Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 86

University of Santo Tomas

Faculty of Civil Law

Criminal Law
Questions Asked
More Than Once
(QuAMTO 2016)

*QUAMTO is a compilation of past bar questions with answers as

suggested by UPLC and other distinct luminaries in the academe,
and updated by the UST Academics Committee to fit for the 2016
Bar Exams.

*Bar questions are arranged per topic and were selected based on
their occurrence on past bar examinations from 1990 to 2015.










BOOK 1 the height of their arguments, A left and took a bolo

(ARTICLES 1-99, RPC; EXCLUDE THE PROVISIONS ON from his house, after which he returned to the party
CIVIL LIABILITY) and threatened to stab everybody. B got scared and
ran towards the seashore, with A chasing him, B ran
FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES up a steep incline along the shore and was cornered
on top of a cliff. Out of fear, B jumped from the cliff
Q: What are the different schools of thought or into the sea, A returned to the scene of their
theories in Criminal Law and describe each briefly. confrontation and seeing that nobody was there,
To what theory does our Revised Penal Code belong? went home to sleep. The next day, Bs wife reported
(1996) to the police station that her husband had not yet
come home. A search was conducted by the
Q: Distinguish motive from intent. (2004, 1999, residents of the barangay but after almost two days,
1996) May crime be committed without criminal B or his body could not be located and his
intent? (1996) disappearance continued for the next few days.
Based on the testimony of C and other guests, who
A: Motive is the moving power that impels a person to had seen A and B on top of the cliff, A was arrested
act for a definite result. It is not considered as an and charged with Murder. In his defense, he claimed
element of the crime. It is essential only only when the that since B's body has not been found, there was no
identity of the offender is in doubt. On the otherhand, evidence of "corpus delicti' and therefore, he should
intent is the purpose for using a particular means to be acquitted. Is the defense of A tenable or not? State
achieve a desired result. It is an ingredient of dolo or the reason(s) for your answer. (2001)
malice, thus it is an element of deliberate felonies.
A: The defense of A is not tenable. "Corpus delicti" does
A crime may be committed without criminal intent in not refer to the body of the purported victim which had
the following instances: not been found. Even without the body of the purported
1. If such is a culpable felony; victim being found, the offender can be convicted when
2. In crimes which are mala prohibita in nature. the facts and circumstances of a crime, the body of the
crime or "corpus delicti" is established. In other words,
Q: When is motive relevant to prove a case? (When is the non-recovery of the body of the victim is not a bar to
it not necessary to be established? Explain. (2006, the prosecution of A for Murder, but the fact of death
1999) and identity of the victim must be established beyond
reasonable doubt.
A: Motive is relevant to a case when:
1. The identity of the offender is in doubt; DEFINITION OF CRIMINAL LAW
2. When the act committed gives rise to variant crimes
and there is a need to determine which crime should Mala in Se and Mala Prohibita
be properly imputed to the offender;
3. When the evidence is merely circumstantial; Q: Distinguish between crimes mala in se and crimes
4. When there are no eyewitnesses to the crime and mala prohibita. May an act be malum in se and be, at
where suspicion is likely to fall upon a number of the same time, malum prohibitum? (2005, 2003,
persons; 2001, 1999, 1997)
5. In ascertaining the truth between two antagonistic
theories or versions of the killing; and A:
6. When the act is alleged to be committed in defense BASIS MALA IN SE MALA PROHIBITA
of a stranger because it must not be induced by
revenge, resentment or other evil motive. Sufficient that the
There must be a
prohibited act was
Motive is not necessary to be established in the criminal intent
following instances: As to Wrong merely
1. When there is a witness positively identifying the Wrong from its
their because prohibited by
accused; very nature
concepts statute
2. In commission of crimes which are mala prohibita in Criminal intent Criminal intent is not
nature; and governs necessary
3. In crimes committed through reckless imprudence. Punished under Violations of special
the RPC laws
Q: Define "corpus delicti" What are the elements of Good faith or
"corpus delicti"? (2000) Good faith, lack
lack of criminal intent
of criminal
are not valid defenses;
A: Corpus delicti literally means the body or substance of intent or
it is enough that the
the crime or the fact that a crime has been committed, negligence are
prohibition was
but does not include the identity of the person who As to valid defenses
voluntarily violated
committed it. legal Criminal Criminal liability is
The elements of corpus delicti are: implicati liability is generally incurred
1. The existence of a certain act or result forming the incurred even only when the crime is
basis of the criminal charge; and when the crime consummated
2. The existence of a criminal agency as the cause of is attempted or
the act or result. frustrated
Penalty is The penalty of the
Q: At a birthday party in Bogo, Cebu, A got computed on offender is the same
intoxicated and started quarrelling with B and C. At

the basis of as they are all deemed


QuAMTO for CRIMINAL LAW (1991-2015)
whether he is a principals criminal liability is incurred only when the crime is
principal consummated. Actual injury is required.
offender, or
merely an b. Assuming that the attempted or frustrated stage
accomplice or of the violation charged is not punishable, may
accessory the accused be nevertheless convicted for an
Such circumstances offense punished by the Revised Penal Code
Mitigating and under the facts of the case? Explain.
are not appreciated
unless the special law
circumstances A: Yes, both are liable for attempted estafa thru
has adopted the
are appreciated falsification of commercial documents, a complex crime.
scheme or scale of
in imposing the They tried to defraud the Government with the use of
penalties under the
penalties false commercial and public documents. Damage is not
Yes, an act may be malum in se and malum prohibitum
at the same time. In People v. Sunico, et al, (CA 50 OG Construction of Penal Laws
5880) it was held that the omission or failure of election
inspectors and poll clerks to include a voter's name in Q: What is the fundamental principle in applying and
the registry list of voters is wrong perse because it interpreting criminal laws, including the
disenfranchises a voter of his right to vote. In this regard Indeterminate Sentence Law? (2012)
it is considered as malum in se. Since it is punished
under a speciallaw (Sec. 101 and 103, Revised Election A: The fundamental principle in interpreting and
Code), it is considered malum prohibitum. applying penal laws is the principle of pro reo. The
phrase in dubio pro reo means when in doubt, for the
Q: Mr. Carlos Gabisi, a customs guard, and Mr. Rico accused. (Intestate Estate of Gonzales v. People, G.R. No.
Yto, a private individual, went to the office of Mr. 181409, February 11, 2010). In dubio pro reo, is in
Diether Ocuarto, a customs broker, and represented consonance with the constitutional guarantee that the
themselves as agents of Moonglow Commercial accused ought to be presumed innocent until and unless
Trading, an Importer of children's clothes and toys. his guilt is established beyond reasonable doubt (People
Mr. Gabisi and Mr. Yto engaged Mr. Ocuarto to v. Temporada, G.R. No. 173473, December 17, 2008).
prepare and file with the Bureau of Customs the
necessary Import Entry and Internal Revenue Q: What is the Doctrine of Pro Reo? How does it
Declaration covering Moonglows shipment. Mr. relate to Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code?
Gabisi and Mr. Yto submitted to Mr. Ocuarto a (2010)
packing list, a commercial invoice, a bill of lading
and a Sworn Import Duty Declaration which A: The Doctrine of Pro Reo provides that whenever a
declared the shipment as children's toys, the taxes penal law is to be construed or applied and the law
and duties of which were computed at admits of two interpretations, one lenient to the
P60,000.00. Mr. Ocuarto filed the aforementioned offender and one strict to the offender, that
documents with the Manila International Container interpretation which is lenient or favorable to the
Port. However, before the shipment was released, a offender will be adopted.
spot check was conducted by Customs Senior
Agent James Bandido, who discovered that the Following this doctrine, crimes under Art. 48 of the RPC
contents of the van (shipment) were not children's are complexed and punished with a single penalty (that
toys as declared in the shipping documents but prescribed for the most serious crime and to be imposed
1,000 units of video cassette recorders with taxes in its maximum period). The rationale being, that the
and duties computed at P600,000.00. A hold order accused who commits two crimes with a single criminal
and warrant of seizure and detention were then impulse demonstrates lesser perversity than when the
issued by the District Collector of Customs. Further crimes are committed by different acts and several
investigation showed that Moonglow is non-existent. criminal resolutions (People v. Comadre, G.R. No. 153559,
Consequently, Mr. Gabisi and Mr. Yto were charged June 8, 2004). However, Art. 48 shall be applied only
with and convicted for violation of Section 3(e) of when it would bring about the imposition of a penalty
R.A. 3019 which makes it unlawful among others, for lesser than the penalties imposable for all the
public officers to cause any undue Injury to any component crimes if prosecuted separately.
party, including the Government, in the discharge
of official functions through manifest partiality, SCOPE OF APPLICATION AND CHARACTERISTICS OF
evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence. PHILIPPINE CRIMINAL LAW
In their motion for reconsideration, the accused
alleged that the decision was erroneous because the Generality
crime was not consummated but was only at an
attempted stage and that in fact the Government did Q; Ando, an Indonesian national who just visited the
not suffer any undue injury. (2000) Philippines, purchased a ticket for a passenger
vessel bound for Hong Kong. While on board the
a. Is the contention of both accused correct? vessel, he saw his mortal enemy Iason, also an
Explain. Indonesian national, seated at the back portion of
the cabin and who was busy reading a newspaper.
A: Yes, the contention of the accused that the crime was Ando stealthily approached Iason and when he was
not consummated is correct. R.A. 3019 is a special law near him, Ando stabbed and killed Iason. The vessel
punishing acts mala prohibita. As a rule, attempted is registered in Malaysia. The killing happened just a
violation of a special law is not punished because few moments after the vessel left the port of Manila.

*QUAMTO is a compilation of past bar questions with answers as suggested by UPLC and other distinct
luminaries in the academe, and updated by the UST Academics Committee to fit for the 2016 Bar Exams.

Operatives from the PNP Maritime Command seaman, stabbed to death Sio My, a Singaporean
arrested Ando. Presented for the killing of Iason, seaman, aboard M/V "Princess of the Pacific", an
Ando contended that he did not incur criminal overseas vessel which was sailing in the South China
liability because both he and the victim were Sea. The vessel, although Panamanian registered, is
Indonesians. He likewise argued that he could not be owned by Lucio Sy, a rich Filipino businessman.
prosecuted in Manila because the vessel is a When M/V "Princess of the Pacific" reached a
Malaysian-registered ship. Discuss the merits of Philippine Port at Cebu City, the Captain of the
Ando's contentions. (2015) vessel turned over the assailant Binoy to the
Philippine authorities. An information for homicide
A: Both contentions of Ando lack merit. The argument of was filed against Binoy in the Regional Trial Court of
Ando that he did not incur criminal liability because Cebu City. He moved to quash the information for
both he and the victim were Indonesians is not tenable. lack of jurisdiction. If you were the Judge, will you
Under the generality principle, penal laws shall be grant the motion? Why? (2000)
obligatory upon all who live or sojourn in the Philippine
territory (Article 14 of the Civil Code). The foreign A: Yes, the Motion to Quash the Information should be
characteristic of an offender and offended party does granted. The Philippine court has no jurisdiction over
not exclude him from operation of penal laws (People v. the crime committed since it was committed on the high
Galacgac, C.A., 54 O.G. 1027). Under the Revised Penal seas or outside of Philippine territory and on board a
Code, except as provided in treaties and laws of vessel not registered or licensed in the Philippines (US v.
preferential application, penal laws of the Philippines Fowler, 1 Phil 614). It is the registration of the vessel in
shall have force and effect within its territory. Here, accordance with the laws of the Philippines, not the
since the killing took place within the Philippine citizenship of her owner, which makes it a Philippine
territory, our penal laws applies and Ando may be held ship. The country of registry, not ownership, determines
criminally responsible despite his being and Indonesian its nationality. The vessel being registered in Panama,
citizen. the laws of Panama govern while it is in the high seas.

Likewise, the contention of Ando that he could not be Q: Hubert and Eunice were married in the
prosecuted in Manila because the vessel is a Malaysian- Philippines. Hubert took graduate studies in New
registered ship is without merit. Under the English Rule, York and met his former girlfriend Eula. They
which our jurisdiction recognizes and follows, crimes renewed their friendship and finally decided to get
committed aboard a vessel within the territorial waters married. The first wife, Eunice, heard about the
of a country are triable in the courts of such country marriage and secures a copy of the marriage
except when crimes merely affect things within the contract in New York. Eunice filed a case of Bigamy
vessel or when they only refer to the internal against Hubert in the Philippines. (2008, 1994)
management thereof. Here, since the crime was
committed within the Philippine waters and neither a. Will the case prosper?
exception applies, Ando may be prosecuted in Manila.
A: No, because the Philippine courts have no jurisdiction
ADDITIONAL ANSWER: over a crime committed outside of the Philippine
Under Section 27 of the Convention of the Law of The territory. Under the principle of territoriality, penal
Sea, the criminal jurisdiction of the coastal State should laws, specifically the RPC, are enforceable only within
not be exercised on board a foreign ship passing through the bounds of our territory (Art. 2, RPC).
the territorial sea to arrest any person or to conduct any
investigation in connection with any crime committed b. If Eunice gave her consent to the second
on board the ship during its passage except if the crime marriage, what will your answer be? Explain.
is of a kind to disturb the peace of the country or the
good order of the territorial sea. The vessel is still within A: The answer will be the same. The consent of Eunice
the territorial waters of the Philippines when the crime would not confer jurisdiction on Philippine courts.
was committed since the killing happened a few Moreover, bigamy is a public crime and not subject to
moments after the vessel left the port of Manila. Murder agreement between the victim and the accused.
committed by Ando disturbs the peace of the
Philippines; hence, he could be prosecuted in Manila. CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITATIONS ON THE POWER OF
Equal protection; Due process; Non-imposition of cruel
Q: Pierce is a French diplomat stationed in the and unusual punishment or excessive fines; Bill of
Philippines. While on EDSA and driving with an Attainder; Ex Post Facto Law
expired license, he hit a pedestrian who was
crossing illegally. The pedestrian died. Pierce was Q: What are the constitutional provisions limiting
charged with reckless imprudence resulting in the power of Congress to enact penal laws? (2012)
homicide. In his defense, he claimed diplomatic
immunity. Is Pierce correct? (2014) A: The constitutional provisions limiting the power of
A: Yes, Pierce is correct. Pierce, being a French diplomat Congress to enact penal laws are the following:
stationed in the Philippines, would be exempt from the 1. The law must not be an ex post facto law or it should
general application of our criminal laws, as provided for not be given a retroactive effect.
under laws or treaties of preferential application, more 2. The law must not be a bill of attainder, meaning it
particularly under R.A. 75. cannot provide punishment without judicial
Q: After drinking one (1) case of San Miguel beer and 3. The law must not impose cruel, unusual or
taking two plates of "pulutan", Binoy, a Filipino degrading punishment.


QuAMTO for CRIMINAL LAW (1991-2015)
4. No person shall be held to answer for a criminal In aberratio ictus, there is a mistake in blow whereby an
offense without due process of law. offender intending to cause an injury to one person
actually inflicts it on another because of lack of
Q: Distinguish between ex post facto law and bill of precision. Illustration: A, intending to kill B, fires his gun
attainder. (2015) at the latter but because of poor aim or lack of precision,
he hits C instead, who suffers serious physical injury.
A: Ex post facto law is any law which makes an innocent
act a crime after the act was committed. It is a Latin In error in personae, there is a mistake in the identity of
phrase which means from something done afterwards. the victim. The offender intends the injury on one
It could also be a law which aggravates a crime, or person but the harm fell on another. The intended victim
makes it greater than when it was committed, or which was not at the scene of the crime. Illustration: A
changes the punishment and inflicts a greater penalty intending to kill B, his enemy, lay in ambush for the
than the law governing the crime when committed. A bill latter to pass along a dark alley. Because of the darkness,
of attainder is a law which inflicts punishment on a A fired his gun at a person passing by, thinking him to be
named individual or a group of individuals without B. It turned out that the person shot was C, A's father.
judicial trial.
In praeter intentionem, the injurious result is greater
Ex post facto law pertains to the act while a bill of than that intended by the offender. Here, there is a
attainder pertains to a named individual or to members notable disparity between the means employed or the
of a group. act of the offender and the felony which resulted.
Illustration: A, without intent to kill, struck the victim on
Q: Congress passed a law reviving the Anti- the back, causing the victim to fall down and hit his head
Subversion Law, making it a criminal offense again on the pavement.
for a person to join the Communist Party of the
Philippines. Reporma, a former high-ranking Yes, the presence of these circumstances will alter the
member of the Communist Party, was charged under criminal liability of the accused. Thus:
the new law for his membership in the Communist 1. In aberratio ictus, two offenses are actually
Party when he was a student in the 80s. He now committed by the offender, that which he intended
challenges the charge against him. What objections to commit and that which he actually committed.
may he raise? (2014) But if these two offenses are both either grave or
less grave, since they are produced by one single act,
A: Reporma may raise the limitations imposed by the a complex crime will result upon which the penalty
1987 Constitution on the power of Congress to enact for the most serious crime shall be imposed in its
retroactive penal laws which are prejudicial to the maximum period;
accused. Under the Bill of Rights of the Constitution such 2. In the case of error in personae, the offender shall be
is classified as an ex post facto law. It should be noted guilty of the crime actually committed byhim, but
that when Congress decriminalized the crime of the penalty to be imposed shall either be the penalty
subversion, under R.A. 7637, it obliterated the felony for the crime actually committed or that for the
and its effects upon Reporma. Consequently charging crime intended to be committed whichever is lower,
him now under the new law for his previous but the same will be imposed in its maximum
membership in the Communist Party would be period;
constitutionality impermissible. 3. In praeter intentionem, the offender, will incur
criminal liability for the felony actually committed
FELONIES by him, but he will be entitled to the mitigating
circumstance of not having intended to commit so
Q: How are felonies committed? Explain each. grave a wrong as that which he committed under
(2015) Art. 13 [3] of the Revised Penal Code.

A: Felonies are committed not only by means of deceit Q: Maryjane had two suitors - Felipe and Cesar. She
(dolo) but also by means of fault (culpa). There is deceit did not openly show her preference but on two
when the act is performed with deliberate intent; and occasions, accepted Cesar's invitation to concerts by
there is fault when the wrongful act results from Regine and Pops. Felipe was a working student and
imprudence, negligence, lack of foresight, or lack of skill could only ask Mary to see a movie which was
(Article 3 of Revised Penal Code). declined. Felipe felt insulted and made plans to get
even with Cesar by scaring him off somehow. One
Aberratio Ictus; Error in Personae; Praeter Intentionem day, he entered Cesar's room in their boarding
(Article 4, par. 1) house and placed a rubber snake which appeared to
be real in Cesar's backpack. Because Cesar had a
Q: Explain and illustrate aberratio ictus. (2015, weak heart, he suffered a heart attack upon opening
1993) What do you understand by aberration ictus, his backpack and seeing the snake. Cesar died
error in personae, and praeter intentionem? Do they without regaining consciousness. The police
alter the criminal liability of an accused? Explain. investigation resulted in pinpointing Felipe as the
(1999, 1994, 1989) culprit and he was charged with Homicide for
Cesar's death. In his defense, Felipe claimed that he
A: Aberatio ictus, error in personae and praeter did not know about Cesar's weak heart and that he
intentionem are the three ways by which a person may only intended to play a practical joke on Cesar. Is
commit a felony although the wrongful act done is Felipe liable for the death of Cesar or will his
different from that which he intended. defense prosper? Why? (2005, 2001)

*QUAMTO is a compilation of past bar questions with answers as suggested by UPLC and other distinct
luminaries in the academe, and updated by the UST Academics Committee to fit for the 2016 Bar Exams.

