%endant in a civil case be%ore said court, pursuant to a (rit o% execution dul issued b the court. A#on& the properties levied upon and deposited inside the ;evidence roo#; o% the Clerk o% Court %or 7ultiple R*C ,alas (ere a re%ri&erator, a stock o% cassette tapes, a dinin& table set o% chairs and several la#pshades. Ipon the de%endant8s pa in& o%% the 3ud&#ent creditor, he tried to clai# his properties but %ound out that several ite#s (ere #issin&, such as the cassette tapes, chairs and la#pshades. A%ter due and dili&ent sleuthin& b the police detectives assi&ned to the case, these #issin& ite#s (ere %ound in the house o% accused ,antos, (ho reasoned out that he onl borro(ed the# te#poraril . -% ou (ere the %iscal @prosecutor, (hat (ould be the nature o% the in%or#ation to be %iled a&ainst the accused+ $h + (C<! S0GGESTE1 ANSWER2 -% - (ere the %iscal@prosecutor, - (ould %ile an in%or#ation %or 7alversation a&ainst chain and la#pshades (hich he, as deput sheri%%, levied upon and thus under his ,aid properties bein& under lev , are in custodia le&is and thus i#pressed (ith #isappropriation o% (hich constitutes the cri#e o% #alversation althou&h said individual (Art. ))), RPC!. 5uan ,antos %or the cassette tapes, accountabilit as a public o%%icer. the character o% public propert , properties belon&ed to a private

5uan ,antos #isappropriated such properties (hen, in breach o% trust, he applied the# to his o(n private use and bene%it. .is alle&ation that he onl borro(ed such properties is a la#e excuse, devoid o% #erit as there is no one %ro# (ho# he borro(ed the sa#e. *he %act that it (as onl ;a%ter due and dili&ent sleuthin& b the police detectives assi&ned to the case;, that the #issin& ite#s (ere %ound in the house o% ,antos, ne&ates his pretension. ALTERNATIVE ANSWER2 An in%or#ation %or *he%t #a be %iled, considerin& that the sheri%% had alread deposited the properties levied upon in

the ;evidence roo#; o% the Clerk o% Court and #a have alread been relieved o% his accountabilit there%or. -% 5uan ,antos (as no lon&er the public o%%icer (ho should be accountable %or the properties levied upon and %ound in his house, his takin& o% such properties (ould no lon&er constitute 7alversation but *he%t, as there (as takin& (ith intent to &ain, o% personal propert o% another (ithout the consent o% the latter. Malve#sa$i n( Te&)ni&al Malve#sa$i n !1../" /li?abeth is the #unicipal treasurer o% 7asinloc, Pa#bales. 0n 5anuar 19, 199>, she received, as #unicipal treasurer, %ro# the 6epart#ent o% Public $orks and .i&h(a s, the a#ount o% P199,999.99 kno(n as the %und %or construction, rehabilitation, better#ent, and -#prove#ent (CRB-! %or the concretin& o% Baran&a Phanix Road located in 7asinloc, Pa#bales, a pro3ect undertaken on proposal o% the Baran&a Captain. -n%or#ed that the %und (as alread exhausted (hile the concretin& o% Baran&a Phanix Road re#ained un%inished, a representative o% the Co##ission on Audit conducted a spot audit o% /li?abeth (ho %ailed to account %or the Pl99,999 CRB- %und. /li?abeth, (ho (as char&ed (ith #alversation o% public %unds, (as ac4uitted b the ,andi&anba an o% that char&e but (as nevertheless convicted, in the sa#e cri#inal case, %or ille&al use o% public %unds. 0n appeal, /li?abeth ar&ued that her conviction (as erroneous as she applied the a#ount o% PC9,999.99 %or a public purpose (ithout violatin& an la( or ordinance appropriatin& the said a#ount %or an speci%ic purpose. *he absence o% such la( or ordinance (as, in %act, established. -s the contention o% /li?abeth le&all tenable+ /xplain. S0GGESTE1 ANSWER2 /li?abeth8s contention that her conviction %or ille&al use o% public %unds (technical #alversation! (as erroneous, is le&all tenable because she (as char&ed %or #alversation o% public %unds under Art. )1K o% the Revised Penal Code but (as convicted %or -lle&al use o% public %unds (hich is de%ined and punished under Art. ))9 o% said Code. A public o%%icer char&ed (ith #alversation #a not be validl convicted o% ille&al use o% public %unds (technical #alversation! because the latter cri#e is not necessaril included nor does it necessaril include the cri#e o% #alversation. *he ,andi&anba an should have %ollo(ed the procedure provided in ,ec. 11, Rule 119 o% the Rules o% Court and order the %ilin& o% the proper -n%or#ation. (Parun&ao us. ,andi&anba an. 19K ,CRA 1K:.! "ro# the %acts, there is no sho(in& that there is a la( or ordinance appropriatin& the a#ount to a speci%ic public purpose. As a #atter o% %act, the proble# cate&oricall states that the absence o% such la( or ordinance (as, in %act, established.; ,o, procedurall and substantiall , the ,andi&anba an8s decision su%%ers %ro# serious -n%ir#it . P+3li& O**i&e#s( de*ini$i n !1..." $ho are public o%%icers+ ()<! S0GGESTE1 ANSWER2 Public 0%%icers are persons (ho, b direct provision o% the la(, popular election or appoint#ent b co#petent authorit , takes part in the per%or#ance o% public %unctions in the Aovern#ent o% the Philippines, or per%or#s in said Aovern#ent or in an o% its branches public duties as an e#plo ee, a&ent or subordinate o%%icial, o% an rank or class (Art. )9:, RPC! P+3li& O**i&e#s( In*ideli$6 in C+s$ d6 * P#is ne#s !1../" A chie% o% police o% a #unicipalit , believin& in &ood %aith that a prisoner servin& a ten-da sentence in the #unicipal 3ail, (ould not escape, allo(ed said prisoner to sleep at the latter8s house because the #unicipal 5ail (as so con&ested and there (as no bed space available. Accordin&l , the prisoner (ent ho#e to sleep ever ni&ht but returned to 3ail earl each #ornin&, until the ten-da sentence had been %ull served. 6id the Chie% o% Police co##it an cri#e+ /xplain. S0GGESTE1 ANSWER2 *he Chie% o% Police is &uilt o% violation o% Art. )):, RPC, consentin& or connivin& to evasion, the ele#ents o% (hich

are (a! he is a public o%%icer, (b! he is in char&e or custod o% a prisoner, detention or prisoner b %inal 3ud&#ent, (c! that the prisoner escaped, and (d! there #ust be connivance. Relaxation o% a prisoner is considered in%idelit , thus #akin& the penalt ine%%ectual; althou&h the convict #a not have %led (I, vs. Bandino, 9 Phil. >C9! it is still violative o% the provision. -t also includes a case (hen the &uard allo(ed the prisoner, (ho is servin& a six-da sentence in the #unicipal 5ail, to sleep in his house and eat there (People vs. Revilla!. P+3li& O**i&e#s( In*ideli$6 in C+s$ d6 * P#is ne#s !1..4" 6urin& a to(n %iesta. A, the chie% o% police, per#itted B, a detention prisoner and his co#padre, to leave the #unicipal 3ail and entertain visitors in his house %ro# 19=99 a.#. to D=99 p.#. B returned to the #unicipal 3ail at D=:9 p.#. $as there an cri#e co##itted b A+ S0GGESTE1 ANSWER2 1es, A co##itted the cri#e o% in%idelit in the custod o% a prisoner. ,ince B is a detention prisoner. As Chie% o% Police, A has custod over B. /ven i% B returned to the #unicipal 5ail at D=:9 p.#. A, as custodian o% the prisoner, has #aliciousl %ailed to per%or# the duties o% his o%%ice, and (hen he per#its said prisoner to obtain a relaxation o% his i#prison#ent, he consents to the prisoner escapin& the punish#ent o% bein& deprived o% his libert (hich can be considered real and actual evasion o% service under Article )): o% the Revised Penal Code (People vs. 'eon Bandino )9 Phil. >C9!. ALTERNATIVE ANSWER2 Eo cri#e (as co##itted b the Chie% o% Police. -t (as onl an act o% lenienc or laxit in the per%or#ance o% his dut and not in excess o% his dut (People vs. /van&elista (CA! :D 0.A. 1CD!. K. Cri#es A&ainst Persons (Articles )>B-)BB! -nclude= a! Anti-2iolence a&ainst $o#en and their Children Act o% )99> (R.A. Eo. 9)B)! (i! Punishable acts

b! Anti-Child Porno&raph Act o% )999 (R.A. Eo. 9KKC! (i! 6e%inition o% ter#s (ii! Inla(%ul or punishable acts c! Anti-.a?in& 'a( (R.A. Eo. D9>9! (i! .a?in& (a! 6e%inition (b! Allo(ed initiation rites (ii! $ho are liable (iii! Punishable acts

d! ,pecial Protection o% Children A&ainst Child Abuse, /xploitation and 6iscri#ination Act (R.A. Eo. KB19, as a#ended! (i! Covera&e (ii! Child prostitution, punishable acts (iii! Child tra%%ickin&, punishable acts e! 5uvenile 5ustice and $el%are Act o% )99B (R.A. Eo. 9:>>!, read in relation (ith the Child and 1outh $el%are Code (P.6. B9:, as a#ended! (i! Punishable acts

%!

.u#an ,ecurit Act o% )99K (R.A. Eo. 9:K)! (i! Punishable acts o% terroris# (ii! $ho are liable

C -%le> C#i-e( < -i&ide 'F Assa+l$@A+$) #i$6 !1..8" Pascual operated a rice thresher in Baran&a Eapnud (here he resided. Renato, a resident o% the nei&hborin& Baran&a Auiha#an, also operated a #obile rice thresher (hich he o%ten brou&ht to Baran&a Eapnud to thresh the pala o% the %ar#ers there. *his (as bitterl resented b Pascual, 0ne a%ternoon Pascual, and his t(o sons con%ronted Renato and his #en (ho (ere operatin& their #obile rice thresher alon& a %eeder road in Eapnud. A heated ar&u#ent ensued. A baran&a captain (ho (as %etched b one o% Pascual8s #en tried to appease Pascual and Renato to prevent a violent con%rontation. .o(ever, Pascual resented the intervention o% the baran&a captain and hacked hi# to death. $hat cri#e (as co##itted b Pascual+ 6iscuss %ull . S0GGESTE1 ANSWER2 Pascual co##itted the co#plex cri#e o% ho#icide (ith assault upon a person in authorit (Arts. 1>D and )>9 in relation to Art, >D, RPC!. A baran&a chair#an, is in la( (Art. 1C)!, a person in authorit and i% he is attacked (hile in the per%or#ance o% his o%%icial duties or on the occasion thereo% the %elon o% direct assault is co##itted. Art. >D, RPC, on the other hand, provides that i% a sin&le act produces t(o or #ore &rave or less &rave %elonies, a co#plex cri#e is co##itted. .ere, the sin&le act o% the o%%ender in hackin& the victi# to death resulted in t(o %elonies, ho#icide (hich is &rave and direct assault (hich is less &rave. C -%le> C#i-e( Pa##i&ide 'F +nin$en$i nal a3 #$i n !1..9" Aldrich (as dis#issed %ro# his 5ob b his e#plo er. Ipon reachin& ho#e, his pre&nant (i%e, Car#i, na&&ed hi# about #one %or her #edicines. 6epressed b his dis#issal and an&ered b the na&&in& o% his (i%e, Aldrich struck Car#i (ith his %ist. ,he %ell to the &round. As a result, she and her unborn bab died. $hat cri#e (as co##itted b Aldrich+ S0GGESTE1 ANSWER2 Aldrich co##itted the cri#e o% parricide (ith unintentional abortion. $hen Aldrich struck his (i%e, Car#i, (ith his %ist, he co##itted the cri#e o% #altreat#ent under Art, )BB, par. : o% the Revised Penal Code, ,ince Car#i died because o% the %elonious act o% Aldrich, he is cri#inall liable o% parricide under Art. )>B, RPC in relation to Art. >, par. 1 o% the sa#e Code. ,ince the unborn bab o% Car#i died in the process, but Aldrich had no intention to cause the abortion o% his (i%e, Aldrich co##itted unintentional abortion as de%ined in Art. )CK, RPC. -nas#uch as the sin&le act o% Aldrich produced t(o &rave or less &rave %elonies, he %alls under Art, >D, RPC, ie. a co#plex cri#e (People vs. ,alu%rancia, 1C9 ,CRA >91!. C#i-inal Lia3ili$ies( Ra%e( < -i&ide A T)e*$ !1..; N " Jin& (ent to the house o% 'aura (ho (as alone. 'aura o%%ered hi# a drink and a%ter consu#in& three bottles o% beer. Jin& #ade advances to her and (ith %orce and violence, ravished her. *hen Jin& killed 'aura and took her 3e(elr . 6o#in&, Jin&8s adopted brother, learned about the incident. .e (ent to 'aura8s house, hid her bod , cleaned ever thin& and (ashed the bloodstains inside the roo#. 'ater, Jin& &ave 5ose, his le&iti#ate brother, one piece o% 3e(elr belon&in& to 'aura. 5ose kne( that the 3e(elr (as taken %ro# 'aura but nonetheless he sold it %or P),999. $hat cri#e or cri#es did Jin&, 6o#in& and 5ose co##it+ 6iscuss their cri#inal liabilities. L19<M S0GGESTE1 ANSWER2

Jin& co##itted the co#posite cri#e o% Rape (ith ho#icide as a sin&le indivisible o%%ense, not a co#plex cri#e, and *he%t. *he takin& o% 'aura8s 3e(elr (hen she is alread dead is onl the%t. C#i-inal Lia3ili$6( T+-+l$ +s A**#a6 !1..4" 6urin& a to(n %iesta, a %ree-%or-all %i&ht erupted in the public pla?a. As a result o% the tu#ultuous a%%ra , A sustained one %atal and three super%icial stab (ounds. .e died a da a%ter. B, C, 6 and / (ere proven to be participants in the ;ru#ble;, each usin& a kni%e a&ainst A, but it could not be ascertained (ho a#on& the# in%licted the #ortal in3ur . $ho shall be held cri#inall liable %or the death o% A and %or (hat+ S0GGESTE1 ANSWER2 B, C, 6, and / bein& participants in the tu#ultuous a%%ra and havin& been proven to have in%licted serious ph sical in3uries, or at least, e#plo ed violence upon A, are cri#inall liable %or the latter8s death. And because it cannot be ascertained (ho a#on& the# in%licted the #ortal in3ur on A, there bein& a %ree-%or-all %i&ht or tu#ultuous a%%ra . B, C, 6, and / are all liable %or the cri#e o% death caused in a tu#ultuous a%%ra under Article )C1 o% the Revised Penal Code. C#i-inal Lia3ili$6( T+-+l$+ +s A**#a6 !2003" -n a %ree-%or-all bra(l that ensued a%ter so#e custo#ers inside a ni&ht club beca#e unrul , &uns (ere %ired b a &roup, a#on& the# A and B, that %inall put the custo#ers back to their senses. In%ortunatel , one custo#er died. ,ubse4uent investi&ation revealed that A8s &unshot had in%licted on the victi# a sli&ht (ound that did not cause the deceased8s death nor #ateriall contribute to it. -t (as B8s &unshot that in%licted a %atal (ound on the deceased. A contended that his liabilit should, i% at all, be li#ited to sli&ht ph sical in3ur . $ould ou a&ree+ $h + B< S0GGESTE1 ANSWER2 Eo, - be& to disa&ree (ith A8s contention that his liabilit should be li#ited to sli&ht ph sical in3ur onl . .e should be held liable %or atte#pted ho#icide because he in%licted said in3ur (ith the use o% a %irear# (hich is a lethal (eapon. -ntent to kill is inherent in the use o% a %irear#. (Araneta, 5r. v. Court o% Appeals, 1DK ,CRA 1): L1999M! ALTERNATIVE ANSWER2 1es, - (ould a&ree to A8s contention that his cri#inal liabilit should be %or sli&ht ph sical in3ur onl , because he %ired his &un onl to paci% the unrul custo#ers o% the ni&ht club and there%ore, (ithout intent to kill. B8s &unshot that in%licted a %atal (ound on the deceased #a not be i#puted to A because conspirac cannot exist (hen there is a %ree%or-all bra(l or tu#ultuous a%%ra . A and B are liable onl %or their respective acts. 1ea$) +nde# E>&e%$i nal Ci#&+-s$an&es !2001" A and B are husband and (i%e. A is e#plo ed as a securit &uard at 'and#ark, his shi%t bein& %ro# 11=99 p.#. to K=99 a.#. 0ne ni&ht, he %elt sick and cold, hence, he decided to &o ho#e around #idni&ht a%ter &ettin& per#ission %ro# his dut o%%icer. Ipon reachin& the %ront ard o% his ho#e, he noticed that the li&ht in the #aster bedroo# (as on and that the bedroo# (indo( (as open. Approachin& the %ront door, he (as surprised to hear si&hs and &i&&les inside the bedroo#. .e opened the door ver care%ull and peeped inside (here he sa( his (i%e B havin& sexual intercourse (ith their nei&hbor C. A rushed inside and &rabbed C but the latter #ana&ed to (rest hi#sel% %ree and 3u#ped out o% the (indo(, A %ollo(ed suit and #ana&ed to catch C a&ain and a%ter a %urious stru&&le, #ana&ed also to stran&le hi# to death. A then rushed back to his bedroo# (here his (i%e B (as co(erin& under the bed covers. ,till enra&ed, A hit B (ith %ist blo(s and rendered her unconscious. *he police arrived a%ter bein& su##oned b their nei&hbors and arrested A (ho (as detained, in4uested and char&ed %or the death o% C and serious ph sical -n3uries o% B. a! -s A liable %or C8s death+ $h + (C<! b! -s A liable %or B8s in3uries+ $h + (C<!

S0GGESTE1 ANSWER2 a! 1es, A is liable %or C8s death but under the exceptional circu#stances in Article )>K o% the Revised Penal Code, (here onl destierro is prescribed. Article )>K &overns since A surprised his (i%e B in the act o% havin& sexual intercourse (ith C, and the killin& o% C (as ;-##ediatel therea%ter; as the discover , escape, pursuit and killin& o% C %or# one continuous act. (I.,. vs. 2ar&as, ) Phil. 19>! b! 'ike(ise, A is liable %or the serious ph sical in3uries he in%licted on his (i%e B but under the sa#e exceptional circu#stances in Article )>K o% the Revised Penal Code, %or the sa#e reasons. 1ea$) +nde# E>&e%$i nal Ci#&+-s$an&es !2008" Pete, a securit &uard, arrived ho#e late one ni&ht a%ter renderin& overti#e. .e (as shocked to see "lor, his (i%e, and Ben3ie, his best %riend, co#pletel naked havin& sexual intercourse. Pete pulled out his service &un and shot and killed Ben3ie. Pete (as char&ed (ith #urder %or the death o% Ben3ie. Pete contended that he acted in de%ense o% his honor and that, there%ore, he should be ac4uitted o% the cri#e. *he court %ound that Ben3ie died under exceptional circu#stances and exonerated Pete o% the cri#e, but sentenced hi# to destierro, con%or#abl (ith Article )>K o% the Revised Penal Code. *he court also ordered Pete to pa inde#nit to the heirs o% the victi# in the a#ount o% PC9,999.99. (C<! -s the de%ense o% Pete #eritorious+ /xplain. S0GGESTE1 ANSWER2 Eo. A person (ho co##its acts penali?ed under Article )>K o% the Revised Penal Code %or death or serious ph sical in3uries in%licted under exceptional circu#stances is still cri#inall liable. .o(ever, this is #erel an exe#ptin& circu#stance (hen the victi# su%%ers an other kind o% ph sical in3ur . -n the case at bar, Pete (ill su%%er the penalt o% destierro %or the death o% Ben3ie. ALTERNATIVE ANSWER2 Eo. Pete did not act in de%ense o% his honor. "or this de%ense to appl under Art. 11, there #ust be an unla(%ul a&&ression (hich is de%ined as an attack or #aterial a&&ression that poses a dan&er to his li%e or personal sa%el . -t #ust be a real a&&ression characteri?ed b a ph sical %orce or (ith a (eapon to cause in3ur or da#a&e to one8s li%e. (People v. Eaha ra, A.R. Eos. 9B:BD-B9, 0ctober 1K, 1991; People v. .ousin&, A.R. Eo. B>9BC, 5ul 1D, 1991! Inder Article )>K o% the Revised Penal Code, is destierro a penalt + /xplain. S0GGESTE1 ANSWER2 -n the case o% People v. Abarca, A.R. Eo. K>>::, ,epte#ber 1>, 19DK, the Court ruled that Article )>K does not de%ine a %elon . .o(ever, it (ent on to state that the penalt is #erel banish#ent o% the accused, intended %or his protection. Punish#ent, there%ore, is not in%licted on the accused. ALTERNATIVE ANSWER2 1es. Article )>K o% the Revised Penal Code does not de%ine and provide %or a speci%ic cri#e but &rants a privile&e or bene%it to the accused %or the killin& o% another or the in%liction o% ,erious Ph sical -n3uries. 6estierro is a punish#ent (hereb a convict is banished to a certain place and is prohibited %ro# enterin& or co#in& near that place desi&nated in the sentence, not less than )C k#s. (People v. Ara4uel, A.R. Eo. '-1)B)9, 6ece#ber 9, 19C9! 6id the court correctl order Pete to pa inde#nit despite his exoneration under Article )>K o% the Revised Penal Code+ /xplain.

S0GGESTE1 ANSWER2 1es, because the privile&e de%ined under this Article exe#pts the o%%ender %ro# cri#inal liabilit but not %ro# civil liabilit . (People v. Abarca, A.R, Eo. '-K>>D:, ,epte#ber 1>, 19DK; Art. 1), Revised Penal Code! < -i&ide( =#a+s$#a$ed( P)6si&al In5+#ies !1..9" At about 11=99 in the evenin&, 6ante %orced his (a inside the house o% 7a#erto. 5a , 7a#erto8s son, sa( 6ante and accosted hi#, 6ante pulled a kni%e and stabbed 5a on his abdo#en. 7a#erto heard the co##otion and (ent out o% his roo#. 6ante, (ho (as about to escape, assaulted 7a#erto. 5a su%%ered in3uries (hich, (ere it not %or the ti#el #edical attendance, (ould have caused his death. 7a#erto sustained -n3uries that incapacitated hi# %or )C da s. $hat cri#e or cri#es did 6ante co##it+ S0GGESTE1 ANSWER2 6ante co##itted 4uali%ied trespass to d(ellin&, %rustrated ho#icide %or the stabbin& o% 5a , and less serious ph sical in3uries %or the assault on 7a#erto. *he cri#e o% 4uali%ied trespass to d(ellin& should not be co#plexed (ith %rustrated ho#icide. 6ante co##itted %rustrated ho#icide %or the stabbin& o% 5a because he had alread per%or#ed all the acts o% execution (hich (ould have produced the intended %elon o% ho#icide (ere it not %or causes independent o% the act o% 6ante. 6ante had the intent to kill 3ud&in& %ro# the (eapon used, the #anner o% co##ittin& the cri#e and the part o% the bod stabbed. 6ante is &uilt o% less serious ph sical in3uries %or the (ounds sustained b 7a#erto. *here appears to be no intent to kill because 6ante #erel assaulted 7a#erto (ithout usin& the kni%e. In*an$i&ide !200/" Ana has been a bar &irl@AR0 at a beer house %or #ore than ) ears. ,he %ell in love (ith 0niok, the bartender, (ho i#pre&nated her. But Ana did not in%or# hi# about her condition and instead, (ent ho#e to Cebu to conceal her sha#e. .o(ever, her parents drove her a(a . ,o she returned to 7anila and sta ed (ith 0niok in his boardin& house. Ipon learnin& o% her pre&nanc , alread in an advanced state, 0niok tried to persuade her to under&o an abortion, but she re%used. Because o% their constant and bitter 4uarrels, she su%%ered birth pan&s and &ave birth pre#aturel to a live bab &irl (hile 0niok (as at his place o% (ork. Ipon co#in& ho#e and learnin& (hat happened, he prevailed upon Ana to conceal her dishonor. .ence, the placed the in%ant in a shoe box and thre( it into a nearb creek. .o(ever, an in4uisitive nei&hbor sa( the# and (ith the help o% others, retrieved the in%ant (ho (as alread dead %ro# dro(nin&. *he incident (as reported to the police (ho arrested Ana and 0niok. *he ) (ere char&ed (ith parricide under Article )>B o% the Revised Penal Code. A%ter trial, the (ere convicted o% the cri#e char&ed. $as the conviction correct+ S0GGESTE1 ANSWER2 *he conviction o% Ana and 0niok is not correct. *he are liable %or in%anticide because the killed a child less than three da s o% a&e (Art. )CC, Revised Penal Code!. M+#de# A Se&. 28B R.A. N . .1/8 !2008" Candido stabbed an innocent b stander (ho accidentall bu#ped hi#. *he innocent b stander died as a result o% the stabbin&. Candido (as arrested and (as tested to be positive %or the use o% GshabuH at the ti#e he co##itted the stabbin&. $hat should be the proper char&e a&ainst Candido+ /xplain. (:<! S0GGESTE1 ANSWER2

*he killin& (as not attended b an o% the 4uali% in& circu#stances enu#erated under Article )>D o% the Revised Penal Code. *he killin&, ho(ever, constitutes #urder because the co##ission o% a cri#e under the in%luence o% prohibited dru&s is a 4uali% in&, a&&ravatin& circu#stance. (,ec. )C, R.A. Eo. 91BC! M+#de# !1..." *he accused, not intendin& to kill the victi#, treacherousl shot the victi# (hile the victi# (as turnin& his back to hi#. .e ai#ed at and hit the victi# onl on the le&. *he victi#, ho(ever, died because o% loss o% blood. Can the accused be liable %or ho#icide or #urder, considerin& that treacher (as clearl involved but there (as no atte#pt to kill+ /xplain our ans(er. (:<! S0GGESTE1 ANSWER2 *he accused is liable %or the death o% the victi# even thou&h he #erel ai#ed and %ired at the latter8s le&, ;not intendin& to kill the victi#;, considerin& that the &unshot (as %elonious and (as the proxi#ate cause o% death. An o%%ender is liable %or all the direct, natural, and lo&ical conse4uences o% his %elonious act althou&h di%%erent %ro# (hat he intended. .o(ever, since speci%ic intent to kill is absent, the cri#e %or said death is onl ho#icide and not #urder (People vs. Pu&a and ,a#son, 1BK ,CRA >:9! ALTERNATIVE ANSWER2 *he accused is liable %or the death o% the victi# in as #uch as his act o% shootin& the victi# at the le& is %elonious and is the proxi#ate cause o% death. A person per%or#in& a %elonious act is cri#inall liable %or all the direct, natural, and lo&ical conse4uences o% such act althou&h di%%erent %ro# (hat he intended. And since such death (as attended b treacher , the sa#e (ill constitute #urder but the accused should be &iven the bene%it o% the #iti&atin& circu#stance that he did not intend to co##it so &rave a (ron& as that (hich (as co##itted (Art. 1:(:!, RPC! M+#de#( 1e*ini$i n A Ele-en$s !1..." 6e%ine #urder. $hat are the ele#ents o% the cri#e+ L:<M S0GGESTE1 ANSWER2 (a! 7urder is the unla(%ul killin& o% a person (hich other(ise (ould constitute onl ho#icide, had it not been attended b an o% the %ollo(in& circu#stances= 1. $ith treacher or takin& advanta&e o% superior stren&th, or (ith the aid o% ar#ed #en, or e#plo in& #eans to (eaken the de%ense or o% #eans or persons to insure or a%%ord i#punit ; ). -n consideration o% a price, re(ard or pro#ise; :. B #eans or on the occasion o% inundation, %ire, poison, explosion, ship(reck, strandin& o% a vessel, derail#ent or assault upon a railroad, %all o% an airship, or b #eans o% #otor vehicles, or (ith the use o% an other #eans involvin& &reat (aste and ruin; >. 0n occasion o% an earth4uake, eruption o% a volcano, destructive c clone, epide#ic or other public cala#it ; C. $ith evident pre#editation; B. $ith cruelt , b deliberatel and inhu#anl au&#entin& the su%%erin& o% the victi#, or outra&in& or sco%%in& at his person or corpse. S0GGESTE1 ANSWER2 (b! *he ele#ents o% #urder are= (1! that a person (as unla(%ull killed; ()! that such a killin& (as attended b an o% the above-#entioned circu#stances; (:! that the killin& is not parricide nor in%anticide; and (>! that the accused killed the victi#.

