ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc.

s
e
l

r
a
B

1. While Pedro, Maria and their five children are travelling along the Banlat road in
Quezon City, a group of eight armed malefactors led by Felix suddenly opened fire
and rained bullets on their vehicle. Pedro and Maria died. Two of their children
sustained fatal gunshot wounds while the rest sustained non-fatal gunshot wounds.
Is Felix and his men liable for complex crime of double Murder with double
Frustrated Murder and multiple Attempted Murder?

an

b
o
R

r
a
B

Ch ANSWER: No. Felix and his menesare individually liable for separate crimes of two counts of
l Murder and three counts of Attempted Murder. It is not a
b
Murder, two counts of Frustrated
complex crime undero
48 of the Revised Penal Code because the killing and
R Article
wounding of the victims
was not the result of a single discharge of firearms by Felix and his
r bullets on the vehicle boarded
n
men. To note,aFelix and his men opened fire and rained
a
Bthe victims and more than one gunman
Pedro andh
his family. Thus, more than one bullet hit
fired atC
the vehicle of the victims. Each act of s
a gunman constitute distinct and individual
e
acts which cannot give rise to a complexl
crime. Felix and his men performed not only a
b acts in the commission of the crime. Thus,
single act but several individual and distinct
Article 48 of the Revised Penal Codeo
would not apply for it speaks only of a "single act. "
RG.R. No. 184500, September 11, 2012)
(See, People v. Wenceslao Nelmida,
r
n
a
a
B convicted by the trial
h
2. Salvacion, a Provincial
Treasurer of Northern Samar, was
s
C While serving her sentence,eSalvacion applied and was
court of Malversation.
l
granted absolute pardon by the President. It was expressly
provided pardon that
b
Salvacion was granted an absolute and unconditional pardon and restored to full
o
civil and political rights as well as her right to
immediately hold / resume her former
R
position as Provincial Treasurer. Salvacion
that her criminal liability
r was
an tocontends
effectively extinguished and she is entitled
reinstatement to her formeraposition
h
without a need of a new appointment.
Cathy, the Acting ProvincialBTreasurer,
sto her former
C
contends that Salvacion is not automatically
entitled to reinstatement
e
l
position because absolute pardon does not ipso facto restore a
convicted
felon to a
b
public office. According to Cathy, Salvacion must re-applyo
and undergo the usual
procedure required for a new appointment before she could
R regain her former post.
Whose contention is correct? Explain.
r
n
a
a
B
ANSWER: The contention of Salvacion is correct. Art.h
36 of the Revised Penal Code provides
s
C
that a pardon shall not work the restoration of the right to hold public office, or the right
le
of suffrage, unless such rights be expressly restored by the terms of the pardon. Theb
absolute
pardon granted to Salvacion expressly restores the right of Salvacion to hold public
office.
o
R
(See, the separate opinion of Justice Padilla in Salvacion Mosanto v. Factoran, G.R. No.
r
78239, February 9, 1989).
a
an
B
s
Ch
e
l
b
o
R
n
a
h
www.chanroblesbar.com : www.chanroblesbar.com.ph
C

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc.

3. May a private individual who conspire with a public officer in the commission of a
crime of Plunder be held liable for Plunder?

s
e
l

r
a
B

ANSWER: Yes. Section 2 of R.A. 7080 provides, x x x Any person who participated with
the said public officer in the commission of an offense contributing to the crime of plunder
shall likewise be punished for such offense. (see the related cases entitled Henry Go v.
Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 172602, April 16, 2009 and Engr. Ricardo Santillano v. People, G.R.
Nos. 175045-46, March 3, 2010)