A: Yes, Felipe is liable for the death of Cesar but he shall Fearing for his life, ZZ jumped out of the vehicle. But
be given the benefit of the mitigating circumstance that as he fell, his head hit the pavement, causing his
he did not intend to commit so grave a wrong as that instant death. Is XX liable for ZZ's death? Explain
which was committed (Art. 4[1] in relation to Art. 13[3], briefly. (2004, 2001, 1996)
RPC). When Felipe intruded into Cesars room without
the latter's consent and took liberty with the latter's A: Yes, XX is liable for ZZ's death because his acts of
backpack where he placed the rubber snake, Felipe was pulling out a grenade and announcing a hold-up, coupled
already committing a felony. And any act done by him with a demand for the watch, wallet and cellphone of ZZ
while committing a felony is no less wrongful, is felonious, and such felonious act was the proximate
considering that they were part of "plans to get even cause of ZZ's jumping out of the jeepney, resulting in the
with Cesar". Felipe's claim that he intended only "to play latter's death. Stated otherwise, the death of ZZ was the
a practical joke on Cesar" does not persuade, direct, natural and logical consequence of XX's felonious
considering that they are not friends but in fact rivals in act which created an immediate sense of danger in the
courting Maryjane. mind of ZZ who tried to avoid such danger by jumping
out of the jeepney (People v. Arpa, G.R. No. L-26789 April
Q: The conduct of wife A aroused the ire of her 25, 1969).
husband B. Incensed with anger almost beyond his
control, B could not help but inflict physical injuries Q: While the crew of a steamer prepared to raise
on A. Moments after B started hitting A with his fists, anchor at the Pasig River, A, evidently impatient
A suddenly complained of severe chest pains. B, with the progress of work, began to use abusive
realizing that A was indeed in serious trouble, language against the men. B, one of the members of
immediately brought her to the hospital. Despite the crew, remonstrated saying that they could work
efforts to alleviate A's pains, she died of heart attack. best if they were not insulted. A took B's attitude as a
It turned out that she had been suffering from a display of insubordination and, rising in a rage,
lingering heart ailment. What crime, if any, could B moved towards B wielding a big knife and
be held guilty of? (2003) threatening to stab B. At the instant when A was only
a few feet from B, the latter, apparently believing
A: B could be held liable for parricide because his act of himself to be in great and immediate peril, threw
hitting his wife with fist blows and therewith inflicting himself into the water, disappeared beneath the
physical injuries on her is felonious. A person surface, and drowned. May A be held criminally
committing a felonious act incurs criminal liability liable for the death of B? (1997)
although the wrongful consequence is different from
what he intended (Art. 4 [1], RPC). Although A died of A: Yes. A can be held criminally liable for the death of B.
heart attack, the said attack was generated by B's Art. 4 of the RPC provide in part that criminal liability
felonious act of hitting her with his fists. Such felonious shall be incurred by any person committing a felony
act was the immediate cause of the heart attack, having although the wrongful act did be different from that
materially contributed to and hastened A's death. Even which he intended. The facts involved in this case are
though B may have acted without intent to kill his wife, parallel to the case of U.S. v. Valdez, (G.R. No. L-16486,
lack of such intent is of no moment when the victim dies. March 22, 1921) whereby the victim who was
However, B may be given the mitigating circumstance of threatened by the accused with a knife, jumped into the
having acted without intention to commit so grave a river and drowned. In the foregoing case, the Supreme
wrong as that committed (Art. 13[3], RPC). Court held that if a person against whom a criminal
assault is directed who believes himself to be in danger
Q: At the height of an altercation, Pedrito shot Paulo of death or bodily harm and impelled by the instinct of
but missed, hitting Tiburcio instead, resulting in the self-preservation, jumps into the water and drowened,
death of the latter. Pedrito, invoking the doctrine of his assailant is responsible for homicide in case death
aberratio ictus, claims exemption from criminal results by drowning.
liability. If you were the judge, how would you
decide the case? (1996) Q: Vicente hacked Anacleto with a bolo but the latter
was able to parry it with his hand, causing upon him
A: If I were the Judge, I will convict Pedrito and find him a two-inch wound on his right palm. Vicente was not
guilty of the complex crime of Homicide with Attempted able to hack Anacleto further because three
Homicide. The single act of firing at Paulo resulted in the policemen arrived and threatened to shoot Vicente
commission of two felonies, one grave (homicide) and if he did not drop his bolo. Vicente was accordingly
the other less grave (attempted homicide) thus falling charged by the police at the prosecutor's office for
squarely under Art. 48, RPC; hence, the penalty would be attempted homicide. Twenty-five days later, while
for the more serious crime (homicide) in its maximum the preliminary investigation was in progress,
period (17 years 4 months and 1 day to 20 years). Anacleto was rushed to the hospital because of
Aberratio ictus (mistake in the blow) could not be used symptoms of tetanus infection on the two-inch
as a defense as it is not an exempting circumstance. wound inflicted by Vicente. Anacleto died the
Pedrito is liable under the principle of Art. 4, RPC, which following day. Can Vicente be eventually charged
makes a person criminally liable for all the natural and with homicide for the death of Anacleto? Explain.
logical consequences of his felonious act. (1996)
Proximate Cause A: Yes, Vicente may be charged of homicide for the death
of Anacleto, unless the tetanus infection which
Q: On his way home from office, ZZ rode in a jeepney. developed twenty five days later was brought about by
Subsequently, XX boarded the same jeepney. Upon an efficient supervening cause. Vicente's felonious act of
reaching a secluded spot in QC, XX pulled out a causing a two-inch wound on Anacleto's right palm may
grenade from his bag and announced a hold-up. He still be regarded as the proximate cause of the latter's
told ZZ to surrender his watch, wallet and cellphone. death because without such wound, no tetanus infection


QuAMTO for CRIMINAL LAW (1991-2015)
could develop from the victim's right palm, and without A: The crime committed by Enrique is kidnapping for
such tetanus infection the victim would not have died ransom. Even before the ransom note was received, the
with it. crime of kidnapping with serious illegal detention had
already been committed. The act cannot be considered
Q: Bhey eloped with Scott. Whereupon, Bhey's an impossible crime because there was no inherent
father, Robin, and brother, Rustom, went to Scotts improbability of its accomplishment or the employment
house. Upon reaching the house, Rustom inquired of inadequate or ineffectual means. The delivery of the
from Scott about his sister's whereabouts, while ransom note after the rescue of the victim did not
Robin shouted and threatened to kill Scott. The extinguish the offense, which had already been
latter then went downstairs but Rustom held his consummated when Enrique deprived Carla of her
(Scott's) waist. Meanwhile Olive, the elder sister of liberty. The sending of the ransom note would have had
Scott, carrying her two-month old child, approached the effect only of increasing the penalty to death under
Rustom and Scott to pacify them. Olive attempted to the last paragraph of Art. 267 (People v. Tan, G.R. No.
remove Rustom's hand from Scott's waist but 95322,March 1, 1993). Furthermore, kidnapping is a
Rustom pulled Olive's hand causing her to fall over crime against liberty while in impossible crime it is
her baby. The baby then died moments later. Is important that the accused committed an act that would
Rustom criminally liable for the death of the child? have been a crime against person or property.
The prosecutor cannot file a case of grave coercion
A: Yes, Rustom is criminally liable for the death of the instead, since as discussed above the crime committed
child because his felonious act was the proximate cause by Enrique is kidnapping for ransom.
of such death. It was Rustom's act of pulling Olive's hand
which caused the latter to fall on her baby. Had it not Q: A, B, C and D, all armed with armalites, proceeded
been for said act of Rustom, which is undoubtedly to the house of X. Y, a neighbor of X, who happened
felonious (at least slight coercion) there was no cause to be passing by, pointed to the four culprits the
for Olive to fall over her baby. In short, Rustom's room that X occupied. The four culprits peppered
felonious act is the cause of the evil caused. Any person the room with bullets. Unsatisfied, A even threw a
performing a felonious act is criminally liable for the hand grenade that totally destroyed X's room.
direct, natural and logical consequence thereof although However, unknown to the four culprits, X was not
different from what he intended. inside the room and nobody was hit or injured
during the Incident. Are A, B, C and D liable for any
IMPOSSIBLE CRIME crime? Explain. (2000)

Q: What is an impossible crime? (2015, 2000, 1993) A: Yes. A, B, C and D are liable for destructive arson
Is an impossible crime really a crime? (2000) because of the destruction of the room of X with the use
of an explosive, the hand grenade. Liability for an
A: An impossible crime is an act which would be an impossible crime is to be imposed only if the act
offense against persons or property, were it not for the committed would not constitute any other crime under
inherent impossibility of its accomplishment or on the RPC. Although the facts involved are parallel to the
account of the employment of inadequate or ineffectual case of Intod v. CA, (G.R. No. 103119, October 21, 1992),
means (Art, 4 (2), RPC). where it was ruled that the liability of the offender was
for an impossible crime, no hand grenade was used in
An impossible crime is really not a crime, nevertheless it said case, which constitutes a more serious crime
gives rise to criminal liability. Objectively, no felony is though different from what was intended.
being committed but the accused is punished for his
criminal perversity. Q: Puti deserted Pula, his roommate, because Pula
was courting Ganda, whom Puti fancied. One day,
Q: Can there be an impossible crime of adultery? Puti decided to teach Pula a lesson and went to a
(2015) veterinarian (Vet) to ask for poison on the pretext
that he was going to kill a sick pet, when actually
A: There is no impossible crime of adultery since this is a Puti was intending to poison Pula. The Vet instantly
crime against chastity, and not against person or gave Puti a non-toxic solution which when mixed
property as required by Art. 4(2) of the RPC. with Pulas food, did not kill Pula. (2014, 2009, 2004,
Q: Carla, 4 years old, was kidnapped by Enrique, the
tricycle driver paid by her parents to bring and fetch a. What crime, if any, did Puti commit?
her to and from school. Enrique wrote a ransom
note demanding P500,000.00 from Carla's parents A: Puti committed an impossible crime of murder. Puti
in exchange for Carla's freedom. Enrique sent the with intent to kill Pula unknowingly employed
ransom note by mail. However, before the ransom ineffectual means to accomplish the intended felony,
note was received by Carla's parents, Enrique's that is, using a non-toxic solution.
hideout was discovered by the police.
Carla was rescued while Enrique was arrested and b. Would your answer be the same if, as a result of
incarcerated. Considering that the ransom note was the mixture, Pula got an upset stomach and had
not received by Carla's parents, the investigating to be hospitalized for 10 days?
prosecutor merely filed a case of "Impossible Crime
to Commit Kidnapping" against Enrique. Is the A: No. If as a result of the mixture administered by Puti,
prosecutor correct? If he is not correct, can he Pula suffered an upset stomach and had to be
instead file a case of grave coercion? (2014, 2000) hospitatlized for 10 days, Puti shall be liable for less
serious physical injuries. The rule is, in impossible

*QUAMTO is a compilation of past bar questions with answers as suggested by UPLC and other distinct
luminaries in the academe, and updated by the UST Academics Committee to fit for the 2016 Bar Exams.

crime, the act performed should not constitute a

violation of another provision of the RPC. Q: In the jewelry section of a big department store,
Julia snatched a couple of bracelets and put these in
Q: JP, Aries and Randal planned to kill Elsa, a her purse. At the store's exit, however, she was
resident of Barangay Pula, Laurel, Batangas. They arrested by the guard after being radioed by the
asked the assistance of Ella, who is familiar with the store personnel who caught the act in the store's
place. On April 3, 1992, at about 10:00 in the moving camera. Is the crime consummated,
evening, JP, Aries and Randal, all armed with frustrated, or attempted? (1998)
automatic weapons, went to Barangay Pula. Ella,
being the guide, directed her companions to the A: The crime is consummated theft because the taking of
room in the house of Elsa. Whereupon, JP, Aries the bracelets was complete after Julia succeeded in
and Randal fired their guns at her room. putting them in her purse. Julia acquired complete
Fortunately, Elsa was not around as she attended a control of the bracelets after putting them in her purse;
prayer meeting that evening in another barangay in hence, the taking with intent to gain is complete and
Laurel. JP, et al, were charged and convicted of thus the crime is consummated.
attempted murder by the Regional Trial Court at
On appeal to the Court of Appeals, all the accused
ascribed to the trial court the sole error of finding Q: Define conspiracy. (2012)
them guilty of attempted murder. If you were the
ponente, how will you decide the appeal? (1994) A: Conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to
an agreement concerning the commission of a felony
A: If I were the ponente, I will set aside the judgment and decide to commit it.
convicting the accused of attempted murder and instead
find them guilty of impossible crime under Art. 4 par. 2, 4Q: Distinguish by way of illustration conspiracy as a
RPC, in relation to Art. 59, RPC. Liability for impossible felony from conspiracy as a manner of incurring
crime arises not only when the impossibility is legal, but liability in relation to the crimes of rebellion and
likewise when it is factual or physical impossibility, as in murder. (2012)
the case at bar. Elsas absence from the house is a
physical impossibility which renders the crime intended Conspiracy to commit rebellion if A and B conspired
inherently incapable of accomplishment. To convict the to overthrow the government, conspiracy is punishable.
accused of attempted murder would make Art. 4, par. 2 Conspiracy to commit rebellion is a felony. Rebellion if
practically useless as all circumstances which prevented they committed rebellion, they are equally liable for the
the consummation of the offense will be treated as an crime of rebellion. However, they will not be additionally
incident independent of the actor's will which is an charged with conspiracy to commit rebellion. Since they
element of attempted or frustrated felony (Intod v. CA, committed what they conspired, conspiracy will not be
G.R. No. 103119 October 21, 1992). considered as an independent felony but as a manner of
incurring criminal responsibility.
Conspiracy to commit homicide, not punishable if A
Q: Taking into account the nature and elements and B conspire to kill X, conspiracy is not punishable.
of the felonies of coup d etat and rape, may one be The law provides no penalty for conspiracy to be
criminally liable for frustrated coup d etat or commit homicide. Homicide if pursuant to conspiracy
frustrated rape? Explain. (2005) to commit homicide, A embraced X and then B
stabbed and killed X, the conspirators are equally
A: One cannot be criminally liable for frustrated coup d liable for homicide. Conspirators are equally liable for
etat or frustrated rape. homicide. Conspiracy in this case will be considered as a
In coup d etat, the mere attack directed against the duly manner of incurring liability.
constituted authorities of the Republic of the
Philippines, or any military camp or installation, Q: Ricky was reviewing for the bar exam when the
communication networks, public utilities or other commander of a vigilante group came to him and
facilities needed for the exercise and continued showed him a list of five policemen to be liquidated
possession of power would consummate the crime. The by them for graft and corruption. He was further
objective may not be to overthrow the government but asked if any of them is innocent. After going over the
only to destabilize or paralyze the government through list, Ricky pointed to two of the policemen as honest.
the seizure of facilities and utilities essential to the Later, the vigilante group liquidated the three other
continued possession and exercise of governmental policemen in the list. The commander of the
powers. vigilante group reported the liquidation to Ricky. Is
Ricky criminally liable? Explain. (2008)
The crime of rape could only be either attempted or
consummated. If the accused who placed himself on top A: No, Ricky is not criminally liable because he has not
of a woman, raising her skirt and unbuttoning his pants, done any overt act that the law punishes as a crime. He
whereby the endeavour to have sex is very apparent, is did not conspire with the vigilante group. Although his
guilty of Attempted rape. On the other hand, entry on act of pointing out two policemen as honest men may
the labia or lips of the female organ by the penis, imply his acquiescence to the vigilantes conclusion that
even without rupture of the hymen or laceration of the others were corrupt and deserve to be killed, mere
the vagina, consummates the crime of rape. Moreso, the acquiescence to a crime, absent any criminal
Court has long abandoned its stray decision in People participation, does not make one a co-conspirator.
v. Erina, 50 Phil 998 where the accused was found guilty

of frustrated rape.


QuAMTO for CRIMINAL LAW (1991-2015)
Q: A and B, both store janitors, planned to kill their was arrested earlier. Discuss the criminal liability of
employer C at midnight and take the money kept in Arturo, if any. (1998)
the cash register. A and B together drew the sketch
of the store, where they knew C would be sleeping, A: Arturo, being one of the two who devised the plan to
and planned the sequence of their attack. Shortly murder Joel, thereby becomes a co-principal by direct
before midnight, A and B were ready to carry out the conspiracy. What is needed only is an overt act and both
plan. When A was about to lift C's mosquito net to will incur criminal liability. Arturo's liability as a
thrust his dagger, a police car with sirens blaring conspirator arose from his participation in jointly
passed by. Scared, B ran out of the store and fled, devising the criminal plan with Juan, to kill Jose and it
while A went on to stab C to death, put the money in was pursuant to that conspiracy that Juan killed Joel.
the bag, and ran outside to look for B. The latter was The conspiracy here is actual,and express not by
nowhere in sight. Unknown to him, B had already inference only. The overt act was done pursuant to that
left the place. What was the participation and conspiracy whereof Arturo is co-conspirator. There
corresponding criminal liability of each, if any? being a conspiracy, the act of one is the act of all. Arturo,
Reasons. (2003) therefore, should be liable as a co-conspirator but the
penalty on him may be that of an accomplice only
A: Both A and B are liable for the composite crime of because he was not able to actually participate in the
robbery with homicide. There was an expressed shooting of Joel, having been apprehended before
conspiracy between them to kill C and take the latter's reaching the place where the crime was committed.
money. The planned killing and taking of the money
appears to be intimately related as component crimes, Q: A had a grudge against F. Deciding to kill F, A and
hence a special complex crime of robbery with homicide. his friends, B, C, and D, armed themselves with
The conspiracy being expressed, not just implied, A and knives and proceeded to the house of F, taking a
B are bound as co-conspirators after they have planned taxicab for the purpose. About 20 meters from their
and agreed on the sequence of their attack even before destination, the group alighted and after instructing
they committed the crime. Therefore, the principle in E, the driver, to wait, travelled on foot to the house
law that when there is a conspiracy, the act of one is the of F. B positioned himself at a distance as the group's
act of all, already governs them. In fact, A and B were lookout. C and D stood guard outside the house.
already in the store to carry out their criminal plan. Before A could enter the house, D left the scene
without the knowledge of the others. A stealthily
That B ran out of the store and fled upon hearing the entered the house and stabbed F. F ran to the street
sirens of the police car, is not spontaneous desistance but was blocked by C, forcing him to flee towards
but flight to evade apprehension. It would be different if another direction. Immediately after A had stabbed
B then tried to stop A from continuing with the F, A also stabbed G who was visiting F. Thereafter, A
commission of the crime; he did not. So the act of A in exiled from the house and, together with B and C,
pursuing the commission of the crime which both he and returned to the waiting taxicab and motored away. G
B designed, planned, and commenced to commit, would died. F survived. Who are liable for the death of G
also be the act of B because of their expressed and the physical injuries of F? (1997)
A: A alone should be held liable for the death of G. The
Q: What is the doctrine of implied conspiracy and object of the conspiracy of A, B, C, and D was to kill F
give its legal effects. (2003, 1998) only. Since B, C, and D did not know of the stabbing of G
by A, they cannot be held criminally therefor. E, the
A: An implied conspiracy is one which is inferred or driver, cannot be also held liable for the death of G since
deduced from the mode and manner in which the the former was completely unaware of said killing. For
offense is committed. It can be inferred when the the physical injuries of F, A, B and C should be held liable
persons who committed the crime acted in concert therefore. Even if it was only A who actually stabbed
simultaneously, indicative of meeting of the minds and caused physical injuries to G, B and C are
towards common goal or objective. nonetheless liable for conspiring with A and for
contributing positive acts which led to the realization of
The legal effects of an implied conspiracy are the a common criminal intent. B positioned himself as a
following: lookout, while C blocked Fs escape. D, however,
1. Only those who participated by criminal acts in the although part of the conspiracy, cannot be held liable
commission of the crime will be considered as co- because he left the scene before A could enter the house
conspirators; and where the stabbing occurred. Although he was earlier
2. Mere acquiescence to or approval of the commission part of the conspiracy, he did not personally participate
of the crime or mere presence at the scene without in the execution of the crime by acts which directly
any act of criminal participation, shall not render tended toward the same end (People v. Tamayo, 44 Phil.
one criminally liable as co-conspirator (Bahilidad v. 38). In the same breath, E, the driver, cannot be also held
People, G. R. No 185195, 2010) liable for the infliction of physical injuries upon F
because there is no showing that he had knowledge of
Q: Juan and Arturo devised a plan to murder Joel. In the plan to kill F.
a narrow alley near Joel's house, Juan will hide
behind the big lamppost and shoot Joel when the Q: At about 9:30 in the evening, while Dino and Raffy
latter passes through on his way to work. Arturo will were walking along Padre Faura Street, Manila.
come from the other end of the alley and Johnny hit them with a rock injuring Dino at the
simultaneously shoot Joel from behind. On the back. Raffy approached Dino, but suddenly, Bobby,
appointed day, Arturo was apprehended by the Steve, Danny and Nonoy surrounded the duo. Then
authorities before reaching the alley. When Juan Bobby stabbed Dino. Steve, Danny, Nonoy and
shot Joel as planned, he was unaware that Arturo Johnny kept on hitting Dino and Raffy with rocks. As