M+#de#( Eviden$ P#e-edi$a$i n !1../" "idel and "red harbored a lon& standin& &rud&e a&ainst 5or&e (ho re%used to #arr their sister 'orna, a%ter the latter &ot pre&nant b 5or&e. A%ter (eeks o% surveillance, the %inall cornered 5or&e in /r#ita, 7anila, (hen the latter (as (alkin& ho#e late at ni&ht. "idel and "red %orcibl brou&ht 5or&e to Pa#bales (here the kept hi# ho&-tied in a s#all nipa house located in the #iddle o% a rice %ield. *(o da s later, the killed 5or&e and du#ped his bod into the river. $hat cri#e or cri#es did "idel and "red co##it+ /xplain. S0GGESTE1 ANSWER2 "idel and "red co##itted the cri#e o% 7urder under Art )>D, RPC, the killin& bein& 4uali%ied b evident pre#editation. *his is due to the lon& standin& &rud&e entertained b the t(o accused occasioned b the victi#8s re%usal to #arr their sister a%ter i#pre&natin& her. -n People vs. Al%eche. )19 ,CRA DC, the intention o% the accused is deter#inative o% the cri#e co##itted. $here the intention is to kill the victi# and the latter is %orcibl taken to another place and later killed, it is #urder. *here is no indication that the o%%enders intended to deprive the victi# o% his libert . $hereas, i% the victi# is kidnapped, and taken to another situs and killed as an a%terthou&ht, it is kidnappin& (ith ho#icide under Art. )BK, RPC. M+#de#( < -i&ide( In*an$i&ide( Pa##i&ide !1..." A killed= (1! a (o#an (ith (ho# he lived (ithout bene%it o% cler& , ()! their child (ho (as onl t(o da s old, (:! their dau&hter, and (>! their adopted son. $hat cri#e or cri#es did A co##it+ (:<! S0GGESTE1 ANSWER2 A co##itted the %ollo(in& cri#es= 1.M .07-C-6/ or #urder as the case #a be, %or the killin& o% his co##on-la( (i%e (ho is not le&all considered a ;spouse; ).M -E"AE*-C-6/ %or the killin& o% the child as said child is less than three (:! da s old. (Art. )CC, RPC! .o(ever, the penalt correspondin& to parricide shall be i#posed since A is related to the child (ithin the de&ree de%ined in the cri#e o% parricide. :.M PARR-C-6/ %or the killin& o% their dau&hter, (hether le&iti#ate or ille&iti#ate, as lon& as she is not less than three (:! da s old at the ti#e o% the killin&. >.M 7IR6/R %or the killin& o% their adopted son as the relationship bet(een A and the said son #ust be b blood in order %or parricide to arise. M+#de#( Re&Iles I-%#+den&e !2001" 7an& 5ose, a septua&enarian, (as (alkin& (ith his ten- ear old &randson alon& Paseo de Roxas and decided to cross at the intersection o% 7akati Avenue but both (ere hit b a speedin& CR2 .onda van and (ere sent spra(lin& on the pave#ent a #eter apart. *he driver, a Chinese #esti?o, stopped his car a%ter hittin& the t(o victi#s but then reversed his &ears and ran over 7an& 5ose8s prostrate bod ane( and third ti#e b advancin& his car %or(ard. *he &randson su%%ered broken le&s onl and survived but 7an& 5ose su%%ered #ultiple %ractures and broken ribs, causin& his instant death. *he driver (as arrested and char&ed (ith 7urder %or the death o% 7an& 5ose and ,erious Ph sical -n3uries throu&h Reckless -#prudence (ith respect to the &randson. Are the char&es correct+ /xplain. (C<! S0GGESTE1 ANSWER2 1es, the char&es are correct. "or deliberatel runnin& over 7an& 5ose8s prostrate bod a%ter havin& bu#ped hi# and his &randson, the driver indeed co##itted 7urder, 4uali%ied b treacher . ,aid driver8s deliberate intent to kill 7an& 5ose (as de#onstrated b his runnin& over the latter8s bod t(ice, b backin& up the van and drivin& it %or(ard, (hereas the victi# (as helpless and not in a position to de%end hi#sel% or to retaliate.

As to the serious ph sical in3uries sustained b 7an& 5ose8s 19- ear old &randson, as a result o% havin& been hit b the speedin& vehicle o% said driver, the sa#e (ere the result o% reckless i#prudence (hich is punishable as a 4uasi-o%%ense in Article :BC o% the Revised Penal Code. *he char&e o% Reckless -#prudence Resultin& to ,erious Ph sical -n3uries is correct. *he penalt next hi&her in de&ree to (hat ordinaril should be i#posed is called %or, since the driver did not lend help on the spot, (hich help he could have &iven to the victi#s. M+#de#( T#ea&)e#6 !1..8" 0n his (a to bu a lotto ticket, a police#an suddenl %ound hi#sel% surrounded b %our #en. 0ne o% the# (restled the police o%%icer to the &round and disar#ed hi# (hile the other three co#panions (ho (ere ar#ed (ith a huntin& kni%e, an ice pick, and a balison&, repeatedl stabbed hi#. *he police#an died as a result o% the #ultiple stab (ounds in%licted b his assailants. $hat cri#e or cri#es (ere co##itted+ 6iscuss %ull . S0GGESTE1 ANSWER2 All the assailants are liable %or the cri#e o% #urder, 4uali%ied b treacher , ((hich absorbed abuse o% superior stren&th! as the attack (as sudden and unexpected and the victi# (as totall de%enseless. Conspirac is obvious %ro# the concerted acts o% the assailants. 6irect assault (ould not co#plex the cri#e, as there is no sho(in& that the assailants kne( that the victi# (as a police#an; even i% there (as kno(led&e, the %act is that he (as not in the per%or#ance o% his o%%icial duties, and there%ore there is no direct assault. M+#de#( 0se * Ille,al =i#ea#-s !2009" P. killed 05, his political rival in the election ca#pai&n %or 7a or o% their to(n. *he -n%or#ation a&ainst P. alle&ed that he used an unlicensed %irear# in the killin& o% the victi#, and this (as proved be ond reasonable doubt b the prosecution. *he trial court convicted P. o% t(o cri#es= #urder and ille&al possession o% %irear#s. -s the conviction correct+ Reason brie%l . (C<! S0GGESTE1 ANSWER2 Eo, the conviction o% P. %or t(o cri#es, #urder and ille&al possession o% %irear# is not correct. Inder the ne( la( on ille&al possession o% %irear#s and explosives, Rep. Act Eo. D)9>, a person #a onl be cri#inall liable %or ille&al possession o% %irear# i% no other cri#e is co##itted there(ith; i% a ho#icide or #urder is co##itted (ith the use o% an unlicensed %irear#, such use shall be considered as an a&&ravatin& circu#stance. P. there%ore #a onl be convicted o% #urder and the use o% an unlicensed %irear# in its co##ission #a onl be appreciated as a special a&&ravatin& circu#stance, provided that such use is alle&ed speci%icall in the in%or#ation %or 7urder. Pa##i&ide !1..." $ho #a be &uilt o% the cri#e o% parricide+ (:<! S0GGESTE1 ANSWER2 An person (ho kills his %ather, #other, or child, (hether le&iti#ate or ille&iti#ate, or his ascendants or descendants, or spouse, shall be &uilt o% parricide. (Art. )>B, RPC! Pa##i&ide !1..." -n 19KC, Pedro, then a resident o% 7anila, abandoned his (i%e and their son, Rick , (ho (as then onl three ears old. *(ent ears later, an a%%ra took place in a bar in 0lon&apo Cit bet(een Pedro and his co#panions, on one hand,

and Rick and his %riends, upon the other, (ithout the %ather and son kno(in& each other. Rick stabbed and killed Pedro in the %i&ht, onl to %ind out, a (eek later, (hen his #other arrived %ro# 7anila to visit hi# in 3ail, that the #an (ho# he killed (as his o(n %ather. 1! $hat cri#e did Rick co##it+ /xplain. )! ,uppose Rick kne( be%ore the killin& that Pedro is his %ather, but he nevertheless killed hi# out o% bitterness %or havin& abandoned hi# and his #other, (hat cri#e did Rick co##it+ /xplain. S0GGESTE1 ANSWER2 1! Rick co##itted parricide because the person killed (as his o(n %ather, and the la( punishin& the cri#e (Art. )>B, RPC! does not re4uire that the cri#e be ;kno(in&l ; co##itted. ,hould Rick be prosecuted and %ound &uilt o% parricide, the penalt to be i#posed is Art. >9 o% the Revised Penal Code %or .o#icide (the cri#e he intended to co##it! but in its #axi#u# period. ALTERNATIVE ANSWER2 Rick should be held cri#inall liable onl %or ho#icide not parricide because the relationship (hich 4uali%ied the killin& to parricide is virtuall absent %or a period o% t(ent ears alread , such that Rick could not possibl be a(are that his adversar (as his %ather. -n other (ords, the #oral basis %or i#posin& the hi&her penalt %or parricide is absent. S0GGESTE1 ANSWER2 )! *he cri#e co##itted should be parricide i% Rick kne( be%ore the killin& that Pedro is his %ather, because the #oral basis %or punishin& the cri#e alread exists. .is havin& acted out o% bitterness %or havin& been abandoned b his %ather #a be considered #iti&atin&. Pa##i&ide( M+l$i%le Pa##i&ide( < -i&ide !1..4" A, a oun& house(i%e, and B, her para#our, conspired to kill C. her husband, to (ho# she (as la(%ull #arried, A and B bou&ht pancit and #ixed it (ith poison. A &ave the %ood (ith poison to C, but be%ore C could eat it. 6, her ille&iti#ate %ather, and /, her le&iti#ate son, arrived. C. 6 and / shared the %ood in the presence o% A (ho #erel (atched the# eatin&. C, 6 and / died because o% havin& partaken o% the poisoned %ood. $hat cri#e or cri#es did A and B co##it+ S0GGESTE1 ANSWER2 A co##itted the cri#e o% #ultiple parricide %or the killin& o% C, her la(%ul husband, 6, her ille&iti#ate %ather, and /, her le&iti#ate son. All these killin&s constitute parricide under Article )>B o% the Revised Penal Code because o% her relationship (ith the victi#s. B co##itted the cri#e o% #urder as a co-conspirator o% A in the killin& o% C because the killin& (as carried out b #eans o% poison (Art. )>D. par. :, Revised Penal Code!. But %or %eloniousl causin& the death o% 6 and /, B co##itted t(o counts o% ho#icide. *he plan (as onl to kill C. Ra%e !1..8" Aavino boxed his (i%e Al#a %or re%usin& to sleep (ith hi#. .e then violentl thre( her on the %loor and %orced her to have sexual intercourse (ith hi#. As a result Al#a su%%ered serious ph sical in3uries. (a! Can Aavino be char&ed (ith rape+ /xplain. (b! Can Aavino be char&ed (ith serious ph sical in3uries+ /xplain

(c! $ill our ans(ers to (a! and (b! be the sa#e i% be%ore the incident Aavino and Al#a (ere le&all separated+ /xplain. S0GGESTE1 ANSWER2 (a! Eo. A husband cannot be char&ed (ith the rape o% his (i%e because o% the #atri#onial consent (hich she &ave (hen she assu#ed the #arria&e relation, and the la( (ill not per#it her to retract in order to char&e her husband (ith the o%%ense (,ate vs. .aines, 11 'a. Ann. K:1 ,o. :K); >>1 RA D:K!. (b! 1es, he #a be &uilt o% serious ph sical in3uries. *his o%%ense is speciall #entioned in Art. )B: L>M, para&raph ) (hich i#poses a hi&her penalt %or the cri#e o% ph sical in3uries in cases (here the o%%ense shall have been co##itted a&ainst an o% the persons enu#erated in Art )>B (the cri#e o% parricide!. (c! Eo, # ans(er (ill not be the sa#e. -% Aavino, and Al#a (ere le&all separated at the ti#e o% the incident, then Aavino could be held liable %or rape. A le&al separation is a separation o% the spouses %ro# bed and board (I.,. vs. 5ohnson, )K Phil. >KK, cited in -- Re es, RPC, p. DC:. 19D1 edition!, -n the cri#e o% rape, an cri#e resultin& %ro# the in%liction o% ph sical in3uries su%%ered b the victi# on the occasion o% the rape, is absorbed b the cri#e o% rape. *he in3uries su%%ered b the victi# #a , ho(ever, be considered in deter#inin& the proper penalt (hich shall be i#posed on the o%%ender. ,erious ph sical in3uries cannot be absorbed in rape; it can be so i% the in3ur is sli&ht. Ra%e( A3sen&e * = #&e A In$i-ida$i n !1..8" *hree police#en conductin& routine surveillance o% a co&onal area in Antipole chanced upon Ruben, a 1C- ear old tric cle driver, on top o% Ro(ena (ho (as kno(n to be a child prostitute. Both (ere naked %ro# the (aist do(n and appeared to be en3o in& the sexual activit . Ruben (as arrested b the police#en despite his protestations that Ro(ena enticed hi# to have sex (ith her in advance celebration o% her t(el%th birthda . *he to(n ph sician %ound no se#en nor an bleedin& on Ro(ena8s h #en but %or a healed scar. .er h #enal openin& easil ad#itted t(o %in&ers sho(in& that no external %orce had been e#plo ed on her. -s Ruben liable %or an o%%ense+ 6iscuss %ull . Ans(er; S0GGESTE1 ANSWER2 Ruben is liable %or rape, even i% %orce or inti#idation is not present. *he &rava#en o% the o%%ense is the carnal kno(led&e o% a (o#an belo( t(elve ears o% a&e (People vs. 6ela Cru?, CB ,CRA D>! since the la( doesn8t consider the consent voluntar and presu#es that a &irl belo( t(elve ears old does not and cannot have a (ill o% her o(n. -n People us. Pere?, CA :K 0A 1KB), it (as held that sexual intercourse (ith a prostitute belo( t(elve ears old is rape. ,i#ilarl , the absence o% sper#ato?oa does not disprove the consu##ation as the i#portant consideration is not the e#ission but the penetration o% the %e#ale bod b the #ale or&an (People vs. 5ose :K ,CRA >C9; People vs. Carandan&. C) ,CRA )C9!. Ra%e( An$i@Ra%e La' * 1..4 !2002" $hat other acts are considered rape under the Anti-Rape 'a( o% 199K, a#endin& the Revised Penal Code+ (:<! S0GGESTE1 ANSWER2 *he other acts considered rape under the Anti-Rape 'a( o% 199K are= 1.M havin& carnal kno(led&e o% a (o#an b a #an b #eans o% %raudulent #achination or &rave abuse o% authorit , ).M havin& carnal kno(led&e o% a de#ented (o#an b a #an even i% none o% the circu#stances re4uired in rape be

present; and :.M co##ittin& an act o% sexual assault b insertin& a person8s penis into the victi#8s #outh or anal ori%ice, or b insertin& an instru#ent or ob3ect, into the &enital or anal ori%ice o% another person. Ra%e( An$i@Ra%e La' * 1..4 !2002" *he Anti-Rape 'a( o% 199K reclassi%ied rape %ro# a cri#e a&ainst honor, a private o%%ense, to that o% a cri#e a&ainst persons. $ill the subse4uent #arria&e o% the o%%ender and the o%%ended part extin&uish the cri#inal action or the penalt i#posed+ /xplain. ()<! S0GGESTE1 ANSWER2 1es. B express provision o% Article )BB-C o% the Revised Penal Code, as a#ended, the subse4uent valid #arria&e bet(een the o%%ender and o%%ended part shall extin&uish the cri#inal action or the penalt i#posed, althou&h rape has been reclassi%ied %ro# a cri#e a&ainst chastit , to that o% a cri#e a&ainst persons. Ra%e( C nsen$ed A3d+&$i n !2002" A (ith le(d desi&ns, took a 1:- ear old &irl to a nipa hut in his %ar# and there had sexual intercourse (ith her. *he &irl did not o%%er an resistance because she (as in%atuated (ith the #an, (ho (as &ood-lookin& and belon&ed to a rich and pro#inent %a#il in the to(n. $hat cri#e, i% an , (as co##itted b A+ $h + ()<! S0GGESTE1 ANSWER2 A co##itted the cri#e o% consented abduction under Article :>: o% the Revised Penal Code, as a#ended. *he said Article punishes the abduction o% a vir&in over 1) and under 1D ears o% a&e, carried out (ith her consent and (ith le(d desi&ns. Althou&h the proble# did not indicate the victi# to be vir&in, vir&init should not be understood in its #aterial sense, as to exclude a virtuous (o#an o% &ood reputation, since the essence o% the cri#e is not the in3ur to the (o#an but the outra&e and alar# to her %a#il (2aldepenas vs. People,1B ,CRA DK1 L19BBM!. ALTERNATIVE ANSWER2 A co##itted ;Child Abuse; under Rep. Act Eo. KB19. As de%ined in said la(, ;child abuse; includes sexual abuse or an act (hich debases, de&rades or de#eans the intrinsic (orth and di&nit o% a child as a hu#an bein&, (hose a&e is belo( ei&hteen (1D! ears. Ra%e( E**e&$( A**idavi$ * 1esis$an&e !1..3" 1. Ariel inti#idated Rachel, a #ental retardate, (ith a bolo into havin& sexual -ntercourse (ith hi#. Rachel8s #other i##ediatel %iled a co#plaint, supported b her s(orn state#ent, be%ore the Cit Prosecutor8s 0%%ice. A%ter the necessar preli#inar investi&ation, an in%or#ation (as si&ned b the prosecutor but did not contain the si&nature o% Rachel nor o% her #other. Citin& Art. :>> o% the RPC (prosecution o% the cri#es o% rape, etc.!, Ariel #oves %or the dis#issal o% the case. Resolve (ith reasons. ). A%ter the prosecution had rested its case, Ariel presented a s(orn a%%idavit o% desistance executed b Rachel and her #other statin& that the are no lon&er interested in prosecutin& the case and that the have pardoned Ariel. $hat e%%ect (ould this a%%idavit o% desistance have on the cri#inal and civil aspects o% the case+ /xplain %ull . S0GGESTE1 ANSWER2 1! *he case should not be dis#issed. ... )! *he a%%idavit o% desistance (ill onl a#ount to the condonation o% civil liabilit but not cri#inal liabilit hence the case should still proceed. Ra%e( Male Vi&$i- !2002"

A, a #ale, takes B, another #ale, to a #otel and there, throu&h threat and inti#idation, succeeds in insertin& his penis into the anus o% B. $hat, i% an , is ASs cri#inal liabilit + $h + S0GGESTE1 ANSWER2 A shall be cri#inall liable %or rape b co##ittin& an act o% sexual assault a&ainst B, b insertin& his penis into the anus o% the latter. /ven a #an #a be a victi# o% rape b sexual assault under par. ) o% Article )BB-A o% the Revised Penal Code, as a#ended, ;(hen the o%%ender8s penis is inserted into his #outh or anal ori%ice.; Ra%e( M+l$i%le Ra%es( = #&i3le A3d+&$i n !2000" "lordeluna boarded a taxi on her (a ho#e to Fue?on Cit (hich (as driven b Ro&er, "lordeluna noticed that Ro&er (as al(a s placin& his car %reshener in %ront o% the car aircon ventilation but did not bother askin& Ro&er (h . ,uddenl , "lordeluna %elt di?? and beca#e unconscious. -nstead o% brin&in& her to Fue?on Cit , Ro&er brou&ht "lordeluna to his house in Cavite (here she (as detained %or t(o ()! (eeks. ,he (as raped %or the entire duration o% her detention. 7a Ro&er be char&ed and convicted o% the cri#e o% rape (ith serious ille&al detention+ /xplain. (C<! S0GGESTE1 ANSWER2 Eo, Ro&er #a not be char&ed and convicted o% the cri#e o% rape (ith serious ille&al detention. Ro&er #a be char&ed and convicted o% #ultiple rapes. /ach rape is a distinct o%%ense and should be punished separatel . /videntl , his principal intention (as to abuse "lordeluna; the detention (as onl incidental to the rape. ALTERNATIVE ANSWER2 Eo, Ro&er #a not be char&ed and convicted o% the cri#e o% rape (ith serious ille&al detention, since the detention (as incurred in rapin& the victi# durin& the da s she (as held. At #ost, Ro&er #a be prosecuted %or %orcible abduction %or takin& "lordeluna to Cavite a&ainst the latter8s (ill and (ith le(d desi&ns. *he %orcible abduction should be co#plexed (ith one o% the #ultiple rapes co##itted, and the other rapes should be prosecuted and punished separatel , in as #an rapes (ere char&ed and proved. Ra%e( P# %e# Pa#$6 !1..3" Ariel inti#idated Rachel, a #ental retardate, (ith a bolo into havin& sexual -ntercourse (ith hi#. Rachel8s #other i##ediatel %iled a co#plaint, supported b her s(orn state#ent, be%ore the Cit Prosecutor8s 0%%ice. A%ter the necessar preli#inar investi&ation, an in%or#ation (as si&ned b the prosecutor but did not contain the si&nature o% Rachel nor o% her #other. Citin& Art. :>> o% the RPC (prosecution o% the cri#es o% rape, etc.!, Ariel #oves %or the dis#issal o% the case. Resolve (ith reasons. S0GGESTE1 ANSWER2 *he case should not be dis#issed. *his is allo(ed b la( (People us. -larde, 1)C ,CRA 11!. -t is enou&h that a co#plaint (as %iled b the o%%ended part or the parents in the "iscal8s 0%%ice. Ra%e( S$a$+$ #6 Ra%e( Men$al Re$a#da$e Vi&$i- !1../" *he co#plainant, an ei&hteen- ear old #ental retardate (ith an intellectual capacit bet(een the a&es o% nine and t(elve ears, (hen asked durin& the trial ho( she %elt (hen she (as raped b the accused, replied ;7asarap, it &ave #e #uch pleasure.; $ith the clai# o% the accused that the co#plainant consented %or a %ee to the sexual intercourse, and (ith the %ore&oin& ans(er o% the co#plainant, (ould ou convict the accused o% rape i% ou (ere the 3ud&e tr in& the case+ /xplain.

S0GGESTE1 ANSWER2 1es, - (ould convict the accused o% rape. ,ince the victi# is a #ental retardate (ith an intellectual capacit o% a child less than 1) ears old, she is le&all incapable o% &ivin& a valid consent to the sexual -ntercourse. *he sexual intercourse is tanta#ount to a statutor rape because the level o% intelli&ence is that o% a child less than t(elve ears o% a&e. $here the victi# o% rape is a #ental retardate, violence or -nti#idation is not essential to constitute rape. (People us. *ri#or, A,R. 19BC>1->), :1 7ar 9C! As a #atter o% %act, RA Eo. KBC9, the .einous Cri#es 'a(, a#ended Art. ::C, RPC, b addin& the phrase ;or is de#ented.; E+ali*ied Sed+&$i n !2004" $hat are the three (:! classes o% o%%enders in the cri#e o% 4uali%ied seduction+ Aive an exa#ple o% each. S0GGESTE1 ANSWER2 (b! *he three (:! classes o% o%%enders in the cri#e o% 4uali%ied seduction are= 1. *hose (ho exercise #oral in%luence over the victi#, such as a priest (ho acts as spiritual adviser o% the victi#, or a teacher in the school (here the victi# is enrolled; ). A brother o% ascendant b consan&uinit o% the victi#, such as her uncles; and :. *hose (ho are re&arded as Gdo#esticH in relation to the victi#, en3o in& the con%idence and inti#ac shared b #e#bers o% the sa#e household, such as household helpers and boarders livin& under the sa#e roo% and (ith sa#e household as the victi#. ALTERNATIVE ANSWER2 *he three (:! classes o% o%%enders in the cri#e o% 4uali%ied seduction are= 1. *hose (ho abuse their authorit . /xa#ples= person in public authorit , &uardian, teacher or a person (ho, in an capacit , is entrusted (ith the education or custod o% the (o#an seduced. ). *hose (ho abuse the con%idence reposed on the#. /xa#ples= priest, house servant, do#estics. :. *hose (ho abuse their relationship. /xa#ples= a brother (ho seduced his sister; ascendant (ho seduced his descendant. (Article ::K, Revised Penal Code! Givin, Assis$an&e $ S+i&ide !200;" "rancis and 5oan (ere s(eethearts, but their parents had ob3ected to their relationship because the (ere %irst cousins. *he %or&ed a pact in (ritin& to co##it suicide. *he a&ree#ent (as to shoot each other in the head (hich the did. 5oan died. 6ue to #edical assistance, "rancis survived. -s "rancis cri#inall liable %or the death o% 5oan+ /xplain. (C<! S0GGESTE1 ANSWER2 1es, "rancis is cri#inall liable %or 5oan8s death. .is act o% shootin& her, althou&h done pursuant to a sole#n pact, is nevertheless %elonious and is the proxi#ate cause o% 5oan8s death (Art. >, par., RPC!. 7oreover, the #ere act o% &ivin& assistance to a suicide is a cri#e (Art. )C:, RPC!. D. Cri#es A&ainst Personal 'ibert and ,ecurit (Articles )BK-)9)! -nclude= a! Anti-$ire *appin& Act (R.A. Eo. >)99! (i! Punishable acts (ii! /xceptions

b! .u#an ,ecurit Act o% )99K (R.A. Eo. 9:K)! (i! ,urveillance o% suspects and interception and recordin& o% co##unications

(ii! Restriction on travel (iii! /xa#ination o% bank deposits and docu#ents (a! 5udicial Authori?ation (b! Application (iv! Inauthori?ed revelation o% classi%ied #aterials c! Anti-*ra%%ickin& in Persons Act o% )99: (R.A. Eo. 9)9D! (i! Punishable acts A#3i$#a#6 1e$en$i n( Ele-en$s( G# +nds !200/" 1. $hat are the : (a s o% co##ittin& arbitrar detention+ /xplain each. ().C.<! S0GGESTE1 ANSWER2 *he : (a s o% arbitrar detention are= a! Arbitrar detention b detainin& a person (ithout le&al &round co##itted b an public o%%icer or e#plo ee (ho, (ithout le&al &rounds, detains a person (Art. 1)>, Revised Penal Code!. b! 6ela in the deliver o% detained persons to the proper 3udicial authorities (hich is co##itted b a public o%%icer or e#plo ee (ho shall detain an person %or so#e le&al &round and shall %ail to deliver such person to the proper 3udicial authorities (ithin the period o%= t(elve (1)! hours, %or cri#es or o%%ense punishable b li&ht penalties, or their e4uivalent; ei&hteen hours (1D!, %or cri#es or o%%enses punishable b correctional %acilities, or their e4uivalent; and thirt -six (:B! hours %or cri#es or o%%enses punishable b a%%lictive or capital penalties, or their e4uivalent (Art. 1)C, Revised Penal Code!. c! 6ela in& release is co##itted b an public o%%icer or e#plo ee (ho dela s the release %or the period o% ti#e speci%ied therein the per%or#ance o% an 3udicial or executive order %or the release o% the prisoner, or undul dela s the service o% the notice o% such order to said prisoner or the proceedin&s upon an petition %or the liberation o% such person (Art. 1)B, Revised Penal Code!. ). $hat are the le&al &rounds %or detention+ ().C<! S0GGESTE1 ANSWER2 *he co##ission o% a cri#e, or violent insanit or an other ail#ent re4uirin& the co#pulsor con%ine#ent o% the patient in a hospital shall be considered le&al &rounds %or the detention o% an person (Art. 1)>L)M, Revised Penal Code!. :. $hen is an arrest b a peace o%%icer or b a private person considered la(%ul+ /xplain. (C<! S0GGESTE1 ANSWER2 1. $hen the arrest b a peace o%%icer is #ade pursuant to a valid (arrant. ). A peace o%%icer or a private person #a , (ithout a (arrant, arrest a person= i. $hen, in his presence, the person to be arrested has co##itted, is actuall co##ittin&, or is atte#ptin& to co##it an o%%ense, ii. $hen an o%%ense has in %act 3ust been co##itted, and he has personal kno(led&e o% %acts indicatin& that the person to be arrested has co##itted it, and iii. $hen the person to be arrested is a prisoner (ho has escaped %ro# penal establish#ent or place (here he is servin& %inal 3ud&#ent or te#poraril con%ined (hile his case is pendin&, or has escaped (hile bein& trans%erred %ro# one con%ine#ent to another (,ec. C, Rule 11:,19DC Rules on Cri#inal Procedure!. G#ave C e#&i n !1..;"

-sa&ani lost his &old necklace bearin& his initials. .e sa( Ro (earin& the said necklace. -sa&ani asked Ro to return to hi# the necklace as it belon&s to hi#, but Ro re%used. -sa&ani then dre( his &un and told Ro , ;-% ou (ill not &ive back the necklace to #e, - (ill kill ouT; 0ut o% %ear %or his li%e and a&ainst his (ill, Ro &ave the necklace to -sa&ani, $hat o%%ense did -sa&ani co##it+ (C<! S0GGESTE1 ANSWER2 -sa&ani co##itted the cri#e o% &rave coercion (Art. )DB, RPC! %or co#pellin& Ro , b #eans o% serious threats or inti#idation, to do so#ethin& a&ainst the latter8s (ill, (hether it be ri&ht or (ron&. ,erious threats or inti#idation approxi#atin& violence constitute &rave coercion, not &rave threats. ,uch is the nature o% the threat in this case because it (as co##itted (ith a &un, is a deadl (eapon. *he cri#e is not robber because intent to &ain, (hich is an essential ele#ent o% robber , is absent since the necklace belon&s to -sa&ani. G#ave C e#&i n vs. Mal$#ea$-en$ * P#is ne# !1..." "orcibl brou&ht to the police head4uarters, a person (as tortured and #altreated b a&ents o% the la( in order to co#pel hi# to con%ess a cri#e i#puted to hi#. *he a&ents %ailed, ho(ever, to dra( %ro# hi# a con%ession (hich (as their intention to obtain throu&h the e#plo #ent o% such #eans. $hat cri#e (as co##itted b the a&ents o% the la(+ /xplain our ans(er. (:<! S0GGESTE1 ANSWER2 /videntl , the person tortured and #altreated b the a&ents o% the la( is a suspect and #a have been detained b the#. -% so and he had alread been booked and put in 3ail, the cri#e is #altreat#ent o% prisoner and the %act that the suspect (as sub3ected to torture to extort a con%ession (ould brin& about a hi&her penalt . -n addition to the o%%ender8s liabilit %or the ph sical in3uries in%licted. But i% the suspect (as %orcibl brou&ht to the police head4uarters to #ake hi# ad#it the cri#e and tortured@ #altreated to #ake hi# con%ess to such cri#e, but later released because the a&ents %ailed to dra( such con%ession, the cri#e is &rave coercion because o% the violence e#plo ed to co#pel such con%ession (ithout the o%%ended part bein& con%ined in 3ail. (I, vs. Cusi, 19 Phil 1>:! -t is noted that the o%%ended part (as #erel ;brou&ht; to the police head4uarters and is thus not a detention prisoner. .ad he been validl arrested, the cri#e co##itted (ould be #altreat#ent o% prisoners. Ille,al 1e$en$i n vs. G#ave C e#&i n !1..." 6istin&uish coercion %ro# ille&al detention. (:<! S0GGESTE1 ANSWER2 Coercion #a be distin&uished %ro# ille&al detention as %ollo(s= in coercion, the basis o% cri#inal liabilit is the e#plo #ent o% violence or serious inti#idation approxi#atin& violence, (ithout authorit o% la(, to prevent a person %ro# doin& so#ethin& not prohibited b la( or to co#pel hi# to do so#ethin& a&ainst his (ill, (hether it be ri&ht or (ron&; (hile in -lle&al detention, the basis o% liabilit is the actual restraint or lockin& up o% a person, thereb deprivin& hi# o% his libert (ithout authorit o% la(. -% there (as no intent to lock up or detain the o%%ended part unla(%ull , the cri#e o% ille&al detention is not co##itted. 0n5+s$ Ve>a$i n !2004" Pink (as a lessee o% a #arket stall o(ned b Aiovanni. $hen Pink re%used to pa her rental, Aiovanni nailed so#e (ooden barricades on one o% the sides o% the #arket stall and posted this (arnin&= G$e have closed this portion o% the door. 6o not open it or else so#ethin& #a happen to ou.H