b
o
R

ar lawfully arrested Zack for Carnapping. On

a4.nPolice officers Alan, Dindo andBCarlo
way to the police station, Zack managed to remove his handcuff, grabbed the
s off the police patrol car they were riding. Dino
Ch their
M16 rifle of Alan and jumped
e
l firing his .9mm caliber firearm at the back leg of Zack.
immediately respondedbby
When Zack turned around
o to fire his M16 armalite rifle, Dindo fired another shot
hitting Zack at theR
chest. Zack died instantaneously.
r
n
a
a
The prosecution filed an Information for Homicide
Dindo. The prosecution
B against
h
contended
that
the
killing
of
Zack
was
not
justified
since
the
did not attack
sDindo had no right former
C
e
the policemen. The prosecution added that
to shoot Zack without
l Under the General Rules of Engagement,
giving him the opportunity to surrender.
b
the use of force should be appliedo
only as a last resort when all other peaceful and
R
non-violent means have been exhausted. Is Dindo justified in killing Zack? Explain.
r
n
a
a
ANSWER: Yes, Dindo is justified
Bin the fulfillment of a duty.
h in killing Zack because he acted
The policemen has a C
duty not only to recapture Zack but also
to recover the loose firearm.
s
e when he grabbed the M16
Zack was committing a crime in the presence of the policemen
l
rifle of Alan and jumped off the police patrol car to b
escape. By grabbing Mercados M16
o
Armalite, which is a formidable firearm, Zack has placed
the lives of the policemen in grave
danger. Thus, Dindo has to use force to place R
the latter under arrest. Had Dindo failed to
r
n
shoot Zack immediately, the latter wouldahave fired the M16 rifle and all the a
policemen
B
inside the police patrol car would haveh
died.
s
C
eFacing imminent
Zacks act of grabbing the M16 Armalite clearly shows a hostile intention.
l
b is not absolutely
danger, the policemen had to act swiftly. The duty to issue a warning
o
mandated at all times and at all cost, to the detriment of the life of law enforcers. The
R
directive to issue a warning contemplates a situation n
where several options are still
available to the law enforcers. In exceptional circumstances
a such as this case, where the Bar
threat to the life of a law enforcer is already imminent,
and there is no other option but to
s
Ch
use force to subdue the offender, the law enforcers
failure to issue a warning is excusable.
e
l
(SPO2 Ruperto Cabanlig v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 148431, July 28, 2005)
b
onaked. Out
5. Jimboy pointed an icepick on the neck of Ana and ordered her to strip
R
of fear, she complied. Jimboy undressed himself and mounted n
her. He then
r
a
a onpressed
inserted his penis into her vagina. When she felt the icepick being
into her
B
h with the icepick.
stomach, Ana fought. Jimboy then stabbed her several times
s
C
Although she was in pain, Ana kept silent which made Jimboy stop stabbing
e
l
b
o
R
n
a
h
www.chanroblesbar.com : www.chanroblesbar.com.ph
C

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc.

believing that she was already dead. After Jimboy left the scene, Ana crawled and
shouted for help. A barangay tanod patrolling the area responded and rushed Ana to
the hospital for medical treatment. The wounds inflicted on Ana were fatal but she
survived death. The prosecution thereafter filed an Information for Rape with
Frustrated Homicide. Is the charge proper?
ANSWER: No. Jimboy should be charged separately for Rape and for Frustrated Homicide.
There is no special complex crime of Rape with Frustrated Homicide. Under Art. 266-B of
the Revised Penal Code, a special complex crime occurs when on occasion of rape or
attempted rape, homicide is committed. The crime of homicide must be consummated in
order to bring about a special complex crime. Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code is not
applicable because the same requires the commission of at least two crimes, but the two or
more grave or less grave felonies must be the result of a single act, or an offense must be a
necessary means for committing the other. Negatively put, when two or more crimes are
committed but (1) not by a single act or (2) one is not a necessary means for committing
the others, there is no complex crime. In the instant case, Jimboy committed separate
crimes of Rape and Frustrated Homicide. Rape was committed because Jimboy had carnal
knowledge with Ana by means of intimidation while Frustrated Homicide was committed
because Jimboy tried to kill Ana by inflicting several fatal stab wounds at her but the latter
survived death due to timely medical attendance. (See, People v. Uldarico Honra, Jr. , G.R.
No. 136012-16, September 26, 2000, People v. Joey Toriaga, G.R. No. 177145, February 9,
2011 and People v. Ermilito Alegre, G.R. No. 184812, July 6, 2010)