*QUAMTO is a compilation of past bar questions with answers as suggested by UPLC and other distinct
luminaries in the academe, and updated by the UST Academics Committee to fit for the 2016 Bar Exams.

a result, Dino died, Bobby, Steve, Danny, Nonoy and conspiracy and treachery? Explain.
Johnny were charged with homicide. (1994)
A: If they have to be criminally liable at all, each will be
a. Is there conspiracy in this case? responsible for their individual acts as there appears to
be no conspiracy because the acts of the three were
A: Yes, there is conspiracy among the offenders, as spontaneous and a reflex response to Yabangs shooting
manifested by their concerted actions against the of Sergio. There was no concerted act that will lead to a
victims, demonstrating a common felonious purpose of common purpose. Treachery cannot likewise be
assaulting the victims. The existence of the conspiracy appreciated as there was no conscious adoption of
can be inferred or deduced from the manner the means, methods or form to facilitate the commission of
offenders acted in commonly attacking Dino and Raffy the felony.
with rocks, thereby demonstrating a unity of criminal
design to inflict harm on their victims. d. Is Yabang criminally liable for the death of
Sergio? (1992)
b. Can the court appreciate the aggravating
circumstances of nighttime and band? A: Yabang is liable for Homicide for the killing of Sergio
as the attack was frontal. The fact that Sergio is a
A: No, nighttime cannot be appreciated as an suspected killer does not justify Yabangs act of killing
aggravating circumstance because there is no indication him (People v. Oanis, G.R. No. L-47722, 1943).
that the offenders deliberately sought the cover of
darkness to facilitate the commission of the crime or ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
that they took advantage of nighttime. Besides, judicial Yabang is liable for Murder because of the qualifying
notice can be taken of the fact that Padre Faura Street is circumstance of abuse of superior strength, in terms of
well-lighted. However, band should be considered as the the weapon being used.
crime was committed by more than three armed
malefactors; in a recent Supreme Court decision, stones MULTIPLE OFFENDERS
or rocks are considered deadly weapons.
Recidivism; Habituality (Reiteracion); Quasi- Recidivism;
Q: As a result of a misunderstanding during a Habitual Delinquency
meeting, Joe was mauled by Nestor, Jolan, Reden and
Arthur. He ran towards his house but the four Q: Who is a habitual delinquent? Distinguish
chased and caught him. Thereafter, they tied Joes habitual delinquency from recidivism as to the
hands at his back and attacked him. Nestor used a crimes committed, the period of time the crimes are
knife; Jolan, a shovel; Arthur, his fists; and Reden, a committed, the number of crimes committed and
piece of wood. After killing Joe, Reden ordered the their effects in relation to the penalty to be imposed
digging of a grave to bury Joes lifeless body. on a convict. (2012)
Thereafter, the four (4) left together. Convicted for
the killing of Joe, Arthur now claims that his A: A person shall be deemed to be habitual delinquent, if
conviction is erroneous as it was not he who within a period of ten years from the date of his release
inflicted the fatal blow. Would you sustain his claim? or last conviction of the crimes of serious or less serious
Why? What was the crime committed by the four as- physical injuries, robo, hurto estafa or falsification, he is
sailants? Discuss with reasons. (1993) found guilty of any of said crimes a third time or oftener
(Art. 62, RPC).
A: No. Arthurs claim is without merit. The offenders
acted in conspiracy in killing the victim and hence, liable The following are the differences between recidivism
collectively. The act of one is the act of all. The existence and habitual delinquency:
of a conspiracy among the offenders can be clearly
deduced or inferred from the manner they committed RECIDIVISM HABITUAL
the killing, demonstrating a common criminal purpose DELINQUENCY
and intent. There being a conspiracy, the individual acts First crime and First, second and
of each participant is not considered because their the aggravated third crimes
liability is collective. second crime must be a
are embraced habitual
The crime committed is murder, qualified by treachery in the same delinquency
because the offenders, taking advantage of their superi- Nature of Title of the crime, that is,
ority in number, rendered the victim defenseless and crime RPC. serious or less
without any chance to retaliate, by tying his hands at his serious physical
back before attacking him. injuries, theft,
robbery, estafa
Q: As Sergio, Yoyong, Zoilo and Warlilo engaged in a or falsification of
drinking spree at Heartthrob Disco, Special Police document.
Officer 3 (SPO 3) Manolo Yabang suddenly Accused was The accused was
approached them, aimed his revolver at Sergio convicted of convicted of first
whom he recognized as a wanted killer and fatally the first crime habitual
shot the latter. Whereupon, Yoyong, Zoilo and by final delinquency
Warlito ganged up on Yabang. Warlito, using his own Time element judgment at crime; within ten
pistol, shot and wounded Yabang. (1992) the time of the years after
trial of the conviction or
c. What are the criminal liabilities of Yoyong, Zoilo second crime. release, he was
and Warlito for the injury to Yabang? Was there found guilty or


QuAMTO for CRIMINAL LAW (1991-2015)
habitual- Q: Juan de Castro already had three (3) previous
delinquency convictions by final judgment for theft when he was
crime for the found guilty of Robbery with Homicide. In the last
second time; case, the trial Judge considered against the accused
within 10 years both recidivism and habitual delinquency. The
after conviction accused appealed and contended that in his last
or release, he conviction, the trial court cannot consider against
was found guilty him a finding of recidivism and, again, of habitual
of habitual- delinquency. Is the appeal meritorious? Explain.
delinquency (2001)
crime for the
third time or A: No, the appeal is not meritorious. Recidivism and
oftener. habitual delinquency are correctly considered in this
At least two At least three case because the basis of recidivism is different from
Number of that of habitual delinquency. Juan is a recidivist
crimes crimes
crimes because he had been previously convicted by final
committed committed
Ordinary Extraordinary or judgment for theft and again found guilty for Robbery
aggravating special with Homicide, which are both crimes against property,
circumstance aggravating embraced under the same Title (Title Ten, Book Two)
the presence of circumstance, of the Revised Penal Code. The implication is that he
any of which the presence of is specializing in the commission of crimes against
will trigger the which will property, hence, aggravating in the conviction for
application of trigger the Robbery with Homicide. Habitual delinquency, which
Nature of the the penalty for imposition of brings about an additional penalty when an offender is
aggravating the second additional convicted a third time or more for specified crimes, is
circumstance crime penalty for the correctly considered.
committed in third or
its maximum subsequent Q: Distinguish between recidivism and quasi
period unless crime. recidivism. (1998)
it is off-set by a
circumstance subject of the off- It is enough that a final Felony was committed
set rule. judgment has been after having been
rendered in the first convicted by final
Q: During trial for theft in 2014, the prosecution offense judgment of an offense,
managed to show that accused AA has also been before beginning to serve
convicted by final judgment for robbery in 2003, but sentence or while serving
she eluded capture. A subsequent verification the same
showed that AA had several convictions, to wit: Requires that the First and subsequent
1. In 1998, she was convicted of estafa; offenses be included in conviction may or may
2. In 2002, she was convicted of theft; the same Title of the not be embraced by the
3. In 2004, she was convicted of frustrated Code same title of the RPC
homicide; It increases the penalty Shall be punished by the
to its maximum period maximum period of the
The judge trying the theft case in 2014 is about to penalty prescribed by law
convict AA. What circumstances affecting the for the new felony
liability or penalty may the judge appreciate against Felonies under RPC First crime for which the
AA? (2014) only offender is serving
sentence need not be a
A: The judge may appreciate the aggravating crime under the RPC but
circumstance of recidivism. A recidivist is one who, at the second crime must be
the time of his trial for one crime, shall have been one under the RPC
previously convicted by final judgment of another crime A generic aggravating Special aggravating
embraced in the same title of the RPC. Robbery, theft, circumstance circumstance which may
estafa are crimes against property embraced in Title Ten be offset by special
of the RPC. The judge may also appreciate the privileged mitigating
aggravating circumstance of habituality or reiteracion, circumstances not by
because there have been two or more crimes committed ordinary mitigating
for which she has been published, regardless of the circumstances
degree of penalty.

Q: Amado, convicted of rape but granted an absolute

pardon by the President, and one year thereafter,
convicted of homicide, is a recidivist. (2009) CONTINUING CRIMES

A: True, rape is now a crime against persons and like the Q: What is delito continuado? (2009) Differentiate
crime of homicide, is embraced in the same Title of the delito continuado from a continuing offense. (2009,
RPC under which Amado had been previously convicted 1994)
by final judgment.

*QUAMTO is a compilation of past bar questions with answers as suggested by UPLC and other distinct
luminaries in the academe, and updated by the UST Academics Committee to fit for the 2016 Bar Exams.

A: Delito continuado refers to a crime constituted by indivisible offense being punished in one provision of
several overt acts committed by the offender in one the Revised Penal Code.
place, at about the same time, and all such overt acts
violate one and the same provision of penal law, thus As to penalties:
demonstrating that all such acts are the product of a In ordinary complex crime, the penalty for the most
single indivisible criminal resolution. Hence, all said acts serious crime shall be imposed in its maximum period.
are considered as one crime only. (People vs, Ledesma, In special complex crime, only one penalty is specifically
G.R. No. L-41522, September 29, 1976). On the other prescribed for all the component crimes which are
hand, a continuing offense is one whose essential regarded as one indivisible offense. The component
elements took place in more than one municipality or crimes are not regarded as distinct crimes and so the
city, so much so that the criminal prosecution may be penalty for the most serious crime is not the penalty to
instituted and the case tried in the competent court of be imposed nor in its maximum period. It is the penalty
any one of such municipality or city. specifically provided for the special complex crime that
shall be applied according to the rules on imposition of
The term continued crime" or delito continuado the penalty.
mandates that only one information should be filed
against the offender although a series of felonious acts Q: Distinguish clearly but briefly between compound
were performed; the term continuing crime" is more and complex crime as concepts in the Penal Code.
pertinently used with reference to the venue where the (2004)
criminal action may be instituted.
A: Compound crimes result when the offender
Q: Angelo devised a Ponzi Scheme in which 500 committed only a single felonious act from which two or
persons were deceived into investing their money more crimes resulted. This is provided for in modified
upon a promise of a capital return of 25%, computed form in the first part of Article 48, Revised Penal Code,
monthly, and guaranteed by post-dated checks. limiting the resulting crimes to only grave and/or less
During the first two months following the grave felonies. Hence, light felonies are excluded even
investment, the investors received their profits, but though resulting from the same single act.
thereafter, Angelo vanished. Angelo was charged On the other hand, complex crimes result when the
with 500 counts of estafa and 2,000 counts of offender has to commit an offense as a necessary means
violation of Batas Pambansa (BP) 22. In his motion for committing another offense. Only one information
to quash, Angelo contends that he committed a shall be filed and if proven, the penalty for the more
continued crime, or delito continuado, hence, he serious crime shall be imposed
committed only one count of estafa and one count of
violation of BP 22. What is delito continuado? Is Q: Jason Ivler was involved in a vehicular collision
Angelos contention tenable? Explain. (2009) resulting to the injuries of Evangeline Ponce and the
death of her husband. He was charged of two
A: No, his contention is not tenable. He committed as offenses: (1) Reckless Imprudence Resulting in
many counts of estafa against the 500 victims and 2000 Slight Physical Injuries; and (2) Reckless
counts violation of B.P. 22, since each swindling is Imprudence Resulting in Homicide and Damage to
achieved through distinct fraudulent machinations Property. Can Ivler be convicted with the two
contrived at different times or dates, and in different offenses? (2013)
amounts. Moreover, his drawing separate checks
payable to each payee is a separate criminal resolution, A: No. Reckless imprudence is a single crime, its
as they must be of different amounts and of different consequences on persons and property are material
dates. He acted with separate fraudulent intent against only to determine the penalty. Reckless imprudence
each swindling victim and had distinct criminal intent in under Art. 365 is a single quasi-offense by itself and not
drawing and issuing each check. It cannot be maintained merely a means of committing other crimes such that
that his acts are the product of one criminal resolution conviction or acquittal of such quasi-offense bars
only. subsequent prosecution for the same quasi-offense,
regardless of its various resulting acts (Ivler vs. San
COMPLEX CRIMES AND Pedro, G.R. No. 172716, November 17, 2010).
SPECIAL COMPLEX CRIMES Q: Can there be a complex crime of coup d etat with
rebellion? Can there be a complex crime of coup d
Q: Distinguish clearly but briefly: Between ordinary etat with sedition? (2003)
complex crime, special complex crime, continuous
crime as concepts in the Penal Code. What are the A: There can be a complex crime of coup dtat with
penalties thereof. (2005, 2004, 2003, 1999) rebellion if there was conspiracy between the
offender/offenders committing the rebellion. By
A: As to concept: conspiracy, the crime of one would be the crime of the
An ordinary complex crime is made up of two or more other and vice versa. This is possible because the
crimes being punished in distinct provisions of the offender in coup dtat may be any person or persons
Revised Penal Code but alleged in one Information belonging to the military or the national police or a
either because they were brought about by a single public officer, whereas rebellion does not so require.
felonious act or because one offense is a necessary Moreover, the crime of coup dtat may be committed
means for committing the other offense or offenses. singly, whereas rebellion requires a public uprising and
They are alleged in one Information so that only one taking up arms to overthrow the duly constituted
penalty shall be imposed. A special complex crime, on government. Since the two crimes are essentially
the other hand, is made up of two or more crimes which different and punished with distinct penalties, there is
are considered only as components of a single no legal impediment to the application of Art. 48 of the



QuAMTO for CRIMINAL LAW (1991-2015)
A: No, AA's defense will not prosper. The act of the
Coup d'tat can be complexed with sedition because the victim's son, ST, appears to be a legitimate defense
two crimes are essentially different and distinctly of relatives; hence, justified as a defense of his father
punished under the Revised Penal Code. Sedition may against the unlawful aggression by BB and CC. STs
not be directed against the government or be non- act to defend his father's life and to stop BB and CC
political in objective, whereas coup d'tat is always achieve their criminal objective cannot be regarded as
political in objective as it is directed against the an evil inasmuch as it is, in the eyes of the law, a lawful
government and led by persons or public officer holding act. What AA did was a lawful defense, not greater evil.
public office belonging to the military or national police. Likewise, AAs defense will not prosper because in this
Art. 48 of the Code may apply under the conditions case there was a conspiracy among the three of them,
therein provided. hence, the act of one is the act of all.

Q: A, actuated by malice and with the use of a Q: Pat. Negre saw Filemon, an inmate, escaping from
fully automatic M-14 sub-machine gun, shot a jail and ordered the latter to surrender. Instead of
group of persons who were seated in a cockpit with doing so, Filemon attacked Pat. Negre with a bamboo
one burst of successive, continuous, automatic fire. spear. Filemon missed in his first attempt to hit Pat.
Four (4) persons were killed thereby, each having Negre, and before he could strike again, Pat. Negre
hit by different bullets coming from the sub-machine shot and killed him. (1993)
gun of A. Four (4) cases of murder were filed against
A. The trial court ruled that there was only one a. Can Pat. Negre claim self defense? Explain.
crime committed by A for the reason that, since A
performed only one act, he having pressed the A: Yes, self-defense can be claimed as there is an
trigger of his gun only once, the crime imminent and great peril on the life of Negre.
committed was murder. Consequently, the trial
judge sentenced A to just one penalty of reclusion b. Suppose Pat Negre missed in his shot, and
perpetua. Was the decision of the trial judge Filemon ran away without parting with his
correct? Explain. (1999) weapon. Pat Negre pursued Filemon but the
latter was running so fast that Pat Negre fired
A: The decision of the trial judge is not correct. When the warning shots into the air shouting for Filemon
offender made use of an automatic firearm, the acts to stop. In as much as Filemon continued
committed are determined by the number of bullets running Pat. Negre fired at him hitting and
discharged inasmuch as the firearm being automatic, the killing him. Is the plea of self-defense
offender need only press the trigger once and it would sustainable? Why would you then hold Pat.
fire continually. For each death caused by a distinct and Negre criminally liable? Discuss.
separate bullet, the accused incurs distinct criminal
liability. Hence, it is not the act of pressing the trigger A: No, self-defense is no longer sustainable as there is no
which should be considered as producing the several more peril on his life.
felonies, but the number of bullets which actually
produced them. Q: While Carlos was approaching his car, he saw it
being driven away by Paolo, a thief. Carlos tried to
CIRCUMSTANCES AFFECTING CRIMINAL LIABILITY stop Paolo by shouting at him, but Paolo ignored
him. To prevent his car from being carnapped,
JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES Carlos drew his gun, aimed at the rear wheel of the
car and fired. The shot blew the tire which caused
Q: Distinguish clearly but briefly: Between justifying the car to veer out of control and collide with an
and exempting circumstances in criminal law. oncoming tricycle, killing the tricycle driver. (2008)
(2004, 1998)
a. What is the criminal liability of Carlos, if any?
A: Justifying circumstance affects the act, not the actor; Explain.
while exempting circumstance affects the actor, not the
act. In justifying circumstance, no criminal and, A: Carlos did not incur criminal liability because his act
generally, no civil liability is incurred; while in of firing at the rear wheel of the car to stop the vehicle
exempting circumstance, civil liability is generally and prevent Paolo from taking away his (Carlos) car is
incurred although there is no criminal liability neither done with dolo nor culpa. The act does not
constitute a crime; it is a reasonable exercise of his right
Self-Defense (Defense of Person, Rights, Property and to prevent or repel an actual unlawful physical invasion
Honor) or usurpation of his property pursuant to Art. 429 of the
Civil Code.
Q: BB and CC, both armed with knives, attacked FT.
The victim's son, ST, upon seeing the attack, drew b. What is the criminal liability of Paolo, if any?
his gun but was prevented from shooting the Explain.
attackers by AA, who grappled with him for
possession of the gun. FT died from knife wounds. A: Paolo is criminally liable for (1) carnapping under
AA, BB and CC were charged with murder. In his R.A. No. 6539 for driving away the motor vehicle of
defense, AA invoked the justifying circumstance of Carlos against the latters will and obviously with intent
avoidance of greater evil or injury, contending that to gain and (2) for homicide for the death of the tricycle
by preventing ST from shooting BB and CC, he driver which resulted from the criminal act deliberately
merely avoided a greater evil. Will AA's defense being committed by Paolo (which is the carnapping).
prosper? Reason briefly. (2004) The homicide was the result of praetor intentionem and

*QUAMTO is a compilation of past bar questions with answers as suggested by UPLC and other distinct
luminaries in the academe, and updated by the UST Academics Committee to fit for the 2016 Bar Exams.

not a component of the crime of carnapping or a result consummated; moreover, B already ran away, hence,
of reckless impurdence or of simple negligence. there was no aggression to defend against and no
defense to speak of. Defense of honor as included in self-
Q: The accused lived with his family in a defense, must have been done to prevent or repel an
neighborhood that often was the scene of frequent unlawful aggression. There is no defense to speak of
robberies. At one time, past midnight, the accused where the unlawful aggression no longer exists. A may,
went downstairs with a loaded gun to investigate however, invoke the benefit of the mitigating
what he thought were footsteps of an uninvited circumstance of having acted in immediate vindication
guest. After seeing what appeared to him an armed of a grave offense to a descendant, his daughter, under
stranger looking around and out to rob the house, he par. 5, Art. 13 of the RPC.
fired his gun seriously injuring the man. When the
lights were turned on, the unfortunate victim turned Defense of Stranger
out to be a brother-in-law on his way to the kitchen
to get some light snacks. The accused was indicted Q: A chanced upon three men who were attacking B
for serious physical injuries. Should the accused, with fist blows. C, one of the men, was about to stab
given the circumstances, be convicted or acquitted? B with a knife. Not knowing that B was actually the
Why? (2003, 1996) aggressor because he had earlier challenged the
three men to a fight, A shot C as the latter was about
A: The accused should be convicted because, even to stab B. May A invoke the defense of a stranger as a
assuming the facts to be true in his belief, his act of justifying circumstance in his favor? Why? (2002)
shooting a burglar when there is no unlawful
aggression on his person is not justified. Defense of A: Yes. A may invoke the justifying circumstance of
property or property right does not justify the act of defense of stranger since he was not involved in the fight
firing a gun at a burglar unless the life and limb of the and he shot C when the latter was about to stab B. There
accused is already in imminent and immediate danger. being no indication that A was induced by revenge,
Although the accused acted out of a misapprehension of resentment or any other evil motive in shooting C, his
the facts, he is not absolved from criminal liability. act is justified under par. 3, Art. 11 of the RPC.