$hat cri#e@s did Aiovanni co##it, i% an + /xplain our ans(er. S0GGESTE1 ANSWER2 *he cri#e co##itted b Aiovanni is li&ht coercion under Art. )DK o% the Rev. Penal Code, co##onl re%erred to as un3ust vexation. Althou&h (hat (as done b Aiovanni could reasonabl be assu#ed as a retaliation to the lessee8s re%usal to pa rent, absent an clear violence in the pre#ises, such (ould not brin& about a case o% &rave coercion. *he situation should be interpreted liberall in %avor o% the o%%ender. *he rule o% pro reo precludes an %indin& %or &rave coercion, because it (ould be a&ainst the o%%ender. *he (ritten (arnin& (hich states Gor else so#ethin& #a happen to ouH is so e4uivocal that it #a not be interpreted as %elonious. A cri#e is never presu#ed; it is the contrar that is presu#ed. ALTERNATIVE ANSWER2 *he cri#e co##itted b Aiovanni is &rave coercion because barricadin& one o% the sides o% the #arket stall (as an act o% violence deliberatel done. -t is not onl an act o% un3ust vexation or li&ht coercion but o% &rave coercion. ?idna%%in, !2002" A and B (ere le&all separated. *heir child C, a #inor, (as placed in the custod o% A the #other, sub3ect to #onthl visitations b B, his %ather. 0n one occasion, (hen B had C in his co#pan , B decided not to return C to his #other. -nstead, B took C (ith hi# to the Inited ,tates (here he intended %or the# to reside per#anentl . $hat cri#e, i% an , did B co##it+ $h + (C<! S0GGESTE1 ANSWER2 B co##itted the cri#e o% kidnappin& and %ailure to return a #inor under Article )K1, in relation to Article )K9, o% the Revised Penal Code, as a#ended. Article )K1 expressl penali?es an parent (ho shall take %ro# and deliberatel %ail to restore his or her #inor child to the parent or &uardian to (ho# custod o% the #inor has been placed. ,ince the custod o% C, the #inor, has been &iven to the #other and B has onl the ri&ht o% #onthl visitation, the latter8s act o% takin& C to the Inited ,lates, to reside there per#anentl , constitutes a violation o% said provisions o% la(. ?idna%%in, !200/" 5ai#e, And and 5i## , laborers in the noodles %actor o% 'uke *an, a&reed to kill hi# due to his arro&ance and #iserliness. 0ne a%ternoon, the sei?ed hi# and loaded hi# in a taxi driven b 7ario. *he told 7ario the (ill onl teach 'uke a lesson in Christian hu#ilit . 7ario drove the# to a %ishpond in Eavotas (here 'uke (as entrusted to /#il and 'ouie, the %ishpond caretakers, askin& the# to hide 'uke in their shack because he (as runnin& %ro# the EB-. *he trio then le%t in 7ario8s car %or 7anila (here the called up 'uke8s %a#il and threatened the# to kill 'uke unless the &ive a ranso# (ithin )> hours. Inkno(n to the#, because o% a leak, the kidnappin& (as announced over the radio and *2. /#il and 'ouie heard the broadcast and panicked, especiall (hen the announcer stated that there is a shoot-to-kill order %or the kidnappers. /#il and 'ouie took 'uke to the seashore o% 6a&at-da&atan (here the s#ashed his head (ith a shovel and buried hi# in the sand. .o(ever, the (ere seen b a baran&a ka&a(ad (ho arrested the# and brou&ht the# to the police station. Ipon interro&ation, the con%essed and pointed to 5ai#e, And , 5i## and 7ario as those responsible %or the kidnappin&. 'ater, the > (ere arrested and char&ed. $hat cri#e or cri#es did the B suspects co##it+ (C<! ALTERNATIVE ANSWER2 a! 5ai#e, And and 5i## co##itted kidnappin& (ith ho#icide. *he ori&inal intention (as to de#and ranso# %ro# the %a#il (ith the threat o% killin&. As a conse4uence o% the kidnappin&, ho(ever, 'uke (as killed. *hus, the victi# (as deprived o% his %reedo# and the subse4uent killin&, thou&h co##itted b another person, (as a conse4uence o% the detention. .ence, this properl 4uali%ied the cri#e as the special co#plex cri#e o% kidnappin& %or ranso# (ith ho#icide (People v. 7a#arion, A.R. Eo. 1:KCC>, 0ctober 1, )99:; Art. )BK, Revised Penal Code!.

b! /#il and 'ouie (ho s#ashed the head o% the victi# and buried the latter in the sand co##itted #urder 4uali%ied b treacher or abuse o% superior stren&th. *he are not liable %or kidnappin& because the did not conspire, nor are the a(are o% the intention to detain 'uke (ho# the (ere in%or#ed (as hidin& %ro# the EB- (Art. )>D, ReUvised Penal Code!. c! 7ario has no liabilit since he (as not a(are o% the cri#inal intent and desi&n o% 5ai#e, And and 5i## . .is act o% brin&in& 'uke to Eavotas %or ;a lesson in Christian hu#ilit ; does not constitute a cri#e. ALTERNATIVE ANSWER2 a! 5ai#e, And and 5i## co##itted kidnappin& (ith ranso#. A%ter kidnappin& 'uke, the de#anded ranso# (ith the threat o% killin& hi#. .o(ever, the killin& o% 'uke is separate %ro# the kidnappin& havin& been co##itted b other persons, (ho had nothin& to do (ith the kidnappin&, and (ho (ill be liable %or a di%%erent cri#e (Penulti#ate par. o% Art. )BK, Revised Penal Code!. b! /#il and 'ouie (ho s#ashed the head o% the victi# and buried the latter in the sand co##itted #urder 4uali%ied b treacher or abuse o% superior stren&th. *he are not liable %or kidnappin& because the did not conspire, nor are the a(are o% the intention to detain 'uke (ho# the (ere in%or#ed (as hidin& %ro# the EB- (Art. )>D, Revised Penal Code!. c! 7ario has no liabilit since he (as not a(are o% the cri#inal intent and desi&n o% 5ai#e, And and 5i## . .is act o% brin&in& 'uke to Eavotas %or ;a lesson in Christian hu#ilit ; does not constitute a cri#e. ?idna%%in, 'F < -i&ide !2008" Pa? 7asipa& (orked as a house#aid and a a o% the one-(eek old son o% the spouses 7artin and Pops Juripot. $hen Pa? learned that her K9 ear-old #other (as seriousl ill, she asked 7artin %or a cash advance o% P1,999.99 but 7artin re%used. 0ne #ornin&, Pa? &a&&ed the #outh o% 7artinSs son (ith stockin&s; placed the child in a box; sealed it (ith #askin& tape and placed the box in the attic. 'ater in the a%ternoon, she de#anded PC,999.99 as ranso# %or the release o% his son. 7artin did not pa the ranso#. ,ubse4uentl , Pa? disappeared. A%ter a couple o% da s, 7artin discovered the box in the attic (ith his child alread dead. Accordin& to the autops report, the child died o% asph xiation barel three #inutes a%ter the box (as sealed. $hat cri#e or cri#es did Pa? co##it+ /xplain. (C<! S0GGESTE1 ANSWER2 Pa? co##itted the co#posite cri#e o% kidnappin& (ith ho#icide under Art. )BK, R"C as a#ended b R.A. Eo. KBC9. Inder the la(, an person (ho shall detain another or in an #anner deprive hi# o% libert and the victi# dies as a conse4uence is liable %or kidnappin& (ith ho#icide and shall be penali?ed (ith the #axi#u# penalt . -n this case, not(ithstandin& the %act that the one-(eek old child (as #erel kept in the attic o% his house, &a&&ed (ith stockin&s and placed in a box sealed (ith tape, the deprivation o% libert and the intention to kill beco#es apparent. *hou&h it #a appear that the #eans e#plo ed b Pa? (as attended b treacher (killin& o% an in%ant!, nevertheless, a separate char&e o% #urder (ill not be proper in vie( o% the a#end#ent. .ere, the ter# ;ho#icide; is used in its &eneric sense and covers all %or#s o% killin& (hether in the nature o% #urder or other(ise. -t is o% no #o#ent that the evidence sho(s the death o% the child took place three #inutes a%ter the box (as sealed and the de#and %or the ranso# took place in the a%ternoon. *he intention is controllin& here, that is, ranso# (as de#anded. ALTERNATIVE ANSWER2 7urder 4uali%ied b treacher because the victi# (as onl one (eek old. *he o%%ense (as attended (ith the a&&ravatin& circu#stance o% lack o% respect due to the a&e o% the victi#, cruelt and abuse o% con%idence. -n People v. 'ora (A.R. Eo, '->9>:9, 7arch :9, 19D)!, the Court %ound that a child sub3ected to si#ilar treat#ent as the in%ant in this case (ould have died instantl , ne&atin& an intent to kidnap or detain (hen ranso# (as sou&ht. 6e#and %or ranso# did not convert the o%%ense into kidnappin& (ith #urder because the de#and (as #erel a sche#e b the o%%ender (Pa?! to conceal the bod o% her victi#. ?idna%%in,( E**e&$s( V l+n$a#6 Release !2009"

6AE, a private individual, kidnapped C.I, a #inor. 0n the second da , 6AE released C.I even be%ore an cri#inal in%or#ation (as %iled a&ainst hi#. At the trial o% his case, 6AE raised the de%ense that he did not incur an cri#inal liabilit since he released the child be%ore the lapse o% the :-da period and be%ore cri#inal proceedin&s %or kidnappin& (ere instituted. $ill 6AE8s de%ense prosper+ Reason brie%l . (C<! S0GGESTE1 ANSWER2 Eo. 6AE8s de%ense (ill not prosper. 2oluntar release b the o%%ender o% the o%%ended part in kidnappin& is not absolutor . Besides, such release is irrelevant and i##aterial in this case because the victi# bein& a #inor, the cri#e co##itted is kidnappin& and serious ille&al detention under Art. )BK, Revised Penal Code, to (hich such circu#stance does not appl . *he circu#stance #a be appreciated onl in the cri#e o% ,li&ht -lle&al 6etention in Art. )BD (Asistio v. ,an 6ie&o, 19 ,CRA BK: L19B>M! ?idna%%in,( Ille,al 1e$en$i n( Min #i$6 !200/" 6an& (as a beaut 4ueen in a universit . 5ob, a rich class#ate, (as so ena#ored (ith her that he persistentl (ooed and pursued her. 6an&, bein& in love (ith another #an, re3ected hi#. *his an&ered 5ob, ,o#eti#e in ,epte#ber )99:, (hile 6an& and her sister ' n (ere on their (a ho#e, 5ob and his #inor %riend Eono &rabbed the# and pushed the# inside a (hite van. *he brou&ht the# to an abandoned (arehouse (here the %orced the# to dance naked. *herea%ter, the brou&ht the# to a hill in a nearb baran&a (here the took turns rapin& the#. A%ter satis% in& their lust, 5ob ordered Eono to push 6an& do(n a ravine, resultin& in her death. ' n ran a(a but 5ob and Eono chased her and pushed her inside the van. *hen the duo drove a(a . ' n (as never seen a&ain. 1. $hat cri#e or cri#es (ere co##itted b 5ob and Eono + ().C<! S0GGESTE1 ANSWER2 5ob and Eono co##itted 1! kidnappin& and serious ille&al detention (ith ho#icide and rape %or the subse4uent death o% 6an&, and )! kidnappin& (ith rape a&ainst her sister, ' n. *he victi#s, (ho (ere kidnapped and detained, (ere subse4uentl raped and killed (as re&ards 6an&! in the course o% their detention. *he co#posite cri#e is co##itted re&ardless o% (hether the subse4uent cri#es (ere purposel sou&ht or #erel an a%terthou&ht (People v. 'arrana&a, A.R. Eos. 1:DDK>-C, "ebruar s, )99>!. ALTERNATIVE ANSWER2 5ob and Eono co##itted ) counts o% the co#plex cri#e o% %orcible abduction (ith rape (Art. :>), Revised Penal Code! and the separate o%%ense o% #urder a&ainst 6an&. *he cri#e co##itted is abduction because there (as le(d desi&n (hen the took the victi#s a(a and subse4uentl raped the#. *he killin& therea%ter, constitutes the separate o%%ense o% #urder 4uali%ied b treacher . ). $hat penalties should be i#posed on the#+ ().C<! S0GGESTE1 ANSWER2 ,ince the death penalt has alread been prohibited, reclusion perpetua is the appropriate penalt (RA. 9:>B!. -n the case o% the #inor Eono , his penalt shall be one de&ree lo(er (Art. BD, Revised Penal Code!. :. $ill Eono 8s #inorit exculpate hi#+ ().C<! S0GGESTE1 ANSWER2 Inder RA. 9:>>, the 5uvenile 5ustice and Re%or# Act, (hich retroacts to the date that the cri#e (as co##itted, Eono (ill be exculpated i% he (as 1C ears old or belo(. .o(ever, i% he (as above 1C ears old but belo( 1D ears o% a&e, he (ill be liable i% he acted (ith discern#ent. As the proble# sho(s that Eono acted (ith discern#ent, he (ill be entitled to a suspension o% sentence.(E0*AB/E/= R.A. 9:>> is outside the covera&e o% the exa#ination! >. -s the non-recover o% ' n8s bod #aterial to the cri#inal liabilit o% 5ob and Eono + ().C<!

S0GGESTE1 ANSWER2 *he non-recover o% ' n8s bod is not #aterial to the cri#inal liabilit o% 5ob and Eono , because the corpus delicti o% the cri#e (hich is kidnappin& (ith rape o% ' n has been dul proven. ALTERNATIVE ANSWER2 *he non-recover o% ' n8s bod is not #aterial to the cri#inal liabilit o% 5ob and Eono , because the corpus delicti o% the cri#e (hich is %orcible abduction (ith rape o% ' n has been dul proven. ?idna%%in,( P# % sal $ ?idna% !1../" /d&ardo induced his %riend 2icente, in consideration o% #one , to kidnap a &irl he is courtin& so that he #a succeed to rapin& her and eventuall #akin& her accede to #arr hi#. 2icente asked %or #ore #one (hich /d&ardo %ailed to put up. An&ered because /d&ardo did not put up the #one he re4uired, he reported /d&ardo to the police. 7a /d&ardo be char&ed (ith atte#pted kidnappin&+ /xplain. S0GGESTE1 ANSWER2 Eo, /d&ardo #a not be char&ed (ith atte#pted kidnappin& inas#uch as no overt act to kidnap or restrain the libert o% the &irl had been co##enced. At #ost, (hat /d&ardo has done in the pre#ises (as a proposal to 2icente to kidnap the &irl, (hich is onl a preparator act and not an overt act. *he atte#pt to co##it a %elon co##ences (ith the co##ission o% overt act, not preparator act. Proposal to co##it kidnappin& is not a cri#e. ?idna%%in,( Se#i +s Ille,al 1e$en$i n !1..4" A and B conspirin& (ith each other, kidnapped C and detained hi#. *he duo then called up C8s (i%e in%or#in& her that the had her husband and (ould release hi# onl i% she paid a ranso# in the a#ount o% P19,999,999 and that, i% she (ere to %ail, the (ould kill hi#. *he next da , C, (ho had 3ust recovered %ro# an illness had a relapse. "earin& he #i&ht die i% not treated at once b a doctor, A and B released C durin& the earl #ornin& o% the third da o% detention. Char&ed (ith kidnappin& and serious ille&al detention provided in Article )BK, RPC, A and B %iled a petition %or bail. *he contended that since the had voluntaril released C (ithin three da s %ro# co##ence#ent o% the detention, (ithout havin& been paid an a#ount o% the ranso# de#anded and be%ore the institution o% cri#inal proceedin&s a&ainst the#, the cri#e co##itted (as onl sli&ht ille&al detention prescribed in Article )BD, RPC. A%ter hearin&, the trial court %ound the evidence o% &uilt to be stron& and there%ore denied the petition %or bail. 0n appeal, the onl issue (as= $as the cri#e co##itted kidnappin& and serious detention or sli&ht -lle&al detention+ 6ecide. S0GGESTE1 ANSWER2 *he cri#e co##itted b A and B is kidnappin& and serious ille&al detention because the #ade a de#and %or ranso# and threatened to kill C i% the latter8s (i%e did not pa the sa#e. $ithout the de#and %or ranso#, the cri#e could have been sli&ht ille&al detention onl . *he contention o% A and B that the had voluntar released C (ithin three da s %ro# the co##ence#ent o% the detention is i##aterial as the are char&ed (ith a cri#e (here the penalt prescribed is death (Asistio vs. ,an 6ie&o. 19,CRABK:!. *he (ere properl denied bail because the trial court %ound that the evidence o% &uilt in the in%or#ation %or kidnappin& and serious -lle&al detention is stron&. T#es%ass $ 1'ellin,( P#iva$e Pe#s ns !200/"

Inder (hat situations #a a private person enter an d(ellin&, residence, or other establish#ents (ithout bein& liable %or trespass to d(ellin&+ ().C<! S0GGESTE1 ANSWER2 *respass to d(ellin& is not applicable to an person (ho shall enter another8s d(ellin& %or the purpose o%= a! Preventin& so#e serious har# to hi#sel%, its occupants, or a third person; and b! Renderin& service to hu#anit or 3ustice; An person (ho shall enter ca%es, taverns, inns, and other public houses, (hile the sa#e are open (ill like(ise not be liable (Art. )D9, Revised Penal Code!. T#ess%ass $ 1'ellin,( R+le * A3s #%$i n !1..9" At about 11=99 in the evenin&, 6ante %orced his (a inside the house o% 7a#erto. 5a . 7a#erto8s son, sa( 6ante and accosted hi#, 6ante pulled a kni%e and stabbed 5a on his abdo#en. 7a#erto heard the co##otion and (ent out o% his roo#. 6ante, (ho (as about to escape, assaulted 7a#erto. 5a su%%ered -n3uries (hich, (ere it not %or the ti#el #edical attendance, (ould have caused his death. 7a#erto sustained -n3uries that incapacitated hi# %or )C da s. $hat cri#e or cri#es did 6ante co##it+ S0GGESTE1 ANSWER2 6ante co##itted 4uali%ied trespass to d(ellin&, %rustrated ho#icide %or the stabbin& o% 5a , and less serious ph sical in3uries %or the assault on 7a#erto. *he cri#e o% 4uali%ied trespass to d(ellin& should not be co#plexed (ith %rustrated ho#icide because (hen the trespass is co##itted as a #eans to co##it a #ore serious o%%ense, trespass to d(ellin& is absorbed b the &reater cri#e, and the %or#er constitutes an a&&ravatin& circu#stance o% d(ellin& (People vs. Abedo?a, C: Phil.KDD!. 6ante co##itted %rustrated ho#icide %or the stabbin& o% 5a .... 6ante is &uilt o% less serious ph sical in3uries %or the (ounds sustained b 7a#erto... 0n5+s$ Ve>a$i n vs A&$s * Las&ivi +sness !1..9" $hen is e#bracin&, kissin& and touchin& a &irl8s breast considered onl lasciviousness+ S0GGESTE1 ANSWER2 *he acts o% e#bracin&, kissin& o% a (o#an arisin& either out o% passion or other #otive and the touchin& o% her breast as a #ere incident o% the e#brace (ithout le(d desi&n constitutes #erel un3ust vexation (People vs, -&nacio. CA AREo. C119-R, ,epte#ber :9, 19C9!. .o(ever, (here the kissin&, e#bracin& and the touchin& o% the breast o% a (o#an are done (ith le(d desi&n, the sa#e constitute acts o% lasciviousness (People vs. Percival Ailo, 19 ,CRA KC:!. 9. Cri#es A&ainst Propert (Articles )9:-::)! -nclude= a! Anti-"encin& 'a( (P.6. 1B1)! and its -#ple#entin& Rules and Re&ulations (i! "encin& (a! 6e%inition (b! Presu#ption o% %encin& (ii! /xception (a! $ith clearance or per#it to sell un3ust vexation instead o% acts o%

b! Bouncin& Checks 'a( (B.P. Bl&. ))! plus Ad#inistrative Circular Eo. 1)-)999 Re= Penalt %or 2iolation o% B.P. )) and Ad#inistrative Circular Eo. 1:-)991 Re= Clari%ication o% Ad#in. Circular Eo. 1)-)999; and P.6. Eo. 1BD9 (-ncreasin& the Penalt

%or Certain "or#s o% ,(indlin& or /sta%a! (i! Punishable acts (ii! /vidence o% kno(led&e o% insu%%icient %unds (iii! Pre%erence o% i#position o% %ine c! Anti-Carnappin& Act o% 19K) (R.A. Eo. BC:9!, as a#ended b R.A. Eo. KBC9 (i! Re&istration (iii! $ho are liable (a! 6ut o% Collector o% Custo#s (b! 6ut o% i#porters, distributors and sellers (c! Clearance and per#it (iv! Punishable acts

d! .u#an ,ecurit Act o% )99K (R.A. Eo. 9:K)! (i! Punishable acts o% terroris# e! Anti-Arson 'a( (P.6. 1B1:! (i! Punishable acts

An$i@=en&in, La'( =en&in, !1../" "lora, (ho (as en&a&ed in the purchase and sale o% 3e(elr , (as prosecuted %or the violation o% P.6. 1B1), other(ise kno(n as the Anti-"encin& 'a(, %or havin& been %ound to be in possession o% recentl stolen 5e(elr valued at P199,999.99 at her 3e(elr shop at Papote Road, 'as Pinas, 7etro 7anila. ,he testi%ied durin& the trial that she #erel bou&ht the sa#e %ro# one na#ed Cecilino and even produced a receipt coverin& the sale. Cecilino, in the past, used to deliver to her 3e(elries %or sale but is presentl no(here to be %ound. Convicted b the trial court %or violation o% the Anti-"encin& 'a(, she ar&ued (or her ac4uittal on appeal, contendin& that the prosecution %ailed to prove that she kne( or should have kno(n that the 5e(elries recovered %ro# her (ere the proceeds o% the cri#e o% robber or the%t. S0GGESTE1 ANSWER2 Eo, "lora8s de%ense is not (ell-taken because #ere possession o% an article o% value (hich has been the sub3ect o% the%t or robber shall be pri#a %acie evidence o% %encin& (P.6.Eo. 1B1)!. *he burden is upon the accused to prove that she ac4uired the 3e(elr le&iti#atel . .er de%ense o% havin& bou&ht the 5e(elr %ro# so#eone (hose (hereabouts is unkno(n, does not overco#e the presu#ption o% %encin& a&ainst her (Pamintuan v People, G.* ###%)$, ## 7ul2 #--%). Bu in& personal propert puts the bu er on caveat because o% the phrases that he should have kno(n or ou&ht to kno( that it is the proceed %ro# robber or the%t. Besides, she should have %ollo(ed the ad#inistrative procedure under the decree that o% &ettin& a clearance %ro# the authorities in case the dealer is unlicensed in order to escape liabilit . An$i@=en&in, La'( =en&in, vs. T)e*$ # R 33e#6 !1..8" $hat is the di%%erence bet(een a %ence and an accessor to the%t or robber + /xplain. -s there an si#ilarit bet(een the#+ S0GGESTE1 ANSWER2 0ne di%%erence bet(een a %ence and an accessor to the%t or robber is the penalt involved; a %ence is punished as a principal under P.6. Eo. 1B1) and the penalt is hi&her, (hereas an accessor to robber or the%t under the Revised Penal Code is punished t(o de&rees lo(er than the principal, unless he bou&ht or pro%ited %ro# the proceeds o% the%t or robber arisin& %ro# robber in Philippine hi&h(a s under P.6. Eo. C:) (here he is punished as an acco#plice, hence the penalt is one de&ree lo(er. Also, %encin& is a #alu# prohibitu# and there%ore there is no need to prove cri#inal intent o% the accused; this is not so in violations o% Revised Penal Code. S0GGESTE1 ANSWER2

1es, there is a si#ilarit in the sense that all the acts o% one (ho is an accessor to the cri#es o% robber or the%t are included in the acts de%ined as %encin&. -n %act, the accessor in the cri#es o% robber or the%t could be prosecuted as such under the Revised Penal Code or as a %ence under P.6. Eo. 1B1). (9i,on=Pamintuan v . People, )0% SC*A $0? An$i@=en&in, La'( =en&in,( Ele-en$s !1..8" $hat are the ele#ents o% %encin&+ S0GGESTE1 ANSWER2 *he ele#ents o% %encin& are= a. b. c. d. a cri#e o% robber or the%t has been co##itted; accused, (ho is not a principal or acco#plice in the cri#e, bu s, receives, possesses, keeps, ac4uires, conceals, or disposes, or bu s and sells, or in an #anner deals in an article, ite# , ob3ect or an thin& o% value, (hich has been derived %ro# the proceeds o% said cri#e; the accused kno(s or should have kno(n that said article, ite#, ob3ect or an thin& o% value has been derived %ro# the %ro# the proceeds o% the cri#e o% robber or the%t; and there is on the part o% the accused, intent to &ain %or hi#sel% or %or another.

C#i-inal Lia3ili$6( A&&ess #ies A =en&e !1..;" Jin& (ent to the house o% 'aura (ho (as alone. 'aura o%%ered hi# a drink and a%ter consu#in& three bottles o% beer. Jin& #ade advances to her and (ith %orce and violence, ravished her. *hen Jin& killed 'aura and took her 3e(elr . 6o#in&, Jin&8s adopted brother, learned about the incident. .e (ent to 'aura8s house, hid her bod , cleaned ever thin& and (ashed the bloodstains inside the roo#. 'ater, Jin& &ave 5ose, his le&iti#ate brother, one piece o% 3e(elr belon&in& to 'aura. 5ose kne( that the 3e(elr (as taken %ro# 'aura but nonetheless he sold it %or P),999. $hat cri#e or cri#es did Jin&, 6o#in& and 5ose co##it+ 6iscuss their cri#inal liabilities. L19<M S0GGESTE1 ANSWER2 Jin& co##itted the co#posite cri#e o% Rape (ith ho#icide as a sin&le indivisible o%%ense, not a co#plex cri#e, and *he%t. 6o#in&8s acts, havin& been done (ith kno(led&e o% the co##ission o% the cri#e and obviousl to conceal the bod o% the cri#e to prevent its discover , #akes hi# an accessor to the cri#e o% rape (ith ho#icide under Art. 19, par. ) o% the Rev. Penal Code, but he is exe#pt %ro# cri#inal liabilit there%or under Article )9 o% the Code, bein& an adopted brother o% the principal. 5ose incurs cri#inal liabilit either as an accessor to the cri#e o% the%t co##itted b Jin&, or as %ence. Althou&h he is a le&iti#ate brother o% Jin&, the exe#ption under Article )9 does not include the participation he did, because he pro%ited %ro# the e%%ects o% such the%t b sellin& the 3e(elr kno(in& that the sa#e (as taken %ro# 'aura. 0r 5ose #a be prosecuted %or %encin& under the Anti-"encin& 'a( o% 19K9 (P6 Eo. 1B1)! since the 3e(elr (as the proceeds o% A#s n( 1es$#+&$ive A#s n !1..9" *ata o(ns a three-store buildin& located at Eo. : .erran ,treet. Paco, 7anila. ,he (anted to construct a ne( buildin& but had no #one to %inance the construction. ,o, she insured the buildin& %or P:,999,999.99. ,he then ur&ed 1obo and 1on&si, %or #onetar consideration, to bu# her buildin& so she could collect the insurance proceeds. 1obo and 1on&si burned the said buildin& resultin& to its total loss. $hat cri#e did *ata, 1obo and 1on&si co##it+ S0GGESTE1 ANSWER2 *ata, 1obo and 1on&si co##itted the cri#e o% destructive arson because the collectivel caused the destruction o% propert b #eans o% %ire under the circu#stances (hich exposed to dan&er the li%e or propert o% others (Art, :)9, par. C, RPC. as a#ended b RA Eo. KBC9!.