an

Ch

b
o
R

s
e
l

r
a
B

an

b
o
R

s
e
l

r
a
B

Ch

Ro

e
l
b

r
a
B

r
n
a
a
6. Eduardo engaged in
old woman, at a
Bbiological
ha sexual congress with Tessa, sa 21-year
knifepoint. EduardoC
is the common law husband of Tessas
mother. The
e
father of Tessa is Arturo.
l
b
a) Is the alternative circumstance of relationship
Roaggravating?
r
n
ANSWER: The alternative circumstance ofa
relationship is not aggravating. Undera
Article 15
Bconsidered
of the Revised Penal Code, the alternative
circumstance of relationship can be
h
s
Cspouse, ascendant, descendant, legitimate,
only "when the offended party is the
e natural or
adopted brother or sister, or relative by affinity in the same degree of l
the offender. " Tessa
bNo. 130514, June 17,
does not fit in the enumeration. (People v. Abundio Tolentino, G.R.
o
1999)
R
n
b) Suppose Eduardo was charged for Qualified Rape
a because he is the biological Bar
father of Tessa and the latter is a minor 17hyears of age, is the alternative
s
C
circumstance of relation aggravating?
e
l
ANSWER: The alternative circumstance of relationship is not aggravating bbecause
o(People v.
relationship is already included as an element in the crime of qualified rape.
R
Restituto Manhuyod, Jr. , G.R. No. 124676, May 20, 1998)
r
a
an
B
7. Mira was walking along the street when Alberto pointed ah
bladed weapon at her
s
C
side and ordered her to hand to him all her money. Unfortunately, Mira has no
e
l
b
o
R
n
a
h
www.chanroblesbar.com : www.chanroblesbar.com.ph
C

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc.

money at that time but she has a check payable to cash already signed and filled in
the amount of Twenty Thousand Pesos (P20,000.00) so she gave the same to him.
Alberto has not travelled far when he was arrested by the policemen.

s
e
l

r
a
B

a) Is Alberto liable for consummated Robbery?

an

Ch

b
o
R

ANSWER: Alberto is not liable for consummated Robbery. The crime is only in the
attempted stage because, although he demanded money and took the personal property of
Mira consisting of a check in the amount of twenty thousand pesos by means of
intimidation, he was not able to get anything of value from Mira since he was immediately
arrested without him encashing the check. (People v. Felicisima Basilan, G.R. No. L-66257,
June 20, 198. See also Gemma Jacinto v. People, G.R. No. 162540, July 13, 2009 concerning
the value of a check which was not encashed)

s
e
l

r
a
B

b
o
b) Suppose Alberto
R went to the bank to encash the check but the same was not
n
encashed because
Mira ordered the bank to stop r
payment, is Alberto liable for an
a
a
impossible crime?
B
h
s
C
e crime because a crime of Attempted
ANSWER: Alberto is not liable for an impossible
l
Robbery was committed. The act cannot
be
b considered an impossible crime because there
was no inherent improbability of itso
accomplishment or the employment of inadequate or
R was already committed even before Alberto tried to
ineffective means. In fact, a crime
rMarch 1, 1993. See
n
encash the check. (People v.aPablito Domasian, et al. , G.R. No. 95322,
a
also Gemma Jacinto v. People,
G.R. No. 162540, July 13, 2009 on impossible
crime)
B
h
s
C
e Valen placed the chicken
8. Valen is in the business of raising cock-fighting chicken.
l
in the chicken pen or kulungan which is aboutb
five meters long, one meter wide
and one meter high made of wooden stilts ando
bamboo strips as bars, and lock the
R beside his house and near the gate.
same with a padlock. The chicken pen is located
r Paul
n
Upon learning that Valen went to a nearby
province to sell some of his chicken,
a
a
B pen and
jumped from the gate, destroyed the
padlock and the door of the chicken
h
s
thereafter took three roosters valued
at
ten
thousand
pesos
each.
What
crime or
C
e
crimes are committed, if any?
l
b
o roosters belonging to
ANSWER: Paul committed a crime of Theft because he took three
R
Valen with intent to gain and without using force or intimidation
n upon persons. Only one r
crime is committed although three roosters were taken a
because Paul has only one criminal a
intent to steal. The crime is not Robbery with Force h
upon Things because the chicken pen B
sof
C
or cages were not inside the house nor was it a dependency thereof within the meaning
e
l and
article 301 of the Revised Penal Code. Robbery with Force upon Things under Art. 299
b
302 of the Revised Penal Code applies only when the unlawful taking takes place
o inside
an inhabited house, public building or edifice devoted to worship, or insideR
an uninhabited
house or private building. Moreover, one essential requisite of robbery
with force upon
r
a
anshould
things under Articles 299 and 302 contemplate that the malefactor
enter the
B
h would be no robbery
building. If the culprit did not enter the building, as in this case, there
s
C
with force upon things. Moreover, the chicken coop where the three roosters were taken
e
l
b
o
R
n
a
h
www.chanroblesbar.com : www.chanroblesbar.com.ph
C