A: Osang, a married woman in her early twenties, Fulfillment of Duty

was sleeping on a banig on the floor of their nipa hut
beside the seashore when she was awakened by the Q: Lucresia, a store owner, was robbed of her
act of a man mounting her. Thinking that it was her bracelet in her home. The following day, at about 5
husband, Gardo, who had returned from fishing in oclock in the afternoon, a neighbor, 22-year old Jun-
the sea, Osang continued her sleep but allowed the Jun, who had an unsavory reputation, came to her
man, who was actually their neighbor, Julio, to have store to buy bottles of beer. Lucresia noticed her
sexual intercourse with her. After Julio satisfied bracelet wound around the right arm of Jun-Jun. As
himself, he said Salamat Osang" as he turned to soon as the latter left, Lucresia went to a nearby
leave. Only then did Osang realize that the man was police station and sought the help of a policeman on
not her husband. Enraged, Osang grabbed a balisong duty, Pat. Willie Reyes. He went with Lucresia to the
from the wall and stabbed Julio to death. When tried house of Jun-Jun to confront the latter. Pat. Reyes
for homicide, Osang claimed defense of honor. introduced himself as a policeman and tried to get
Should the claim be sustained? Why? (2000, 1998) hold of Jun-Jun who resisted and ran away. Pat.
Reyes chased him and fired two warning shots in the
A: No, Osang's claim of defense of honor should not be air. Jun-Jun continued to run and when he was about
sustained because the aggression on her honor had 7 meters away, Pat. Reyes shot him in the right leg.
ceased when she stabbed the aggressor. In defense of Jun-Jun was hit and he fell down but he crawled
rights under Art. 11(1) of the RPC, it is required inter towards a fence, intending to pass through an
alia that there be (1) unlawful aggression, and (2) opening underneath. When Pat. Reyes was about 5
reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent meters away, he fired another shot at Jun-Jun hitting
or repel it. The unlawful aggression must be continuing him at the right lower hip. Pat. Reyes brought Jun-
when the aggressor was injured or disabled by the Jun to the hospital, but because of profuse bleeding,
person making a defense. Otherwise, the attack made is he eventually died. Pat. Reyes was subsequently
a retaliation and not a defense. Hence, Osang's act of charged with homicide. During the trial, Pat. Reyes
stabbing Julio to death after the sexual intercourse was raised the defense, by way of exoneration, that he
finished, is not defense of honor but an immediate acted in the fulfilment of a duty. Is the defense
vindication of a grave offense committed against her, tenable? Explain. (2000)
which is only mitigating.
A: No, the defense of Pat. Reyes is not tenable. The
Defense of Relatives defense of having acted in the fulfillment of a duty
requires as a condition, inter alia, that the injury or
Q: When A arrived home, he found B raping his offense committed be the unavoidable or necessary
daughter. Upon seeing A, B ran away. A took his gun consequence of the due performance of the duty. It is not
and shot B, killing him. Charged with homicide, A enough that the accused acted in fulfilment of a duty.
claimed he acted in defense of his daughter's honor. After Jun-Jun was shot in the right leg and was already
Is A correct? If not, can A claim the benefit of any crawling, there was no need for Pat. Reyes to shoot him
mitigating circumstance or circumstances? (2002, further. Clearly, Pat. Reyes acted beyond the call of duty
2000, 1998) which brought about the cause of death of the victim.

A: No, A cannot validly invoke defense of his daughter's Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act

honor in having killed B since the rape was already of 2004 (R.A. No. 9262); Battered Woman Syndrome


QuAMTO for CRIMINAL LAW (1991-2015)
emotional distress arising from cumulative abuse or
Q: Define "Battered Woman Syndrome." What are battery. Under Section 26 of RA 9262, victim survivors
the three phases of the "Battered Woman of Battered Woman Syndrome do not incur any criminal
Syndrome"? Would the defense prosper despite the or civil liability despite the absence of the requisites of
absence of any of the elements for justifying self-defense.
circumstances of self-defense under the Revised
Penal Code? Explain. (2010) Q: Ms. A had been married to Mr. B for 10 years.
Since their marriage, Mr. B had been jobless and a
A: Battered Woman Syndrome refers to a scientifically drunkard, preferring to stay with his "barkadas"
define pattern of psychological and behavioural until the wee hours of the morning. Ms. A was the
symptoms found in woman living in battering breadwinner and attended to the needs of their
relationships as a result of cumulative abuse (Sec. 3[d], three (3) growing children. Many times, when Mr. B
R.A. 9262). was drunk, he would beat Ms. A and their three (3)
children, and shout invectives against them. In fact,
The three (3) phases of the BWS are: (1) tension- in one of the beating incidents, Ms. A suffered a deep
building phase; (2) acute battering incident; and (3) stab wound on her tummy that required a prolonged
tranquil, loving, or non-violent phase (People v. Genosa, stay in the hospital. Due to the beatings and verbal
G.R. No. 135981, January 15, 2004). abuses committed against her, she consulted a
psychologist several times, as she was slowly
Yes, the defense will prosper. Sec. 26 of R.A. 9262 beginning to lose her mind. One night, when Mr. B
provides that victim-survivors who are found by the arrived dead drunk, he suddenly stabbed Ms. A
courts to be suffering from battered woman syndrome several times while shouting invectives against her.
do not incur any criminal and civil liability Defending herself from the attack, Ms. A grappled
notwithstanding the absence of any of the elements of for the possession of a knife and she succeeded. She
justifying circumstances of self-defense under the RPC. then stabbed Mr. B several times which caused his
instantaneous death. Medico-Legal Report showed
Q: Dion and Talia were spouses. Dion always came that the husband suffered three (3) stab wounds.
home drunk since he lost his job a couple of months Can Ms. A validly put up a defense? Explain. (2014,
ago. Talia had gotten used to the verbal abuse from 2010)
Dion. One night, in addition to the usual verbal
abuse, Dion beat up Talia. The next morning, Dion A: Yes, Ms. A can put up the defense of battered woman
saw the injury that he had inflicted upon Talia and syndrome. It appears that she is suffering from physical
promised her that he would stop drinking and never and psychological or emotional distress resulting from
beat her again. However, Dion did not make good on cumulative abuse by her husband. Under Sec. 3 of R.A.
his promise. Just after one week, he started drinking 9262, victim survivors who are found by courts to be
again. Talia once more endured the usual verbal suffering from battered woman syndrome do not incur
abuse. Afraid that he might beat her up again, Talia any criminal and civil liability notwithstanding the
stabbed Dion with a kitchen knife while he was absence of any of the elements for justifying
passed out from imbibing too much alcohol. Talia circumstances of self defense under the RPC.
was charged with the crime of parricide. (2015)
a. May Talia invoke the defense of Battered Ms. A may validly put up the justifying circumstance of
Woman Syndrome to free herself from criminal self-defense, all requisites thereof being present,
liability? Explain. namely:
1. Unlawful aggression which is a condition sine qua
A: No, a single act of battery or physical harm committed non. Here, Mr. B arrived that night dead drunk and
by Dion against Talia resulting to the physical and he suddenly stabbed Ms. A several times while
psychological or emotional distress on her part is not shouting invectives. This is unlawful aggression that
sufficient to avail of the benefit of the justifying is sudden and imminent and places Ms. As life in
circumstance of Battered Woman Syndrome. The peril.
defense of Battered Woman Syndrome can be invoked if 2. Reasonable necessity of the means employed to
the woman with marital relationship with the victim is prevent or repel it. The sudden and imminent armed
subjected to cumulative abuse or battery involving the attack by Mr. B gave no other option to Ms. A but to
infliction of physical harm resulting to the physical and attempt to disarm Mr. B of his knife and to use the
psychological or emotional distress. Cumulative means same to protect and save herself.
resulting from successive addition. In sum, there must 3. Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the
be at least two battering episodes between the accused person defending himself. The circumstances
and her intimate partner and such final episode obtaining is very clear on this regard, Mr. B arrived
produced in the battered persons mind an actual fear of one night dead drunk, he suddenly stabbed Ms. A
an imminent harm from her batterer and an honest several times while shouting invectives. There is
belief that she needed to use force in order to save her absolutely no circumstances mentioned in the
life (People v. Genosa, G.R. No. 135981, January 15, 2004). problem to indicate provocation on the part of the
person defending herself.
b. Will your answer be the same, assuming that EXEMPTING CIRCUMSTANCES
Talia killed Dion after being beaten up after a
second time? Explain. Insanity

A: Yes, Talia can invoke the defense of Battered Woman Q: While his wife was on a 2-year scholarship
Syndrome to free herself from criminal liability for abroad, Romeo was having an affair with his maid

killing her husband since she suffered physical and Dulcinea. Realizing that the affair was going

*QUAMTO is a compilation of past bar questions with answers as suggested by UPLC and other distinct
luminaries in the academe, and updated by the UST Academics Committee to fit for the 2016 Bar Exams.

nowhere, Dulcinea told Romeo that she was going degrees than that prescribed for the crime
back to the province to marry her childhood committed shall be imposed in accordance with Art.
sweetheart. Clouded by anger and jealousy, Romeo 68(1) of RPC. The sentence however, should
strangled Dulcinea to death while she was sleeping automatically be suspended in accordance with Sec.
in the maids quarters. 5(a) of R.A. No. 8369 (Family Courts Act of 1997);
3. Likewise if found criminally liable, the ordinary
The following day, Romeo was found catatonic mitigating circumstance of not intending to commit
inside the maids quarters. He was brought to the so grave a wrong as that committed under Art.
National Center for Mental Health (NCMH) where he 13(3) of the RPC may apply;
was diagnosed to be mentally unstable. Charged 4. The ordinary mitigating circumstance of sufficient
with murder, Romeo pleaded insanity as a defense. provocation on the part of the offended party
(2010) immediately preceded the act.

a. Will Romeos defense prosper? Explain. MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES

A: No, Romeos defense of insanity will not prosper. Q: What is a privileged mitigating circumstance?
Insanity as a defense to the commission of a crime must Distinguish a privileged mitigating circumstance
have existed and proven to have been existing at the from an ordinary mitigating circumstance as to
precise moment when the crime was being committed. reduction of penalty and offsetting against
The facts of the case indicate that Romeo committed the aggravating circumstance/s. (2012)
crime with discernment and was only diagnosed to be
mentally unstable after the crime was committed. A: Privileged mitigating circumstances are those that
mitigate the criminal liability of the accused by
b. What is the effect of the diagnosis of the NCMH graduating the imposable penalty for the crime being
on the case? modified to one or two degrees lower. These
circumstances cannot be offset by aggravating
A: The effect of the diagnosis made by NCMH is possibly circumstance. The circumstance of incomplete
a suspension of the proceeding against Romeo and his justification or exemption (when majority of the
commitment to appropriate institution for treatment conditions are present), and the circumstance of
until he could already understand the proceedings. minority (if the child above 15 years of age acted with
discernment) are privileged mitigating circumstance.
The distinctions between ordinary and privileged
Q: While they were standing in line awaiting mitigating circumstances are as follows:
their vaccination at the school clinic, Pomping a. Under the rules for application of divisible penalties
repeatedly pulled the ponytail of Katreena, his 11 (RPC, Art. 64), the presence of a mitigating
years, 2 months and 13 days old classmate in Grade circumstance, if not off-set by aggravating
5 at the Sampaloc Elementary School. Irritated, circumstance, has the effect of applying the divisible
Katreena turned around and swung at Pomping with penalty in its minimum period. Under the rules on
a ball pen. The top of the ball pen hit the right eye graduation of penalty (RPC, Art. 68, 69), the
of Pomping which bled profusely. Realizing what presence of privileged mitigating circumstance has
she had caused, Katreena immediately helped the effect of reducing the penalty one to two degrees
Pomping. When investigated, she freely admitted lower;
to the school principal that she was responsible b. Ordinary mitigating circumstances can be off-set by
for the injury to Pomping's eye. After the incident, aggravating circumstances. Privileged mitigating
she executed a statement admitting her culpability. circumstances are not subject to the off-set rule.
Due to the injury, Pomping lost his right eye. (2000,
1998) Surrender and Confession of Guilt

a. Is Katreena criminally liable? Why? Q: When is surrender by an accused considered

voluntary, and constitutive of the mitigating
A: No, Katreena is not criminally liable due to her circumstance of voluntary surrender? (1999)
minority. She is exempted from criminal liability for
being a minor less than fifteen (15) years old although A: A surrender by an offender is considered voluntary
over nine (9) years of age. Nonetheless is she civilly when it is spontaneous, indicative of an intent to submit
liable. unconditionally to the authorities.
To be mitigating, the surrender must be:
b. Discuss the attendant circumstances and effects a. spontaneous, i.e., indicative of acknowledgment of
thereof. guilt and not for convenience nor conditional;
b. made before the government incurs expenses, time
A: The attendant circumstances which may be and effort in tracking down the offender's
considered are: whereabouts; and
1. Minority of the accused as an exempting c. made to a person in authority or the letter's agents.
circumstance under Art. 12(3) of RPC, where she
shall be exempt from criminal liability, unless it was Q: In order that the plea of guilty may be mitigating,
proved that she acted with discernment. She is what requisites must be complied with? (1999)
however civilly liable;
2. If found criminally liable, the minority of the A: For plea of guilty to be mitigating, the requisites are:
accused is a privileged mitigating circumstance. A 1. That the accused spontaneously pleaded guilty to

discretionary penalty lower by at least two (2) the crime charged;


QuAMTO for CRIMINAL LAW (1991-2015)
2. That such plea was made before the court voluntarily went with the policemen who had gone to
competent to try the case and render judgment; and his hiding place to investigate, was held to be
3. That such plea was made prior to the presentation mitigating circumstance (People v. Dayrit, cited in Reyes'
of evidence for the prosecution. Commentaries, p. 299).

Q: An accused charged with the crime of homicide Q: Upon learning that the police wanted him for the
pleaded "not guilty" during the preliminary killing of Polistico. Jeprox decided to visit the police
investigation before the Municipal Court. Upon the station to make inquiries. On his way, he met a
elevation of the case to the Regional Trial Court, the policeman who immediately served upon him the
court of competent jurisdiction, he pleaded guilty warrant for his arrest. During the trial, in the course
freely and voluntarily upon arraignment. Can his of the presentation of the prosecutions evidence,
plea of guilty before the RTC be considered Jeprox withdrew his plea of not guilty and entered a
spontaneous and thus entitle him to the plea of guilty. Can he invoke the mitigating
mitigating circumstance of spontaneous plea of circumstances of voluntary surrender and plea of
guilty under Art. 13(7), RPC? (1999) guilty? Explain. (1992)

A: Yes, his plea of guilty before the Regional Trial Court A: Jeprox is not entitled to the mitigating circumstance
can be considered spontaneous, for which he is entitled of voluntary surrender as his going to the police station
to the mitigating circumstance of plea of guilty. His plea was only for the purpose of verification of the news that
of not guilty before the Municipal Court is immaterial as he is wanted by the authorities. In order to be
it was made during preliminary investigation only and mitigating, surrender must be spontaneous and that he
before a court not competent to render judgment. acknowledges his guilt. He can neither invoked plea of
guilty as a mitigating circumstance in this case. Art.
Q: After killing the victim, the accused absconded. 13(7) of the Revised Penal Code explicitlty provides that
He succeeded in eluding the police until he surfaced confession of guilt must be done before the prosecution
and surrendered to the authorities about two years had started to present evidence.
later. Charged with murder, he pleaded not guilty
but, after the prosecution had presented two AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES
witnesses implicating him to the crime, he changed
his plea to that of guilty. Should the mitigating Q: Name the four (4) kinds of aggravating
circumstances of voluntary surrender and plea of circumstances and state their effect on the penalty
guilty be considered in favor of the accused? (1997) of crimes and nature thereof. Distinguish generic
aggravating circumstance from qualifying
A: Voluntary surrender may not be appreciated in favor aggravating circumstance. (1999)
of the accused. Two years is too long a time to consider
the surrender as spontaneous (People v. Ablao, G.R. No. A: The four (4) kinds of aggravating circumstances are:
69184, March 26, 1990). For sure the government 1. Generic aggravating or those that can generally
had already incurred considerable efforts and apply to all crimes, and can be offset by mitigating
expenses in looking for the accused. Plea of guilty can no circumstances, but if not offset, would affect only
longer be appreciated as a mitigating circumstance the maximum of the penalty prescribed by law;
because the prosecution had already started with the 2. Specific aggravating or those that apply only to
presentation of its evidence (Art. 13[7], RPC). particular crimes and cannot be offset by mitigating
Q: Hilario, upon seeing his son engaged in a scuffle 3. Qualifying circumstances or those that change the
with Rene, stabbed and killed the latter. After the nature of the crime to a graver one, or brings about
stabbing, he brought his son home. The Chief of a penalty next higher in degree, and cannot be offset
Police of the town, accompanied by several by mitigating circumstances;
policemen, went to Hilario's house, Hilario, upon 4. Inherent aggravating or those that essentially
seeing the approaching policemen, went with them accompany the commission of the crime and do not
to the Police Station to be investigated in connection affect the penalty whatsoever.
with the killing. When eventually charged with
and convicted of homicide, Hilario, on appeal, The distinctions between generic aggravating
faulted the trial court for not appreciating in his circumstances and qualifying aggravating circumstances
favor the mitigating circumstance of voluntary are as follows:
surrender. Is he entitled to such a mitigating Generic aggravating circumstances:
circumstance? Explain. (1996) a. affects the nature of the crime or brings about a
penalty higher in degree than that ordinarily
A: Yes, Hilario is entitled to the mitigating circumstance prescribed;
of voluntary surrender. The crux of the issue is whether b. can be offset by ordinary mitigating circumstances;
the fact that Hilario went home after the incident, but c. need not be alleged in the Information as long as
came down and met the police officers and went with proven during the trial;
them is considered "voluntary surrender." The d. the same shall be considered in imposing the
voluntariness of surrender is tested if the same is sentence.
spontaneous showing the intent of the accused to Qualifying circumstances:
submit himself unconditionally to the authorities. This a. affects the nature of the crime or brings about a
must be either (a) because he acknowledges his guilt, or penalty higher in degree than that ordinarily
(b) because he wishes to save them the trouble and prescribed;
expenses necessarily incurred in his search and capture b. cannot be offset by mitigating circumstances;
(Reyes' Commentaries, p. 303). Thus, the act of the c. must be alleged in the Information and proven

accused in hiding after commission of the crime, but during trial.