A#s n( 1es$#+&$ive A#s n !2000" 0ne earl evenin&, there (as a %i&ht bet(een /ddie Autierre? and 7ario Corte?. 'ater that evenin&, at about 11 o8clock, /ddie passed b the house o% 7ario carr in& a plastic ba& containin& &asoline, thre( the ba& at the house o% 7ario (ho (as inside the house (atchin& television, and then lit it. *he %ront (all o% the house started bla?in& and so#e nei&hbors elled and shouted. "orth(ith, 7ario poured (ater on the burnin& portion o% the house. Eei&hbors also rushed in to help put the %ire under control be%ore an &reat da#a&e could be in%licted and be%ore the %la#es have extensivel spread. 0nl a portion o% the house (as burned. 6iscuss /ddie8s liabilit , (:<! S0GGESTE1 ANSWER2 /ddie is liable %or destructive arson in the consu##ated sta&e. -t is destructive arson because %ire (as resorted to in destro in& the house o% 7ario (hich is an inhabited house or d(ellin&. *he arson is consu##ated because the house (as in %act alread burned althou&h not totall . -n arson, it is not re4uired that the pre#ises be totall burned %or the cri#e to be consu##ated. -t is enou&h that the pre#ises su%%er destruction b burnin&. A#s n( Ne' A#s n La' !2009" C6 is the step%ather o% "/'. 0ne da , C6 &ot ver #ad at "/' %or %ailin& in his colle&e courses. -n his %ur , C6 &ot the leather suitcase o% "/' and burned it to&ether (ith all its contents. 1. $hat cri#e (as co##itted b C6+ ). -s C6 cri#inall liable+ /xplain brie%l . (C<! S0GGESTE1 ANSWER2 *he cri#e co##itted b C6 is arson under Pres. 6ecree Eo. 1B1: (the ne( Arson 'a(! (hich punishes an person (ho burns or sets %ire to the propert o% another (,ection 1 o% Pres. 6ecree Eo. 1B1:!. C6 is cri#inall liable althou&h he is the step%ather o% "/' (hose propert he burnt, because such relationship is not exe#ptin& %ro# cri#inal liabilit in the cri#e o% arson but onl in cri#es o% the%t, s(indlin& or esta%a, and #alicious #ischie% (Article ::), Revised Penal Code!. *he provision (Art. :):! o% the Code to the e%%ect that burnin& propert o% s#all value should be punished as #alicious #ischie% has lon& been repealed b Pres. 6ecree 1B1:; hence, there is no #ore le&al basis to consider burnin& propert o% s#all value as #alicious #ischie%. BP 22( Me- #and+- C)e&I !1..9" 1. $hat is a #e#orandu# check+ ). -s the ;bouncin&; thereo% (ithin the purvie( o% BP Bl&. ))+ S0GGESTE1 ANSWER2 1. A ;7e#orandu# Check; is an ordinar check, (ith the (ord ;7e#orandu#;, ;7e#o; or ;7e#; (ritten across its %ace, si&ni% in& that the #aker or dra(er en&a&es to pa its holder absolutel thus partakin& the nature o% a pro#issor note. -t is dra(n on a bank and is a bill o% exchan&e (ithin the purvie( o% ,ection 1DC o% the Ee&otiable -nstru#ents 'a( (People vs. 5ud&e 6avid Eita%an, A.R. Eo. KC9C>, 0ctober )), 199)!. ). 1es, a #e#orandu# check is covered b Batas Pa#bansa Eo. )) because the la( covers an check (hether it is an evidence o% -ndebtedness, or in pa #ent o% a pre-existin& obli&ation or as a deposit or &uarantee (People versus Eita%an!. BP 22( Me- #and+- C)e&I !1..8" 1. $hat is a #e#orandu# check+

). -s a person (ho issues a #e#orandu# check (ithout su%%icient %unds necessaril &uilt o% violatin& B.P. Bl&. ))+ /xplain. :. 5ane is a #one lender. /d#und is a business#an (ho has been borro(in& #one %ro# 5ane b rediscountin& his personal checks to pa his loans. -n 7arch 19D9, he borro(ed P199,999 %ro# 5ane and issued to her a check %or the sa#e a#ount. *he check (as dishonored b the dra(ee bank %or havin& been dra(n a&ainst a closed account. $hen /d#und (as noti%ied o% the dishonor o% his check he pro#ised to raise the a#ount (ithin %ive da s. .e %ailed. Conse4uentl , 5ane sued /d#und %or violation o% the Bouncin& Checks 'a( (BP. Bl&. ))!. *he de%ense o% /d#und (as that he &ave the check to 5ane to serve as a #e#orandu# o% his indebtedness to her and (as not supposed to be encashed. -s the de%ense o% /d#und valid+ 6iscuss %ull . S0GGESTE1 ANSWER2 1. A #e#orandu# check is an ordinar check (ith the (ord ;7e#orandu#;, ;7e#o;, or ;7e#; (ritten across the %ace, si&ni% in& that the #aker or dra(er en&a&es to pa its holder absolutel thus partakin& the nature o% a pro#issor note. -t is dra(n on a bank and is a bill o% exchan&e (ithin the purvie( o% ,ection 1DC o% the Ee&otiable -nstru#ents 'a(. (People vs. Eita%an, )1C ,CRA K9! ). 1es, a person (ho issued a #e#orandu# check (ithout su%%icient %unds is &uilt o% violatin& B.P. Bl&. )) as said la( covers all checks (hether it is an evidence o% indebtedness, or in pa #ent o% a preUexistin& obli&ation, or as deposit or &uarantee. (People vs. Eita%an! :. *he de%ense o% /d#und is E0* valid. A #e#orandu# check upon present#ent is &enerall accepted b the bank. -t does not #atter (hether the check is in the nature o% a #e#orandu# as evidence o% indebtedness. $hat the la( punishes is the #ere issuance o% a bouncin& check and not the purpose %or (hich it (as issued nor the ter#s and conditions relatin& thereto. *he #ere act o% issuin& a (orthless check is a #alu# prohibitu#. *he understandin& that the check (ill not be presented at the bank but (ill be redee#ed b the #aker (hen the loan %alls due is a #ere private arran&e#ent (hich #a not prevail to exe#pt it %ro# the penal sanction o% B.P. Bl&. )). (People vs. Eita%an! BP 22( P#es+-%$i n * ?n 'led,e !2002" A, a business#an, borro(ed PC99,999.99 %ro# B, a %riend. *o pa the loan, A issued a postdated check to be presented %or pa #ent :9 da s a%ter the transaction. *(o da s be%ore the #aturit date o% the check, A called up B and told hi# not to deposit the check on the date stated on the %ace thereo%, as A had not deposited in the dra(ee bank the a#ount needed to cover the check. Eevertheless, B deposited the check in 4uestion and the sa#e (as dishonored o% insu%%icienc o% %unds. A %ailed to settle the a#ount (ith B in spite o% the latter8s de#ands. -s A &uilt o% violatin& B.P. Bl&. )), other(ise kno(n as the Bouncin& Checks 'a(+ /xplain. (C<! S0GGESTE1 ANSWER2 1es, A -s liable %or violation o% BP. Bl&. )) (Bouncin& Checks 'a(!, Althou&h kno(led&e b the dra(er o% insu%%icienc or lack o% %unds at the ti#e o% the issuance o% the check is an essential ele#ent o% the violation, the la( presu#es pri#a %acie such kno(led&e, unless (ithin %ive (C! bankin& da s o% notice o% dishonor or nonUpa #ent, the dra(er pa s the holder thereo% the a#ount due thereon or #akes arran&e#ents %or pa #ent in %ull b the dra(ee o% such checks. A #ere notice b the dra(er A to the pa ee B be%ore the #aturit date o% the check (ill not de%eat the presu#ption o% kno(led&e created b the la(; other(ise, the purpose and spirit o% B.P. )) (ill be rendered useless. Es$a*a A T#+s$ Re&ei%$ La' !1..8" 5ulio obtained a letter o% credit %ro# a local bank in order to i#port auto tires %ro# 5apan. *o secure pa #ent o% his letter o% credit, 5ulio executed a trust receipt in %avor o% the bank. Ipon arrival o% the tires, 5ulio sold the# but did not deliver the proceeds to the bank. 5ulio (as char&ed (ith esta%a under P.6. Eo. 11C (hich #akes the violation o% a trust

receipt a&ree#ent punishable as esta%a under Art. :1C, par. (1!, subpar. (b!, o% the Revised Penal Code. 5ulio contended that P.6. Eo. 11C (as unconstitutional because it violated the Bill o% Ri&hts provision a&ainst i#prison#ent %or nonpa #ent o% debt. Rule on the contention o% 5ulio, 6iscuss %ull . S0GGESTE1 ANSWER2 ,uch contention is invalid. A trust receipt arran&e#ent doesn8t involve #erel a si#ple loan transaction but includes like(ise a securit %eature (here the creditor bank extends %inancial assistance to the debtor-i#porter in return %or the collateral or securit title as to the &oods or #erchandise bein& purchased or i#ported. *he title o% the bank to the securit is the one sou&ht to be protected and not the loan (hich is a separate and distinct a&ree#ent. $hat is bein& penali?ed under P,6. Eo. 11C is the #isuse or #isappropriation o% the &oods or proceeds reali?ed %ro# the sale o% the &oods, docu#ents or -nstru#ents (hich are bein& held in trust %or the entrustee-banks. -n other (ords, the la( punishes the dishonest and abuse o% con%idence in the handlin& o% #one or &oods to the pre3udice o% the other, and hence there is no violation o% the ri&ht a&ainst i#prison#ent %or non-pa #ent o% debt. (People vs. Eita%an, )9K ,CRA K)C! Es$a*a !1..." -s there such a cri#e as esta%a throu&h ne&li&ence+ /xplain. ()<! Aurelia introduced Rosa to 2ictoria, a dealer in 3e(elr (ho does business in *i#o&, Fue?on Cit . Rosa, a resident o% Cebu Cit , a&reed to sell a dia#ond rin& and bracelet to 2ictoria on a co##ission basis, on condition that, i% these ite#s can not be sold, the #a be returned to 2ictoria %orth(ith. Inable to sell the rin& and bracelet, Rosa delivered both ite#s to Aurelia in Cebu Cit (ith the understandin& that Aurelia shall, in turn, return the ite#s to 2ictoria in *i#o&, Fue?on Cit . Aurelia duti%ull returned the bracelet to 2ictoria but sold the rin&, kept the cash proceeds thereo% to hersel%, and issued a check to 2ictoria (hich bounced. 2ictoria sued Rosa %or esta%a under Article :1C, R.P.C., 2ictoria insistin& that deliver to a third person o% the thin& held in trust is not a de%ense in esta%a. -s Rosa cri#inall liable %or esta%a under the circu#stances+ /xplain, L><M S0GGESTE1 ANSWER2 (a! *here is no such cri#e as esta%a throu&h ne&li&ence. -n esta%a, the pro%it or &ain #ust be obtained b the accused personall , throu&h his o(n acts, and his #ere ne&li&ence in allo(in& another to take advanta&e o% or bene%it %ro# the entrusted chattel cannot constitute esta%a. (People v. Eepo#uceno, CA, >B0A B1:C! (b! Eo, Rosa cannot be held cri#inall liable %or esta%a. Althou&h she received the 3e(elr %ro# 2ictoria under an obli&ation to return the sa#e or deliver the proceeds thereo%, she did not #isappropriate it. -n %act, she &ave the# to Aurelia speci%icall to be returned to 2ictoria. *he #isappropriation (as done b Aurelia, and absent the sho(in& o% an conspirac bet(een Aurelia and Rosa, the latter cannot be held cri#inall liable %or A#elia8s acts. "urther#ore, as explained above, Rosa8s ne&li&ence (hich #a have allo(ed Aurelia to #isappropriate the 3e(elr does not #ake her cri#inall liable %or esta%a. Es$a*a vs. BP 22 !1../" *he accused (as convicted under B.P, Bl&. )) %or havin& issued several checks (hich (ere dishonored b the dra(ee bank on their due date because the accused closed her account a%ter the issuance o% checks. 0n appeal, she ar&ued that she could not be convicted under Bl&. )) b reason o% the closin& o% her account because said la( applies solel to checks dishonored b reason o% insu%%icienc o% %unds and that at the ti#e she issued the checks concerned, she had ade4uate %unds in the bank. $hile she ad#its that she #a be held liable %or esta%a under Article )1C o% the Revised Penal Code, she cannot ho(ever be %ound &uilt o% havin& violated Bl&. )). -s her contention correct+ /xplain. S0GGESTE1 ANSWER2

Eo, the contention o% the accused is not correct. As lon& as the checks issued (ere issued to appl on account or %or value, and (as dishonored upon presentation %or pa #ent to the dra(ee bank %or lack o% insu%%icient %unds on their due date, such act %alls (ithin the a#bit o% B.P. Bl&. )). ,aid la( expressl punishes an person (ho #a have insu%%icient %unds in the dra(ee bank (hen he issues the check, but %ails to keep su%%icient %unds to cover the %ull a#ount o% the check (hen presented to the dra(ee bank (ithin ninet (99! da s %ro# the date appearin& thereon. Es$a*a vs. BP 22 !2003" A and B a&reed to #eet at the latter8s house to discuss B8s %inancial proble#s. 0n his (a , one o% A8s car tires ble( up. Be%ore A le%t %ollo(in& the #eetin&, he asked B to lend hi# (A! #one to bu a ne( spare tire. B had te#poraril exhausted his bank deposits, leavin& a ?ero balance. Anticipatin&, ho(ever, a replenish#ent o% his account soon, B issued A a postdated check (ith (hich A ne&otiated %or a ne( tire. $hen presented, the check bounced %or lack o% %unds. *he tire co#pan %iled a cri#inal case a&ainst A and B. $hat (ould be the cri#inal liabilit , i% an , o% each o% the t(o accused+ /xplain. D< S0GGESTE1 ANSWER2 A (ho ne&otiated the un%unded check o% B in bu in& a ne( tire %or his car #a onl be prosecuted %or esta%a i% he (as a(are at the ti#e o% such ne&otiation that the check has no su%%icient %unds in the dra(ee bank; other(ise, he is not cri#inall liable. B (ho acco##odated A (ith his check #a nevertheless be prosecuted under BP )) %or havin& issued the check, kno(in& at the ti#e o% issuance that it has no %unds in the bank and that A (ill ne&otiate it to bu a ne( tire, i.e., %or value. B #a not be prosecuted %or esta%a because the %acts indicate that he is not actuated b intent to de%raud in issuin& the check (hich A ne&otiated. 0bviousl , B issued the postdated check onl to help A= cri#inal intent or dolo is absent. Es$a*a( =alsi*i&a$i n * a P#iva$e 1 &+-en$ !2004" "e is the #ana&er o% a rice #ll in Bulacan. -n order to support a &a#blin& debt, "e #ade it appear that the rice #ill (as earnin& less than it actuall (as b (ritin& in a GtalaanH or led&er a %i&ure lo(er than (hat (as collected an paid b their custo#ers. "e then pocketed the d%%erence. $hat cri#e@s did "e co##it, i% an + /xplain our ans(er. S0GGESTE1 ANSWER2 -% the GtalaanH or led&er (hich "e #ade to sho( a %alsehood (as a private docu#ent, the onl cri#e that "e co##itted (as esta%a thru abuse o% con%idence or un%aith%ulness. Cri#inal liabiit %or %alsi%ication o% a private docu#ent does not arise (ithout da#a&e or at least proo% o% intent to cause da#a&e. -t cannot co-exist (ith the cri#e o% esta%a (hich also essentiall re4uires da#a&e or at least proo% o% intent to cause da#a&e. ,ince the GtalaanH (as %alsi%ied to cover-up or conceal the #isappropriation o% the a#ount involved, (hatever da#a&e or intent to cause da#a&e attends the %alsi%ication, it (ill be the sa#e da#a&e or intent to cause da#a&e that (ill attend the esta%a. -% such GtalaanH or led&er (as a co##ercial docu#ent, da#a&e or proo% o% intent to cause da#a&e is not necessar . *he %alsi%ication alone i% done (ith intent to pervert the truth, (ould brin& about cri#inal liabilit %or %alsi%ication o% a co##ercial docu#ent. 6a#a&e or intent to cause da#a&e, (ould sustain the esta%a independentl o% the %alsi%ication o% the co##ercial docu#ent. -n this case, t(o ()! separate cri#es are co##itted; na#el , esta%a and %alsi%ication o% the co##ercial docu#ent. *he %alsi%ication should not be co#plexed (ith the esta%a since it (as not co##itted but rather resorted to, to conceal or hide the #isappropriation o% the a#ount she pocketed. ALTERNATIVE ANSWER2 *he cri#es co##itted b "e are the%t and %alsi%ication o% private docu#ent because "e8s possession o% the proceeds o% the rice #ill (as onl ph sical, not 3uridical, possession, and havin& co##itted the cri#es (ith &rave abuse o%

con%idence, it is 4uali%ied the%t. *he %alsi%ication is a separate cri#e %ro# the the%t because it (as not co##itted as a necessar #eans to co##it the the%t but resorted to onl hide or conceal the unla(%ul takin&. =alsi*i&a$i n * a P#iva$e 1 &+-en$( E>e-%$i n !200;" 6ennis leased his apart#ent to 7 la %or P19,999 a #onth. 7 la %ailed to pa the rent %or : #onths. Aabriel, the son o% 6ennis, prepared a de#and letter %alsel alle&in& that his %ather had authori?ed hi# to collect the unpaid rentals. 7 la paid the unpaid rentals to Aabriel (ho kept the pa #ent. a! 6id Aabriel co##it a cri#e+ /xplain. (><! S0GGESTE1 ANSWER2 1es. Aabriel co##itted a cri#e; it (as either the cri#e o% %alsi%ication o% a private docu#ent (i% da#a&e or at least intent to cause da#a&e could be proved! or the cri#e o% s(indlin& onl . -t could not be both %alsi%ication and s(indlin& or a co#plex cri#e o% esta%a throu&h %alsi%ication since the docu#ent %alsi%ied is a private docu#ent. *he t(o cri#es cannot &o to&ether. b! Can Aabriel invoke his relationship (ith 6ennis to avoid cri#inal liabilit + S0GGESTE1 ANSWER2 -% Aabriel (ould be #ade cri#inall liable %or %alsi%ication o% a private docu#ent, he cannot invoke his relationship (ith 6ennis, his %ather, to avoid cri#inal liabilit because Art. ::) o% the Revised Penal Code provides exe#ption %ro# cri#inal liabilit in cri#es a&ainst propert onl %or the%t, s(indlin& or #alicious #ischie% but not %or %alsi%ication o% docu#ents. -% he (ould be #ade cri#inall liable %or s(indlin&, he can invoke his relationship (ith 6ennis because this cri#e cannot be co#plexed (ith %alsi%ication o% a private docu#ent. *he char&e could, there%ore, stand alone. *he exe#ption in Art. ::), (ill obtain. Es$a*a( =alsi*i&a$i n * C --e#&ial 1 &+-en$s( E+ali*ied T)e*$ !200;" Ipon openin& a letter containin& 1K #one orders, the #ail carrier %or&ed the si&natures o% the pa ees on the #one orders and encashed the#. $hat cri#e or cri#es did the #ail carrier co##it+ /xplain brie%l . (B<! S0GGESTE1 ANSWER2 *he #ail carrier8s act o% openin& the letter containin& the 1K #one orders and encashin& the# constitutes a continued cri#e o% 4uali%ied the%t, because the ob3ect taken is #ail #atter and the takin& (as (ith evident intent to &ain (Art. :19, RPC!. 7oreover, the #ail carrier8s act o% %or&in& the si&natures o% the pa ees o% said #one orders constitutes %alsi%ication o% co##ercial docu#ents. -t (as #ade to appear that the pa ees si&ned the# (hen in %act the did not. $hen the #ail carrier encashed the #one orders, he de%rauded and caused da#a&e to the re#itters (ho &ave the cash. *he #ail carrier %urther incurred the cri#e o% esta%a throu&h %alsi%ication o% co##ercial docu#ents. Es$a*a vs. M ne6 Ma#Ie$ Pla&e-en$ !1../" 0n 7arch :1, 199C, 0rpheus "inancin& Corporation received %ro# 7aricar the su# o% PC99,999 as #one #arket place#ent %or sixt da s at %i%teen (1C! per cent interest, and the President o% said Corporation issued a check coverin&

the a#ount includin& the interest due thereon, postdated 7a :9, 199C. 0n the #aturit date, ho(ever, 0rpheus "inancin& Corporation %ailed to deliver back 7aricar8s #one place#ent (ith the correspondin& interest earned, not(ithstandin& repeated de#ands upon said Corporation to co#pl (ith its co##it#ent. 6id the President o% 0rpheus "inancin& Corporation incur an nonpa #ent o% the #one #arket place#ent+ /xplain. S0GGESTE1 ANSWER2 Eo, the President o% the %inancin& corporation does not incur cri#inal liabilit %or esta%a because a #one #arket transaction partakes o% the nature o% a loan, such that nonpa #ent thereo% (ould not &ive rise to esta%a throu&h #isappropriation or conversion. -n #one #arket place#ent, there is trans%er o% o(nership o% the #one to be invested and there%ore the liabilit %or its return is civil in nature (Pere? vs. Court o% Appeals, 1)K ,CRA B:B; ,ebreno vs. Court o% Appeals etal, A.R. D>99B, )B 5an 9C!. Es$a*a vs. T)e*$ !2008" 66 (as en&a&ed in the (arehouse business. ,o#eti#e in Eove#ber )99>, he (as in dire need o% #one . .e, thus, sold #erchandise deposited in his (arehouse to 2R %or PC99,999.99. 66 (as char&ed (ith the%t, as principal, (hile 2R as accessor . *he court convicted 66 o% the%t but ac4uitted 2R on the &round that he purchased the #erchandise in &ood %aith. .o(ever, the court ordered 2R to return the #erchandise to the o(ner thereo% and ordered 66 to re%und the PC99,999.99 to 2R. 66 #oved %or the reconsideration o% the decision insistin& that he should be ac4uitted o% the%t because bein& the depositar , he had 3uridical possession o% the #erchandise. 2R also #oved %or the reconsideration o% the decision insistin& that since he (as ac4uitted o% the cri#e char&ed, and that he purchased the #erchandise in &ood %aith, he is not obli&ated to return the #erchandise to its o(ner. Rule on the #otions (ith reasons. (C<! S0GGESTE1 ANSWER2 *he #otion %or reconsideration should be &ranted. B depositin& the #erchandise in his (arehouse, he trans%erred not #erel ph sical but also 3uridical possession. *he ele#ent o% takin& in the cri#e o% the%t is (antin&. At the #ost, he could be held liable %or esta%a %or #isappropriation o% the #erchandise deposited. 0n the other hand, the #otion o% 2R #ust also be denied. .is ac4uittal is o% no #o#ent because the thin&, sub3ect #atter o% the o%%ense, shall be restored to the o(ner even thou&h it is %ound in the possession o% a third person (ho ac4uired it b la(%ul #eans. (Art. 19C, R"C! Es$a*a( Ele-en$s !2008" 66 purchased a television set %or PC9,999.99 (ith the use o% a counter%eit credit card. *he o(ner o% the establish#ent had no inklin& that the credit card used b 66 (as counter%eit. $hat cri#e or cri#es did 66 co##it+ /xplain. (C<! S0GGESTE1 ANSWER2 66 co##itted the cri#e o% esta%a under Art. :1C, par. )(a! o% the Revised Penal Code b %alsel pretendin& to posses credit. *he ele#ents o% esta%a under this penal provision are; (1! the accused de%rauded another b #eans o% deceit; and ()! da#a&e or pre3udice capable o% pecuniar esti#ation is caused to the o%%ended part or third part . *he accused also violated R.A. Eo. D>D>, (hich punishes the use or possession o% %ake or counter%eit credit card. Es$a*a( =alsi*i&a$i n * C --e#&ial 1 &+-en$ !2000" 7r. Carlos Aabisi, a custo#s &uard, and 7r, Rico 1to, a private -ndividual, (ent to the o%%ice o% 7r. 6iether 0cuarto, cri#inal liabilit %or esta%a %or reason o% the

a custo#s broker, and represented the#selves as a&ents o% 7oon&lo( Co##ercial *radin&, an -#porter o% children8s clothes and to s. 7r. Aabisi and 7r. 1to en&a&ed 7r. 0cuarto to prepare and %ile (ith the Bureau o% Custo#s the necessar -#port /ntr and -nternal Revenue 6eclaration coverin& 7oon&lo(8s ship#ent. 7r. Aabisi and 7r. 1to sub#itted to 7r. 0cuarto a packin& list, a co##ercial invoice, a bill o% ladin& and a ,(orn -#port 6ut 6eclaration (hich declared the ship#ent as children8s to s, the taxes and duties o% (hich (ere co#puted at PB9,999.99. 7r. 0cuarto %iled the a%ore#entioned docu#ents (ith the 7anila -nternational Container Port. .o(ever, be%ore the ship#ent (as released, a spot check (as conducted b Custo#s ,enior A&ent 5a#es Bandido, (ho discovered that the contents o% the van (ship#ent! (ere not children8s to s as declared in the shippin& docu#ents but 1,999 units o% video cassette recorders (ith taxes and duties co#puted at PB99,999.99. A hold order and (arrant o% sei?ure and detention (ere then issued b the 6istrict Collector o% Custo#s. "urther investi&ation sho(ed that 7oon&lo( is non-existent. Conse4uentl , 7r, Aabisi and 7r. 1to (ere char&ed (ith and convicted %or violation o% ,ection :(e! o% R.A. :919 (hich #akes it unla(%ul a#on& others, %or public o%%icers to cause an undue -n3ur to an part , includin& the Aovern#ent. -n the dischar&e o% o%%icial %unctions throu&h #ani%est partialit , evident bad %aith or &ross inexcusable ne&li&ence. -n their #otion %or reconsideration, the accused alle&ed that the decision (as erroneous because the cri#e (as not consu##ated but (as onl at an atte#pted sta&e, and that in %act the Aovern#ent did not su%%er an undue in3ur . Assu#in& that the atte#pted or %rustrated sta&e o% the violation char&ed is not punishable, #a the accused be nevertheless convicted %or an o%%ense punished b the Revised Penal Code under the %acts o% the case+ /xplain. (:<! S0GGESTE1 ANSWER2 1es, both are liable %or atte#pted esta%a thru %alsi%ication o% co##ercial docu#ents, a co#plex cri#e. *he tried to de%raud the Aovern#ent (ith the use o% %alse co##ercial and public docu#ents. 6a#a&e is not necessar . Es$a*a( =alsi*i&a$i n * C --e#&ial 1 &+-en$s !1..4" *he accused opened a savin& account (ith Bank A (ith an initial deposit o% P),999.99. A %e( da s later, he deposited in the savin&s account a Bank B check %or P 19,999.99 dra(n and endorsed purportedl b C. *en da s later, he (ithdre( P 19,999.99 %ro# his savin&s account. C co#plained to Bank B (hen the check (as deducted %ro# his account. *(o da s therea%ter, the accused deposited another Bank B check o% P 19,999.99 si&ned and endorsed alle&edl b C. A (eek later, the accused (ent to Bank A to (ithdra( P19,999.99. $hile (ithdra(in& the a#ount, he (as arrested. Convicted under t(o in%or#ations o% esta%a and atte#pted esta%a both throu&h %alsi%ication o% co##ercial docu#ents, he set up the de%enses that, except %or the sho(in& that the si&nature o% C had been %or&ed, no %urther evidence (as presented to establish (a! that he (as the %or&er o% the si&nature o% C nor (b!, that as to the second char&e C su%%ered an da#a&e. Rule on the de%ense. S0GGESTE1 ANSWER2 *he de%ense is not tenable; (a! the possessor o% a %alsi%ied docu#ent is presu#ed to be the author o% the %alsi%ication (People vs. ,enda dte&o, D1 ,CRA 1)9; Joh *iek vs. People, et al, 6ec. )1, 1999!; (b! -n esta%a, a #ere disturbance o% propert ri&hts, even i% te#porar , (ould be su%%icient to, cause da#a&e. 7oreover, in a cri#e o% %alsi%ication o% a co##ercial docu#ent, da#a&e or intent to cause da#a&e is not necessar because the principal thin& punished is the violation o% the public %aith and the destruction o% the truth as therein sole#nl proclai#ed. Es$a*a( 1e*ense * O'ne#s)i% !2002" A sold a (ashin& #achine to B on credit, (ith the understandin& that B could return the appliance (ithin t(o (eeks i%, a%ter testin& the sa#e, B decided not to bu it. *(o (eeks lapsed (ithout B returnin& the appliance. A %ound out that B had sold the (ashin& #achine to a third part - -s B liable %or esta%a+ $h + (C<! ,IAA/,*/6 AE,$/R= Eo, B is not liable %or esta%a because he is not 3ust an entrustee o% the (ashin& #achine (hich he sold; he is the o(ner thereo% b virtue o% the sale o% the (ashin& #achine to hi#. *he sale bein& on credit, B as bu er is onl liable %or the unpaid price o% the (ashin& #achine; his obli&ation is onl a civil obli&ation. *here is no %elonious #isappropriation that