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc.

cannot be considered a building within the meaning of article 302. Not being a building, it
cannot be said that the accused entered the same in order to commit the robbery by means
of any of the five circumstances enumerated in article 302. (People v. Elias Jaranilla, G.R.
No. L-28547, February 22, 1974)

r
a
B

s
e
l Benjie and Keneth, all armed with bladed weapons, waited for
9. Marcial, Clifford,
b
the night
oand when darkness came, entered the house of Lorna through the kitchen
doorR
which was then open and they, thereafter, took turns of raping her. After
r her in the different parts of her body
n their lust, they repeatedly stabbed
asatisfying
until she died. They used two a
motorcycles to facilitate their escape. What
B
the commission of the crime of Rape with Homicide?
s
Ch circumstance, if any, aggravated
e
ANSWER: The following b
arelaggravating circumstances that attended the commission of
the crime:
Ro
rsought and took advantage of the
nor nighttime because they purposely
a. Nocturnity
a
a
darkness of the night to afford impunity or B
to prevent them from being recognized.
h
(People
v.
Alfredo
Baroy,
G.R.
No.
137520-22,
May
s 9, 2002)
C
e
l
b. By a band because the offendersb
who participated in the crime were all armed with
bladed weapons when they committed
o the crime. (People v. Ricardo Cayanan, G.R. Nos.
R
73257-58 June 16, 1995)
r
n
a
a
c. Dwelling becauseh
they committed the crime inside theBdwelling of the offended
party who has C
not given provocation therefor. It is
s considered an aggravating
e
circumstance primarily because of the sanctity of privacy
that the law accords to the
l
b
human abode. He who goes to anothers house to hurt him or do him wrong is more
o v. Edgar Evangelio, G.R. No. 181902,
guilty than he who offends him elsewhere. (People
R
August 31, 2011 and People v. Arnold Agcanas, G.R. No. 174476, October 11, 2011)
r
n
a
a
B (People
d. Use of motor vehicle because they
huse motorcycles to facilitate theirsescape.
v. Clarence Astudillo, et al. , G.R.C
No. 141518, April 29, 2003)
e
l
10. After trial, the court found James guilty of Kidnapping withb
homicide, an offense
o
punishable by death. James was 20 years of age at the time
promulgation of
R of theofoffense.
judgment. He was 17 years old at the time of the commission
r
a
an
B
a. May James avail of suspension of sentence?
s
Ch
e
l
ANSWER: Yes, James may avail of suspension of sentence. Under the law, a Child in Conflict
with the Law (CICL) may avail of suspension of sentence even if he is no longer ab
minor at
o
the time of promulgation of judgment as long as he is below 21 years old. The
suspension
of
R
his sentence, however, is not automatic. He must apply for it. Moreover,n
even if the crime
r
a
committed is classified as heinous, the law allows the CICL to stillaavail of suspended
B
sentence. (see, Section 38 & 40, R.A. 9344. See also People v. h
s
CRichard Sarcia, G.R. No.
e
l
b
o
R
n
a
h
www.chanroblesbar.com : www.chanroblesbar.com.ph
C

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc.