*QUAMTO is a compilation of past bar questions with answers as suggested by UPLC and other distinct
luminaries in the academe, and updated by the UST Academics Committee to fit for the 2016 Bar Exams.

Later in the night, he resolved to kill victim. He rose

Generic from bed and took hold of a knife. He entered the
apartment of the victim through an unlocked
Q: Wenceslao and Loretta were staying in the same window. Inside, he saw the victim soundly asleep. He
boarding house, occupying different rooms. One late thereupon stabbed the victim, inflicting several
evening, when everyone in the house was asleep, wounds, which caused his death within a few hours.
Wenceslao entered Lorettas room with the use of a Would you say that the killing was attended by
picklock. Then, with force and violence, Wenceslao the qualifying or aggravating circumstances of
ravished Loretta. After he had satisfied his lust, evident premeditation, treachery, nighttime and
Wenceslao stabbed Loretta to death and, before unlawful entry? (1997)
leaving the room, took her jewelry. Discuss the
applicability of the relevant aggravating A:
circumstances of dwelling, nocturnity and the use of 1. Evident premeditation cannot be considered against
the picklock to enter the room of the victim. (2009) the accused because he resolved to kill the victim
"later in the night" and there was no sufficient lapse
A: of time between the determination and execution, to
1. Dwelling is an aggravating circumstance because allow his conscience to overcome the resolution of
the crimes were committed in Lorettas room which his will.
in law is considered as her dwelling. It is well settled 2. Treachery may be present because the accused
that dwelling includes a room in a boarding house stabbed the victim while the latter was sound
being occupied by the offended party where she asleep. Accordingly, he employed means and
enjoys privacy, peace of mind and sanctity of an methods which directly and specially insured the
abode. execution of the act without risk himself arising
2. Nocturnity or nighttime is also aggravating because from the defense which the victim might have made.
although it was not purposely or especially sought 3. Nighttime cannot be appreciated because there is no
for by Wenceslao, nighttime was obviously taken showing that the accused deliberately sought or
advantaged of by him in committing the other availed of nighttime to insure the success of his act.
crimes. Under the objective test, noctunity is The Intention to commit the crime was conceived
aggravating when taken advantage of by the shortly before its commission. Moreover, nighttime
offender during the commission of the crime thus is absorbed in treachery.
facilitating the same. 4. Unlawful Entry may be appreciated as an
3. The use of a picklock to enter the room of the victim aggravating circumstance, inasmuch as the accused
is not an aggravating circumstance under Art. 14 of entered the room of the victim through the window,
the Code but punished as a crime by itself where the which is not the proper place for entrance into the
offender has no lawful cause for possessing it. The house.
use of picklocks is equivalent to force upon things in
robbery with force upon things. Q: Jose, Domingo, Manolo, and Fernando, armed
with bolos, at about one o'clock in the morning,
Q: Rico, a member of the Alpha Rho fraternity, was robbed a house at a desolate place where Danilo, his
killed by Pocholo, a member of the rival group, wife, and three daughters were living. While the four
Sigma Phi Omega. Pocholo was prosecuted for were in the process of ransacking Danilo's house,
homicide before the Regional Trial Court in Binan, Fernando, noticing that one of Danilo's daughters
Laguna. During the trial, the prosecution was able to was trying to get away, ran after her and finally
prove that the killing was committed by means of caught up with her in a thicket somewhat distant
poison in consideration of a promise or reward and from the house. Fernando, before bringing back the
with cruelty. If you were the Judge, with what crime daughter to the house, raped her first. Thereafter,
will you convict Pocholo? Explain. (2000) the four carted away the belongings of Danilo and
his family.
A: Pocholo should be convicted of the crime of homicide
only because the aggravating circumstances which a. What aggravating circumstances may be
should qualify the crime to murder were not alleged in appreciated against the four? Explain. (1996)
the Information. The circumstances of using poison, in
consideration of a promise or reward, and cruelty which A: The aggravating circumstances which may be
attended the killing of Rico could only be appreciated as considered in the premises are:
generic aggravating circumstances since none of them 1. Band because all the four offenders are armed;
have been alleged in the information to qualify the 2. Nocturnity because evidently the offenders took
killing to murder. A qualifying circumstance must be advantage of night time;
alleged in the Information and proven beyond 3. Dwelling; and
reasonable doubt during the trial to be appreciated as 4. Uninhabited Place because the house where the
such. crimes were committed was "at a desolate place"
and obviously the offenders took advantage of this
Q: The accused and the victim occupied adjacent circumstance in committing the crime.
apartments, each being a separate dwelling unit of
one big house. The accused suspected his wife of b. What crime did Jose, Domingo, Manolo and
having an illicit relation with the victim. One Fernando commit? Explain.
afternoon, he saw the victim and his wife together
on board a vehicle. In the evening of that day, the A: Jose, Domingo, and Manolo committed Robbery,
accused went to bed early and tried to sleep, but while Fernando committed complex crime of Robbery
being so annoyed over the suspected relation with Rape, Conspiracy can be inferred from the manner

between his wife and the victim, he could not sleep. the offenders committed the robbery but the rape was


QuAMTO for CRIMINAL LAW (1991-2015)
committed by Fernando at a place "distant from the because all of them were present when X was
house" where the robbery was committed, not in the shot (Art. 62(4), RPC). X was sleeping when shot
presence of the other conspirators. Hence, Fernando to death.
alone should answer for the rape, rendering him liable
for the special complex crime. Q: In an information for Murder against A. B, and C,
the prosecution alleges Treachery as the qualifying
c. Suppose, after the robbery, the four took turns circumstance and the following generic aggravating
in raping the three daughters of Danilo inside circumstances: (1) nocturnity, (2) abuse of superior
the latter's house, but before they left, they strength, and (3) employing means to weaken the
killed the whole family to prevent identification, defense. At the trial, the prosecution, without
what crime did the four commit? Explain. objection from the de oficio counsel for the accused,
proved evident premeditation. It likewise success-
A: The crime would be Robbery with Homicide because fully proved the qualifying and the generic
the killings were by reason (to prevent identification) aggravating circumstances alleged in the
and on the occasion of the robbery. information.

Q: Ben, a widower, driven by bestial desire, poked a For the purpose of determining the appropriate
gun on his daughter Zeny, forcibly undressed her penalty to be imposed upon the accused, may the
and tied her legs to the bed. He also burned her face court take into account evident premeditation and
with a lighted cigarette. Like a madman, he laughed the other generic aggravating circumstances?
while raping her. What aggravating circumstances (1991)
are present in this case? (1994)
A: Yes, as far as evident premeditation is concerned, but
A: The aggaravating circumstances in this case are: only as a generic aggravating circumstance. Since
1. Cruelty, for burning the victim's face with a lighted treachery absorbs nocturnity, abuse of superior
cigarette, thereby deliberately augmenting the strength and employing means to weaken the defense,
victim's suffering by acts clearly unnecessary to the they can no longer be considered as additional
rape, while the offender delighted and enjoyed circumstances.
seeing the victim suffer in pain (People v. Lucas, G.R.
No. 80102, January 22, 1990); Qualifying
2. Relationship, because the offended party is a
descendant (daughter) of the offender and Q: When would qualifying circumstances be deemed,
considering that the crime is one against chastity. if at all, elements of a crime? (2003)

Q: B, who is blind in one eye, conspired with M, a A: A qualifying circumstance would be deemed an
sixteen year old boy, with C, who had been element of a crime when:
previously convicted of Serious Physical Injuries, 1. It changes the nature of the crime, bringing about a
and with R, whose sister was raped by X a day more serious crime and a heavier penalty;
before, to kill the latter. B, C and R were armed with 2. It is essential to the crime involved, otherwise some
.38 caliber revolvers, while M carried no weapon other crime is committed; and
and acted only as a look out. They proceeded to the 3. It is specifically alleged in the Information and
house of X riding in a motorized tricycle. Thereupon, proven during the trial.
C, on instruction of B to give X no chance, shot X who
was then sleeping. Indicted for Homicide, as the ALTERNATIVE CIRCUMSTANCES
information alleges no qualifying circumstance.
Specify the mitigating and aggravating Q: A was invited to a drinking spree by friends. After
circumstances present, and explain in whose favor, having had a drink too many, A and B had a heated
and against whom, must they be considered. (1993) argument, during which A stabbed B. As a result, B
suffered serious physical injuries. May the
A: intoxication of A be considered aggravating or
1. Mitigating circumstances: mitigating? (2002)
a. B is entitled to the mitigating circumstance
under Art. 13(8); A: The intoxication of A may be prima facie considered
b. M is entitled to the privileged mitigating mitigating since it was merely incidental to the
circumstances of minority under Art. 68 of the commission of the crime. It may not be considered
RPC; aggravating as there is no clear indication from the facts
c. Vindication of a grave offense in favor of R of the case that it was habitual or intentional on the part
because his sister was raped by X a day before of A. Aggravating circumstances are not to be presumed;
the shooting, and even if there was an interval they should be proved beyond reasonable doubt.
of one (1) day between the rape and the killing.
2. Aggravating circumstances: ABSOLUTORY CAUSE
a. The aggravating circumstance of recidivism Art.
14(9) should be considered against C if alleged Instigation
in the Information (People v. Peter Cadevida, G.R.
No. L-94528, March 1. 1993). Q: Distinguish Entrapment from Instigation. (2003,
b. The aggravating circumstance of motor vehicle 1995)
under Art. 14(20) of the Code, all the accused
having used a motorized tricycle; A: As to intent:
c. Treachery should be aggravating against all of In Entrapment, the criminal design originates from and

the accused including M who acted as a lookout is already in the mind of the lawbreaker even before

*QUAMTO is a compilation of past bar questions with answers as suggested by UPLC and other distinct
luminaries in the academe, and updated by the UST Academics Committee to fit for the 2016 Bar Exams.

entrapment while in Instigation, the idea and design to Q: Suspecting that Juan was a drug pusher, SPO2
bring about the commission of the crime originated and Mercado, leader of the Narcom team, gave Juan a
developed in the mind of the law enforcers; Pl00-bill and asked him to buy some marijuana
cigarettes. Desirous of pleasing SPO2 Mercado, Juan
As to the means and ways: went inside the shopping mall while the officer
In Entrapment, the law enforcers resorts to ways and waited at the corner of the mall. After fifteen
means for the purpose of capturing the lawbreaker in minutes, Juan returned with ten sticks of marijuana
flagrante delicto while in Instigation, the law enforcers cigarettes which he gave to SPO2 Mercado who
induce, lure, or incite a person who is not minded to thereupon placed Juan under arrest and charged
commit a crime and would not otherwise commit it, into him with violation of The Dangerous Drugs Law by
committing the crime; selling marijuana cigarettes. Is Juan guilty of any
offense punishable under The Dangerous Drugs
As to criminal liability: Act? Discuss fully. (1995)
Entrapment is no bar to prosecution and conviction of
the lawbreaker while Instigation absolves the accused A: Juan cannot be charged of any offense punishable
from criminal liability (People v. Dante Marcos, 1990). under The Dangerous Drugs Act. Although Juan is a
suspected drug pusher, he cannot be charged on the
Q: The Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) basis of a mere suspicion. By providing the money with
had intelligence reports about the drug pushing which to buy marijuana cigarettes, SPO2 Mercado
activities of Rado, but could not arresthim for lack of practically induced and prodded Juan to commit the
concrete evidence. SP03 Relio, a PDEA team leader, offense of illegal possession of marijuana. Set against the
approached Emilo and requested him to act as facts, instigation is a valid defense available to Juan.
poseur-buyer of shabu and transact with Rado.
Emilo refused, saying that he had completely been Article 332: Persons exempt from criminal liability for
rehabilitated and did not want to have anything to theft, swindling and malicious mischief
do with drugs anymore. But he was prevailed upon
to help when SP03 Relio explained that only he Q: The wife of AAA predeceased his mother-in-law.
could help capture Rado because he used to be his AAA was accused of defrauding his mother-in-law
customer. SP03 Relio then gave Emilo the marked under a criminal information for estafa, but the
money to be used in buying shabu from Rado. The actual recital of facts of the offense charged therein,
operation proceeded. After Emilo handed the if proven, would constitute not only the crime of
marked money to Rado in exchange for the sachets estafa, but also falsification of public document as a
of shabu weighing 50 grams, and upon receiving the necessary means for committing estafa. AAA invokes
pre-arranged signal from Ernilo, SP03 Relio and his the absolutory cause of relationship by affinity.
team members barged in and arrested Rado and Which statement is most accurate? (2012)
Ernilo, who were both charged with violation of R.A.
9165, otherwise known as the Comprehensive A: There are two views on whether the extinguishment
Dangerous Drugs Act of2002. (2015) of the marriage by death of the spouse dissolves the
relationship by affinity for purpose of absolutory clause.
a. What defense, if any, may Ernilo invoke to free The first holds that the relationship by affinity
himself from criminal liability? Explain. terminates with the dissolution of the marriage, while
the second maintains that relationship continues even
A: Ernilo may invoke Section 33, Art. II of RA 9165 or after the death of the deceased spouse. The principle of
the Comprehensive Drugs Act of 2002. He may have pro reo calls for the adoption of the continuing affinity
violated Section 11 of RA 9165 for possession of shabu view because it is more favorable to the accused.
but he is immune from prosecution and punishment However, the absolutory cause applies to theft,
because of his role as the poseur-buyer in the swindling and malicious mischief. It does not apply to
entrapment operation. There was virtually instigation. theft through falsification or estafa through falsification
He is exempted from prosecution or punishment (Intestate estate of Gonzales v. People, G.R. No. 181409,
because the information obtained from him by the PDEA February 11, 2010).
agents, who had no direct and concrete evidence of
Rados drug-pushing activities, led to the whereabouts, Q: Dennis leased his apartment to Myla for P10,000
identity and arrest of Rado. So long as the information a month. Myla failed to pay the rent for 3 months.
and testimony given are pleaded and proven, Ernilo Gabriel, the son of Dennis, prepared a demand letter
cannot be prosecuted for violation of RA 9165. falsely alleging that his father had authorized him to
collect the unpaid rentals. Myla paid the unpaid
b. May Rado adopt as his own Emilo's defense? rentals to Gabriel who kept the payment. (2008)
a) Did Gabriel commit a crime? Explain.
A: No. First, an entrapment operation is a valid means of
arresting violators of RA 9165. It is an effective way of A: Yes, Gabriel committed a crime; it was either the
apprehending law offenders in the act of committing a crime of falsification of a private document (if damage or
crime. In a buy-bust operation, the idea to commit a at least intent to cause damage could be proved) or the
crime originates from the offender, without anybody crime of swindling only. It could not be both falsification
inducing or prodding him to commit the offense. Second, and swindling or a complex crime of estafa through
the immunity does not extend to violators of Section 5 of falsification since the document falsified was a private
RA 9165 or the sale of shabu (sec. 33, RA 9165). Lastly, document. The two crimes cannot go together.
he was the offender of the crime and apparently the
most guilty of the offense. b) Can Gabriel invoke his relationship with Dennis

to avoid criminal liability? Explain.


QuAMTO for CRIMINAL LAW (1991-2015)
intent to gain, and without violence against or
A: If Gabriel would be made criminally liable for intimidation of persons or force upon things (Art. 308,
falsification of a private document, he cannot invoke his RPC) Nel and Ben entered the house through an
relationship with Dennis, his father, to avoid criminal unlocked backdoor and took the valuables from the
liability because Art. 332 of the RPC provides exemption rooms and drawers that wer likewise left unlocked. Nel
from criminal liability in crimes against property only and Ben are liable as principals by direct participation
for theft, swindling or malicious mischief but not for while Ardo and Gorio are principals by indispensable
falsification of document. cooperation because they have concurred in the criminal
resolution and cooperated by performing another act as
If he would be made criminally liable for swindling, he lookout and driver of a getaway car, respectively, which
can invoke his relationship with Dennis because this were indispensable for the commission of the crime
crime cannot be complexed with falsification of a private (Art. 17, RPC).
document. The charged could, therefore, stand alone.
The exemption in Art. 332 will obtain. Nel, however, is also liable for the separate crime of
Homicide for the death of Fermin. The killing of Fermin
Article 20: Accessories exempt from criminal liability by was a separate act and was not a necessary means for
reason of relationship committing Theft (Art. 48, RPC) because the latter crime
was already consummated. Nel killed Fermin for a
Q: DCB, the daughter of MCB, stole the earrings of different reason perhaps because of his anger that
XYZ, a stranger. MCB pawned the earrings with TBI Fermin was in possession of his bag and wallet and
Pawnshop as a pledge for P500 loan. During the appeared to be using his smart phone to contact the
trial, MCB raised the defense that being the mother police.
of DCB, she cannot be held liable as an accessory.
Will MCB's defense prosper? Reason briefly. (2004) ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
All the offenders are liable for the crime of Robbery with
A: No, MCB's defense will not prosper because the Homicide. They are in conspiracy mwith each other, and
exemption from criminal liability of an accessory by after unlawfully taking the property of Elgar, killing
virtue of relationship with the principal does not cover occurred. In People v. Disimban (G.R. No. L-1746, January
accessories who themselves profited from or assisted 31, 1951), the Supreme Court affirmed the conviction for
the offender to profit by the effects or proceeds of the Robbery with Homicide although the robbery victim was
crime. This non-exemption of an accessory, though different from the homicide victim. In People v. Sandoval,
related to the principal of the crime, is expressly the Supreme court ruled that those who took part as
provided in Art. 20 of the RPC. principals in the Robbery will also be held guilty as
principals of Robbery with Homicide although they did
PERSONS CRIMINALLY LIABLE/ not actually take part in the Homicide.
Q: Mr. Red was drinking with his buddies, Mr. White
Principal and Mr. Blue when he saw Mr. Green with his former
girlfriend, Ms. Yellow. Already drunk, Mr. Red
Q: Nel learned that Elgar, the owner of the biggest declared in a loud voice that if he could not have Ms.
house in the place, would be out of town for three Yellow, no one can. He then proceeded to the mens
days with no one left to watch the house. He called room but told Mr. White and Mr. Blue to take care of
his friends Ben, Ardo and Gorio and they planned to Mr. Green. Mr. Blue and Mr. White asked Mr. Red
take the valuables in the house while Elgar was what he meant but Mr. Red simply said, "You already
away. Nel and Ben would go inside the house, Ardo know what I want," and then left. Mr. Blue and Mr.
would serve as the lookout, while Gorio would stay White proceeded to kill Mr. Green and hurt Ms.
in the getaway car. When Elgar left, they carried out Yellow. (2014)
their plan to the letter. Nel and Ben went inside the
house through the backdoor which was left a. What, if any, are the respective liabilities of Mr.
unlocked. None of the rooms and drawers inside Red, Mr. White and Mr. Blue for the death of Mr.
were locked. They took the money, jewelry and Green?
other valuables therefrom and immediately left
using the getaway car. After driving for about one A: Mr. Blue and Mr. White are liable for the death of Mr.
kilometer, Nel realized he left his bag and wallet Green as principals by direct participation. They were
with IDs in the house and so he instructed Gorio to the ones who participated in the criminal resolution and
drive back to the house. Nel just went in thinking who carried out their plan and personally took part in
that the house was still empty. But to his surprise, its execution by acts which directly tended to the same
Nel found Fermin seated on a bench with Nel's bag end. Mr. Red cannot be held criminally liable as principal
and wallet beside him and appeared to be texting by inducement because his statement that Mr. Blue and
using his smart phone. Nel took a golf club near him Mr. White are to take care of Mr. Green was not made
and hit Fermin with it. Fermin shouted for help, but directly with the intention of procuring the commission
Nel kept hitting him until he stopped making noise. of the crime. There is no showing that the words uttered
The noise alerted the neighbor who called the by him may be considered as so efficacious and powerful
police. Nel, Ben, Ardo and Gorio were caught. Fermin so as to amount to physical or moral coercion (People v.
died. What is the criminal liability of Nel, Ben, Ardo Assad, G.R. No. L-33673, February 24, 1931). Neither is
and Gorio? Explain. (2015) there evidence to show that Mr. Red has an ascendancy
or influence over Mr. White and Mr. Blue (People v.
A: Nel, Ben, Ardo and Gorio are criminally liable as Abarri, F.R. No. 90815, March 1, 1995).
principals for the crime of Theft. They conspired to take