could constitute esta%a. Es$a*a( S'indlin, !1..;" 6ivina, is the o(ner o% a C99-s4uare #eter residential lot in 7akati Cit covered b *C* Eo. 199D. As her son needed #one %or his trip abroad, 6ivina #ort&a&ed her lot to her nei&hbor 6ino %or P1,999,999. 'ater 6ivina sold the sa#e lot to An&el %or P),999,999. -n the 6eed o% ,ale, she expressl stated that the propert is %ree %ro# an lien or encu#brance. $hat cri#e, i% an , did 6ivina co##it+ LC<M S0GGESTE1 ANSWER2 6ivina co##itted esta%a or s(indlin& under Art. :1B, par. ) o% the Revised Penal Code because, kno(in& that the real propert bein& sold is encu#bered, she still #ade a #isrepresentation in the 6eed o% ,ale that the sa#e is %ree %ro# an lien or encu#brance. *here is thus a deceit or %raud causin& da#a&e to the bu er o% the lot. R 33e#6 !1../" "ive robbers robbed, one a%ter the other %ive houses occupied b di%%erent %a#ilies located inside a co#pound enclosed b a six %eet hi&h hollo( block %ence. .o( #an robberies did the %ive co##it+ /xplain. S0GGESTE1 ANSWER2 *he o%%enders co##itted onl one robber in the e es o% the la( because (hen the entered the co#pound, the (ere i#pelled onl b a sin&le indivisible cri#inal resolution to co##it a robber as the (ere not a(are that there (ere %ive %a#ilies inside said co#pound, considerin& that the sa#e (as enclosed b a six %eet hi&h hollo(-block %ence. *he series o% robber co##itted in the sa#e co#pound at about the sa#e ti#e constitutes one continued cri#e, #otivated b one cri#inal i#pulse. R 33e#6 +nde# RPC !2000" A, B, C, 6 and B (ere in a beerhouse alon& 7acArthur .i&h(a havin& a drinkin& spree. At about 1 o8clock in the #ornin&, the decided to leave and so asked %or the bill. *he pooled their #one to&ether but the (ere still short o% P),999.99. / then orchestrated a plan (hereb A, B, C and 6 (ould &o out, %la& a taxicab and rob the taxi driver o% all his #one (hile / (ould (ait %or the# in the beerhouse. A. B, C and 6 a&reed. All ar#ed (ith balison&s, A, B, C and 6 hailed the %irst taxicab the encountered. A%ter robbin& N, the driver, o% his earnin&s, (hich a#ounted to P1,999.99 onl , the needed P1 ,999.99 #ore to #eet their bill. ,o, the decided to hail another taxicab and the a&ain robbed driver * o% his hard-earned #one a#ountin& to P1,999. 0n their (a back to the beerhouse, the (ere apprehended b a police tea# upon the co#plaint o% N, the driver o% the %irst cab. *he pointed to / as the #aster#ind. $hat cri#e or cri#es, i% an , did A, B, C, 6 and B co##it+ /xplain %ull . (:<! S0GGESTE1 ANSWER2 A. B, C, 6 and / are liable %or t(o ()! counts o% robber under Article )9> o% the Rev. Penal Code; not %or hi&h(a Robber under P6 C:). *he o%%enders are not bri&ands but onl co##itted the robber to raise #one to pa their bill because it happened that the (ere short o% #one to pa the sa#e. R 33e#6 +nde# RPC !2001" A and B are nei&hbors in Baran&a Euevo -, ,ilan&, Cavite. A is a baran&a Ja&a(ad and kno(n to be a bull , (hile B is reputed to be &a but noted %or his industr and econo#ic savv (hich allo(ed hi# to a#ass (ealth in leaps and bounds, includin& re&istered and unre&istered lands in several baran&a s. Resentin& B8s riches and rel in& on his political in%luence, A decided to harass and inti#idate B into sharin& (ith hi# so#e o% his lands, considerin& that the latter (as sin&le and livin& alone. 0ne ni&ht, A broke into B8s house, %orced hi# to brin& out so#e titles and a%ter

pickin& out a title coverin& )99 s4uare #eters in their baran&a , co#pelled B to t pe out a 6eed o% ,ale conve in& the said lot to hi# %or P1.99 and other valuable considerations. All the (hile, A carried a paltik caliber .>C in %ull vie( o% B, (ho si&ned the deed out o% %ear. $hen A later on tried to re&ister the deed, B su##oned enou&h coura&e and had A arrested and char&ed in court a%ter preli#inar investi&ation. $hat char&e or char&es should be %iled a&ainst A+ /xplain. (C<! S0GGESTE1 ANSWER2 *he char&e %or Robber under Article )9D o% the Revised Penal Code should be %iled a&ainst A. ,aid Article provides that an person (ho, (ith intent to de%raud another, b #eans o% violence or inti#idation, shall co#pel hi# to si&n, execute and deliver an public instru#ent or docu#ent shall be held &uilt o% robber . *he paltik caliber .>C %irear# carried b A (as obviousl intended to inti#idate B and thus, used in the co##ission o% the robber . -% it could be established that A had no license or per#it to possess and carr such %irear#, it should be taken onl as special a&&ravatin& circu#stance to the cri#e o% robber , not sub3ect o% a separate prosecution. ALTERNATIVE ANSWER2 0n the pre#ise that the 6eed o% ,ale (hich A co#pelled B to si&n, had not attained the character o% a ;public; instru#ent or docu#ent, A should be char&ed %or the cri#e o% Fuali%ied *respass to 6(ellin& under Article )D9 o% the Revised Penal Code %or havin& intruded into BSs house, and %or the cri#e o% Arave Coercion under Article )DB o% sa#e Code, %or co#pellin& B to si&n such deed o% sale a&ainst his (ill. R 33e#6 vs. <i,)'a6 R 33e#6 !2000" 6istin&uish .i&h(a Robber under Presidential 6ecree Eo. C:) %ro# Robber co##itted on a hi&h(a . (:<! S0GGESTE1 ANSWER2 .i&h(a Robber under Pres. 6ecree C:) di%%ers %ro# ordinar Robber co##itted on a hi&h(a in these respects= 1. -n .i&h(a Robber under P6 C:), the robber is co##itted indiscri#inatel a&ainst persons (ho co##ute in such hi&h(a s, re&ardless o% the potentialit the o%%er; (hile in ordinar Robber co##itted on a hi&h(a , the robber is co##itted onl a&ainst predeter#ined victi#s; ). -t is .i&h(a Robber under P6 C:), (hen the o%%ender is a bri&and or one (ho roa#s in public hi&h(a s and carries out his robber in public hi&h(a s as venue, (henever the opportunit to do so arises. -t is ordinar Robber under the Revised Penal Code (hen the co##ission thereo% in a public hi&h(a is onl incidental and the o%%ender is not a bri&and; and :. -n .i&h(a Robber under P6 C:), there is %re4uenc in the co##ission o% the robber in public hi&h(a s and a&ainst persons travellin& thereat; (hereas ordinar Robber in public hi&h(a s is onl occasional a&ainst a predeter#ined victi#, (ithout %re4uenc in public hi&h(a s. R 33e#6 'F * #&e +% n $)in,s !2000" A, brother o% B, (ith the intention o% havin& a ni&ht out (ith his %riends, took the coconut shell (hich is bein& used b B as a bank %or coins %ro# inside their locked cabinet usin& their co##on ke . "orth(ith, A broke the coconut shell outside o% their ho#e in the presence o% his %riends. $hat is the cri#inal liabilit o% A, i% an + /xplain. (:<! -s A exe#pted %ro# cri#inal liabilit under Article ::) o% the Revised Penal Code %or bein& a brother o% B+ /xplain. ()<! S0GGESTE1 ANSWER2 a! A is cri#inall liable %or Robber (ith %orce upon thin&s, because the coconut shell (ith the coins inside, (as taken (ith intent to &ain and broken outside o% their ho#e, (Art. )99 (b! ()!. RPC!. b! Eo, A is not exe#pt %ro# cri#inal liabilit under Art. ::) because said Article applies onl to the%t, s(indlin& or

#alicious #ischie%. .ere, the cri#e co##itted is robber . R 33e#6 'F < -i&ide @ R.A. N . 4/8. !2008" 5ose e#plo ed 7ario as &ardener and .enr as cook. *he learned that 5ose (on PC99,999.99 in the lotto, and decided to rob hi#. 7ario positioned hi#sel% about :9 #eters a(a %ro# 5oseSs house and acted as lookout. "or his part, .enr surreptitiousl &ained entr into the house and killed 5ose (ho (as then havin& his dinner. .enr %ound the PC99,999.99 and took it. .enr then took a can o% &asoline %ro# the &ara&e and burned the house to conceal the acts. 7ario and .enr %led, but (ere arrested around )99 #eters a(a %ro# the house b alert baran&a tanods. *he tanods recovered the PC99,999.99. 7ario and .enr (ere char&ed (ith and convicted o% robber (ith ho#icide, (ith the a&&ravatin& circu#stances o% arson, d(ellin&, and ni&htti#e. 7ario #oved to reconsider the decision #aintainin& that he (as not at the scene o% the cri#e and (as not a(are that .enr killed the victi#; hence, he (as &uilt onl o% robber , as an acco#plice. 7ario also clai#ed that he conspired (ith .enr to co##it robber but not to kill 5ose. .enr , like(ise, #oved to reconsider the decision, assertin& that he is liable onl %or atte#pted robber (ith ho#icide (ith no a&&ravatin& circu#stance, considerin& that he and 7ario did not bene%it %ro# the PC99,999.99. .e %urther alle&ed that arson is a %elon and not an a&&ravatin& circu#stance; d(ellin& is not a&&ravatin& in atte#pted robber (ith ho#icide; and ni&htti#e is not a&&ravatin& because the house o% 5ose (as li&hted at the ti#e he (as killed. Resolve (ith reasons the respective #otions o% 7ario and .enr . (K<! S0GGESTE1 ANSWER2 7ario is not correct. 7ario conspired and acted in concert (ith .enr to co##it robber . .ence, the act o% one is the act o% all and the extent o% the speci%ic participation o% each individual conspirator beco#es secondar , each bein& held liable %or the cri#inal deed(s! executed b another or others. As a conspirator, 7ario casts his lot (ith his %ello( conspirators and beco#es liable to an third person (ho #a &et killed in the course o% i#ple#entin& the cri#inal desi&n. (People v. Pun?alan, et al.. A.R. Eo. KDDC:, Eove#ber D, 1991! .enr is incorrect, since he ac4uired possession o% the #one . *he cri#e o% robber (ith %orce and inti#idation is consu##ated (hen the robber ac4uires possession o% the propert , even i% %or a short ti#e. -t is no de%ense that the had no opportunit to dispose o% or bene%it %ro# the #one taken. (People v. ,alvilia, et al., A.R. Eo. DD1B:, April )B, 1999! ,ince the cri#e in robber (ith %orce and inti#idation a&ainst persons (robber (ith ho#icide!, d(ellin& is a&&ravatin&. Arson, (hich acco#panied the cri#e o% robber (ith ho#icide is absorbed (Art. )9>, R"C as a#ended b R.A. Eo. KBC9! and is not a&&ravatin& because the RPC does not provide that such cri#e is an a&&ravatin& circu#stance. (People v. Re&ala, A.R. Eo. 1:9C9D, April C, )999! Ei&htti#e, like(ise, is not a&&ravatin&. *here is no sho(in& that the sa#e (as purposel sou&ht b the o%%enders to %acilitate the co##ission o% the cri#e or i#punit . R 33e#6 'F < -i&ide !1../" 5ose, 6o#in&o, 7anolo, and "ernando, ar#ed (ith bolos, at about one o8clock in the #ornin&, robbed a house at a desolate place (here 6anilo, his (i%e, and three dau&hters (ere livin&. $hile the %our (ere in the process o% ransackin& 6anilo8s house, "ernando, noticin& that one o% 6anilo8s dau&hters (as tr in& to &et a(a , ran a%ter her and %inall cau&ht up (ith her in a thicket so#e(hat distant %ro# the house. "ernando, be%ore brin&in& back the dau&hter to the house, raped her %irst. *herea%ter, the %our carted a(a the belon&in&s o% 6anilo and his %a#il . a! $hat cri#e did 5ose, 6o#in&o, 7anolo and "ernando co##it+ /xplain. b! ,uppose, a%ter the robber , the %our took turns in rapin& the three dau&hters o% 6anilo inside the latter8s house, but be%ore the le%t, the killed the (hole %a#il to prevent identi%ication, (hat cri#e did the %our co##it+ /xplain. S0GGESTE1 ANSWER2

(a! 5ose, 6o#in&o, and 7anolo co##itted Robber , (hile "ernando co##itted co#plex cri#e o% Robber (ith Rape. Conspirac can be in%erred %ro# the #anner the o%%enders co##itted the robber but the rape (as co##itted b "ernando at a place ;distant %ro# the house; (here the robber (as co##itted, not in the presence o% the other conspirators. .ence, "ernando alone should ans(er %or the rape, renderin& hi# liable %or the special co#plex cri#e. (People vs. Canturia et. al, A.R. 19D>99, )) 5une 199CO b! *he cri#e (ould be Robber (ith .o#icide because the killin&s (ere b reason (to prevent identi%ication! and on the occasion o% the robber . *he #ultiple rapes co##itted and the %act that several persons (ere killed Lho#icide!, (ould be considered as a&&ravatin& circu#stances. *he rapes are s non #ous (ith -&no#in and the additional killin& s non #ous (ith cruelt , (People vs. ,olis, 1D) ,CRA; People vs. Pla&a, )9) ,CRA C:1! R 33e#6 'F < -i&ide !1..;" A, B, C and 6 all ar#ed, robbed a bank, and (hen the (ere about to &et out o% the bank, police#en ca#e and ordered the# to surrender but the %ired on the police o%%icers (ho %ired back and shot it out (ith the#. 1. ,uppose a bank e#plo ee (as killed and the bullet (hich killed hi# ca#e %ro# the %irear# o% the police o%%icers, (ith (hat cri#e shall ou char&e A, B. C and 6+ L:<M ). ,uppose it (as robber 6 (ho (as killed b the police#en and the prosecutor char&ed A, B and C (ith Robber and .o#icide. *he de#urred ar&uin& that the (A, B and C! (ere not the ones (ho killed robber 6, hence, the char&e should onl be Robber . .o( (ould ou resolve their ar&u#ent+ ()<! S0GGESTE1 ANSWER2 1. A, B, C and 6 should be char&ed (ith the cri#e o% robber (ith ho#icide because the death o% the bank e#plo ee (as brou&ht about b the acts o% said o%%enders on the occasion o% the robber . *he shot it out (ith the police#an, thereb causin& such death b reason or on the occasion o% a robber ; hence, the co#posite cri#e o% robber (ith ho#icide. ). *he ar&u#ent is valid, considerin& that a separate char&e %or .o#icide (as %iled. -t (ould be di%%erent i% the char&e %iled (as %or the co#posite cri#e o% robber (ith ho#icide (hich is a sin&le, indivisible o%%ense. ALTERNATIVE ANSWER2 ). *he ar&u#ent raised b A, B and C is not correct because their liabilit is not onl %or Robber but %or the special co#plex cri#e o% Robber (ith ho#icide. But the %acts stated i#presses that separate cri#es o% Robber ;and; .o#icide (ere char&ed, (hich is not correct. $hat (as co##itted (as a sin&le indivisible o%%ense o% Robber (ith ho#icide, not t(o cri#es. R 33e#6 'F < -i&ide !2003" A learned t(o da s a&o that B had received dollar bills a#ountin& to V19,999 %ro# his dau&hter (orkin& in the Inited ,tates. $ith the intention o% robbin& B o% those dollars, A entered B8s house at #idni&ht, ar#ed (ith a kni%e (hich he used to &ain entr , and be&an 4uietl searchin& the dra(ers, shelves, and other likel receptacles o% the cash. $hile doin& that, B a(oke, rushed out %ro# the bedroo#, and &rappled (ith A %or the possession o% the kni%e (hich A (as then holdin&. A%ter stabbin& B to death, A turned over B8s pillo( and %ound the latter8s (allet underneath the pillo(, (hich (as bul&in& (ith the dollar bills he (as lookin& %or. A took the bills and le%t the house. $hat cri#e or cri#es (ere co##itted+ D< S0GGESTE1 ANSWER2 *he cri#e co##itted is robber (ith ho#icide, a co#posite cri#e. *his is so because A8s pri#ordial cri#inal intent is to co##it a robber and in the course o% the robber , the killin& o% B took place. Both the robber and the killin& (ere consu##ated, thus &ivin& rise to the special co#plex cri#e o% robber (ith ho#icide. *he pri#ar cri#inal intent bein& to co##it a robber , an killin& on the ;occasion; o% the robber , thou&h not b reason thereo%, is considered a

co#ponent o% the cri#e o% robber (ith ho#icide as a sin&le indivisible o%%ense. R 33e#6 'i$) < -i&ide( S%e&ial C -%le> C#i-e !2004" 5ervis and 7arlon asked their %riend, 5onathan, to help the# rob a bank. 5ervis and 7arlon (ent inside the bank, but (ere unable to &et an #one %ro# the vault because the sa#e (as protected b a ti#e-dela #echanis#. *he contented the#selves (ith the custo#ers8 cellphones and a total o% PC,999 in cash. A%ter the dashed out o% the bank and rushed into the car, 5onathan pulled the car out o% the curb hittin& a pedestrian (hich resulted in the latter8s death. $hat cri#e or cri#es did 5ervis, 7arlon and 5onathan co##it+ /xplain our ans(er. S0GGESTE1 ANSWER2 5ervis and 7arlon co##itted the cri#e o% robber , (hile 5onathan co##itted the special co#plex cri#e o% robber (ith ho#icide. 5ervis and 7arlon are cri#inall liable %or the robber onl , because that (as the cri#e conspired upon and actuall co##itted b the#, assu#in& that the takin& o% the cellphones and the cash %ro# the bank8s custo#ers (as e%%ected (ith inti#idation. *he (ill not incur liabilit %or the death o% the pedestrian because the have nothin& to do (ith it. 0nl 5onathan (ill incur liabilit %or the death o% the pedestrian, aside %ro# the robber , because he alone brou&ht such death. Althou&h the death caused (as not intentional but accidental, it shall be a co#ponent o% the special co#plex cri# o% robber (ith ho#icide because it (as co##itted in the course o% the co##ission o% the robber . ALTERNATIVE ANSWER2 5ervis, 7arlon and 5onathan co##itted robber (ith ho#icide, because there (as conspirac a#on& the# to co##it the robber and the death o% the pedestrian (as caused on the occasion o% the robber . /ven thou&h the death (as accidental, it is enou&h that such death (as caused b an o% the robbers8 %elonious act and on the occasion o% the co##ission o% the robber LPeople v. Auiapar, 1)9 ,CRA C:9L19D>M!. R 33e#6 'F < -i&ide( S%e&ial C -%le> C#i-e !1..8" 2ictor, Rick , Rod and Ronnie (ent to the store o% 7an& Pando . 2ictor and Rick entered the store (hile Rod and Ronnie posted the#selves at the door. A%ter orderin& beer Rick co#plained that he (as shortchan&ed althou&h 7an& Pando vehe#entl denied it. ,uddenl Rick (hipped out a kni%e as he announced ;.old-up itoT; and stabbed 7an& Pando to death. Rod boxed the store8s sales&irl 'uc to prevent her %ro# helpin& 7an& Pando . $hen 'uc ran out o% the store to seek help %ro# people next door she (as chased b Ronnie. As soon as Rick had stabbed 7an& Pando , 2ictor scooped up the #one %ro# the cash box. *hen 2ictor and Rick dashed to the street and shouted, ;*u#akbo na ka oT; Rod (as 1> and Ronnie (as 1K. *he #one and other articles looted %ro# the store o% 7an& Pando (ere later %ound in the houses o% 2ictor and Rick . 6iscuss %ull the cri#inal liabilit o% 2ictor, Rick , Rod and Ronnie. S0GGESTE1 ANSWER2 All are liable %or the special co#plex cri#e o% robber (ith ho#icide. *he acts o% Rick in stabbin& 7an& Pando to death, o% Rod in boxin& the sales&irl to prevent her %ro# helpin& 7an& Pando , o% Ronnie in chasin& the sales&irl to prevent her in seekin& help, o% 2ictor in scoopin& up #one %ro# the cash box, and o% Rick and 2ictor in dashin& to the street and announcin& the escape, are all indicative o% conspirac . *he rule is settled that (hen ho#icide takes place as a conse4uence or on the occasion o% a robber , all those (ho took part in the robber are &uilt as principals o% the cri#e o% robber (ith ho#icide, unless the accused tried to prevent the killin& (People vs. Baello, ))> ,CRA )1D!. "urther, the a&&ravatin& circu#stance o% cra%t could be assessed a&ainst the accused %or pretendin& to be custo#ers o% 7an& Pando .

R 33e#6 'F In$i-ida$i n vs. T)e*$ !2002" A entered the house o% another (ithout e#plo in& %orce or violence upon thin&s. .e (as seen b a #aid (ho (anted to screa# but (as prevented %ro# doin& so because A threatened her (ith a &un. A then took #one and other valuables and le%t. -s A &uilt o% the%t or o% robber + /xplain. (:<! S0GGESTE1 ANSWER2 A is liable %or robber because o% the inti#idation he e#plo ed on the #aid be%ore the takin& o% the #one and other valuables. -t is the inti#idation o% person relative to the takin& that 4uali%ies the cri#e as robber , instead o% si#pl the%t. *he non-e#plo #ent o% %orce upon thin&s is o% no #o#ent because robber is co##itted not onl b e#plo in& %orce upon thin&s but also b e#plo in& violence a&ainst or inti#idation o% persons. R 33e#6 'F Ra%e !1..." *(o oun& #en, A and B, conspired to rob a residential house o% thin&s o% value. *he succeeded in the co##ission o% their ori&inal plan to si#pl rob. A, ho(ever, (as sexuall aroused (hen he sa( the lad o(ner o% the house and so, raped her. *he lad victi# testi%ied that B did not in an (a participate in the rape but B (atched the happenin& %ro# a (indo( and did nothin& to stop the rape. -s B as cri#inall liable as A %or robber (ith rape+ /xplain. (><! S0GGESTE1 ANSWER2 1es, B is as cri#inall liable as A %or the co#posite cri#e o% robber (ith rape under Art. )9> (1!. Althou&h the conspirac o% A and B (as onl to rob, B (as present (hen the rape (as bein& co##itted (hich &ave rise to a co#posite cri#e, a sin&le indivisible o%%ense o% robber (ith rape. B (ould not have been liable had he endeavored to prevent the co##ission o% the rape. But since he did not (hen he could have done so, he in e%%ect ac4uiesced (ith the rape as a co#ponent o% the robber and so he is also liable %or robber (ith rape. R 33e#6 'F Ra%e( C ns%i#a&6 !2009" *o&ether NA, 1B and PC planned to rob 7iss 06. *he entered her house b breakin& one o% the (indo(s in her house. A%ter takin& her personal properties and as the (ere about to leave, NA decided on i#pulse to rape 06. As NA (as #olestin& her, 1B and PC stood outside the door o% her bedroo# and did nothin& to prevent NA %ro# rapin& 06. $hat cri#e or cri#es did NA, 1B and PC co##it, and (hat is the cri#inal liabilit o% each+ /xplain brie%l . (C<! S0GGESTE1 ANSWER2 *he cri#e co##itted b NA, 1B and PC is the co#posite cri#e o% Robber (ith Rape, a sin&le, indivisible o%%ense under Art. )9>(1! o% the Revised Penal Code. Althou&h the conspirac a#on& the o%%enders (as onl to co##it robber and onl NA raped C6, the other robbers, 1B and PC, (ere present and a(are o% the rape bein& co##itted b their co-conspirator. .avin& done nothin& to stop NA %ro# co##ittin& the rape, 1B and PC thereb concurred in the co##ission o% the rape b their co-conspirator NA. *he cri#inal liabilit o% all, NA, 1P and PC, shall be the sa#e, as principals in the special co#plex cri#e o% robber (ith rape (hich is a sin&le, indivisible o%%ense (here the rape acco#pan in& the robber is 3ust a co#ponent. R 33e#6( < -i&ide( A#s n !1..8"

.arr , an overseas contract (orker, arrived %ro# ,audi Arabia (ith considerable savin&s. Jno(in& hi# to be ;loaded;, his %riends 5ason, 7anuel and 6ave invited hi# to poker session at a rented beach cotta&e. $hen he (as losin& al#ost all his #one (hich to hi# (as his savin&s o% a li%eti#e, he discovered that he (as bein& cheated b his %riends. An&ered b the betra al he decided to take reven&e on the three cheats. .arr ordered several bottles o% *andua Rhu# and &ave the# to his co#panions to drink, as the did, until the all %ell asleep. $hen .arr sa( his co#panions alread sound asleep he hacked all o% the# to death. *hen he re#e#bered his losses. .e ri%led throu&h the pockets o% his victi#s and &ot back all the #one he lost. .e then ran a(a but not be%ore burnin& the cotta&e to hide his #isdeed. *he %ollo(in& da police investi&ators %ound a#on& the debris the charred bodies o% 5ason, 7anuel, 6ave and the caretaker o% the resort. A%ter preli#inar investi&ation, the Provincial Prosecutor char&ed .arr (ith the co#plex cri#e o% arson (ith 4uadruple ho#icide and robber . $as .arr properl char&ed+ 6iscuss %ull . S0GGESTE1 ANSWER2 Eo, .arr (as net properl char&ed. .arr should have been char&ed (ith three (:! separate cri#es, na#el = #urder, the%t and arson. .arr killed 5ason, 7anuel and 6ave (ith evident pre#editation, as there (as considerable lapse o% ti#e be%ore he decided to co##it the cri#e and the actual co##ission o% the cri#e. -n addition, .arr e#plo ed #eans (hich (eakened the de%ense o% 5ason, 7anuel and 6ave. .arr &ave the# the li4uor to drink until the (ere drunk and %ell asleep. *his &ave .arr the opportunit to carr out his plan o% #urder (ith i#punit . *he takin& o% the #one %ro# the victi#s (as a #ere a%terthou&ht o% the killin&s. .ence, .arr co##itted the separate cri#e o% the%t and not the co#plex cri#e o% robber (ith ho#icide. Althou&h the%t (as co##itted a&ainst dead persons, it is still le&all possible as the o%%ended part are the estates o% the victi#s. -n burnin& the cotta&e to hide his #isdeed. .arr beca#e liable %or another separate cri#e, arson. *his act o% burnin& (as not necessar %or the consu##ation o% the t(o ()! previous o%%enses he co##itted. *he %act that the caretaker died %ro# the bla?e did not 4uali% .arr 8s cri#e into a co#plex cri#e o% arson (ith ho#icide %or there is no such cri#e. .ence, .arr (as i#properl char&ed (ith the co#plex cri#e o% arson (ith 4uadruple ho#icide and robber . .arr should have been char&ed (ith three (:! separate cri#es, #urder, the%t and arson. R 33e#6( Ra%e !1..4" A%ter rapin& the co#plainant in her house, the accused struck a #atch to s#oke a ci&arette be%ore departin& %ro# the scene. *he brie% li&ht %ro# the #atch allo(ed hi# to notice a (atch in her (rist. .e de#anded that she hand over the (atch. $hen she re%used, he %orcibl &rabbed it %ro# her. *he accused (as char&ed (ith and convicted o% the special co#plex cri#e o% robber (ith rape. $as the court correct+ S0GGESTE1 ANSWER2 Eo. the court erred in convictin& the accused o% the special co#plex cri#e o% robber (ith rape. *he accused should instead be held liable %or t(o ()! separate cri#es o% robber and rape, since the pri#ar intent or ob3ective o% the accused (as onl to rape the co#plainant, and his co##ission o% the robber (as #erel an a%terthou&ht. *he robber #ust precede the rape. -n order to &ive rise to the special co#plex cri#e %or (hich the court convicted the accused. T)e*$ !1..;"

7ario %ound a (atch in a 3eep he (as ridin&, and since it did not belon& to hi#, he approached police#an P and delivered the (atch (ith instruction to return the sa#e to (hoever #a be %ound to be the o(ner. P %ailed to return the (atch to the o(ner and, instead, sold it and appropriated %or hi#sel% the proceeds o% the sale. Char&ed (ith the%t, P reasoned out that he cannot be %ound &uilt because it (as not he (ho %ound the (atch and, #oreover, the (atch turned out to be stolen propert . -s P8s de%ense valid+ LC<M S0GGESTE1 ANSWER2 Eo, P8s de%ense is not valid. -n a char&e %or the%t, it is enou&h that the personal propert sub3ect thereo% belon&s to another and not to the o%%ender (P!. -t is irrelevant (hether the person deprived o% the possession o% the (atch has or has no ri&ht to the (atch. *he%t is co##itted b one (ho, (ith intent to &ain, appropriates propert o% another (ithout the consent o% its o(ner. And the cri#e is co##itted even (hen the o%%ender receives propert o% another but ac4uires onl ph sical possession to hold the sa#e. T)e*$ !2001" "rancis Aarcia, a 5ollibee (aiter, %ound a &old bracelet in %ront o% his (orkin& place in 7akati and, upon inspectin& it, sa( the na#e and address o% the o(ner en&raved on the inside. Re#e#berin& his parents8 ad#onition that he should not take an thin& (hich does not belon& to hi#, he delivered the bracelet to P01 5esus Re es o% the 7akati Fuad precinct (ith the instruction to locate the o(ner and return it to hi#. P01 Re es, instead, sold the bracelet and #isappropriated the proceeds. ,ubse4uent events brou&ht out the %act that the bracelet (as dropped b a snatcher (ho had &rabbed it %ro# the o(ner a block a(a %ro# (here "rancis had %ound it and %urther investi&ation traced the last possessor as P01 Re es. Char&ed (ith the%t, P01 Re es reasoned out that he had not co##itted an cri#e because it (as not he (ho had %ound the bracelet and, #oreover, it turned out to have been stolen. Resolve the case (ith reasons. (19<! S0GGESTE1 ANSWER2 Char&ed (ith the%t, P01 Re es is cri#inall liable. .is contention that he has not co##itted an cri#e because he (as not the one (ho %ound the bracelet and it turned out to be stolen also, is devoid o% #erit. -t is enou&h that the bracelet belon&ed to another and the %ailure to restore the sa#e to its o(ner is characteri?ed b intent to &ain. *he act o% P01 Re es o% sellin& the bracelet (hich does not belon& to hi# and (hich he onl held to be delivered to its o(ner, is %urtive #isappropriation (ith intent to &ain. $here a %inder o% lost or #islaid propert entrusts it to another %or deliver to the o(ner, the person to (ho# such propert is entrusted and (ho accepts the sa#e, assu#es the relation o% the %inder to the o(ner as i% he (as the actual %inder= i% he (ould #isappropriate it, he is &uilt o% the%t (People vs. Avila, >> Phil. K)9!. T)e*$( E+ali*ied T)e*$ !2002" A %ire broke out in a depart#ent store, A, takin& advanta&e o% the con%usion, entered the store and carried a(a &oods (hich he later sold. $hat cri#e, i% an , did he co##it+ $h + ()<! S0GGESTE1 ANSWER2 A co##itted the cri#e o% 4uali%ied the%t because he took the &oods on the occasion o% and takin& advanta&e o% the %ire (hich broke out in the depart#ent store. *he occasion o% a cala#it such as %ire, (hen the the%t (as co##itted, 4uali%ies the cri#e under Article :19 o% the Revised Penal Code, as a#ended. T)e*$( E+ali*ied T)e*$ !2002" A vehicular accident occurred on the national hi&h(a in Bulacan. A#on& the %irst to arrive at the scene o% the accident (as A, (ho %ound one o% the victi#s alread dead and the others unconscious. Be%ore rescuers could co#e,