169641, September 10, 2009, People v. Henry Arpon, G.R. No. 183563, December 14, 2011
and People v. Hermie Jacinto, G.R. No. 182239, March 16, 2011).

s
e
l

r
a
B

b. If the court pronounces a judgment of conviction, may James avail of

indeterminate sentence? If yes, impose the indeterminate penalty.

an

Ch

b
o
R

ANSWER: Yes. Under the Anti-Death Penalty Law, the penalty of death is reduced to
reclusion perpetua. Since James is a minor, the penalty is reduced to one degree lower.
(People v. Florencio Agacer, G.R. No. 177751, January 7, 2013 and People v. Asia Musa, et
al, G.R. No. 199735, October 24, 2012) In the computation of penalty, the reckoning point is
the penalty of reclusion perpetua and not the death penalty. (People v. Halil Gamboa, et al. ,
G.R. No. 172707, October 1, 2013)[1] One degree lower from reclusion perpetua is reclusion
temporal. The minimum of indeterminate sentence is anywhere from prison mayor which
is one degree lower from reclusion temporal. Since there is no attendant circumstance, the
maximum of indeterminate sentence is reclusion temporal in the medium period. (Cecilia
Legrama v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 178626, June 13, 2012)

an

b
o
R

s
e
l

r
a
B

Ch

e
l
b

r
a
B

11. Francis was convicted of sale of dangerous drugs under Section 5, R.A. 9165, the
penalty of which is life imprisonment to death. Francis is 16 years old at the time of
the commission of the offense. This is the first time that Francis committed the crime
involving violation of the Dangerous Drugs Law.

Ro

an

a. May Francis avail of probation?

Ch

s
e
l

r
a
B

ANSWER: Francis cannot avail the benefits of the probation law. Under the law, any person
convicted for drug trafficking or pushing, regardless of the penalty imposed, cannot avail of
the privilege granted by the Probation Law or P.D. No. 968. (See, Section 24, R.A. 9165. See
also Michael Padua v. People, G.R. No. 168546, July 23, 2008)

b
o
R

an

r
a
B

b. In the imposition of sentence, is the Indeterminate Sentence Law applicable? If yes,

impose the indeterminate sentence.

Ch

s
e
ANSWER: Yes. Under Section 98 of R.A. 9165, if the offender is a minor,
lthe penalty for acts
punishable by life imprisonment to death is reclusion perpetua to b
death. Considering that
o is reclusion perpetua.
there is no mitigating or aggravating circumstance, the penalty
R
Taking into consideration the privileged circumstance of n
minority, the penalty is lowered
to one degree which is reclusion temporal. The minimum
a of the indeterminate sentence is Bar
anywhere from prision mayor while the maximum
the indeterminate sentence is
s
Ch ofPadua
reclusion temporal in the medium period. (See, Michael
v. People, G.R. No. 168546,
e
l
July 23, 2008)
b
oappeared
12. Myrna was on her way home late in the afternoon when Jake suddenly
R
and dragged her into the grassy area. Jake thereafter inserted his finger
r
n into Myrnas
a
anus. Myrna resisted but Jake prevailed. Myrna is a ten-year oldachild while Jake is
B
an adult.
s
Ch
e
l
b
o
R
n
a
h
www.chanroblesbar.com : www.chanroblesbar.com.ph
C

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc.

a. May Jake be prosecuted for acts of lasciviousness under Section 5 (b) of R.A. 7610?
If not, what crime or crimes are committed, if any?

s
e
l

r
a
B

ANSWER: Yes. Jake may be prosecuted for acts of lasciviousness under Section 5 (b) of R.A.
7610 because he performed lascivious conduct on a child by inserting his finger in the
latters anus. Under the implementing Rules and Regulations of R.A. 7610, inserting a finger
or tongue into the vagina or anal orifice of a child constitutes acts of lasciviousness. The
lascivious conduct was performed by an adult on a child while the latter is under coercion.
(Salvador Flordeliz v. People, G.R. No. 186441, March 3, 2010 and v. Court of Appeals and
Gaspar Olayon, G.R. No. 171863, August 20, 2008)