Elgars personal properties without his knowledge, with

*QUAMTO is a compilation of past bar questions with answers as suggested by UPLC and other distinct
luminaries in the academe, and updated by the UST Academics Committee to fit for the 2016 Bar Exams.

b. What, if any, are the respective liabilities of Mr. and still he concurred in that criminal design by
Red, Mr. White and Mr. Blue for the injuries of providing the firearm.
Ms. Yellow?
Q: Tata owns a three-storey building located at No. 3
A: Mr. Blue and Mr. White are liable as principals by Herran Street. Paco, Manila. She wanted to construct
direct participation for the crime of physical injuries for a new building but had no money to finance the
hurting Ms. Yellow to the extent of the injuries inflicted. construction. So, she insured the building for
Having no participation in the attack upon Ms. Yellow, P3,000,000.00. She then urged Yoboy and Yongsi, for
Mr. Red would have no criminal liability therefor. monetary consideration, to bum her building so she
could collect the insurance proceeds. Yoboy and
Q: A asked B to kill C because of a grave injustice Yongsi burned the said building resulting to its total
done to A by C. A promised B a reward. B was willing loss. What is their respective criminal liablity?
to kill C, not so much because of the reward (1994)
promised to him but because he also had his own
long-standing grudge against C, who had wronged A: Tata is a principal by inducement because she directly
him in the past. If C is killed by B, would A be liable induced Yoboy and Yongsi for a price or monetary
as a principal by inducement? (2002, 1994) consideration, to commit arson which the latter would
not have committed were it not for such reason. Yoboy
A: No. A would not be liable as a principal by and Yongsi are principals by direct participation (Art.
inducement because the reward he promised B is not 17(21),(3), RPC).
the sole impelling reason which made B to kill C. To
bring about criminal liability of a co-principal, the Accomplice
inducement made by the inducer must be the sole
consideration which caused the person induced to Q: Who is an accomplice? (2012)
commit the crime and without which the crime would
not have been committed. The facts of the case indicate A: Accomplices are those persons who, not being the
that B, the killer supposedly induced by A, had his own principal, cooperate in the execution of the offense by
reason to kill C out of a long standing grudge. previous or simultaneous acts (Art. 18, RPC).

Q: Despite the massive advertising campaign in Q: Distinguish an accomplice from a conspirator as

media against firecrackers and gun-firing during the to their knowledge of the criminal design of the
New Year's celebrations, Jonas and Jaja bought ten principal, their participation, the penalty to be
boxes of super lolo and pla-pla in Bocaue, Bulacan. imposed in relation to the penalty for the principal,
Before midnight of December 31, 1999, Jonas and and the requisites/elements to be established by the
Jaja started their celebration by having a drinking prosecution in order to hold them criminally
spree at Jona's place by exploding their high- responsible for their respective roles in the
powered firecrackers in their neighborhood. In the commission of the crime. (2012, 2007)
course of their conversation, Jonas confided to Jaja
that he has been keeping a long-time grudge against A: The differences between an accomplice and
his neighbor Jepoy in view of the latter's refusal to conspirator are as follows:
lend him some money. While under the influence
of liquor, Jonas started throwing lighted super lolos ACCOMPLICE CONSPIRATOR
inside Jepoy's fence to irritate him and the same
exploded inside the latter's yard. Upon knowing that They know and They know of and
the throwing of the super lolo was deliberate, Jepoy agree with the join in the criminal
became furious and sternly warned Jonas to stop his criminal design. design. They know
malicious act or he would get what he wanted. A They come to know the criminal
Knowledge of
heated argument between Jonas and Jepoy ensued it after the intention because
the criminal
but Jaja tried to calm down his friend. At midnight, principals have they themselves
design of the
Jonas convinced Jaja to lend him his .45 calibre reached the have decided upon
pistol so that he could use it to knock down Jepoy decision and only such course of
and to end his arrogance. Jonas thought that after then do they agree action.
all, explosions were everywhere and nobody would to cooperate in its
know who shot Jepoy. After Jaja lent his firearm to execution.
Jonas, the latter again started started throwing Accomplices are Conspirators are
lighted super lolos and pla-plas at Jepoy's yard in mere instruments the authors of the
order to provoke him so that he would come out of who perform acts crime.
his house. When Jepoy came out, Jonas immediately not essential to the
shot him with Jaja's .45 caliber gun but missed his commission of the
target. Instead, the bullet hit Jepoy's five year old crime.
son who was following behind him, killing the boy One degree lower Same as principal
instantaneously. If you were the Judge, how would than that of the NOTE: Conspiracy
you decide the case? Explain. (2000) principal. alone is not
punishable except
A: I would convict Jonas as principal by direct in cases where the
participation and Jaja as co-principal by indispensable law specifically
cooperation for the complex crime of murder with prescribes a
homicide. Jaja should be held liable as co-principal and penalty.
not only as an accomplice because he knew of Jonas' (1) community of (1) that two or

criminal design even before he lent his firearm to Jonas criminal design; more persons come


QuAMTO for CRIMINAL LAW (1991-2015)
that is, knowing the to an agreement; term knowledge under the law is not synonymous
criminal design of (2) that the with suspicion. Mere suspicion that the crime has been
the principal by agreement committed is not sufficient. Even if he can be considered
direct participation, concerned the as an accessory under Art. 19(2) of RPC, Abelardo is not
he concurs with the commission of a liable, being the brother of Modesto under Art. 20, RPC.
latter in his crime; and (3) that
purpose; (2) the the execution of the Q: Immediately after murdering Bob, Jake went to
performance of the felony was decided his mother to seek refuge. His mother told him to
previous or upon. hide in the maids quarters until she finds a better
simultaneous acts place for him to hide. After two days, Jake
that are not transferred to his aunts house. A week later, Jake
indispensible to the was apprehended by the police. Can Jakes mother
commission of the and aunt be made criminally liable as accessories to
crime the crime of murder? Explain. (2010, 1998)

Q: Ponciano borrowed Rubens gun, saying that he A: Obviously, Jakes mother was aware of her sons
would use it to kill Freddie. Because Ruben also having committed a felony, such that her act of
resented Freddie, he readily lent his gun, but told harbouring and concealing him renders her liable as an
Ponciano: "O, pagkabaril mo kay Freddie, isauli mo accessory. But being an ascendant of Jake, she is exempt
kaagad, ha." Later, Ponciano killed Freddie, but used from criminal liability by express provision of Art. 20 of
a knife because he did not want Freddies neighbors the RPC. On the other hand, the criminal liability of
to hear the gunshot. (2009) Jakes aunt depends on her knowledge of his
commission of the felony, her act of harbouring and
a. What, if any, is the liability of Ruben? Explain. concealing Jake would render her criminally liable as
accessory to the crime of murder; otherwise, without
A: Rubens liability is that of an accomplice only because knowledge of Jakes commission of the felony, she would
he merely cooperated in Pocianos determination to kill not be liable.
Freddie. Such cooperation is not indispensable to the
killing, as in fact the killing was carried out without the Decree Penalizing Obstruction of Apprehension and
use of Rubens gun. Neither may Ruben be regarded as a Prosecution of Criminal Offenders
co-conspirator since he was not a participant in the (P.D. 1829)
decision-making of Ponciano to kill Freddie; he merely
cooperated in carrying out the criminal plan which was Q: Manolo revealed to his friend Domeng his desire
already in place (Art. 18, RPC). to kill Cece. He likewise confided to Domeng his
desire to borrow his revolver. Domeng lent it.
b. Would your answer be the same if, instead of Manolo shot Cece in Manila with Domeng's revolver.
Freddie, it was Manuel, a relative of Ruben, who As his gun was used in the killing, Domeng asked
was killed by Ponciano using Rubens gun? Mayor Tan to help him escape. The mayor gave
Explain. Domeng P5,000.00 and told him to proceed to
Mindanao to hide. Domeng went to Mindanao. The
A: No. The answer would not be the same because mayor was later charged as an accessory to Cece's
Ruben lent his gun purposely for the killing of Freddie murder. (2008)
only, not for any other killing. Poncianos using Rubens
gun in killing a person other than Freddie is beyond a. Can he be held liable for the charge? Explain.
Rubens criminal intent and willing involvement. Only
Ponciano will answer for the crime against Manuel. A: Giving Domeng the benefit of a milder criminal
responsibility of an accomplice, not of a co-principal by
Accessories indispensable cooperation of Manolo, Mayor Tan could
not be liable as an accessory to Ceces murder. To incur
Q: Modesto and Abelardo are brothers. Sometime in criminal liability of an accessory for helping or assisting
August 1998 while Abelardo was in his office, in the escape of an offender, he must be a principal of
Modesto, together with two other men in police the crime committed. Unless Domeng would be
uniform, came with two heavy bags. Modesto asked considered as a co-principal by indispensable
Abelardo to keep the two bags in his vault until he cooperation in the commission of the murder, the
comes back to get them. When Abelardo later Mayor, by assisting him to escape, would be an
examined the two bags, he saw bundles of money accessory to the felony.
that, in his rough count, could not be less than P5
Million. He kept the money inside the vault and soon b. Can he be held liable for any other offense?
he heard the news that a gang that included Modesto Explain fully.
had been engaged in bank robberies. Abelardo,
unsure of what to do under the circumstances, kept A: Although the Mayor may not be held liable as an
quiet about the two bags in his vault. Soon after, the accessory to the killing of Cece, he may be held liable for
police captured, and secured a confession from, obstruction of justice under P.D. No. 1829 for assisting
Modesto who admitted that their loot had been Domeng, who was involved in the commission of a
deposited with Abelardo. What is Abelardo's crime, to escape from Manila to Mindanao. Unlike in Art.
liability? (2013) 19 of the RPC, P.D. No. 1829 made no qualification as to
the offender whether he be principal, accomplice or
A: Abelardo is not criminally liable. To be criminally accessory in the crime in whose favour the obstructing
liable as an accessory under Art. 19, such person must acts were committed.

have knowledge of the commission of the crime. The

*QUAMTO is a compilation of past bar questions with answers as suggested by UPLC and other distinct
luminaries in the academe, and updated by the UST Academics Committee to fit for the 2016 Bar Exams.

PENALTIES are not synonymous and should be applied correctly and

as may be specified by the applicable law. Reclusion
GENERAL PRINCIPLES perpetua has a specific duration of 20 years and 1 day to
40 years (Art. 27) and accessory penalties (Art. 41),
Q: Imagine that you are a Judge trying a case, and while life imprisonment has no definite term or
based on the evidence presented and the applicable accessory penalties. Also, life imprisonment is imposable
law, you have decided on the guilt of two (2) on crimes punished by special laws, and not on felonies
accused. Indicate the five (5) steps you would follow in the Code.
to determine the exact penalty to be imposed.
Stated differently, what are the factors you must Q: When is there preventive imprisonment? When is
consider to arrive at the correct penalty? (1991) the accused credited with the full time of his
preventive imprisonment, and when is he credited
A: with 4/5 thereof? (1994)
1. Determine the crime committed;
2. Stage of execution and degree of participation; Act Prohibiting the Imposition of Death Penalty in the
3. Determine the penalty; Philippines (R. A. 9364)
4. Consider the modifying circumstances;
5. Determine whether Indeterminate Sentence Law is Q: The death penalty cannot be inflicted under
applicable or not. which of the following circumstances:
1. When the guilty person is at least 18 years of age
Q: What are the penalties that may be served at the time of the commission of the crime.
simultaneously? (2007) 2. When the guilty person is more than 70 years of
A: The penalties that may be served simultaneously are 3. When, upon appeal to or automatic review by
imprisonment/ destierro and: the Supreme Court, the required majority for the
1. Perpetual absolute disqualification; imposition of the death penalty is not obtained.
2. Perpetual special disqualification; 4. When the person is convicted of a capital crime
3. Temporary absolute disqualification; but before execution becomes insane.
4. Temporary special disqualification; 5. When the accused is a woman while she is
5. Suspension from public office, the right to vote and pregnant or within one year after delivery.
be voted for, and the right to follow a profession or Explain your answer or choice briefly. (2004)
6. Fine; and any principal penalty with its accessory A: Understanding the word "inflicted" to mean the
penalties. imposition of the death penalty, not its execution, the
circumstance in which the death penalty cannot be
Q: After trial, Judge Juan Laya of the Manila RTC inflicted is no. 2: "when the guilty person is more than
found Benjamin Garcia guilty of Murder, the victim 70 years of age" (Art. 47, RPC). Instead, the penalty shall
having sustained several bullet wounds in his body be commuted to reclusion perpetua, with the accessory
so that he died despite medical assistance given in penalties provided in Art. 40, RPC.
the Ospital ng Manila. Because the weapon used by
Benjamin was unlicensed and the qualifying In circumstance no. 1 when the guilty person is at least
circumstance of treachery was found to be present. 18 years of age at the time of the commission of the
Judge Laya rendered his decision convicting crime, the death penalty can be imposed since the
Benjamin and sentencing him to "reclusion perpetua offender is already of legal age when he committed the
or life imprisonment". Are "reclusion perpetua" and crime. Circumstance no. 3 no longer operates,
life imprisonment the same and can be imposed considering the decision of the Supreme Court in People
interchangeably as in the foregoing sentence? Or v. Efren Mateo, G.R. 147678-87, July 7, 2004, providing an
are they totally different? State your reasons. intermediate review for such cases where the penalty
(2005, 2001, 1994) imposed is death, reclusion perpetua or life
imprisonment before they are elevated to the Supreme
A: The penalty of reclusion perpetua and the penalty of Court. In circumstances nos. 4 & 5, the death penalty can
life imprisonment are totally different from each other be imposed if prescribed by the law violated although its
and therefore, should not be used interchangeably. execution shall be suspended when the convict becomes
Reclusion perpetua is a penalty prescribed by the RPC, insane before it could be executed and while he is
with a fixed duration of imprisonment from 20 years insane. Likewise, the death penalty can be imposed upon
and 1 day to 40 years, and carries it with accessory a woman but its execution shall be suspended during
penalties. Life imprisonment, on the other hand, is a her pregnancy and for one year after her delivery.
penalty prescribed by special laws, with no fixed
duration of imprisonment and without any accessory Q: Under Article 47 of RA. 7659, the death penalty
penalty. shall be imposed in all cases in which it must be
imposed under existing laws. What are the
Q: Under Article 27 of the Revised Penal Code, as exceptions to the imposition of the death penalty?
amended by Republic Act (RA) No. 7959, reclusion (1998)
perpetua shall be from 20 years and 1 day to 40
years. Does this mean that reclusion perpetua is A: The death penalty shall not be imposed although
now a divisible penalty? Explain. (2005) prescribed under existing laws:
1. When the accused is less than 18 years of age at the
A: No, because the Supreme Court has repeatedly called time of the commission of the offense;
the attention of the Bench and the Bar to the fact that the 2. When the accused is more than 70 years of age

penalties of reclusion perpetua and life imprisonment already;


QuAMTO for CRIMINAL LAW (1991-2015)
3. When upon appeal or automatic review of the case and the minimum terms of the indeterminate
by the Supreme Court, the required majority vote sentence? (2002)
for the imposition of the death penalty is not
obtained. A: For crimes punished under the Revised Penal Code,
the maximum term of the indeterminate sentence shall
Q: When was the constitutional proscription against be the penalty properly imposable under the same Code
the imposition of the death penalty lifted? When is after considering the attending mitigating and/or
the execution of the death penalty suspended under aggravating circumstances according to Art. 64 of said
the Revised Penal Code? When is the death penalty Code. The minimum term of the same sentence shall be
commuted under the same Code? (1995) fixed within the range of the penalty next lower in
degree to that prescribed for the crime under the said
A: Code.
a. The constitutional proscription against the im-
position of the death penalty was lifted with the The maximum and the minimum terms of the
enactment of R.A. 7659, otherwise known as the indeterminate sentence must be fixed because they are
Heinous Crimes Law, which took effect fifteen (15) the basis for the following:
days after publication on December 16,1993, that is 1. Whenever a prisoner has served the minimum
on December 31, 1993 (People v. Martin Simon, G.R. penalty imposed upon him, he is fit for release on
No. 93028 July 29, 1994). parole upon terms and conditions prescribed by the
b. Death penalty shall not be executed (a) upon a Board;
woman within three years after date of the 2. When the paroled prisoner violates any of the
sentence, (b) while she is pregnant, (c) upon a conditions of his parole during the period of
person over 70 years old (Art. 83, RPC), or (4) upon surveillance, he may be rearrested to serve the
a convict who becomes insane after final sentence remaining unexpired portion of the maximum
(Art. 79, RPC). sentence;
c. When the convict reaches the age of 70 years the 3. Even if a prisoner has already served the minimum
death sentence is commuted to reclusion perpetua but he is not fitted for release on the parole, he shall
(Art. 83, RPC). continue to serve until the end of the maximum
Q: Bruno was charged with homicide for killing the
Indeterminate Sentence Law 75-year old owner of his rooming house. The
(R. A. 4103, as amended) prosecution proved that Bruno stabbed the owner
causing his death; and that the killing happened at
Q: What is the fundamental principle in applying and 10 in the evening in the house where the victim and
interpreting criminal laws, including the Bruno lived. Bruno, on the other hand, successfully
Indeterminate Sentence Law? How is the proved that he voluntarily surrendered to the
Indeterminate Sentence Law applied in imposing a authorities; that he pleaded guilty to the crime
sentence? (2012) charged; that it was the victim who first attacked
and did so without any provocation on his (Bruno's)
A: The fundamental principle in interpreting and part, but he prevailed because he managed to draw
applying penal laws is the principle of pro reo. The his knife with which he stabbed the victim. The
phrase in dubio pro reo means when in doubt, for the penalty for homicide is reclusion temporal.
accused. (Intestate Estate of Gonzales v. People, G.R. No. Assuming a judgment of conviction and after
181409, February 11, 2010). In dubio pro reo, is in considering the attendant circumstances, what
consonance with the constitutional guarantee that the penalty should the judge impose? (2013)
accused ought to be presumed innocent until and unless
his guilt is established beyond reasonable doubt (People A: Bruno should be sentenced to an indeterminate
v. Temporada, G.R. No. 173473, December 17, 2008). If sentence penalty of arresto mayor in any of its period to
crime is punishable under the RPC, the court shall prision correccional in its medium period as maximum.
sentence the accused to an indeterminate sentence the Bruno was entitled to two privileged mitigating
maximum term of which shall be that which, in view of circumstances of incomplete self-defense and the
the attending circumstance, could be properly imposed presence of at least two ordinary mitigating
under the rules of the said Code, and the minimum of circumstances (voluntary surrender and plea of guilt)
which shall be within the range of the penalty next lower without any aggravating circumstance under Art. 69 and
to that prescribed by the Code for the offense. If the 64(5) of the RPC respectively, which lowers the
offense is punishable under a special law, the court shall prescribed penalty for homicide which is reclusion
sentence the accused to an indeterminate sentence, the temporal to prision correccional.
maximum term of which shall not exceed the maximum
fixed by said law, and the minimum shall not be less Q: X was convicted of a complex crime of direct
than the minimum term prescribed in the same (R.A. assault with homicide aggravated by the
4103, Sec. 1). commission of the crime in a place where public
authorities are engaged in the discharge of their
When penalty is imposed by RPC duties. The penalty for direct assault is prision
correccional in its medium and maximum period.
Q: How are the maximum and the minimum terms of What is the correct indeterminate penalty? (2012)
the indeterminate sentence for offenses punishable
under the Revised Penal Code determined? Under A: 10 years of prision mayor as minimum to 17 years &
the law, what is the purpose for fixing the maximum 4 months of reclusion temporal as maximum.