A, takin& advanta&e o% the helpless condition o% the victi#s, took their (allets and 3e(elr . .o(ever, the police, (ho responded to the report o% the accident, cau&ht A. $hat cri#e or cri#es did A co##it+ $h + (C<! S0GGESTE1 ANSWER2 A co##itted the cri#e o% 4uali%ied the%t because he took the (allets and 3e(elr o% the victi#s (ith evident intent to &ain and on the occasion o% a vehicular accident (herein he took advanta&e o% the helpless condition o% the victi#s. But onl one cri#e o% 4uali%ied the%t (as co##itted althou&h there (ere #ore than one victi# divested o% their valuables, because all the takin& o% the valuables (ere #ade on one and the sa#e occasion, thus constitutin& a continued cri#e. T)e*$( E+ali*ied T)e*$ !200/" 1. "orest Ran&er 5a 2elasco (as patrollin& the Balara $atershed and Reservoir (hen he noticed a bi& pile o% cut lo&s outside the &ate o% the (atershed. Curious, he scouted around and a%ter a %e( #inutes, he sa( Rene and 6ante co#in& out o% the &ate (ith so#e #ore ne(l -cut lo&s. .e apprehended and char&ed the# (ith the proper o%%ense. $hat is that o%%ense+ /xplain. S0GGESTE1 ANSWER2 *he o%%ense is Fuali%ied *he%t under ,ec. BD o% P.6. K9C, a#endin& P.6. Eo. ::9, (hich penali?es an person (ho directl or indirectl cuts, &athers, re#oves, or s#u&&les ti#ber, or other %orest products %ro# an o% the public %orest. *he Balara $atershed is protected b the cited la(s. ). 6urin& the preli#inar investi&ation and up to the trial proper, Rene and 6ante contended that i% the (ere to be held liable, their liabilit should be li#ited onl to the ne(l -cut lo&s %ound in their possession but not to those %ound outside the &ate. -% ou (ere the 3ud&e, (hat (ill be our rulin&+ ().C<! S0GGESTE1 ANSWER2 *he contention is untenable, the presence o% the ne(l cut lo&s outside the &ate is circu#stantial evidence, (hich, i% unrebutted, establishes that the are the o%%enders (ho &athered the sa#e. T)e*$( E+ali*ied T)e*$ !200;" 'ucas had been the sta -in housebo o% spouses Eestor and 5ulia %or %ive ears. 0ne ni&ht, (hile Eestor and 5ulia (ere out havin& dinner, 'ucas and his %riend Pedro &ained entr into the #asters8 bedroo# (ith the use o% a %alse ke . *he %ound 5ulia8s 3e(elr box in one o% the cabinets, (hich (as unlocked. 'ucas believed that 5ulia8s 3e(elr (as inside the box. Inkno(n to 'ucas and Pedro, the box (as e#pt . Pedro took the box and le%t the bedroo# (ith 'ucas. *he (ere shocked (hen the sa( Eestor in the sala, pointin& a &un at the#. Eestor ordered the# to stop and hand over the box. Pedro co#plied. -t turned out Eestor had 3ust arrived in ti#e to see 'ucas and Pedro leavin& the #asters8 bedroo# (ith the box. ,tate (ith reasons, the cri#e or cri#es, i% an , 'ucas and Pedro co##itted. (K<! S0GGESTE1 ANSWER2 'ucas co##itted 4uali%ied the%t. Pedro co##itted si#ple the%t onl . *here (as takin& o% personal propert , the 3e(elr box, belon&in& to another (5ulia!, (ith intent to &ain and (ithout the consent o% the o(ner but (ithout violence, inti#idation o% persons or %orce upon thin&s. *he use o% a %alse ke is le&all considered as a %orce upon thin&s, i% used to &ain entr to the house or buildin& but not (hen used to enter a locked roo# inside such house or buildin&. *hus, the takin& onl constitutes the%t. *he cri#e is 4uali%ied the%t as to 'ucas onl , althou&h there is evident conspirac bet(een hi# and Pedro, because the

circu#stance 4uali% in& the the%t is personal onl to 'ucas but not to Pedro. *he the%t is alread consu##ated because the o%%enders had alread taken out o% the cabinet 5ulia8s 3e(elr box, (hich she intended to re#ain in the cabinet. *he asportation (as co#pleted (hen the succeeded in takin& out 5ulia8s 3e(elr box %ro# the cabinet. ANOT<ER S0GGESTE1 ANSWER2 'ucas and Pedro #a be held liable onl %or an i#possible cri#e o% the%t because (hat the had in #ind in takin& the 3e(elr box (as to take 5ulia8s 3e(elr . .o(ever, it turned out to be e#pt . *he i#possibilit o% co##ittin& the cri#e o% the%t is %actual or ph sical since there is no 3e(elr to steal inside the box. ANOT<ER ALTERNATIVE S0GGESTE1 ANSWER2 'ucas and Paolo (ould also be held liable %or possession o% picklocks or si#ilar tools under Art. :9>, in relation to Art. :9C o% the Penal Code. T)e*$( S$a,es * E>e&+$i n !1..;" -n the 3e(elr section o% a bi& depart#ent store, 5ulia snatched a couple o% bracelets and put these in her purse. At the store8s exit, ho(ever, she (as arrested b the &uard a%ter bein& radioed b the store personnel (ho cau&ht the act in the store8s #ovin& ca#era. -s the cri#e consu##ated, %rustrated, or atte#pted+ LC<M S0GGESTE1 ANSWER2 *he cri#e is consu##ated the%t because the takin& o% the bracelets (as co#plete a%ter 5ulia succeeded in puttin& the# in her purse. 5ulia ac4uired co#plete control o% the bracelets a%ter puttin& the# in her purse; Cri#inal 'a( Bar /xa#ination F R A (199>-)99B! hence, the takin& (ith intent to &ain is co#plete and thus the cri#e is consu##ated. T)e*$( S$a,es * E>e&+$i n !2000" ,unshine, a beauteous ;cole&iala; but a shopli%ter, (ent to the /ver 6epart#ent ,tore and proceeded to the (o#en8s (ear section. *he saleslad (as o% the i#pression that she brou&ht to the %ittin& roo# three (:! pieces o% s(i#suits o% di%%erent colors. $hen she ca#e out o% the %ittin& roo#, she returned onl t(o ()M pieces to the clothes rack. *he saleslad beca#e suspicious and alerted the store detective. ,unshine (as stopped b the detective be%ore she could leave the store and brou&ht to the o%%ice o% the store #ana&er. *he detective and the #ana&er searched her and %ound her (earin& the third s(i#suit under her blouse and pants. $as the the%t o% the s(i#suit consu##ated, %rustrated or atte#pted+ /xplain. (C<! S0GGESTE1 ANSWER2 *he the%t (as consu##ated because the takin& or asportation (as co#plete. *he asportation is co#plete (hen the o%%ender ac4uired exclusive control o% the personal propert bein& taken= in this case, (hen ,unshine (ore the s(i#suit under her blouse and pants and (as on her (a out o% the store. $ith evident intent to &ain, the takin& constitutes the%t and bein& co#plete, it is consu##ated. -t is not necessar that the o%%ender is in a position to dispose o% the propert , ALTERNATIVE ANSWER( *he cri#e o% the%t (as onl %rustrated because ,unshine has not et le%t the store (hen the o%%ense (as opportunel discovered and the article sei?ed %ro# her. ,he does not have et the %reedo# to dispose o% the s(i#suit she (as takin& (People vs. 6ino, CA >C 0.A. :>>B!. 7oreover, in case o% doubt as to (hether it is consu##ated or %rustrated, the doubt #ust be resolved in %avor o% the #ilder cri#inal responsibilit .

0s+#%a$i n * Real Ri,)$s !1../" *eresita is the o(ner o% a t(o-hectare land in Bulacan (hich she planted to rice and corn. Ipon her arrival %ro# a three-#onth vacation in the Inited ,tates, she (as surprised to discover that her land had been taken over b 7anuel and *eo%ilo (ho %orcibl evicted her tenant-caretaker 5uliana, a%ter threatenin& to kill the latter i% she (ould resist their takin& o% the land. *herea%ter, 7anuel and *eo%ilo plo(ed, cultivated and appropriated the harvest %or the#selves to the exclusion o% *eresita. 1! $hat cri#e or cri#es did 7anuel and *eo%ilo co##it+ /xplain. )! ,uppose 7anuel and *eo%ilo killed 5uliana (hen the latter re%used to surrender possession o% the land, (hat cri#e or cri#es did the t(o co##it+ /xplain. S0GGESTE1 ANSWER2 1! 7anuel and *eo%ilo co##itted the cri#e o% usurpation o% real ri&hts under Art. :1) o% the Revised Penal Code %or e#plo in& violence a&ainst or inti#idation o% persons. *he threats to kill e#plo ed b the# in %orcibl enterin& the land is the #eans o% co##ittin& the cri#e and there%ore absorbed in the %elon , unless the inti#idation resulted in a #ore serious %elon . )O *he cri#e (ould still be usurpation o% real ri&hts under Art. :1), RPC, even i% the said o%%enders killed the caretaker because the killin& is the 2iolence a&ainst persons; (hich is the #eans %or co##ittin& the cri#e and as such, deter#inative onl . .o(ever, this &ives (a to the proviso that the penalt provided %or therein is ;in addition to the penalt incurred in the acts o% violence (#urder or ho#icideM executed b the#. *he cri#e is si#ilar to a robber (here a killin& is co##itted b reason thereo%, &ivin& rise onl to one indivisible o%%ense (People vs. 5ud&e Al%eche, plus the %ine #entioned therein. 19. Cri#es A&ainst Chastit (Articles :::-::>, ::B-:>B! -nclude= a! Anti-Photo and 2ideo 2o euris# Act o% )999 (R.A. Eo. 999C! (i! Punishable acts ,pecial Protection o% Children A&ainst Child Abuse, /xploitation and 6iscri#ination Act (R.A. Eo. KB19, as a#ended! (i! Child prostitution and other acts o% abuse (a! Punishable acts (b! Co#pare prosecution %or Acts o% 'asciviousness under Art. :BB, RPC and R.A. Eo. KB19, as a#ended (ii! 0bscene publications and indecent sho(s (a! Punishable acts Anti-*ra%%ickin& in Persons Act o% )99: (R.A. Eo. 9)9D! (i! Punishable acts

b!

c!

d! Anti-2iolence A&ainst $o#en and *heir Children Act o% )99> (R.A. Eo. 9)B)! (i! Punishable acts A&$s * Las&ivi +sness vs. 0n5+s$ Ve>a$i n !1..9" $hen is e#bracin&, kissin& and touchin& a &irl8s breast considered onl lasciviousness+ S0GGESTE1 ANSWER2 *he acts o% e#bracin&, kissin& o% a (o#an arisin& either out o% passion or other #otive and the touchin& o% her breast as a #ere incident o% the e#brace (ithout le(d desi&n constitutes #erel un3ust vexation (People us, -&nacio. CA un3ust vexation instead o% acts o%

AREo. C119-R, ,epte#ber :9, 19C9!. .o(ever, (here the kissin&, e#bracin& and the touchin& o% the breast o% a (o#an are done (ith le(d desi&n, the sa#e constitute acts o% lasciviousness (People vs. Percival Ailo, 19 ,CRA KC:!. Ad+l$e#6 !2002" A, a #arried (o#an, had sexual intercourse (ith a #an (ho (as not her husband. *he #an did not kno( she (as #arried. $hat cri#e, i% an , did each o% the# co##it+ $h + ()<! S0GGESTE1 ANSWER2 A, the #arried (o#an, co##itted the cri#e o% adulter under Article ::: o% the Revised Penal Code, as a#ended, %or havin& sexual intercourse (ith a #an not her husband (hile her #arria&e is still subsistin&. But the #an (ho had carnal kno(led&e o% her, not kno(in& her to be #arried, shall not be liable %or adulter . C n&+3ina,e !1..9" Abe, #arried to 'i?a, contracted another #arria&e (ith Connie in ,in&apore. *herea%ter, Abe and Connie returned to the Philippines and lived as husband and (i%e in the ho#eto(n o% Abe in Cala#ba, 'a&una. 1! Can Abe be prosecuted %or bi&a# + )! -% not, can he be prosecuted %or an other cri#e+ S0GGESTE1 ANSWER2 1! Eo, Abe #a not be prosecuted %or bi&a# . )! 1es, Abe, to&ether (ith Connie, #a be prosecuted %or concubina&e under Art. ::> o% the Revised Penal Code %or havin& cohabited as husband and (i%e. But concubina&e bein& a private cri#e re4uires the s(orn co#plaint o% 'i?a, the o%%ended spouse in accordance (ith Rule 119 o% the Revised Rules on Cri#inal Procedure. C n&+3ina,e !2002" A is #arried. .e has a para#our (ith (ho# he has sexual relations on a #ore or less re&ular basis. *he #eet at least once a (eek in hotels, #otels and other places (here the can be alone. -s A &uilt o% an cri#e+ $h + (:<! S0GGESTE1 ANSWER2 A is &uilt o% the cri#e o% concubina&e b havin& sexual intercourse under scandalous circu#stances, (ith a (o#an (ho is not his (i%e. .avin& sexual relations on a #ore or less re&ular basis in hotels, #otels and other places #a be considered a scandalous circu#stance that o%%ends public conscience, &ivin& rise to criticis# and &eneral protest such acts bein& i#prudent and (anton and settin& a bad exa#ple (People vs. ,antos, DB ,CRA K9C L19KDM!. ALTERNATIVE ANSWER2 A is not &uilt o% an cri#e because a #arried #an does not incur the cri#e o% concubina&e b #erel havin& a para#our, unless under scandalous circu#stances, or he keeps her in the con3u&al d(ellin& as a #istress, or cohabits (ith her in an other place. .is (eekl #eetin&s (ith his para#our does not per se constitute scandalous circu#stance. 0n5+s$ Ve>a$i n vs. A&$ * Las&ivi +sness !200/"

/duardo Fuintos, a (ido(er %or the past 19 ears, %elt that his retire#ent at the a&e o% K9 &ave hi# the opportunit to en&a&e in his %avorite pasti#e W vo euris#. -% not usin& his hi&h-po(ered binoculars to peep at his nei&hbor8s ho#es and do#estic activities, his second choice (as to %ollo( s(eet oun& &irls. 0ne da , he trailed a teena&e &irl up to the 'R* station at /6,A-Buendia. $hile ascendin& the stairs, he sta ed one step behind her and in a #o#ent o% bravado, placed his hand on her le%t hip and &entl #assa&ed it. ,he screa#ed and shouted %or help. /duardo (as arrested and char&ed (ith acts o% lasciviousness. -s the desi&nation o% the cri#e correct+ (C<! ALTERNATIVE ANSWER2 *he desi&nation o% the cri#e as acts o% lasciviousness is not correct. *here is no le(d desi&n exhibited b /duardo (hen he placed his hand on the le%t hip o% the victi# and &entl #assa&in& it. *he act does not clearl sho( an exclusivel sexual #otivation. *he cri#e he co##itted is onl un3ust vexation %or causin& anno ance, irritation or disturbance to the victi# (Art. )DK, Revised Penal Code!, not acts o% lasciviousness (Art. ::B, Revised Penal Code!. ALTERNATIVE ANSWER2 *he cri#e should be 0ther Acts o% Child Abuse under ,ection 19 o% RA. KB19, par. b o% ,ection : that re%ers to child abuse co##itted b an act, deeds or (ords (hich debases, de&rades or de#eans the intrinsic (orth and di&nit o% a child as a hu#an bein&. -n relation thereto, ,ection 19 provides cri#inal liabilit %or other acts o% child abuse, cruelt or exploitation, or %or other conditions pre3udicial to the child8s develop#ent. *he reaction o% the victi#, screa#in& %or help upon the occurrence o% the touchin& indicates that she perceived her di&nit (as bein& debased or violated. 11. Cri#es A&ainst Civil ,tatus (Articles :>K-:C)! Bi,a-6 !1..9" -ssa and Bobb , (ho (ere %irst cousins, (ere #arried in 19KC. -n 199:, Bobb (as told that his #arria&e to -ssa (as incestous under the la( then in %orce and there%ore void ab initio. .e #arried Carin&. Char&ed (ith bi&a# , Bobb raised the de%ense that his %irst #arria&e is void ab initio and there%ore, there is no previous #arria&e to speak o%. $ill ou sustain Bobb 8s de%ense+ S0GGESTE1 ANSWER2 Eo. - (ill not sustain Bobb 8s de%ense, Bobb re#arried in 199:, or a%ter the "a#il Code took e%%ect on Au&ust :, 19DD, and there%ore his capacit to #arr in 199: shall be &overned b said Code. -n Art. >9 o% the "a#il Code, it is #andated that the absolute nullit o% a previous #arria&e #a be invoked %or purposes o% re#arria&e on the basis solel o% a %inal 3ud&#ent declarin& such previous #arria&e void. -n short, there is a need o% a 3udicial declaration o% such nullit be%ore Bobb #a validl re#arr (6oroth *erre vs. 5ordan *erre, )11 ,CRA B!. Bi,a-6 !1../" 5oselito #arried Ra#ona in 5ul , 199C, onl to learn later on that Ra#ona (as previousl #arried to 6avid, %ro# (ho# Ra#ona had been separated %or #ore than ten ears. Believin& that his #arria&e to Ra#ona (as an absolute nullit , 5oselito contracted a subse4uent #arria&e (ith Anabelle. Can 5oselito be prosecuted %or bi&a# + /xplain. S0GGESTE1 ANSWER2 1es, 5oselito can be prosecuted %or bi&a# %or his subse4uent #arria&e (ith Anabelle even thou&h his #arria&e (ith Ra#ona (as an absolute nullit . 6espite the nullit o% the %irst #arria&e, 5oselito should have %iled a case o% dissolution o% such #arria&e under Art. >9, "a#il Code, be%ore contractin& a second #arria&e (ith Anabelle. Bi,a-6 !2009"

CBP is le&all #arried to 0/7. $ithout obtainin& a #arria&e license, CBP contracted a second #arria&e to R,*. -s CBP liable %or bi&a# + Reason brie%l . (C<! S0GGESTE1 ANSWER2 $hether CBP could be held liable %or bi&a# or not, depends on (hether the second #arria&e is invalid or valid even (ithout a #arria&e license. Althou&h as a &eneral rule, #arria&es sole#ni?ed (ithout license are null and void ob initio, there are #arria&es exe#pted %ro# license re4uire#ent under Chapter ), *itle 1 o% the "a#il Code, such as in Article )K (hich is a #arria&e in articulo #ortis. -% the second #arria&e (as valid even (ithout a #arria&e license, then CBP (ould be liable %or bi&a# . 0ther(ise, CBP is not liable %or bi&a# but %or -lle&al 7arria&e in Art. :C9 %or the Revised Penal Code, speci%icall desi&nated as ;7arria&e contracted a&ainst provisions o% la(s.; Bi,a-6 !200;" .ubert and /unice (ere #arried in the Philippines. .ubert took &raduate studies in Ee( 1ork and #et his %or#er &irl%riend /ula. *he rene(ed their %riendship and %inall decided to &et #arried, *he %irst (i%e, /unice, heard about the #arria&e and secured a cop o% the #arria&e contract in Ee( 1ork. /unice %iled a case o% bi&a# a&ainst .ubert in the Philippines. a! $ill the case prosper+ /xplain. (><! S0GGESTE1 ANSWER2 a! Eo, a case %or bi&a# %iled in the Philippines (ill not prosper because the bi&a#ous #arria&e appears to have been co##itted in Ee( 1ork, I.,.A., not in the Philippines. *he &overnin& rule o% procedure as to the places (here the cri#inal action is to be instituted directs that the cri#inal action should be instituted and tried in the court o% the #unicipalit or territor (here the o%%ense (as co##itted, or (here an o% its essential in&redients occurred i% it (ere a continuin& cri#e. -n cri#inal cases, the venue (here the action should be instituted is 3urisdictional; i% this is not co#plied (ith, it (ould render the prosecution invalid or void. b! -% /unice &ave her consent to the second #arria&e, (hat (ill our ans(er be+ /xplain. (:<! S0GGESTE1 ANSWER2 b! *he ans(er (ould be the sa#e even i% the (i%e b the %irst #arria&e, (hich is subsistin&, &ave her consent to the second #arria&e. Bi&a# is a public cri#e and not sub3ect to a&ree#ent bet(een the victi# and the accused. 7oreover, the le&al obstacle to the institution o% a case %or bi&a# in the Philippines is 3urisdictional and cannot be excused or (aived b the parties a%%ected. Bi,a-6( Ad+l$e#6 !200;" Raissa and 7artin are #arried to each other but had been separated %or the last %ive ears. Raissa decided to (ed 5uan, her suitor, (ho had no inklin& that she (as #arried. Raissa and 5uan acco#plished an application %or #arria&e license (hich the subscribed and s(ore to be%ore the 'ocal Civil Re&istrar. Raissa declared, in the application, that she is sin&le. *he #arria&e license (as issued. -n due ti#e, the couple (ere #arried b the #a or. Raissa and 5uan had their %irst sexual intercourse later in the evenin&. $hat cri#e or cri#es, i% an , did Raissa co##it+ /xplain brie%l . (K<! S0GGESTE1 ANSWER2 Raissa co##itted cri#e o% bi&a# %or contractin& a second #arria&e (hile her #arria&e to 7artin is still subsistin&. *here (as neither 3udicial declaration o% dissolution or nullit o% the %irst #arria&e (ith 7artin nor a 3udicial declaration o% le&al absence o% 7artin. *he %alsehood she stated in the application %or the license (hich she s(ore to, althou&h %elonious, should considered absorbed in the cri#e o% bi&a# since the are routine incidents in contraction an #arria&e, includin& a bi&a#ous #arria&e. -t is absorbed in the cri#e o% bi&a# . Raissa also co##itted adulter b havin& sexual intercourse (ith 5uan, (ho is not her husband. ,he is still le&all

#arried to 7artin. *he intercourse cannot be absorbed in the bi&a#ous #arria&e because the cri#e o% bi&a# (as alread consu##ated (hen adulter (as co##itted. -t should not be overlooked, ho(ever, that adulter is a private cri#e. -t re4uires a co#plaint solel %ro# the o%%ended spouse. A co#plaint %ro# 7artin is indispensable to prosecute Raissa8s adulter . Bi,a-6( P#es&#i%$ive Pe#i d !1..8" 5oe and 7arc (ere #arried in Batanes in 19CC. A%ter t(o ears, 5oe le%t 7arc and settled in 7indanao (here he later #et and #arried 'inda on 1) 5une 19B9. *he second #arria&e (as re&istered in the civil re&istr o% 6avao Cit three da s a%ter its celebration. 0n 19 0ctober 19KC 7arc (ho re#ained in Batanes discovered the #arria&e o% 5oe to 'inda. 0n 1 7arch 19KB 7arc %iled a co#plaint %or bi&a# a&ainst 5oe. *he cri#e o% bi&a# prescribed in %i%teen ears co#puted %ro# the da the cri#e is discovered b the o%%ended part , the authorities or their a&ents. 5oe raised the de%ense o% prescription o% the cri#e, #ore than %i%teen ears havin& elapsed %ro# the celebration o% the bi&a#ous #arria&e up to the %ilin& o% 7arc 8s co#plaint. .e contended that the re&istration o% his second #arria&e in the civil re&istr o% 6avao Cit (as constructive notice to the (hole (orld o% the celebration thereo% thus bindin& upon 7arc . .as the cri#e o% bi&a# char&ed a&ainst 5oe alread prescribed+ 6iscuss %ull . S0GGESTE1 ANSWER2 Eo. *he prescriptive period %or the cri#e o% bi&a# is co#puted %ro# the ti#e the cri#e (as discovered b the o%%ended part , the authorities or their a&ents. *he principle o% constructive notice (hich ordinaril applies to land or propert disputes should not be applied to the cri#e o% bi&a# , as #arria&e is not propert . *hus (hen 7arc %iled a co#plaint %or bi&a# on K 7arch 19KB, it (as (ell (ithin the re&la#entar period as it (as barel a %e( #onths %ro# the ti#e o% discover on 19 0ctober 19KC. (,er#onia vs. CA, ):: ,CRA 1CC! Si-+la$i n * Bi#$) A C)ild T#a**i&Iin, !2002" A childless couple, A and B, (anted to have a child the could call their o(n. C, an un(ed #other, sold her ne(born bab to the#. *herea%ter, A and B caused their na#es to be stated in the birth certi%icate o% the child as his parents. *his (as done in connivance (ith the doctor (ho assisted in the deliver o% C. $hat are the cri#inal liabilities, i% an , o% the couple A and B, C and the doctor+ S0GGESTE1 ANSWER2 *he couple A and B, and the doctor shall be liable %or the cri#e o% si#ulation o% birth, penali?ed under Article :>K o% the Revised Penal Code, as a#ended. *he act o% #akin& it appear in the birth certi%icate o% a child that the persons na#ed therein are the parents o% the child (hen the are not reall the biolo&ical parents o% said child constitutes the cri#e o% si#ulation o% birth. C, the un(ed #other is cri#inall liable %or ;child tra%%ickin&;, a violation o% Article -2, ,ec. K o% Rep. Act Eo. KB19. *he la( punishes inter alia the act o% bu in& and sellin& o% a child. ALTERNATIVE ANSWER2 *he couple A and B, the un(ed #other C, and the doctor bein& all involved in the si#ulation o% birth o% the ne(born child, violate Rep. Act Eo. KB19. *heir acts constitute child tra%%ickin& (hich are penali?ed under Article -2 o% said la(. 1). Cri#es A&ainst .onor (Articles :C:-:B>! -nclude= a! Ad#inistrative Circular 9D-)99D Re= Auidelines in the 0bservance o% a Rule o% Pre%erence in the -#position o% Penalties in 'ibel Cases (i! Pre%erence o% i#position o% %ine

Li3el !2002" A. A (as no#inated ,ecretar o% a 6epart#ent in the /xecutive Branch o% the &overn#ent. .is no#ination (as therea%ter sub#itted to the Co##ission on Appoint#ents %or con%ir#ation. $hile the Co##ission (as considerin& the

no#ination, a &roup o% concerned citi?ens caused to be published in the ne(spapers a %ull-pa&e state#ent ob3ectin& to A8s appoint#ent *he alle&ed that A (as a dru& dependent, that he had several #istresses, and that he (as corrupt, havin& accepted bribes or %avors %ro# parties transactin& business in his previous o%%ice, and there%ore he (as un%it %or the position to (hich he had been no#inated. As a result o% the publication, the no#ination (as not con%ir#ed b the Co##ission on Appoint#ents. *he o%%icial sued the concerned citi?ens and the ne(spapers %or libel and da#a&es on account o% his non-con%ir#ation. .o( (ill ou decide the case+ (:<! S0GGESTE1 ANSWER2 - (ill ac4uit the concerned citi?ens and the ne(spapers involved, %ro# the cri#e o% libel, because obviousl the #ade the denunciation out o% a #oral or social dut and thus there is absence o% #alice. ,ince A (as a candidate %or a ver i#portant public position o% a 6epart#ent ,ecretar , his #oral, #ental and ph sical %itness %or the public trust in such position beco#es a public concern as the interest o% the public is at stake. -t is pursuant to such concern that the denunciation (as #ade; hence, bere%t o% #alice. B. -% de%a#ator i#putations are #ade not b publication in the ne(spapers but b broadcast over the radio, do the constitute libel+ $h + ()<! S0GGESTE1 ANSWER2 1es, because libel #a be co##itted b radio broadcast Article :CC o% the Revised Penal Code punishes libel co##itted b #eans, a#on& others, o% radio broadcast, inas#uch as the broadcast #ade b radio is public and #a be de%a#ator . Li3el !2003" 6urin& a se#inar (orkshop attended b &overn#ent e#plo ees %ro# the Bureau o% Custo#s and the Bureau o% -nternal Revenue, A, the speaker, in the course o% his lecture, la#ented the %act that a &reat #a3orit o% those servin& in said a&encies (ere utterl dishonest and corrupt. *he %ollo(in& #ornin&, the (hole &roup o% e#plo ees in the t(o bureaus (ho attended the se#inar, as co#plainants, %iled a cri#inal co#plaint a&ainst A %or utterin& (hat the &roup clai#ed to be de%a#ator state#ents o% the lecturer. -n court, A %iled a #otion to 4uash the in%or#ation, recitin& %ull the above %acts, on the &round that no cri#e (ere co##itted. -% ou (ere the 3ud&e, ho( (ould ou resolve the #otion+ D< S0GGESTE1 ANSWER2 - (ould &rant the #otion to 4uash on the &round that the %acts char&ed do not constitute an o%%ense, since there is no de%inite person or persons dishonored. *he cri#e o% libel or slander, is a cri#e a&ainst honor such that the person or persons dishonored #ust be identi%iable even b innuendoes= other(ise the cri#e a&ainst honor is not co##itted. 7oreover, A (as not #akin& a #alicious i#putation, but #erel statin& an opinion; he (as deliverin& a lecture (ith no #alice at all durin& a se#inar (orkshop. 7alice bein& inherentl absent in the utterance, the state#ent is not actionable as de%a#ator . Li3el !2008" -n an intervie( aired on television, Cindee uttered de%a#ator state#ents a&ainst /rika, a success%ul and reputable business(o#an. $hat cri#e or cri#es did Cindee co##it+ /xplain. (:<! S0GGESTE1 ANSWER2 Cindee co##itted libel %or utterin& de%a#ator re#arks tendin& to cause dishonor or discredit to /rika. 'ibel can be co##itted in television pro&ra#s or broadcasts, thou&h it (as not speci%icall #entioned in the article since it (as not et in existence then, but is included as ;an si#ilar #eans.; 6e%a#ator state#ents aired on television is si#ilar to radio, theatrical exhibition or cine#ato&raphic exhibition, (hich are a#on& the #odes %or the co##ission o% libel.