an

b
o
R

r
a
B

sknowledge with Myrna under similar circumstance,

Ch b. Suppose Jake had a carnal
e
lrape under R.A. 7610? If not, what crime or crimes are
may he be held liable for
b
committed, if any? o
R
n
is liable for statutory rape under therRevised Penal Code. Under Section
ANSWER: No. Jake
a if the victim is less than 12 yearsBaold, the offender should be prosecuted
5 (b) of R.A. 7610,
h
(People v. Luis Aycardo, G.R. No. 168299,
under the
sG.R.
C Revised Penal Code for statutory rape.
e
No. 182521, February 9, 2011)
October 6, 2008 and People v. Ernesto Fragante,
l
bof his unlicensed .38 revolver while the latter
13. Manuel shot Auriel with the use
o
R thereof. The police officers arrested Manuel and
was asleep. Auriel died as a result
r
n
recovered the gun from him.
a What crime/s is/are committed,Bifaany?
h a crime of Murder qualifieds by treachery. The crime is
ANSWER: Manuel committed
C
e the latter was asleep and
qualified by treachery because Manuel shot Auriel l
while
completely defenseless. The crime is attended by thebspecial aggravating circumstance of
oof an unlicensed firearm is inherent in
use unlicensed firearm. Under the law, when the use
R
the commission of a crime, the same is aggravating. Manuel also committed a separate
ris now
nthe law, Illegal Possession of Firearm
crime of Illegal Possession of Firearm. Under
a
a
B
punished as a separate offense. (See, Section
28, R.A. 10591)
h
s
C
efield and killed
14. Wilbur abducted Sherry, a 3-year old child, brought her to the
l
b
her. Thereafter, Wilbur demanded ransom in the amount of P100,000.00
from the
o
Sherrys parents in exchange for the latters freedom. The parents of Sherry
R
complied and delivered the money to Wilbur but theyn
were not able to recover their
child. Is Wilbur liable for kidnapping for ransom? If
anot, what crime or crimes are Bar
committed, if any?
s
Ch
e
l in
ANSWER: Wilbur is not liable for kidnapping for ransom because the intention of Wilbur
b
abducting Sherry is not to deprive her of her liberty but to kill her. Demand for ransom
o did
not convert the crime into kidnapping because no detention or deprivationR
of liberty was
involved as Sherry was already dead when he demanded for ransom. n
r
a
a (People v. Estacio,
G.R. No. 171655, July 22, 2009).
B
s
Ch
e
l
b
o
R
n
a
h
www.chanroblesbar.com : www.chanroblesbar.com.ph
C

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc.

Wilbur committed the crime of Murder for killing Sherry. Treachery qualified the crime
because Sherry is not in the position to defend herself by reason of tender age.

s
e
l

r
a
B

Wilbur also committed the crime of Estafa under Art. 315 para. 2 (a) since he deceived
Sherrys parents by falsely representing himself to have the living body of Sherry and he
has the capacity to free her in exchange of the amount of P100,000.00. Sherrys parents
were induced to part with their money on the belief that they would recover back their
child. Wilbur, however, could no longer free Sherry since she is already dead.

b
o
R

r
a
a15.nRoger called Nida on the phone
and threatened to burn her car if the latter will
B
deliver the amount of fifty thousand pesos within a period of three days. Two
s
Ch not
days after the demand, Roger
ewas arrested without obtaining the money.
l
b Robbery? If not, what crime or crimes are committed,
a. Is Roger guilty of attempted
o
if any?
R
r
n
a
a
ANSWER: Roger is not guilty of Attempted Robbery
because the demand for money was not
B
h
immediate
or
on
the
spot
(U.S.
v.
Osorio,
21
Phil.
237).
In Attempted Robbery the offender
s personal
C
e
intended to immediately take the money or other
properties of another by means
l
of violence or intimidation but the offender
did
not
succeed
in taking the same by reason of
b
some cause or accident other thano
the spontaneous desistance. In the instant case, the
R because Roger gave Nida three days within which to
demand for money was not immediate
r
n
deliver the money.
a
a
Bno. 1 of the Revised Penal
h
Roger is, nonetheless,C
liable for Grave Threats under Art. 282
s
e for money. The crime of
Code since he threatened to burn the car of Nida and he l
demanded
b attaining his purpose and with
Grave Threats is consummated with or without the offender
o
or without demanding for money. (People v. Felicisima Basilan, G.R. No. L-66257, June 20,
R
1989)
r
n
a
a
B after the
b. In the above-stated problem, suppose
h Roger actually burned Nidassorcar
latter failed to deliver the moneyC
within the period stated, what crime
crimes are
e
committed, if any?
l
b
oand simple Arson. Roger
ANSWER: Roger committed two separate crimes of Grave Threats
R
is criminally liable for Grave Threats because he threatened
nto inflict harm on the property r
of Nida and he demanded for money. Roger is also liableafor Arson under P.D. 1613 Section a
B
hcomplex crime because two separate
1 no. 4 because he burned the car of Nida. There is no
s
C
criminal acts were committed on separate occasions. Moreover, the crime of Grave Threats
e
l
is not a necessary means to commit Arson and vice versa.
b
o
16. While April was walking on her way home, Rogelio suddenly pointed
a knife at
R
her and dragged the latter to a nearby vacant lot. Rogelio then n
April to
r
a
a ordered
undress herself and the latter complied out of fear. Rogelio then
forced his organ
B
into Aprils private organ. After satisfying his lustful desire, Rogelio
s
Ch pick up Aprils
e
l
b
o
R
n
a
h
www.chanroblesbar.com : www.chanroblesbar.com.ph
C