*QUAMTO is a compilation of past bar questions with answers as suggested by UPLC and other distinct
luminaries in the academe, and updated by the UST Academics Committee to fit for the 2016 Bar Exams.

Q: An agonizing and protracted trial having come to service gun and shot and killed Ken. The court found
a close, the judge found A guilty beyond reasonable that Ken died under exceptional circumstances and
doubt of homicide and imposed on him a straight exonerated Macky of murder but sentenced him to
penalty of SIX (6) YEARS and ONE (1) DAY of prision destierro, conformably with Article 247 of the
mayor. The public prosecutor objected to the Revised Penal Code. The court also ordered Macky
sentence on the ground that the proper penalty to pay indemnity to the heirs of the victim in the
should have been TWELVE (12) YEARS and ONE (1) amount of P50,000. While serving his sentence,
DAY of reclusion temporal. The defense counsel Macky entered the prohibited area and had a pot
chimed in, contending that application of the session with Ivy (Joys sister). Is Macky entitled to an
Indeterminate Sentence Law should lead to the indeterminate sentence in case he is found guilty of
imposition of a straight penalty of SIX (6) MONTHS the use of prohibited substances? Explain your
and ONE (1) DAY of prision correccional only. Who answer. (2007)
of the three is on the right track? Explain. (2010)
A: No, Macky is not entitled to the benefit of the
A: None of the contentions is correct because the Indeterminate Sentence Law (R.A. 4103, as amended)
Indeterminate Sentence Law (R.A. 4103) has not been for having evaded the sentence which banished or
followed. The imposition of penalty for the crime of placed him on destierrro. Sec. 2 of the said law expressly
homicide, which is penalized by imprisonment provides that the law shall not apply to those who shall
exceeding one (1) year and is divisible, is covered by the have "evaded sentence".
Indeterminate Sentence Law. The said law requires that
the sentence in this case should reflect a minimum term ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
for purposes of parole, and a maximum term fixing the No, because the penalty for use of any dangerous drug
limit of the imprisonment. Imposing a straight penalty is by a first offender is not imprisonment but
incorrect. rehabilitation in a government center for a minimum
period of six (6) months (Sec. 15, R.A. 9165). The
Q: In a conviction for homicide, the trial court Indeterminate Sentence Law does not apply when the
appreciated two (2) mitigating circumstances and penalty is imprisonment not exceeding one year.
one (1) aggravating circumstance. Homicide under
Article 249 of the Revised Penal Code is punishable Q: Homer was convicted of homicide. The trial court
by reclusion temporal, an imprisonment term of appreciated the following modifying circumstances:
twelve (12) years and one (1) day to twenty (20) the aggravating circumstance of nocturnity, and the
years. mitigating circumstances of passion and
obfuscation, no intent to commit so grave a wrong,
a. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, illiteracy and voluntary surrender. The imposable
determine the appropriate penalty to be penalty for homicide is reclusion temporal the range
imposed. Explain. (2009) of which is twelve (12) years and one (1) day to
twenty (20) years. Taking into account the attendant
A: Under the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the minimum aggravating and mitigating circumstances, and
of the sentence shall be anywhere within the range of 6 applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law,
years and 1 day to 12 years imprisonment while the determine the proper penalty to be imposed on the
maximum of the sentence shall be anywhere within the accused. (1997)
range of Reclusion Temporal minimum i.e., not lower
than 12 years and 1 day to not more than 14 yrs. and 8 A: It appears that there is one aggravating circumstance
months. (nocturnity), and four mitigating circumstances (passion
and obfuscation, no intent to commit so grave a wrong
b. Will your answer be the same if it is a conviction as that committed and voluntary surrender). Par. 4, Art.
for illegal possession of drugs under R.A. 9165 64 should be applied. Hence there will be off-setting of
(Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002), the prescribed modifying circumstances, which will now result in the
penalty of which is also imprisonment for a term excess of three mitigating circumstances. This will
of twelve (12) years and one (1) day to twenty therefore justify in reducing the penalty to the minimum
(20) years? Why or why not? period. The existence of an aggravating circumstance,
albeit there are four aggravating, will not justify the
A: No. My answer will not be the same because lowering of the penalty to the next lower degree under
violations of R.A. 9165 are mala prohibita in which par. 5 of said Article, as this is applicable only if there is
mitigating and aggravating circumstances are not no aggravating circumstance present. Since the crime
appreciated. Although in People v. Simon (G.R. No. 93028, committed is Homicide and the penalty therefor is
July 29, 1994), it was held that Art. 64 can be applied if reclusion temporal, the MAXIMUM sentence under the
the special law adopted the nomenclature of penalties Indeterminate Sentence Law should be the minimum of
provided under the RPC, such pronouncement cannot be the penalty, which is 12 years and 1 day to 14 years and
applied in the instant case because the penalties for 8 months. The MINIMUM penalty will thus be the
illegal possession of drugs under R.A. 9165 do not follow penalty next lower in degree, which is prision mayor in
the technical nomenclature of penalties in the RPC and its full extent (6 years and 1 day to 12 years). Ergo, the
thus, cannot be divided into periods. Hence, the proper penalty would be 6 years and 1 day, as minimum,
existence of mitigating and aggravating circumstances to 12 years and 1 day, as maximum. I believe that
cannot be appreciated. because of the remaining mitigating circumstances after
the off-setting it would be very logical to impose the
Q: Macky, a security guard, arrived home late one minimum of the MINIMUM sentence under the ISL and
night after rendering overtime. He was shocked to the minimum of the MAXIMUM sentence.
see Joy, his wife, and Ken, his best friend in the act of

having sexual intercourse. Macky pulled out his


QuAMTO for CRIMINAL LAW (1991-2015)
Q: Assume in the preceding problem that there were A: No, because the Indeterminate Sentence Law will
two mitigating circumstances and no aggravating apply when the minimum of the penalty exceeds one
circumstance. Impose the proper prison penalty. year.

A: There being two (2) mitigating circumstances without Q: A was convicted of illegal possession of grease
any aggravating circumstance, the proper prison penalty guns and two Thompson sub-machine guns
is arresto mayor (in any of its periods, ie. ranging from punishable under the old law (R.A. No. 4) with
one (1) month and one (1) day to six (6) months) as imprisonment of from five (5) to ten (10) years. The
MINIMUM to prision correccional in its maximum trial court sentenced the accused to suffer
period four (4) years, two (2) months, and one (1) day to imprisonment of five (5) years and one (1) day. Is
six (6) years as MAXIMUM. Under Art. 64, par. 5 of the the penalty thus imposed correct? Explain. (1999)
Revised Penal Code, when a penalty contains three
periods, each one of which forms a period in accordance A: The penalty imposed, being only a straight penalty, is
with Art. 76 and 77 of the same Code, and there are two not correct because it does not comply with the
or more mitigating circumstances and no aggravating Indeterminate Sentence Law which applies to this case.
circumstances, the penalty next lower in degree should Said law requires that if the offense is punished by any
be imposed. For purposes of the ISL, the penalty next law other than the RPC, the court shall sentence the
lower in degree should be determined without accused to an indeterminate sentence, the maximum
regard as to whether the basic penalty provided by term of which shall not exceed the maximum penalty
the RPC should be applied in its maximum or fixed by the law and the minimum shall not be less than
minimum period as circumstances modifying liability the minimum penalty prescribed by the same.
may require. The penalty next lower in degree to
prision correccional. Therefore, as previously stated, the Q: Itos was convicted of an offense penalized by a
minimum should be within the range of arresto mayor special law. The penalty prescribed is not less than
and the maximum is within the range of prision six years but not more than twelve years. No
correctional in its maximum period. modifying circumstance attended the commission of
the crime. If you were the judge, will you apply the
Q: A and B pleaded guilty to the crime of parricide. Indeterminate Sentence Law? If so, how will you
The court found three mitigating circumstances, apply it? (1999, 1994)
namely, plea of guilty, lack of instruction and lack of
intent to commit so grave a wrong as that A: If I were the judge, I will apply the provisions of the
committed. The prescribed penalty for parricide is Indeterminate Sentence Law, as the last sentence of
reclusion perpetua to death. Impose the proper Section 1 Act 4103, specifically provides the application
principal penalty. (1997) thereof for violations of special laws. Under the same
provision, the minimum must not be less than the
A: The proper penalty is reclusion perpetua. Even if minimum provided therein (six years and one day) and
there are two or more mitigating circumstances, a court the maximum shall not be more than the maximum
cannot lower the penalty by one degree (Art. 63[3], RPC; provided therein, i.e. twelve years.
People v. Formigones, G.R. No. L-3246, November 29,
1950). In U.S. v. Relador 60 Phil. 593, where the crime Three- fold Rule
committed was parricide with the two (2) mitigating
circumstances of illiteracy and lack of intention to Q: Roman and Wendy are neighbors. On Valentine's
commit so grave a wrong, and with no aggravating Day, without prior notice, Roman visited Wendy at
circumstance, the Supreme Court held that the her condo to invite her to dinner, but Wendy turned
proper, penalty to be imposed is reclusion perpetua. him down and abruptly left, leaving her condo door
unlocked. Roman attempted to follow, but appeared
When penalty is imposed by Special Penal Law to have second thoughts; he simply went back to
Wendy's condo, let himself in, and waited for her
Q: Harold was convicted of a crime defined and return. On Wendy's arrival later that evening,
penalized by a special penal law where the Roman grabbed her from behind and, with a knife in
imposable penalty is from 6 months, as minimum, to hand, forced her to undress. Wendy had no choice
3 years, as maximum. State with reasons whether but to comply. Roman then tied Wendy's hands to
the court may correctly impose the following her bed and sexually assaulted her five (5) times
penalties: (2005) that night. Roman was charged with, and was
convicted of, five (5) counts of rape, but the judge
a. a straight penalty of 10 months; did not impose the penalty of reclusion perpetua for
each count. Instead, the judge sentenced Roman to
A: Yes, because the penalty is less than one year, a 40 years of imprisonment on the basis of the three-
straight penalty may be imposed (People v. Arellano, G.R. fold rule. Was the judge correct? (2013)
No. 46501, October 5, 1939).
A: No, the three-fold rule is applicable only in
b. 6 months, as minimum, to 11 months, as connection with the service of the sentence not in the
maximum; imposition of the proper penalties. The court must
impose all penalties for all the crimes for which the
A: No, because Indeterminate Sentence Law does not accused have been found guilty. Thus, the court should
apply when the penalty imposed is less than one year not make a computation in it decision and sentence the
(R.A. 4103, Sec. 2). accused to not more than the three-fold of the most
severe of the penalties imposable. The computation
c. a straight penalty of 2 years. under the three-fold rule is for the prison authorities to


*QUAMTO is a compilation of past bar questions with answers as suggested by UPLC and other distinct
luminaries in the academe, and updated by the UST Academics Committee to fit for the 2016 Bar Exams.

Subsidiary Imprisonment a. What is the proper period of probation?

Q: E and M are convicted of a penal law that imposes A: The period of probation shall not be less than the
a penalty of fine or imprisonment or both fine and total number of days of subsidiary imprisonment or
imprisonment. The judge sentenced them to pay the more than twice the said number of days as computed at
fine, jointly and severally, with subsidiary the rate established under the Revised Penal Code,
imprisonment in case of insolvency. Is the penalty which is one (1) day imprisonment for every P8.00 fine
proper? Explain. (2005) but not to exceed six (6) months. (P.D. 968, Sec. 14[b]
(establishing a Probation System) in correlation with
A: The penalty is not proper. The two accused must Art. 39, RPC)
separately pay the fine, which is their penalty. Solidary
liability applies only to civil liabilities. b. Supposing before the Order of Discharge was
issued by the court but after the lapse of the
Q: May the judge impose an alternative penalty of period of probation, Maganda transferred
fine or imprisonment? Explain. residence without prior approval of the court.
May the court revoke the Order of Probation and
A: No. A fine, whether imposed as a single or as an order her to serve the subsidiary imprisonment?
alternative penalty, should not and cannot be reduced or Explain.
converted into a prison term. There is no rule for
transmutation of the amount of a fine into a term of A: Yes. The Court may revoke her probation. Probation
imprisonment (People v. Dacuycuy, G.R. No. L-45127, May is not coterminous with its period. There must first be
5, 1989). issued by the court an order of final discharge based on
the report and recommendation of the probation officer.
EXECUTION AND SERVICE Only then can the case of the probationer be terminated.

Probation Law Q: PX was convicted and sentenced to imprisonment

(P.D. 968, as amended by R.A. 10707) of thirty days and a fine of one hundred pesos.
Previously, PX was convicted of another crime for
Q: Matt was found guilty of drug trafficking while his which the penalty imposed on him was thirty days
younger brother Jeff was found guilty of possession only. Is PX entitled to probation? Explain briefly.
of equipment, instrument, apparatus and other (2004)
paraphernalia for dangerous drugs under Section 12
of Republic Act No. 9165. Matt filed a petition for A: Yes, PX may apply for probation. His previous
probation. Jeff appealed his conviction during the conviction for another crime with a penalty of thirty
pendency of which he also filed a petition for days imprisonment or not exceeding one (1) month does
probation. The brothers counsel argued that they not disqualify him from applying for probation; the
being first time offenders, their petitions for penalty for his present conviction does not disqualify
probation should be granted. How would you him either from applying for probation, since the
resolve the brothers petitions for probation? imprisonment does not exceed six (6) years (P.D. 968,
Explain. (2010) Sec. 9).

A: The brothers petition for probation should both be Q: Juan was convicted of the Regional Trial Court of a
denied. Matts petition for probation shall be denied crime and sentenced to suffer the penalty of
because he was convicted for drug-trafficking. Section imprisonment for a minimum of eight years. He
24 of RA 9165 (Comprehensive Dangerous Drug Act of appealed both his conviction and the penalty
2002) expressly provides, Any person convicted for imposed upon him to the Court of Appeals. The
drug trafficking or pushing under this Act, regardless of appellate court ultimately sustained Juan's
the penalty imposed by the court, cannot avail of the conviction but reduced his sentence to a maximum
privilege granted by the Probation Law or Presidential of four years and eight months imprisonment. Could
Decree No. 968, as amended. On the other hand, Jeffs Juan forthwith file an application for probation?
application for probation cannot also be entertained or Explain. (2003, 2002, 2001, 1995, 1992)
granted because he has already appealed his conviction
by the trial court (P.D. 968, as amended, Sec. 4). A: No, Juan can no longer avail of the probation because
he appealed from the judgment of conviction of the trial
Q: Maganda was charged with violation of the court. Sec. 4 of the Probation Law mandates that no
Bouncing Checks Law (B.P. 22) punishable by application for probation shall be entertained or granted
imprisonment of not less than 30 days but not more if the accused has perfected an appeal from the
than 1 year or a fine of not less than but not more judgment of conviction.
than double the amount of the check, which fine
shall not exceed P200,000.00, or both. The court Q: A was charged with homicide. After trial, he was
convicted her of the crime and sentenced her to found guilty and sentenced to six (6) years and one
pay a fine of P50,000.00 with subsidiary (1) day in prision mayor, as minimum, to twelve
imprisonment in case of insolvency, and to pay (12) years and one (1) day of reclusion temporal, as
the private complainant the amount of the check. maximum. Prior to his conviction, he had been found
Maganda was unable to pay the fine but filed a guilty of vagrancy and imprisoned for ten (10) days
petition for probation. The court granted the of arresto manor and fined fifty pesos (P50.00). Is he
petition subject to the condition, among others, that eligible for probation? Why? (2002)
she should not change her residence without the

courts prior approval. (2005)


QuAMTO for CRIMINAL LAW (1991-2015)
A: No, he is not entitled to the benefits of the Probation Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of 2006 (R.A. No.
Law (P.D. 968, as amended) does not extend to those 9344); also refer to Child and Youth Welfare Code
sentenced to serve a maximum term of imprisonment of (P.D. 603, as amended)
more than six years (Sec. 9[a]). It is of no moment that in
his previous conviction A was given a penalty of only ten Q: Michael was 17 years old when he was charged
(10) days of arresto mayor and a fine of P50.00. for violation of Sec. 5 of R.A. 9165 (illegal sale of
prohibited drug). By the time he was convicted and
REPEATED DOCTRINE sentenced, he was already 21 years old. The court
Q: May a probationer appeal from the decision sentenced him to suffer an indeterminate penalty of
revoking the grant of probation or modifying the imprisonment of six (6) years and one (1) day of
terms and conditions thereof? (2002) prision mayor, as minimum, to seventeen (17) years
and four (4) months of reclusion temporal, as
A: No. Under Section 4 of the Probation Law, as maximum, and a fine of P500,000. Michael applied
amended, an order granting or denying probation is not for probation but his application was denied
appealable. because the probation law does not apply to drug
offenders under R.A. 9165. Michael then sought the
Q: The accused was found guilty of grave oral suspension of his sentence under R.A. 9344 or the
defamation in sixteen (16) information which were Juvenile Justice and Youth Welfare Code. Can
tried jointly and was sentenced in one decision to Michael avail of the suspension of his sentence
suffer in each case a prison term of one (1) year and provided under this law? (2013)
one (1) day to one (1) year and eight (8) months of
prision correccional. Within the period to appeal, he A: The benefits of a suspended sentence can no longer
filed an application for probation under the apply to Michael. The suspension of sentence lasts only
Probation Law of 1976, as amended. Could he until the law reaches the maximum age and thus, could
possibly qualify for probation? (1997) no longer be considered a child for purposes of applying
R.A. 9344. However, he shall be entitled to the right of
A: Yes. In Francisco v. CA, (G.R. No. 108747, April 6, 1995) restoration, rehabilitation and reintegration in
the Supreme Court held that in case of one decision accordance with the law to give him the chance to live a
imposing multiple prison terms, the totality of the normal life and become a productive member of the
prison terms should not be taken into account for the community. Accordingly, Michael may be confined in an
purposes of determining the eligibility of the accused agricultural camp and other training facility in
for the probation. The law uses the word "maximum accordance with Sec. 51 of R.A. 9344 (People v. Jacinto,
term", and not total term. It is enough that each of the G.R. No. 182239, March 16, 2011).
prison terms does not exceed six years. The number of
offenses is immaterial for as long as the penalties Q: Joe was 17 years old when he committed
imposed, when taken individually and separately, are homicide in 2005. The crime is punishable
within the probationable period. by reclusion temporal. After two years in hiding, he
was arrested and appropriately charged in May
Q: On February 3, 1986, Roberto was convicted of 2007. Since Republic Act 9344 (Juvenile Justice and
arson through reckless imprudence and sentenced Welfare Act of 2006) was already in effect, Joe
to pay a fine of P15,000.00, with subsidiary moved to avail of the process of intervention or
imprisonment in case of insolvency by the Regional diversion. (2009, 2003)
Trial Court of Quezon City. On February 10, 1986, he
appealed to the Court of Appeals. Several months a. What is intervention or diversion? Is Joe entitled
later, he filed a motion to withdraw the appeal on to intervention or diversion? Explain.
the ground that he is applying for probation. On
May 7, 1987, the Court of Appeals granted the A: Intervention refers to a series of activities which are
motion and considered the appeal withdrawn. On designed to address issues that caused the child to
June 10, 1987, the records of the case were commit an offense. It may take the form of an
remanded to the trial court. Roberto filed a "Motion individualized treatment program which may include
for Probation" praying that execution of his counselling, skills training, education, and other
sentence be suspended, and that a probation officer activities that will enhance his/her psychological,
be ordered to conduct an Investigation and to emotional and psycho-social well-being. This is available
submit a report on his probation. The judge denied to a child 15 years old or less at the time of the
the motion on the ground that pursuant to commission of the crime or although over 15 but below
Presidential Decree No. 1990, which took effect on 18 years old at the time of commission of the crime, the
July 16, 1986, no application for probation shall be child acted without discernment. Diversion refers to
entertained or granted if the defendant has an alternative, child-appropriate process of determining
perfected an appeal from the judgment of the responsibility and treatment of a child conflict with
conviction. Is the denial of Roberto's motion the law on the basis of his/her social, cultural, economic,
correct? (1994) psychological or educational background without
resorting to formal court proceedings. This process
A: Yes. Eventhough Roberto was qualified for probation governs when the child is over 15 years old but below
at the time of his conviction, he is, nevertheless not 18 at the time of the commission of the crime and he
qualified at the time he filed the application, thus he is acted with discernment.
no longer entitled to probation. The qualification for
probation must be determined as of the time the Yes. Joe is entitled to diversion. Being only 17 years old
application is filed in Court. at the time he committed the crime of homicide, he is
treated as a child in conflict with the law under R.A.