(Arts. :C: and :CC, RPC! Slande# !1.;;" "or so#e ti#e, bad blood had existed bet(een the t(o %a#ilies o% 7aria Ra?on and 5ud&e Aadio#a (ho (ere nei&hbors. "irst, there (as a boundar dispute bet(een the# (hich (as still pendin& in court. 7aria8s #other also %iled an ad#inistrative co#plaint a&ainst the 3ud&e (hich (as ho(ever dis#issed. *he Ra?ons also %elt inti#idated b the position and alle&ed in%luence o% their nei&hbor. "annin& %ire to the situation (as the practice o% the Aadio#as o% thro(in& &arba&e and ani#al excre#ent into the Ra?on8s pre#ises. -n an explosion o% an&er, 7aria called 5ud&e Aadio#a ;land &rabber;, ;sha#eless;, and ;h pocrite.; $hat cri#e (as co##itted b 7aria, i% an + /xplain brie%l . S0GGESTE1 ANSWER2 7aria co##itted the cri#e o% slander or sli&ht de%a#ation onl because she (as under the in%luence o% an&er. $hen 7aria called 5ud&e Aadio#a a h pocrite and land &rabber she i#puted to hi# the co##ission o% cri#es. Slande# !1../" Pia, a bold actress livin& on top %loor o% a plush condo#iniu# in 7akati Cit sunbathed naked at its penthouse ever ,unda #ornin&. ,he (as una(are that the business executives holdin& o%%ice at the ad3oinin& tall buildin&s reported to o%%ice ever ,unda #ornin& and, (ith the use o% po(er%ul binoculars, kept on &a?in& at her (hile she sunbathed. /ventuall , her sunbathin& beca#e the talk o% the to(n. 1! $hat cri#e, i% an , did Pia co##it+ /xplain, )! $hat cri#e, i% an , did the business executives co##it+ /xplain. S0GGESTE1 ANSWER2 1! Pia did not co##it a cri#e, *he %elon closest to #akin& Pia cri#inall liable is Arave ,candal, but then such act is not to be considered as hi&hl scandalous and o%%ensive a&ainst decenc and &ood custo#s. -n the %irst place, it (as not done in a public place and (ithin public kno(led&e or vie(. As a #atter o% %act it (as discovered b the executives accidentall and the have to use binoculars to have public and %ull vie( o% Pia sunbathin& in the nude. )! *he business executives did not co##it an cri#e. *heir acts could not be acts o% lasciviousness Las there (as no overt lust%ul act!, or slander, as the eventual talk o% the to(n, resultin& %ro# her sunbathin&, is not directl i#puted to the business executives, and besides such topic is not intended to de%a#e or put Pia to ridicule. Slande# 36 1eed vs. Mal$#ea$-en$ !1..9 " 6istin&uish slander b deed %ro# #altreat#ent. S0GGESTE1 ANSWER2 ,'AE6/R B1 6//6 is a cri#e co##itted (hen a person publicl sub3ects another to an act intended or calculated to cast dishonor, discredit or conte#pt upon the latter. Absent the intent to cast dishonor, discredit, conte#pt, or insult to the o%%ended part , the cri#e is onl 7A'*R/A*7/E* under Art, )BB. par. :, (here, b deed, an o%%ender ill-treats another (ithout causin& in3ur . Slande# vs. C#i-inal C nve#sa$i n !2009" 6istin&uish clearl but brie%l bet(een oral de%a#ation and cri#inal conversation. S0GGESTE1 ANSWER2 0ral de%a#ation, kno(n as ,'AE6/R, is a #alicious i#putation o% an act, o#ission, condition or circu#stance a&ainst a person, done orall in public, tendin& to cause dishonor, discredit, conte#pt, e#barass#ent or ridicule to the

latter. *his is a cri#e a&ainst honor penali?ed in Art. :CD o% the Revised Penal Code. CR-7-EA' C0E2/R,A*-0E. *he ter# is used in #akin& a polite re%erence to sexual intercourse as in certain cri#es, like rape, seduction and adulter . -t has no de%inite concept as a cri#e 1:. Cri#inal Ee&li&ence (Article :BC! Re&Iless I-%#+den&e Res+l$in, $ < -i&ide !2004" /ddie brou&ht his son Rand to a local %aithhealer kno(n as G7other .i#ala.H .e (as dia&nosed b the %aithhealer as bein& possessed b an evil spirit. /ddie thereupon authori?ed the conduct o% a Gtreat#entH calculated to drive the GspiritH %ro# the bo 8s bod . In%ortunatel , the procedure conducted resulted in the bo 8s death. *he %aithhealer and three others (ho (ere part o% the healin& ritual (ere char&ed (ith #urder and convicted b the lo(er court. -% ou (ere the appellate court 5ustice, (ould ou sustain the conviction upon appeal+ /xplain our ans(er. S0GGESTE1 ANSWER2 Eo, the conviction %or #urder should not be sustained, because there is no indication that the accused acted (ith intent to kill Rand . 0n the contrar , the %acts sho( that the accused acted to GtreatH the victi# in a (a o% drivin& the evil spirit (hich (as believed to have GpossessedH hi#. Considerin& that proxi#ate cause o% the victi#8s death (as the healin& ritual done b the accused (hich is not reco&ni?ed in la( as le&iti#ate, the accused are cri#inall liable %or the victi#8s death. As the #a have overdone the Ghealin& ritualH the conducted on the victi#8s bod , cause the latter8s death, althou&h the intent to kill (as absent, the accused #a be held cri#inall liable %or Reckless -#prudence Resultin& in .o#icide. ALTERNATIVE ANSWER2 Eo, because none o% the circu#stances 4uali% in& the killin& to #urder in Art. )>D attended the cri#e. *he %aithhealer and his co-accused should onl be liable %or ho#icide, because the are not authori?ed b la( to practice #edicine and (ere there%ore actin& ille&all althou&h the (ron&%ul act done (as di%%erent %ro# (hat the intended. Re&Iless I-%#+den&e Res+l$in, $ < -i&ide !200;" 0li#pio cau&ht a cold and (as runnin& a %ever. .is doctor prescribed paraceta#ol. 0li#pio (ent to a dru& store (ith the prescription, and the phar#acist sold hi# three (:! tablets. Ipon arrivin& ho#e, he took a tablet. 0ne hour later, he had a sei?ure and died. *he autops so(ed that the tablet he had taken (as not paraceta#ol but a pill (hich he (as aller&ic. *he phar#acist (as char&ed (ith #urder. -s the char&e proper+ -% not, (hat should it be+ /xplain. (B<! S0GGESTE1 ANSWER2 *he phar#acist co##itted a serious #istake. But the #istake could not characteri?e the death as #urder because the speci%ic intent to kill the victi# (as absent. *he phar#acist could not be liable %or #urder. *he phar#acist should be char&ed instead (ith reckless i#prudence resultin& in ho#icide (Art. :BC, RPC! because 0li#pio8s death (as the result o% the phar#acist8s serious ne&li&ence or i#prudence as there is no speci%ic intent to kill and no re4uisite 4uali% in& circu#stance. Si-%le Ne,li,en&e Res+l$in, in Less Se#i +s P)6si&al In5+#ies !2004" 6urin& a concert o% Aar 2., and in order to prevent the cro(d %ro# rushin& to the sta&e, Ra%ael Padilla (a securit &uard! pointed his &un at the onrush o% people. $hen the cro(d still pushed %or(ard, Ra%ael %ired his &un into to air to scare the# o%%. .o(ever, the bullet hit one o% the #etal roo% supports, ricocheted and then hit one o% the sta&e cre( #e#bers, cause in3uries (hich resulted in the latter8s con%ine#ent in a hospital %or t(elve da s. $hat cri#e@s did Ra%ael co##it+ /xplain our ans(er. S0GGESTE1 ANSWER2 *he cri#e co##itted b Ra%ael is ,i#ple Ee&li&ence Resultin& in 'ess ,erious Ph sical -n3uries. Ra%ael is a securit &uard and (as on dut (hen he dischar&ed the %irear#. *he dischar&e o% the %irear# (as not calculated to cause alar# or dan&er but si#pl to (ard o%% the unrul cro(d (hich persisted in pushin& %or(ard, thereb challen&in& the dut he (as to %ul%ill there. *he dischar&e o% the %irear#, there%ore, should neither constitute a cri#e o% Alar#s and ,candal under Art. 1CC o% the Revised Penal Code nor #a such dischar&e a#ount to a cri#e o% -lle&al 6ischar&e o% "irear#s under Art. )C> o% the Code since it (as not directed to(ards a particular person (hen the %irear# (as dischar&e.

.o(ever, the ph sical in3uries resultin& %ro# the dischar&e o% the %irear# betra s a lack o% precaution in a situation (here the dan&er to the dischar&e o% the %irear# is not clearl #ani%est, thus considered as si#ple i#prudence onl . *he cri#e co##itted is ,i#ple -#prudence Resultin& -n 'ess ,erious Ph sical -n3uries, since the ph sical in3uries re4uired onl t(elve (1)! da s o% #edical attention. ALTERNATIVE ANSWER2 *he cri#e is reckless i#prudence resultin& in less serious ph sical in3uries, because the dischar&e o% the %irear# (as not necessar under the circu#stances and there%ore, Ra%ael should be a(are o% the possibilit o% in3uries that could result %ro# such dischar&e o% the %irear#. EXCL01E2 a. Penalties %or speci%ic cri#es b. ,pecial cri#inal la(s not included in the above listin& An$i@Ca#na%%in, A&$( Ca#na%%in, 'F < -i&ide !1..;" ,a#uel, a tric cle driver, plied his usual route usin& a .onda #otorc cle (ith a sidecar. 0ne evenin&, Raul rode on the sidecar, poked a kni%e at ,a#uel and instructed hi# to &o near the brid&e. Ipon reachin& the brid&e, Raul ali&hted %ro# the #otorc cle and suddenl stabbed ,a#uel several ti#es until he (as dead. Raul %led %ro# the scene takin& the #otorc cle (ith hi#. $hat cri#e or cri#es did Raul co##it+ XC<M S0GGESTE1 ANSWER2 Raul co##itted the co#posite cri#e o% Carnappin& (ith ho#icide under ,ec. 1> o% Rep. Act Eo. BC:9, as a#ended, considerin& that the killin& ;in the course or ;on the occasion o% a carnappin& (People vs. 6e la Cru?, et al. 1D: ,CRA KB:!. A #otorc cle is included in the de%inition o% a ;#otor vehicle; in said Rep. Act, also kno(n as the 8AntiCarnappin& Act o% 19K)8. *here is no apparent #otive %or the killin& o% the tric cle driver but %or Raul to be able to take the #otorc cle. *he %act that the tric cle driver (as killed brin&s about the penalt o% reclusion perpetua to death. ALTERNATIVE ANSWER2 *he cri#e co##itted b Raul is carnappin&, punished b ,ection 1> o% Rep. Act Eo. BC:9. *he killin& o% ,a#uel is not a separate cri#e but onl an a&&ravatin& circu#stance. An$i@G#a*$ A C ##+%$ P#a&$i&es @ RA 301. !1..4" A is char&ed (ith the cri#e de%ined in ,ection :(e! o% the Anti-Ara%t and Corrupt Practices Act in an -n%or#ation that reads= G*hat %ro# 91 to :9 5anuar 199C, in the Cit o% Pasi& and (ithin the 3urisdiction o% this .onorable Court, the accused, bein& then e#plo ed in the 0%%ice o% the 6istrict /n&ineer, 6epart#ent o% Public $orks and K9 o% DB .i&h(a s and in the dischar&e o% his o%%icial ad#inistrative %unctions, did then and there (ill%ull and unla(%ull (ork %or and %acilitate the approval o% B8s clai# %or the pa #ent o% the price o% his land (hich the &overn#ent had expropriated, and a%ter the clai# (as approved, the accused &ave B onl P1,999.99 o% the approved clai# o% PC,999 and (ill%ull and unla(%ull appropriated %or hi#sel% the balance o% P>,999, thus causin& undue in3ur to B and the Aovern#ent.; A has %iled a #otion to 4uash the in%or#ation, contendin& that it does not char&e an o%%ense. -s he correct+ S0GGESTE1 ANSWER2 1es, the contention o% A is correct. *he in%or#ation %ailed to alle&e that the undue in3ur to B and the &overn#ent (as caused b the accused8s #ani%est partialit , evident bad %aith, or &ross -nexcusable ne&li&ence, (hich are necessar ele#ents o% the o%%ense char&ed, ie., violation o% ,ection :(e! o% the Anti-Ara%t and Corrupt Practices Act. *he accused is e#plo ed in the 0%%ice o% the 6istrict /n&ineer o% the 6P$. (hich has nothin& to do (ith the deter#ination and %ixin& o% the price o% the land expropriated, and %or (hich expropriated land the Aovern#ent is le&all obli&ated to pa . *here is no alle&ation in the in%or#ation that the land (as overpriced or that the pa #ent o% the a#ount (as disadvanta&eous to the Aovern#ent. -t appears that the char&e (as solel based on the accused havin& %ollo(ed up the pa #ent %or B8s land (hich the Aovern#ent has alread appropriated, and that the accused eventuall (ithheld %or hi#sel% %ro# the price o% the said land, the a#ount o% P>,999 %or his services. Eo violation o% ,ection :(e! o% the AntiAra%t and Corrupt Act appears. At #ost, the accused should be #erel char&ed ad#inistrativel

ALTERNATIVE ANSWERS2 1. 1es, A is correct in %ilin& a #otion to 4uash the in%or#ation because ,ection :(e! o% Republic Act :919 applies onl to o%%icers and e#plo ees o% &overn#ent corporations char&ed (ith the &rant o% licenses or per#its or other concessions, and not to 6P$., (hich is not a &overn#ent corporation. ). A is not correct. -n the case o% 7e%orda vs. ,andi&anba an. 1C1 ,CRA :99, (hich involves a substantiall identical in%or#ation as the -n%or#ation 4uoted in the 4uestion, the ,upre#e Court held that the -n%or#ation (as valid. $hile it is true that the in%or#ation 4uoted -n the 4uestion, %ailed to alle&e evident bad %aith, &ross inexcusable ne&li&ence or #ani%est partialit , said -n%or#ation -s nevertheless ade4uate because it averred the three (:! ele#ents %or the violation o% ,ection :(c! o% RA. :91) (hen it stated (1! that the accused is a public o%%icer at the ti#e o% the co##ission o% the cri#e, bein& e#plo ed in the 0%%ice o% the 6istrict /n&ineer, 6P$.; ()! that the accused caused undue -n3ur to B and the Aovern#ent, (ith the state#ent that B* the o(ner o% the land, received onl P1,999.99 instead o% the %ull value o% PC,999.99; and (:! that in the dischar&e o% A8s o%%icial ad#inistrative %unctions, he ;did then and there (ill%ull and unla(%ull (ork %or and %acilitate the approval o% his clai# xxx and ;(ill%ull and unla(%ull appropriate %or hi#sel% the balance o% P>,999.99 x x x;. An in%or#ation need not e#plo or use the ver (ords or lan&ua&e o% the statute. -t #a also use (ords or lan&ua&e o% si#ilar i#port. An$i@<aJin, la' D RA ;09. !2002" $hat is ha?in& as de%ined b la(+ ()<! S0GGESTE1 ANSWER2 .a?in&, as de%ined b la(, is an initiation rite or practice as a prere4uisite %or ad#ission into #e#bership in a %raternit , sororit or or&ani?ation b placin& the recruit, neoph te or applicant in so#e e#barrassin& or hu#iliatin& situations such as %orcin& hi# to do #enial, sill , %oolish and si#ilar tasks or activities or other(ise sub3ectin& hi# to ph sical or ps cholo&ical su%%erin& or in3ur . $hat does the la( re4uire be%ore initiation rites #a be per%or#ed+ (:<! S0GGESTE1 ANSWER2 ,ection ) o% Rep. Act Eo. D9>9 (Anti-.a?in& 'a(! re4uires that be%ore ha?in& or initiation rites #a be per%or#ed, notice to the school authorities or head o% or&ani?ations shall be &iven seven (K! da s be%ore the conduct o% such rites. *he (ritten notice shall indicate (a! the period o% the initiation activities, not exceedin& three (:! da s; (b! the na#es o% those to be sub3ected to such activities, and (c! an undertakin& that no ph sical violence shall be e#plo ed b an bod durin& such initiation rites. C<IL1 AB0SE( RA 4/10 !2009" 7rs. 7EA (as char&ed o% child abuse. -t appears %ro# the evidence that she %ailed to &ive i##ediatel the re4uired #edical attention to her adopted child, BP0, (hen he (as accidentall bu#ped b her car, resultin& in his head in3uries and i#paired vision that could lead to ni&ht blindness. *he accused, accordin& to the social (orker on the case, used to (hip hi# (hen he %ailed to co#e ho#e on ti#e %ro# school. Also, to punish hi# %or carelessness in (ashin& dishes, she so#eti#es sent hi# to bed (ithout supper. ,he #oved to 4uash the char&e on the &round that there is no evidence she #altreated her adopted child habituall . ,he added that the accident (as caused b her driver8s ne&li&ence. ,he did punish her (ard %or nau&htiness or carelessness, but onl #ildl . -s her #otion #eritorious+ Reason brie%l . (C<! S0GGESTE1 ANSWER2 Eo, the #otion to 4uash is not #eritorious. -t is not necessar that #ovant8s #altreat#ent o% a child be ;habitual; to constitute child abuse. *he (ron&%ul acts penali?ed as ;Child Abuse; under Rep. Act Eo. KB19 re%ers to the #altreat#ent o% the child, ;(hether habitual or not;= this is expressl stated in ,ec. )(b! o% the said 'a(. 7rs. 7EA should be liable %or child abuse. C)ild A3+se( RA 4/10 !200/"

/duardo Fuintos, a (ido(er %or the past 19 ears, %elt that his retire#ent at the a&e o% K9 &ave hi# the opportunit to en&a&e in his %avorite pasti#e W vo euris#. -% not usin& his hi&h-po(ered binoculars to peep at his nei&hbor8s ho#es and do#estic activities, his second choice (as to %ollo( s(eet oun& &irls. 0ne da , he trailed a teena&e &irl up to the 'R* station at /6,A-Buendia. $hile ascendin& the stairs, he sta ed one step behind her and in a #o#ent o% bravado, placed his hand on her le%t hip and &entl #assa&ed it. ,he screa#ed and shouted %or help. /duardo (as arrested and char&ed (ith acts o% lasciviousness. -s the desi&nation o% the cri#e correct+ (C<! ALTERNATIVE ANSWER2 *he cri#e should be 0ther Acts o% Child Abuse under ,ection 19 o% RA. KB19, par. b o% ,ection : that re%ers to child abuse co##itted b an act, deeds or (ords (hich debases, de&rades or de#eans the intrinsic (orth and di&nit o% a child as a hu#an bein&. -n relation thereto, ,ection 19 provides cri#inal liabilit %or other acts o% child abuse, cruelt or exploitation, or %or other condiUtions pre3udicial to the child8s develop#ent. *he reaction o% the victi#, screa#in& %or help upon the occurrence o% the touchin& indicates that she perceived her di&nit (as bein& debased or violated. 1an,e# +s 1#+, A&$2 Plea@Ba#,ainin, !2008" 0bie 5uan is suspected to have in his possession an unspeci%ied a#ount o% #etha#pheta#ine h drochloride or GshabuH. An entrap#ent operation (as conducted b police o%%icers, resultin& in his arrest %ollo(in& the discover o% 199 &ra#s o% the said dan&erous dru& in his possession. .e (as sub3ected to a dru& test and (as %ound positive %or the use o% #ari3uana, another dan&erous dru&. .e (as subse4uentl char&ed (ith t(o cri#es= 2iolation o% ,ection 11, Article -- o% RA 91BC %or the possession o% GshabuH and violation o% ,ection 1C, Article -- o% RA 91BC %or the use o% #ari3uana. (C<! a! Are the char&es proper+ /xplain. S0GGESTE1 ANSWER2 Eo. *he use o% dan&erous dru&s is not co##itted (hen 0bie 5uan (as also %ound to have in his possession such 4uantit o% an dan&erous dru&. (,ee s. 11 and 1B, RA. Eo. 91BC! b! ,o as not to be sentenced to death, 0bie 5uan o%%ers to plead &uilt to a lesser o%%ense. Can he do so+ $h + S0GGESTE1 ANSWER2 Eo. 0bie 5uan cannot plead &uilt to a lo(er o%%ense as it is prohibited under the la(. (,ection ):, RA. Eo. 91BC! An person char&ed under an provision o% this Act re&ardless o% the i#posable penalt shall not be allo(ed to avail o% the provision on plea-bar&ainin&. 1an,e# +s 1#+,s A&$ !1..;" ,uperintendent Al ,antia&o, Chie% o% the Earcotics 6ivision, $estern Police 6istrict, received in%or#ation that a certain 'ee 'a o%-Eo. D *indalo ,treet, *ondo. 7anila is a #e#ber o% the 1>J Aan& sellin& shabu and #ari3uana. ,P0l 'oren?o and ,P0: Peralta (ere instructed to conduct surveillance and bu -bust operations a&ainst 'a . *heir in%or#ant contacted 'a and a #eetin& (as arran&ed at *. Pinpin Restaurant at )=99 in the a%ternoon on "ebruar 1>, 199:. ,P01 'oren?o and ,P0: Peralta, actin& as poseur-bu ers, purchased %ro# 'a 19 sticks o% #ari3uana and paid PC99. 'ater, 'a a&reed to sell to the# one kilo o% dried #ari3uana %ruitin& tops (hich he &ave the# at his residence. *he police#en arrested 'a and a search (as conducted. "ound (ere :CB &ra#s o% #ari3uana seeds, 9:) &ra#s o% #ari3uana %ruitin& tops and C9 sticks o% #ari3uana ci&arettes. $hat o%%ense or o%%enses did 'a co##it+ LC<M S0GGESTE1 ANSWER2 'a co##itted the o%%enses o% ille&al sellin& o% dan&erous dru&s and ille&al possession o% dan&erous dru&s (hich should be #ade sub3ect o% separate in%or#ations. *he cri#e o% ille&al sellin& o% dan&erous dru&s is co##itted as re&ards the 19 sticks o% #ari3uana and as re&ards the one (1! kilo o% dried #ari3uana %ruitin& tops, (hich should be sub3ect o% t(o ()! separate in%or#ations because the acts (ere co##itted at di%%erent ti#es and in di%%erent places. *he cri#e o% -lle&al possession o% dan&erous dru&s is co##itted as re&ards the #ari3uana seeds, #ari3uana %ruitin&

tops and #ari3uana ci&arettes (hich are not the sub3ect o% the sale. Another in%or#ation shall be %iled %or this. 1an,e# +s 1#+,s A&$ !200/" A%ter receivin& reliable in%or#ation that 6ante 0n&, a notorious dru& s#u&&ler, (as arrivin& on PA' "li&ht E0. PR 1D1, PEP Chie% -nspector ,a#uel Aa#boa %or#ed a &roup o% anti-dru& a&ents. $hen 0n& arrived at the airport, the &roup arrested hi# and sei?ed his attache case. Ipon inspection inside the -##i&ration holdin& area, the attache case ielded C plastic ba&s o% heroin (ei&hin& C99 &ra#s. Chie% -nspector Aa#boa took the attache case and boarded hi# in an un#arked car driven b P0: Pepito 'orbes. 0n the (a to Ca#p Cra#e and upon nearin& $hite Plains corner /6,A, Chie% -nspector Aa#boa ordered P0: 'orbes to stop the car. *he brou&ht out the dru&s %ro# the case in the trunk and &ot : plastic sacks o% heroin. *he then told 0n& to ali&ht %ro# the car. 0n& le%t (ith the ) re#ainin& plastic sacks o% heroin. Chie% -nspector Aa#boa advised hi# to keep silent and &o ho#e (hich the latter did. Inkno(n to the#, an EB- tea# o% a&ents had been %ollo(in& the# and (itnessed the transaction. *he arrested Chie% -nspector Aa#boa and P0: 'orbes. 7ean(hile, another EB- tea# %ollo(ed 0n& and like(ise arrested hi#. All o% the# (ere later char&ed. $hat are their respective cri#inal liabilities+ (C<! S0GGESTE1 ANSWER2 Chie% -nspector Aa#boa and P0: Pepito 'orbes (ho conspired in takin& the attache case are liable %or the %ollo(in& cri#es de%ined under RA. 91BC= a! ,ec. )K %or #isappropriation or %ailure to account %or the con%iscated or sei?ed dan&erous dru&s. b! ,ec. > in relation to ,ec. :(ee! %or their acts as protector@coddler o% 6ante 0n& (ho i#ported dru&s -n addition, b allo(in& 0n& to escape prosecution %or ille&al i#portation or ille&al transportation o% dan&erous dru&s, (here the penalt is li%e i#prison#ent to death, the are also liable %or 4uali%ied briber under Art. )11-A o% the Revised Penal Code. $ith respect to 6ante 0n&, he is &uilt o% ille&al i#portation o% dan&erous dru&s under ,ec. >, R.A. 91BC, i% PR 1D1 is an international %li&ht. -% PR 1D1 is a do#estic %li&ht, he is liable %or violation o% ,ec. C, RA. 91BC %or ille&al transportation o% dan&erous dru&s. 1an,e# +s 1#+,s A&$ !2004" *uburcio asked Anastacio to 3oin their &roup %or a GsessionH. *hinkin& that it (as %or a #ah3on& session, Anastacio a&reed. Ipon reachin& *iburcio8s house, Anastacio discovered that it (as actuall a shabu session. At that precise ti#e, the place (as raided b the police, and Anastacio (as a#on& those arrested. $hat cri#e can Anastacio be char&ed (ith, i% an + /xplain our ans(er. S0GGESTE1 ANSWER2 Anastacio #a not be char&ed o% an cri#e. ,ec. K o% Rep. Act 91BC on the Co#prehensive 6an&erous 6ru&s o% )99) punished e#plo ees and visitors o% a den, dive or resort (here dan&erous dru&s are used in an %or#. But %or a visitor o% such place to co##it the cri#e, it is a re4uisite that he Gis a(are o% the nature o% the place as such and shall kno(in&l visit the sa#e.H *hese re4uisites are absent in the %acts &iven. 1an,e# +s 1#+,s A&$ !/928"( Ma#Ied M ne6 !2000" At about 9 o8clock in the #ornin&, a Earco# Aroup laid a plan to entrap and apprehend A, a lon& suspected dru& dealer, throu&h a ;bu -bust; operation. At the appointed ti#e, the poseur-bu er approached A (ho (as then (ith B. A #arked P199 bill (as handed over to A (ho in turn, &ave the poseur-bu er one (1! tea ba& o% #ari3uana leaves. *he #e#bers o% the tea#, (ho (ere then positioned behind thick leaves, closed in but evidentl (ere not s(i%t enou&h since A and B (ere able to run a(a . *(o da s later, A (as arrested in connection (ith another incident. -t appears that durin& the operations, the police o%%icers (ere not able to sei?e the #arked #one but (ere able to &et possession o% the #ari3uana tea ba&. A (as subse4uentl prosecuted %or violation o% ,ection >, Article -- o% Republic Act Eo. B>)C, other(ise kno(n as the 6an&erous 6ru&s Act, 6urin& the trial, the #arked #one (as not presented. Can A be held liable+ /xplain. ()<! S0GGESTE1 ANSWER2 1es. A can be held liable. *he absence o% the #arked #one (ill not create a hiatus in the prosecution8s evidence as

lon& as the sale o% the dan&erous dru&s is ade4uatel proven and the dru& sub3ect o% the transaction is presented be%ore the court. *here (as a per%ected contract o% sale o% the dru& (People vs. 0n& Co, )>C ,CRA K::; People vs. Pervoulakos, )>1 ,CRA B)C!. 1an,e# +s 1#+,s A&$ !/928"( Plea Ba#,ainin, !1..;" /d&ardo (as char&ed (ith i#portation o% prohibited dru&s in an in%or#ation %iled (ith the Re&ional *rial Court o% Jalookan Cit on 5une >, 199>. *he o%%ense is punishable b reclusion perpetua to death. Can /d&ardo avail o% pleabar&ainin&+ L)<M S0GGESTE1 ANSWER2 Eo, /d&ardo cannot avail o% plea-bar&ainin& because the i#posable penalt %or his violation o% the 6an&erous 6ru&s Act (R.A. Eo. B>)C. as a#ended! is reclusion perpetua to death. ,ection )9-A expressl provides that plea-bar&ainin& shall not be allo(ed (here the i#posable penalt %or the violation o% said la( is reclusion perpetua to death. (,ec. )9A, R.A. Eo. B>)C, as a#ended!. 1an,e# +s 1#+,s A&$( C ns+--a$i n * Sale !1../" Pat. Buensuceso, posin& as a bu er, approached Ronnie, a suspected dru& pusher, and o%%ered to bu P:99 (orth o% shabu. Ronnie then le%t, ca#e back %ive #inutes later and handed Pat, Buensuceso an alu#inu# %oil containin& the shabu. .o(ever, be%ore Pat, Buensuceso (as able to deliver the #arked #one to Ronnie, the latter spotted a police#an at a distance, (ho# Ronnie kne( to be connected (ith the Earcotics Co##and o% the Police. Ipon seein& the latter, Ronnie ran a(a but (as arrested thirt #inutes later b other police#en (ho pursued hi#. Inder the circu#stances, (ould ou consider the cri#e o% sale o% a prohibited dru& alread consu##ated+ /xplain. S0GGESTE1 ANSWER2 1es, the sale o% prohibited dru& is alread consu##ated althou&h the #arked #one (as not et delivered. $hen Ronnie handed the alu#inu# %oil containin& the shabu to Pat. Buensuceso pursuant to their a&reed sale, the cri#e (as consu##ated. Pa #ent o% the consideration is not an ele#ent o% re4uisite o% the cri#e. -% ever, the #arked #one is onl evidentiar to stren&then the case o% the prosecution. 1an,e# +s 1#+,s A&$( C#i-inal In$en$ $ P sses !2002" A and his %iancee B (ere (alkin& in the pla?a (hen the #et a &roup o% police#en (ho had earlier been tipped o%% that A (as in possession o% prohibited dru&s. Ipon seein& the police#en and sensin& that the (ere a%ter hi#, A handed a sachet containin& shabu to his %iancee B, tellin& her to hide it in her handba&. *he police#en sa( B placin& the sachet inside her handba&. -% B (as una(are that A (as a dru& user or pusher or that (hat (as inside the sachet &iven to her (as shabu, is she nonetheless liable under the 6an&erous 6ru&s Act+ (C<! S0GGESTE1 ANSWER2 Eo, B (ill not be cri#inall liable because she is una(are that A (as a dru& user or pusher or o% the content o% the sachet handed to her b A, and there%ore the cri#inal intent to possess the dru& in violation o% the 6an&erous 6ru&s Act is absent. *here (ould be no basis to i#pute cri#inal liabilit to her in the absence o% ani#us possidendi. 1an,e# +s 1#+,s A&$( Plea@Ba#,ainin, !2009" 7E0, (ho is :9 ears old, (as char&ed as a dru& pusher under the Co#prehensive 6an&erous 6ru&s Act o% )99). 6urin& pre-trial, he o%%ered to plead &uilt to the lesser o%%ense concernin& use o% dan&erous dru&s. ,hould the 5ud&e allo( 7E08s plea to the lesser o%%ense+ /xplain brie%l . (C<! S0GGESTE1 ANSWER2 Eo, the 5ud&e should not allo( 7E08s plea to a lesser o%%ense, because plea-bar&ainin& in prosecutions o% dru&-related cases is no lon&er allo(ed b Rep. Act Eo. 91BC, the Co#prehensive 6an&erous 6ru&s Act o% )99), re&ardless o% the i#posable penalt . <i,)'a6 R 33e#6 !2001"