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc.

cellular phone from the ground and ran away with it. Is Rogelio liable for special
complex crime of Robbery with rape? If not, what crime/s is/are committed, if any?

s
e
l

r
a
B

ANSWER: Rogelio is not liable for special complex crime of Robbery with rape. In Robbery
with rape, the primary intention of the offender is to take the personal property of another
by means of intimidation and the rape was committed on occasion thereof. In the instant
case, the unlawful taking of Aprils personal property was not the original evil plan of the
accused but it was an afterthought following the rape.

b
o
R

r
n
aRogelio
committed the crime of rapea
because he had a carnal knowledge with April by
B
means of intimidation. Rogelio also committed the crime of theft because he took the
s
Ch cellular
phone of April without
e using force or intimidation. The crime is not robbery
helemployed on April was for the purpose of accomplishing his
because the intimidation b
for the purpose of taking her cellular phone. (People v. Rogelio
lustful desire and noto
Moreno, G.R. No. 140033,
R January 25, 2002)
r
n
a
a
Leo suddenly grabbed the same and
17. Lenny was using her cellular phone whenB
h
run away
with
it
using
his
motorcycle.
The
police
officer who saw the incident chased
sLeo bumped
C
e
Leo. While Leo was trying to evade arrest,
into the road gutter. Leos
l
motorcycle turned turtle and hit an old
woman.
The
old
woman
died instantly. Is Leo
b
liable for Robbery with homicide?o
If not, what crime/s is/are committed, if any?
R
rhomicide, homicide
n
ANSWER: Leo is not liable for
Robbery with homicide. In Robbery a
with
a
is committed by reason of
or on occasion of robbery. In the instant
is no robbery
B case, there
h
in the first place because
Leo
did
not
employ
violence
or
intimidation
in
taking
Lennys
s
C
e
cellular phone.
l
b
o grabbed the cellular phone of Lenny
Leo committed the crime of Theft when he suddenly
R
without emloying violence or intimidation upon her person. (People v. Cesar Conception,
rJune 5,
nBriones v. People, G.R. No. 156009,
G.R. No. 200922, July 18, 2012 and Rommel
a
a
B
2009).
h
s
C
e because an old
Leo also committed the crime of Reckless Imprudence resulting in Homicide
l
woman died as a result of his negligence and lack of precaution in b
driving his motorcycle.
o
The crime is not Homicide because he did not deliberately intended
to kill the old woman.
R
r
n
18. Mark is the manager of a vulcanizing shop. Heapocketed P200.00 which he is a
B
hMark falsified the shops logbook
supposed to remit to the shop. To avoid detection,
s
C
to make it appear that the vulcanizers attended to a lesser number of customers
e in
l
the shop. What crime or crimes are committed, if any?
b
o
ANSWER: Mark committed the crime of Qualified Theft because he took
the P200.00
R
belonging to his employer, with intent to gain, but without using violence
intimidation.
r
a
anoforconfidence.
The crime is qualified because the same was committed with grave abuse
As
B
hmoney. His employer
a manager of the vulcanizing shop, Mark was entrusted was with
s
C
reposed trust on him. Mark gravely abused such trust when he pocketed the money that he
e
l
b
o
R
n
a
h
www.chanroblesbar.com : www.chanroblesbar.com.ph
C

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc.

is supposed to remit to his employer. (People v. Teresita Puig, et al. , G.R. Nos. 173654-765,
August 28, 2008, People v. Bernard Mirto, G.R. No. 193479, October 19, 2011 and Anita
Miranda v. People, G.R. No. 176298, January 25, 2012)

s
e
l

r
a
B

Mark also committed the crime of Falsification of private document by a private individual
because he falsified the logbook by making untruthful statements therein. The crime of
falsification cannot be complexed with Qualified Theft because the falsification was not a
necessary means to commit estafa; rather, the falsification was intended to conceal the
Theft already committed. (Anna Patula v. People, G.R. No. 164457, April 11, 2012)

an

b
o
R

r
a
B

Bimbo and Carla are married. During the existence of said marriage, Bimbo
s thereafter lived together as husband and wife. Is
Ch 19.
married Weng. Bimbo and Weng
e
l for Concubinage at the same time?
Bimbo liable for Bigamyb
and
ANSWER: Yes, Bimbo
is liable for Bigamy because he entered marriage with Weng during
Ro
r liable for concubinage because
the existence of n
his marriage with Carla. Bimbo is likewise
a
a
he cohabited with Weng who is not his wife.BThese two are distinct offenses. The
hof the second marriage, while the sfirst still existing, characterizes the crime of
celebration
C
eby the husband with a woman who is not his
bigamy; on the other hand, mere cohabitation
l
wife characterizes the crime of concubinage.
first is an offense against civil status
b of theThestate;
which may be prosecuted at the instance
the second, is an offense against
o
R
chastity and may be prosecuted only at the instance of the offended party. (People v.
Rodolfo Schneckenburger, G.R.
anNo. L-48183, November 10, 1941)Bar
h
20. While on board
a ferry boat traversing Pasig River,
s Tantan took the cellular
C
e
phone of Helen, a co-passenger, with intent to gain and
without the latters consent.
l
b
Is X guilty of Piracy? If not, what crime/s is/are committed, if any?
o
R
ANSWER: Tantan is not guilty of Piracy under P.D. 532. Under P.D. 532, the taking of
r of
n passenger must be effected byameans
personal property of a passenger by a fellow
a
B is not
violence against or intimidation to persons
or by means of force upon things. Tantan
h
s
guilty of piracy under Art. 122 of the
Revised
Penal
Code
because
Tantan
is
passenger in
C
e
the vessel. The offender under Art. 122 of the Revised Penal Code must
l be an outsider
b
he must not be a member of its complement nor a passenger of the vessel.
o
R
Tantan committed the crime of Theft because he took the
cellular phone of Helen with
r
n
intent to gain without using force or intimidation.
a
a
B
s
Ch
e
l
b
o
R
See, the contrary Supreme Court ruling in the earlier cases of People v.
Alfredo Bon, G.R.
r
n
a
a182239, March 16,
No. 166401, October 30, 2006 and People v. Hermie Jacinto, G.R. No.
B
h 68 of the Revised
2011. In those cases, the Supreme Court held that: Under Article
s
C
Penal Code, when the offender is a minor under 18 years, the penalty next lower than
e
l
b
o
R
n
a
h
www.chanroblesbar.com : www.chanroblesbar.com.ph
C
[1]

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc.

that prescribed by law shall be imposed, but always in the proper period. However, for
purposes of determining the proper penalty because of the privileged mitigating
circumstance of minority, the penalty of death is still the penalty to be reckoned with.
Thus, the proper imposable penalty for the accused-appellant is reclusion perpetua.

an

b
o
R

s
e
l

Ch

an

r
a
B

b
o
R

s
e
l

r
a
B

Ch

e
l
b

r
a
B

Ro

an

Ch

s
e
l

r
a
B

b
o
R

an

Ch

s
e
l

r
a
B

b
o
R

an

Ch

s
e
l

r
a
B

b
o
R

an

Ch

s
e
l

Ch

b
o
R
n
a

www.chanroblesbar.com : www.chanroblesbar.com.ph

r
a
B