Police ,&t. 6ie&o Chan, bein& a #e#ber o% the *he%t and Robber 6ivision o% the $estern Police 6istrict and assi&ned to the ,outh .arbor, 7anila, (as priv to and #ore or less %a#iliar (ith the schedules, routes and hours o% the #ove#ents o% container vans, as (ell as the #obile police patrols, %ro# the pier area to the di%%erent export processin& ?ones outside 7etro 7anila. "ro# ti#e to ti#e, he &ave valuable and detailed in%or#ation on these #atters to a &roup interested in those ship#ents in said container vans. 0n several instances, usin& the said in%or#ation as their basis, the &an& hi3acked and pil%ered the contents o% the vans. Prior to their sale to ;%ences; in Bana(e, Fue?on Cit and Ban&kal, 7akati Cit , the &an& -n%or#s ,&t, Chan (ho then inspects the pil%ered &oods, #akes his choice o% the valuable ite#s and disposes o% the# throu&h his o(n sources or ;%ences;. $hen the hi&h3ackers (ere traced on one occasion and arrested, upon custodial investi&ation, the i#plicated ,&t. Chan and the %iscal char&ed the# all, includin& ,&t. Chan as co-principals. ,&t. Chan, in his de%ense, clai#ed that he should not be char&ed as a principal but onl as an accessor a%ter the %act under P.6. C:), other(ise kno(n as the Anti-Pirac and Anti-.i&h(a Robber Act o% 19K). -s the contention o% ,&t. Chan valid and tenable+ /xplain, (C<! S0GGESTE1 ANSWER2 Eo, the contention o% ,&t. Chan is not valid or tenable because b express provision o% P.6. C:), ,ection >, a person (ho kno(in&l and in an #anner, aids or protects hi&h(a robbers@bri&ands, such as &ivin& the# in%or#ation about the #ove#ent o% police o%%icers or ac4uires or receives propert taken b bri&ands, or (ho directl or indirectl abets the co##ission o% hi&h(a robber @bri&anda&e, shall be considered as acco#plice o% the principal o%%enders and punished in accordance (ith the rules in the Revised Penal Code. ALTERNATIVE ANSWER2 Eo, the contention o% ,&t. Chan that he should be char&ed onl as accessor a%ter the %act is not tenable because he (as a principal participant in the co##ission o% the cri#e and in pursuin& the cri#inal desi&n. An accessor a%ter the %act involves hi#sel% in the co##ission o% a cri#e onl a%ter the cri#e had alread been consu##ated, not be%ore, "or his cri#inal participation in the execution o% the hi3ackin& o% the container vans, ,&t. Chan is a co-principal b indispensable cooperation. Ille,al =is)in, @ P1 409 !1../" Ipon a laborator exa#ination o% the %ish sei?ed b the police and a&ents o% the "isheries Co##ission, it (as indubitabl deter#ined that the %ish the (ere sellin& (ere cau&ht (ith the use o% explosives. Accordin&l , the three vendors (ere cri#inall char&ed (ith the violation o% ,ection :: o% P.6. K9> (hich #akes it unla(%ul %or an person to kno(in&l possess, deal in, or sell %or pro%it an %ish (hich have been ille&all cau&ht. 6urin& the trial, the three vendors clai#ed that the bou&ht the %ish %ro# a %ishin& boat (hich the dul identi%ied. *he prosecution ho(ever clai#ed that the three vendors should nevertheless be held liable %or the o%%ense as the (ere the ones cau&ht in possession o% the %ish ille&all cau&ht. 0n the basis o% the above %acts, i% ou (ere the 3ud&e, (ould ou convict the three %ish vendors+ /xplain. S0GGESTE1 ANSWER2 Eo, - (ould not convict the three %ish vendors i% - (ere the 3ud&e. 7ere possession o% such %ish (ithout kno(led&e o% the %act that the sa#e (ere cau&ht (ith the use o% explosives does not b itsel% render the seller-possessor cri#inall liable under P.6. K9>. Althou&h the act penali?ed in said 6ecree #a be a #alu# prohibitu#, the la( punishes the possession, dealin& in or sellin& o% such %ish onl (hen ;kno(in&l ; done that the %ish (ere cau&ht (ith the use o% explosives; hence cri#inal intent is essential. *he clai# b the %ish vendors that the onl bou&ht the %ish %ro# %ishin& boats (hich the ;dul identi%ied;, renders their possession o% such %ish innocent unless the prosecution could prove that the have kno(led&e that explosives (ere used in catchin& such %ish, and the accused had kno(led&e thereo%. Ille,al P ssessi n * =i#ea#-s D RA ;2.9 !1..;" ,upposin& a public school teacher participated in a coup d8etat usin& an unlicensed %irear#. $hat cri#e or cri#es did he co##it+ L)<M S0GGESTE1 ANSWER2 *he public school teacher co##itted onl coup d8etat %or his participation therein. .is use o% an unlicensed %irear# is absorbed in the coup d8etat under the ne( %irear#s la( (Rep. Act Eo. D)9>!. A prosecution %or ille&al possession o% %irear# under the ne( la( is allo(ed onl i% the unlicensed %irear# (as not used in the co##ission o% another cri#e.

Ille,al P ssessi n * =i#ea#-s A A--+ni$i ns !2000" A has lon& been (anted b the police authorities %or various cri#es co##itted b hi#. Actin& on an in%or#ation b a tipster, the police proceeded to an apart#ent (here A (as o%ten seen. *he tipster also (arned the police#en that A (as al(a s ar#ed. At the &iven address, a lad (ho introduced hersel% as the elder sister o% A, opened the door and let the police#en in inside, the tea# %ound A sleepin& on the %loor. -##ediatel beside hi# (as a clutch ba& (hich, (hen opened, contained a .:D caliber paltik revolver and a hand &renade. A%ter veri%ication, the authorities discovered that A (as not a licensed holder o% the .:D caliber paltik revolver. As %or the hand &renade, it (as established that onl #ilitar personnel are authori?ed to carr hand &renades. ,ubse4uentl , A (as char&ed (ith the cri#e o% -lle&al Possession o% "irear#s and A##unition. 6urin& trial, A #aintained that the ba& containin& the unlicensed %irear# and hand &renade belon&ed to A, his %riend, and that he (as not in actual possession thereo% at the ti#e he (as arrested. Are the alle&ations #eritorious+ /xplain. (:<! S0GGESTE1 ANSWER2 A8s alle&ations are not #eritorious. 0(nership is not an essential ele#ent o% the cri#e o% ille&al possession o% %irear#s and a##unition. $hat the la( re4uires is #erel possession, (hich includes not onl actual ph sical possession but also constructive possession (here the %irear# and explosive are sub3ect to one8s control and #ana&e#ent. (People us. 6e Arecia, ):: ,CRA K1B; I.,. vs. 5uan, ): Phil. 19C= People vs. ,o a&, 119 Phil. CBC!. P1 9/ A RA /413 A Indi#e&$ B#i3e#6 !200/" Co##issioner 7arian *orres o% the Bureau o% internal Revenue (B-R! (rote solicitation letters addressed to the "ilipino-Chinese Cha#ber o% Co##erce and -ndustr and to certain C/0s o% various #ultinational corporations re4uestin& donations o% &i%ts %or her o%%ice Christ#as part . ,he used the Bureau8s o%%icial stationer . *he response (as pro#pt and over(hel#in& so #uch so that Co##issioner *orres8 o%%ice (as overcro(ded (ith rice cookers, radio sets, %ree?ers, electric stoves and toasters. .er sta%% also received several envelopes containin& cash #one %or the e#plo ees8 Christ#as luncheon. .as Co##issioner *orres co##itted an i#propriet or irre&ularit + $hat la(s or decrees did she violate+ (C<! S0GGESTE1 ANSWER2 1es, Co##issioner *orres violated the %ollo(in&= 1. RA. BK1: W Code o% Conduct and /thical ,tandards %or Public 0%%icials and /#plo ees (hen he solicited and accept &i%ts (,ec. KLdM!. ). P.6. >B W 7akin& it punishable %or public o%%icials and e#plo ees to receive, and %or private persons to &ive, &i%ts on an occasion, includin& Christ#as. :. -ndirect Briber (Art. )11, Revised Penal Code! %or receivin& &i%ts o%%ered b reason o% o%%ice. P1 9/ !1..9" Aino (as appointed Collector o% Custo#s and (as assi&ned at the Eino A4uino -nternational Airport, Aerr , an i#porter, hosted a dinner %or 199 persons at the $estin Philippine Pla?a in honor o% Aino. $hat are the o%%ense or o%%enses co##itted b Aino and Aerr + S0GGESTE1 ANSWER2 Both Aino and Aerr are liable %or violation o% Presidential 6ecree Eo. >B, (hich punishes an public o%%icial or e#plo ee (ho receives, directl or indirectl , and %or private persons (ho &ive, o%%er an &i%t, present or valuable thin& on an occasion, includin& Christ#as, (hen such &i%t or valuable thin& is &iven b reason o% his o%%icial position, re&ardless o% (hether or not the sa#e is %or past %avor or %avors, or the &iver hopes or expects to receive a %avor or better treat#ent in the %uture. Bein& an i#porter, Aerr reasonabl expects %uture %avor %ro# Aino. -ncluded (ithin the prohibition is the thro(in& o% parties or entertain#ent in honor o% the o%%icial or e#plo ee or o% his i##ediate relatives. P1 9/ !1..4"

A, (ho is the private co#plainant in a #urder case pendin& be%ore a Re&ional *rial Court 5ud&e, &ave a 3ud&e a Christ#as &i%t, consistin& o% bi& basket o% assorted canned &oods and bottles o% expensive (ines, easil (orth P19.999.99. *he 3ud&e accepted the &i%t kno(in& it ca#e %ro# A. $hat cri#e or cri#es, i% an , (ere co##itted+ S0GGESTE1 ANSWER2 *he 5ud&e co##itted the cri#e o% -ndirect briber under Art. )11 o% the Revised Penal Code. *he &i%t (as o%%ered to the 5ud&e b reason o% his o%%ice. -n addition, the 5ud&e (ill be liable %or the violation o% P.6. >B (hich punishes the receivin& o% &i%ts b pubic o%%icials and e#plo ees on occasions like Christ#as. Pl+nde# +nde# RA 40;0( P#es&#i%$ive Pe#i d !1..3" *hrou&h kickbacks, percenta&es or co##issions and other %raudulent sche#es @conve ances and takin& advanta&e o% his position, And , a %or#er #a or o% a suburban to(n, ac4uired assets a#ountin& to P19 billion (hich is &rossl disproportionate to his la(%ul inco#e. 6ue to his in%luence and connections and despite kno(led&e b the authorities o% his -ll-&otten (ealth, he (as char&ed (ith the cri#e o% plunder onl a%ter t(ent ()9! ears %ro# his de%eat in the last elections he participated in. 1! 7a And still be held cri#inall liable+ $h + )! Can the ,tate still recover the properties and assets that he ille&all ac4uired, the bulk o% (hich is in the na#e o% his (i%e and children+ Reason out. S0GGESTE1 ANSWER2 1! And (ill not be cri#inall liable because ,ection B o% RA K9D9 provides that the cri#e punishable under this Act shall prescribe in t(ent ears and the proble# asked (hether And can still be char&ed (ith the cri#e o% plunder a%ter )9 ears. )! 1es, because ,ection B provides that recover o% properties unla(%ull ac4uired b public o%%icers %ro# the# or their no#inees or trans%erees shall not be barred b prescription, laches or estoppel. R.A. N . .1/0 An$i@M ne6 La+nde#in, A&$ !2008" 6on Aabito, a philanthropist, o%%ered to %und several pro3ects o% the 7a or. .e opened an account in the 7a orSs na#e and re&ularl deposited various a#ounts ran&in& %ro# PC99,999.99 to P1 7illion. "ro# this account, the 7a or (ithdre( and used the #one %or constructin& %eeder roads, baran&a clinics, repairin& schools and %or all other #unicipal pro3ects. -t (as subse4uentl discovered that 6on Aabito (as actuall a 3ueten& operator and the a#ounts he deposited (ere proceeds %ro# his 3ueten& operations. $hat cri#e@s (ere co##itted+ $ho are cri#inall liable+ /xplain. (B<! S0GGESTE1 ANSWER2 6on Aabito violated the Anti-7one 'aunderin& Act (,ec. >, R.A. Eo. 91B9! %or kno(in&l transactin& #one as propert (hich involves or relates to the proceeds o% an unla(%ul activit such as 3ueten&. -n addition, he #a be prosecuted %or liabilit as a3ueten& operator. (R.A. Eo. 9)DK! *he #a or (ho allo(ed the openin& o% an account in his na#e is like(ise &uilt %or violation o% the A7'A. .e, kno(in& that the #one instru#ent or propert involves the proceeds o% an unla(%ul activit , per%or#s or %ails to per%or# an act (hich results in the %acilitation o% #one launderin&. RA 301.( P#even$ive S+s%ensi n !1..." A public o%%icer (as accused be%ore the ,andi&anba an o% a violation o% ,ection : (e! o% RA Eo. :919, the Anti-Ara%t and Corrupt Practices Act. 5ust a%ter arrai&n#ent and even be%ore evidence (as presented, the ,andi&anba an issued an order %or his suspension pendente lite. *he accused 4uestioned the said 0rder contendin& that it is violative o% the constitutional provision a&ainst an ex post %acto la(. $ill ou sustain the ob3ection o% the accused+ $h + L)<M (c! $hat pre-conditions are necessar to be #et or satis%ied be%ore preventive suspension #a be ordered+ ()<! S0GGESTE1 ANSWER2 (b! Eo, - (ill not sustain the ob3ection o% the accused. ,uspension o% the accused pendente lite is not violative o% the constitutional provision a&ainst ex-post %acto la(. /x-post %acto la( #eans #akin& an innocent act a cri#e be%ore it is #ade punishable. (c! *he pre-conditions necessar to be #et or satis%ied be%ore a suspension #a be ordered are= (1! there #ust be

proper notice re4uirin& the accused to sho( cause at a speci%ic date o% hearin& (h he should not be ordered suspended %ro# o%%ice pursuant to RA :919, as a#ended; and ()! there #ust be a deter#ination o% a valid in%or#ation a&ainst the accused that (arrants his suspension. RA 301.( P#even$ive S+s%ensi n !2000" A #onth a%ter the arrai&n#ent o% Brad Jit Co##issioner o% the .ousin& and 'and Ise Re&ulator Board, (ho (as char&ed (ith violation o% ,ection : (h! o% Republic Act :919 LAnti-Ara%t and Corrupt Practices Act! be%ore the ,andi&anba an, the 0%%ice o% the ,pecial Prosecutor %iled a 7otion to ,uspend Accused Pendente 'ite pursuant to ,ection 1: o% the Anti-Ara%t 'a(. *he Court &ranted the #otion and suspended accused Brad Jit %or a period o% 99 da s. Accused assailed the constitutional validit o% the suspension order on the &round that it partakes o% a penalt be%ore 5ud&#ent o% conviction is reached and is thus violative o% his constitutional ri&ht to be presu#ed innocent. .e also clai#ed that this provision o% the la( on suspension pendente lite applies onl to elective o%%icials and not to appointed ones like hi#. Rule (ith reasons. (C<! S0GGESTE1 ANSWER2 *he suspension order does not partake o% a penalt and is thus not violative o% Brad Jit8s constitutional ri&ht to be presu#ed innocent. Inder the la(, the accused public o%%icers shall be suspended %ro# o%%ice (hile the cri#inal prosecution is pendin& in court (,ec. 1:, RA. :919!. ,uch preventive suspension is #andator to prevent the accused %ro# ha#perin& the nor#al course o% the investi&ation (Rios vs. ,andi&anba an,)K9 ,CRA CD1 (199K!; Bun e vs. /scareal ))B ,CRA ::) (199:!!. Eeither is there #erit in Brad Jit8s clai# that the provision on suspension pendente lite applies onl to elective o%%icials and not to appointed ones like hi#. -t applies to all public o%%icials -ndicted upon a valid in%or#ation under RA. Eo. :919, (hether the be appointive or elective o%%icials; or per#anent or te#porar e#plo ees, or pertainin& to the career or nonUcareer service (,e&ovia vs. ,andi&anba an, )DD ,CRA :)D L199DM!. RA 301.( P+3li& O**i&e# !2003" *he Central Bank (Ban&ko ,entral n& PilipinasO, b a resolution o% the #onetar board, hires *heo% ,to *o#as, a retired #ana&er o% a leadin& bank as a consultant. *heo% later receives a valuable &i%t %ro# a bank under investi&ation b the Central Bank. 7a *heo% be prosecuted under Republic Act Eo. :919 (Anti-Ara%t and Corrupt Practices Act! %or acceptin& such a &i%t+ /xplain. D< S0GGESTE1 ANSWER2 Eo, *heo% #a not be prosecuted under Rep. Act :919, but #a be prosecuted %or violation o% Pres, 6ecree Eo. >B, under (hich such act o% receivin& a valuable &i%t is punished. Althou&h *heo% is a ;public o%%icer; (ithin the application o% the Anti-Ara%t and Corrupt Practices Act (RA :919!, et his act o% receivin& such &i%t does not appear to be included a#on& the punishable acts under Rep. Act :919 since he is not to intervene in his o%%icial capacit in the investi&ation o% the bank (hich &ave the &i%t. Penal la(s #ust be strictl construed a&ainst the ,tate. -n an case, *heo% is ad#inistrativel liable. ALTERNATIVE ANSWER 1es, *heo% #a be prosecuted under Rep. Act :919 because he is a ;public o%%icer; (ithin the purvie( o% said la(, and *heo% received the valuable &i%t %ro# a bank (hich is under investi&ation b the Central Bank (here he is e#plo ed as a ;public o%%icer;. Receivin& &i%t, directl or indirectl b a public o%%icer %ro# a part (ho has a transaction (ith the Aovern#ent is (ron&, #ore so (hen the &i%t-&iver is under investi&ation b the &overn#ent o%%ice to (hich the public o%%icer is connected. RA /413( C ve#a,e !2001" Robert , , a (ell kno(n business#an and a %oundin& #e#ber o% the 7akati Business Club, aside %ro# bein& a class#ate o% the ne(l -elected President o% the Philippines, had -nvest#ents consistin& o% shares o% stocks in the Irban Bank, the PEB, the Rural Bank o% Caloocan Cit and his privatel -o(ned corporation, the R, Builders Corporation and *rans-Paci%ic Air. A%ter the President had taken his oath and assu#ed his o%%ice, he appointed Robert as .onorar Consul to the Republic o% 2ietna#. Robert took his oath be%ore the President and a%ter %urnishin& the 6epart#ent o% "orei&n A%%airs (ith his appoint#ent papers, %le( to ,ai&on, no( .o Chi 7in Cit , (here he or&ani?ed his sta%%, put up an o%%ice and sta ed there %or three #onths attendin& to trade opportunities and relations (ith local business#an. 0n the %ourth #onth, he returned to the Philippines to #ake his report to the President. .o(ever, the Anti-Ara%t 'ea&ue o%

the Philippines %iled a co#plaint a&ainst Robert %or (1! %allin& to %ile his ,tate#ent o% Assets and 'iabilities (ithin thirt (:9! da s %ro# assu#ption o% o%%ice; ()! %ailin& to resi&n %ro# his businesses, and (:! %allin& to divest his shares and invest#ents in the banks and corporations o(ned b hi#, as re4uired b the Code o% Conduct and /thical ,tandards %or Public 0%%icials and /#plo ees. $ill the co#plaint prosper+ /xplain. (C<! S0GGESTE1 ANSWER2 *he co#plaint (ill not prosper because the Code o% Conduct and /thical ,tandards %or Public 0%%icials and /#plo ees (Rep. Act. Eo. BK1:!, expressl exe#pts those (ho serve the Aovern#ent in an honorar capacit %ro# %ilin& ,tate#ents o% Assets and 'iabilities, and %ro# resi&nin& and divestin& the#selves o% interest %ro# an private enterprise (,ecs. DA and 9!. ALTERNATIVE ANSWER2 1es, the co#plaint (ill prosper under ,ec. K o% the Anti-Ara%t and Corrupt Practices Act (Rep. Act Eo. :919, as a#endedM, (hich re4uires all public o%%icers (ithin :9 da s %ro# assu#in& public o%%ice to %ile a true, detailed s(orn state#ent o% assets and liabilities. 2iolations o% this la( are #ala prohibita (hich ad#its o% no excuses. RA 493;@E& n -i& Sa3 $a,e( Ille,al Re&#+i$-en$ !2009" RR represented to AA, BB, CC and 66 that she could send the# to 'ondon to (ork there as sales ladies and (aitresses. ,he collected and received %ro# the# various a#ounts o% #one %or recruit#ent and place#ent %ees totallin& P>99,999. A%ter their dates o% departure (ere postponed several ti#es, the %our prospects &ot suspicious and (ent to P0/A (Phil. 0verseas /#plo #ent Authorit !. *here the %ound out that RR (as not authori?ed nor licensed to recruit (orkers %or e#plo #ent abroad. *he sou&ht re%und to no avail. -s RR &uilt o% an &rave o%%ense+ /xplain brie%l . (C<! S0GGESTE1 ANSWER2 1es. RR is &uilt o% a &rave o%%ense, havin& en&a&ed in ille&al recruit#ent constitutin& the o%%ense o% econo#ic sabota&e (hich is punishable (ith li%e i#prison#ent and a %ine o% P199.999.99. /C0E07-C ,AB0*AA/ is an o%%ense de%ined in :D(b! o% the 'abor Code, as a#ended b Pres. 6ecree Eo. )91D, (hich is incurred (hen the ille&al recruit#ent is carried out in lar&e scale or b a s ndicate. -t is in a lar&e scale (hen there are three or #ore a&&rieved parties, individuall or as a &roup. And it is co##itted b a s ndicate (hen three or #ore persons conspire or cooperate (ith one another in carr in& out the ille&al transaction, sche#e or activit . RA 4/10 D C)ild E>%l i$a$i n !200/" Alin& 7aria received an ur&ent telephone call %ro# 5unior, her eldest son, askin& %or P),999.99 to co#plete his se#estral tuition %ees preparator to his %inal exa#s in Co##erce. 6istressed and disturbed, she borro(ed #one %ro# her co#padre 7an& 5uan (ith the assurance to pa hi# (ithin ) #onths. *(o #onths lapsed but Alin& 7aria %ailed to settle her obli&ation. 7an& 5uan told Alin& 7aria that she does not have to pa the loan i% she (ill allo( her oun&est 19- ear old dau&hter Annie to (ork as a house#aid in his house %or ) #onths at Pl,999.99 a #onth. 6espite Alin& 7aria8s ob3ection, 7an& 5uan insisted and brou&ht Annie to his house to (ork as a #aid. 1. $as a cri#e co##itted b 7an& 5uan (hen he brou&ht Annie to his house as #aid %or the purpose o% repa in& her #other8s loan+ ().C<! S0GGESTE1 ANSWER2 1es. 7an& 5uan co##itted the cri#e o% exploitation o% child labor (hich is co##itted b an persons (ho unUder the pretext o% rei#bursin& hi#sel% o% a debt incurred b an ascendant, &uardian or person entrusted (ith the custod o% a #inor, shall, a&ainst the latter8s (ill, retainh i# in his service (Art. )K:, Revised Penal Code!. .e can also be liable as an e#plo er %or the e#plo #ent o% a #inor belo( 1C rs. old, under ,ec. 1), Art. D o% RA. KB19. ). -% Alin& 7aria hersel% (as #ade to (ork as a houseU#aid in 7an& 5uan8s household to pa her loan, did he co##it a cri#e+ ().C<! S0GGESTE1 ANSWER2 1es. 7an& 5uan co##itted the cri#e o% involuntar servitude %or renderin& services under co#pulsion and pa #ent o%

debts. *his is co##itted b an person (ho, in order to re4uire or en%orce the pa #ent o% a debt, shall co#pel the debtor to (ork %or hi#, a&ainst his (ill, as household servant or %ar# laborer (Art. )K>, Revised Penal Code! IMPORTANT NOTES2 1. *his listin& o% covered topics is not intended and should not be used b the la( schools as a course outline. *his (as dra(n up %or the li#ited purpose o% ensurin& that Bar candidates are &uided on the covera&e o% the )91: Bar /xa#inations. 'istin&s (hose sub3ect #atters run across several Bar ,ub3ects shall be dee#ed to include onl the sub3ect #atters speci%ic to the &iven Bar ,ub3ect. "or exa#ple, G-#peach#entH is &enerall a topic under Political 'a( but is listed also under 'e&al and 5udicial /thics %or the ethical co#ponents o% this Bar ,ub3ect. Eote that there #a be speci%ic identi%ication o% the coverin& Bar ,ub3ect (here a topic #a be co##on to several Bar ,ub3ects. "or exa#ple, G-ndependent Civil ActionsH #entioned in the Civil Code shall be included as a topic in Re#edial 'a( rather than in Civil 'a(. Eote also that #an special la(s, rules or speci%ic topics, other(ise covered b the di%%erent exa#inable Bar ,ub3ects, have been o#itted or are expressl excluded %ro# the covera&e o% the )91: Bar /xa#inations. ). *he appreciation o% the %act situations in, and the ans(ers to, so#e 4uestions in ever Bar. ,ub3ect #a re4uire the consideration o% underl in& ethical rules and values. :. All ,upre#e Court decisions - pertinent to a &iven Bar sub3ect and its listed topics, and pro#ul&ated up to :an+a#6 31B 2013 @ are exa#inable #aterials (ithin the covera&e o% the )91: Bar /xa#inations.