*QUAMTO is a compilation of past bar questions with answers as suggested by UPLC and other distinct
luminaries in the academe, and updated by the UST Academics Committee to fit for the 2016 Bar Exams.

6. Suspension of Sentence of a first-time minor

b. Suppose Joes motion for intervention or offender under Section 66 of RA 9165
diversion was denied, and he was convicted two (Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002);
(2) years later when Joe was already 21 years 7. When the sentence is death, its execution may be
old, should the judge apply the suspension of suspended or postponed by the Supreme Court,
sentence? Explain. through the issuance of a RO upon the ground of
supervening events (Echegaray v. Secretary of
A: No. The Judge should not suspend sentence anymore Justice, G.R. No. 132601, January 19, 1999).
because Joe was already 21 years old and no longer a
minor at the time of promulgation of the sentence. REPEATED DOCTRINE
For purposes of suspension of sentence, the offender's Q: A was 2 months below 18 years of age when
age at the time of promulgation of the sentence is the he committed the crime. He was charged with the
one considered, not his age when he committed the crime 3 months later. He was 23 when he was finally
crime. Suspension of sentence is availing under R.A. convicted and sentenced. Instead of preparing to
9344 only until a child reaches the maximum age of serve a jail term, he sought a suspension of the
twenty-one (21) years. sentence on the ground that he was a juvenile
offender. Should he be entitled to a suspension of
c. Suppose Joe was convicted of attempted murder sentence? Reasons. (2003)
with a special aggravating circumstance and was
denied suspension of sentence, would he be A: No, A is not entitled to a suspension of the sentence
eligible for probation under Presidential Decree because he is no longer a minor at the time of
(PD) 968, considering that the death penalty is promulgation of the sentence. For purposes of
imposable for the consummated felony? Explain. suspension of sentence, the offender's age at the time of
promulgation of the sentence is the one considered, not
A: Yes. He would be eligible for probation because the his age when he committed the crime. So although A was
penalty imposable on Joe will not exceed 6 years below 18 years old when he committed the crime, but he
imprisonment. Even if it would be considered that the was already 23 years old when sentenced, he is no
crime committed was punishable by death, the penalty longer eligible for suspension of the sentence.
as far as Joe is concerned can only be reclusion perpetua
because R.A. 9344 forbids the imposition of the capital Q: Can juvenile offenders, who are recidivists,
punishment upon offenders thereunder. The murder validly ask for suspension of sentence? Explain.
being attempted only, the prescribed penalty is two (2003)
degrees lower than reclusion perpetua; hence, prision
mayor. Because Joe was 17 years old when he A: Yes, so long as the offender is still a minor at the time
committed the crime, the penalty of prision mayor of the promulgation of the sentence. The law
should be lowered further by one degree because his establishing Family Courts, Rep. Act 8369, provides to
minority is a privileged mitigating circumstance; hence, this effect: that if the minor is found guilty, the court
prision correctional or imprisonment within the range of should promulgate the sentence and ascertain any civil
six months and 1 day to 6 years is imposable. liability which the accused may have incurred. However,
the sentence shall be suspended without the need of
Q: There are at least 7 instances or situations in application pursuant to PD 603, otherwise known as the
criminal cases wherein the accused, either as an Child and Youth Welfare Code (RA 8369, Sec. 5a). It is
adult or as a minor, can apply for and/or be granted under PD 603 that an application for suspension of the
a suspended sentence. Enumerate at least 5 of them. sentence is required and thereunder it is one of the
(2006) conditions for suspension of sentence that the offender
be a first time convict: this has been displaced by RA
A: Instances when sentence may be suspended are: 8369.
1. where the accused became insane before sentence
2. where the offender, upon conviction by the trial LIABILITY
court, filed an application for probation which has
been granted (Baclayon v. Mutia, G.R. No. L-59298 Extinction by Death
April 30, 1984);
3. where the offender needs to be confined in a Q: The Regional Trial Court (RTC) found Tiburcio
rehabilitation center because of drug-dependency guilty of frustrated homicide and sentenced him to
although convicted of the crime charged; an indeterminate penalty of four years and one day
4. where the offender is a youthful offender under Art. of prision correccional as minimum, to eight years
192, PD 603, otherwise referred to as the Child and ofprision mayor as maximum, and ordered him to
Youth Welfare Code; and where the, crime was pay actual damages in the amount of 1125,000.00.
committed when the offender is under 18 years of Tiburcio appealed to the Court of Appeals which
age and he is found guilty thereof in accordance sustained his conviction as well as the penalty
with Rep. Act 9344, otherwise known as the imposed by the court a quo. After sixty days, the
"Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of 2006", but the Court of Appeals issued an Entry of Judgment and
trial court subjects him to appropriate disposition remanded the records of the case to the RTC. Three
measures prescribed by the Supreme Court in the days thereafter, Tiburcio died of heart attack. Atty.
Rule on Juveniles in Conflict with the Law; Abdul, Tiburcio's counsel, filed before the RTC a
5. the death sentence shall be suspended upon a Manifestation with Motion to Dismiss, informing the
woman while she is pregnant or within one year court that Tiburcio died already, and claiming that
after delivery. (Art. 83, Revised Penal Code); his criminal liability had been extinguished by his

demise. (2015)


QuAMTO for CRIMINAL LAW (1991-2015)
commenced to run. When A left the country and
a. Should the RTC grant the Motion to Dismiss the returned only after three (3) years, the running of the
case? Explain. prescriptive period of the crime is interrupted and
suspended because prescription shall not run when the
A: The RTC may not grant the motion to dismiss because offender is absent from the Philippine Archipelago (Art.
the Court of Appeals, having issued an Entry of 91, RPC). Since A had been in hiding for 15 years after
Judgment, the decision has become final and executory. the commission of the crime and the prescriptive period
However, the pecuniary penalty, such as the civil starting running only after 5 years from such
liability arising from the crime consisting of actual commission when the crime was discovered, only 10
damages of P25,000 survives the death of Tiburcio. years lapsed and 3 years thereof should be deducted
when the prescriptive period was interrupted and
b. Assuming that Tiburcio's death occurred before suspended. Hence, the 3 years when A was out of the
the Court of Appeals rendered its decision, will Philippines should be deducted from the 10 years after
you give a different answer? the prescription starts running. Adding the 7 years of
prescription and the 6 years that lapsed before the case
A: Yes. The RTC decision must be set aside and the case was filed, only a total of thirteen (13) years of the
against Tiburcio must consequently be dismissed. The prescriptive period had lapsed. Hence, the crime has not
demise of Tiburcio which occurred before the Court of yet prescribed.
Appeals rendered its decision causes his criminal
liability, as well as his civil liability ex delicto, to be Q: On June 1, 1988, a complaint for concubinage
totally extinguished inasmuch as there is no longer a committed in February 1987 was filed against
defendant to stand as the accused, the civil action is Roberto in the Municipal Trial Court of Tanza, Cavite
instituted therein for recovery of civil liability ex delicto for purposes of preliminary investigation. For
is ipso facto extinguished, grounded as it is on criminal various reasons, it was only on July 3, 1998 when the
case. Judge of said court decided the case by dismissing it
for lack of jurisdiction since the crime was
PRESCRIPTION OF CRIME committed in Manila. The case was subsequently
filed with the City Fiscal of Manila but it was
Q: A killed his wife and buried her in their backyard. dismissed on the ground that the crime had already
He immediately went into hiding in the mountains. prescribed. The law provides that the crime of
Three years later, the bones of As wife were concubinage prescribes in ten (10) years. Was the
discovered by X, the gardener. Since X had a dismissal by the fiscal correct? Explain. (2001)
standing warrant of arrest, he hid the bones in an
old clay jar and kept quiet about it. After two years, A: No, the Fiscal's dismissal of the case on alleged
Z, the caretaker, found the bones and reported the prescription is not correct. The filing of the complaint
matter to the police. After 15 years of hiding, A left with the Municipal Trial Court, although only for
the country but returned three years later to take preliminary investigation, interrupted and suspended
care of his ailing sibling. Six years thereafter, he was the period of prescription in as much as the jurisdiction
charged with parricide but raised the defense of of a court in a criminal case is determined by the
prescription. (2010, 2009, 2004, 2000). allegations in the complaint or information, not by the
result of proof (People v. Galano, G.R. No. L-42925,
a. Under the Revised Penal Code, when does the January 31, 1977).
period of prescription of a crime commence to
run? Q: A was charged in an Information with the crime of
grave oral defamation but after trial, the court found
A: Generally, the period of prescription of a crime him guilty only of the offense of simple slander. He
commences to run for the date it was committed; but if filed a motion for reconsideration contending that,
the crime was committed clandestinely, the period of under the law, the crime of simple slander would
prescription of the crimes under the RPC commence to have prescribed in two months from commission,
run from the day on which the crime was discovered and since the information against him was filed
(the discovery rule) by the offended party, the more than four months after the alleged commission
authorities or their agents (Art. 91, RPC). of the crime, the same had already prescribed. The
Solicitor General opposed the motion on two
b. When is it interrupted? grounds: first, in determining the prescriptive
period, the nature of the offense charged in the
A: The running of the prescriptive period of the crime is Information should be considered, not the crime
interrupted when any kind of investigative proceedings proved; second, assuming that the offense had
is instituted against the guilty person which may already prescribed, the defense was waived by the
ultimately lead to his prosecution (Panaguiton, Jr. v. failure of A to raise it in a motion to quash. Resolve
DOJ, G.R. No. 167571, November 25, 2008). the motion for reconsideration. (1997)

c. Is As defense tenable? Explain. A: The motion for reconsideration should be granted.

a. The accused cannot be convicted of the offense of
A: No, the defense of prescription of the crime is not simple slander although it is necessarily included in
tenable. The crime committed is parricide which the offense of grave slander charged in the
prescribes in twenty (20) years (Art. 90, RPC). It was information, because, the lesser offense had already
only when the caretaker, Z, found the victims bones and prescribed at the time the information was filed;
reported the matter to the police that the crime is otherwise prosecutors can easily circumvent the
deemed legally discovered by the authorities or their rule of prescription in light offenses by the

agents and thus the prescriptive period of the crime

*QUAMTO is a compilation of past bar questions with answers as suggested by UPLC and other distinct
luminaries in the academe, and updated by the UST Academics Committee to fit for the 2016 Bar Exams.

simple expediment of filing a graver offense which defense? Discuss.

includes such light offense.
b. b. While the general rule is the failure of an accused A: My defense will be prescription because the crime
to file a motion to quash before he pleads to the was committed in 1964 and almost twenty nine years
complaint or information, shall be deemed a waiver had already elapsed since then. Even if we take
of the grounds of a motion to quash, the exceptions Falsification and Estafa individually, they have already
to this are: (1) no offense was charged in the prescribed. It is to be noted that when it comes to
complaint or information; (2) lack of Jurisdiction; discovery, the fact that the crime was discovered in
(3) extinction of the offense or penalty; and (4) 1964 will be of no moment because the offended party is
double jeopardy. Since the ground invoked by the considered to have constructive notice on the forgery
accused in his motion for reconsideration is after the Deed of Sale where his signature had been
extinction of the offense, then it can be raised even falsified was registered in the office of the Register of
after plea. In fact, it may even be invoked on appeal Deeds (Cabral v. Puno, G.R. No. L-41692, April 30, 1976).
(People v. Balagtas, G.R. No. 46413, October 6, 1939)
Q: Joe and Marcy were married in Batanes in 1955.
After two years, Joe left Marcy and settled in Q: Taylor was convicted of a violation of the Election
Mindanao where he later met and married Linda on Code, and was sentenced to suffer imprisonment of
12 June 1960. The second marriage was registered one year as minimum, to three years as maximum.
in the civil registry of Davao City three days after its The decision of the trial court was affirmed on
celebration. On 10 October 1975 Marcy who appeal and became final and executory. Taylor
remained in Batanes discovered the marriage of failed to appear when summoned for execution of
Joe to Linda. On 1 March 1976 Marcy filed a judgment, prompting the judge to issue an order for
complaint for bigamy against Joe. The crime of his arrest. Taylor was able to use the backdoor and
bigamy prescribed in fifteen years computed from left for the United States. Fifteen years later, Taylor
the day the crime is discovered by the offended returned to the Philippines and filed a Motion to
party, the authorities or their agents. Joe raised the Quash the warrant of arrest against him, on the
defense of prescription of the crime, more than ground that the penalty imposed against him had
fifteen years having elapsed from the celebration of already prescribed. (2015)
the bigamous marriage up to the filing of Marcy's
complaint. He contended that the registration of a. If you were the judge, would you grant Taylor's
his second marriage in the civil registry of Davao Motion to Quash? Explain.
City was constructive notice to the whole world of
the celebration thereof thus binding upon Marcy. A: If I were the judge, I will deny the motion to quash.
Has the crime of bigamy charged against Joe already Article 93 of the Revised Penal Code provides when the
prescribed? Discuss fully. (1995) prescription of penalties shall commence to run. Under
said provision, it shall commence to run from the date
A: No. The prescriptive period for the crime of bigamy is the felon evades the service of his sentence. Pursuant to
computed from the time the crime was discovered by Article 157 of the same Code, evasion of service of
the offended party, the authorities or their agents. The sentence can be committed only by those who have been
principle of constructive notice which ordinarily applies convicted by final judgment by escaping during the term
to land or property disputes should not be applied to the of his sentence. Taylor never served a single minute of
crime of bigamy, as marriage is not property. Thus, his sentence, and thus, prescription never started to run
when Marcy filed a complaint for bigamy on 7 March in his favor. Clearly, one who has not been committed to
1976, it was well within the reglamentary period as it prison cannot be said to have escaped therefrom ( Del
was barely a few months from the time of discovery on Castillo v. Torrecampo, G.R. No. 139033, December 18,
10 October 1975 (Sermonia v. CA, G.R. No. 109454, June 2002).
14, 1994).
b. Assuming that instead of the United States,
Q: B imitated the signature of A, registered owner of Taylor was able to go to another country with
a lot, in special power of attorney naming him (B) as which the Philippines had no extradition treaty,
the attorney- in-fact of A. On February 13, 1964, B will your answer be the same? Explain.
mortgaged the lot to a bank using the special power
of attorney to obtain a loan of P8,500.00. On the A: Even if Taylor was able to go to another country
same day, both the special power of attorney and the which the Philippines had no extradition treaty, I will
mortgage contract were duly registered in the deny the motion to quash. Going to a foreign country
Registry of Deeds. Because of Bs failure to pay, the with which this Government has no extradition treaty to
bank foreclosed the mortgage and the lot was sold to interrupt the running of prescription is not applicable
X in whose name a new title was issued. In March nor even material because the period of prescription is
1974, A discovered that the property was already not applicable nor even material because the period of
registered in the name of X because of an ejectment prescription had not commenced to run in the first
case filed against him by X. (1993) place; hence, there is nothing to interrupt.

a. If you were the lawyer of A, with what crime or PARDON BY THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE
crimes would you charge B? Explain.
Q: Senator Adamos was convicted of plunder. About
A: The crime committed is estafa thru falsification of one year after beginning to serve his sentence, the
public document. President of the Philippines granted him absolute
pardon. The signed pardon states: "In view hereof,

b. If you were the counsel of B. what would be your and in pursuance of the authority vested upon me by


QuAMTO for CRIMINAL LAW (1991-2015)
the Constitution, I hereby grant absolute pardon Q: Linda was convicted by the Sandiganbayan of
unto Adamos, who was convicted of plunder in estafa, through falsification of public document. She
Criminal Case No. XV32 and upon whom the penalty was sentenced accordingly and ordered to pay,
of reclusion perpetua was imposed." He now comes among others, P5,000.00 representing the balance
to you for advice. He wants to know if he could run of the amount defrauded. The case reached the
for senator in the next election. (2015) Supreme Court which affirmed the judgment of
conviction. During the pendency of Linda's motion
b. What advice will you give Adamos? Explain. for reconsideration in the said Court, the President
extended to her an absolute pardon which she
If I were the counsel of Senator Adamos, I will give him accepted. By reason of such pardon, she wrote the
the advice that he cannot run in the Senatorial race since Department of Finance requesting that she be
the terms of the pardon has not expressly restored his restored to her former post as assistant treasurer,
right to hold public office or remitted the accessory which is still vacant. The Department ruled that
penalty of perpetual absolute disqualification. Under Linda may be reinstated to her former position
Article 36 of the Revised Penal Code, a pardon shall not without the necessity of a new appointment and
work the restoration of the right to hold public office directed the City Treasurer to see to it that the sum
unless such right be expressly restored by terms of the of P5,000.00 be satisfied. Claiming that she should
pardon. Under Article 41, the penalty of reclusion not be made to pay P5,000.00, Linda appealed to the
perpetua shall carry with it perpetual absolute Office of the President. The Office of the President
disqualification which the offender shall suffer even dismissed the appeal and held that acquittal, not
though pardoned as to the principal penalty, unless the absolute pardon. Is the only ground for
same shall have been expressly remitted in the pardon reinstatement to one's former position and that the
(Risos-Vidal v. Lim, G.R. No. 206666, January 21, 2015). absolute pardon does not exempt the culprit from
payment of civil liability. Is Linda entitled to
d. Assuming that what Adamos committed was reinstatement? (1994)
heading a rebellion for which he was imposed
the same penalty of reclusion perpetua, and what A: No, Linda is not entitled to reinstatement to her
he received was amnesty from the government, former position inasmuch as her right thereto had been
will your answer be the same? Explain. relinquished or forfeited by reason of her conviction.
The absolute pardon merely extinguished her criminal
If Senator Adamos was convicted of rebellion and he liability, removed her disqualification, and restored her
received amnesty, I will give him the advice that he can eligibility for appointment to that office. She has to re-
run in the Senatorial race. Under Article 89 of the apply for such position and under the usual procedure
Revised Penal Code, criminal liability is totally required for a new appointment. Moreover, the pardon
extinguished by amnesty, which completely extinguishes does not extinguish the civil liability arising from the
the penalty and all its effects. Thus, the amnesty crime (Monsanto v. Factoran, Jr., February 9, 1989 (G.R.
extinguishes not only the principal penalty of reclusion No. 78239); see Art. 36, RPC).
perpetua but also its effects such as the accessory
penalty of perpetual absolute disqualification. Amnesty AMNESTY
looks backward and abolishes and puts into oblivion the
offense itself, it so overlooks and obliterates the offense Q: Enumerate the differences between pardon and
with which he is charged, so that the person released by amnesty. (2006)
amnesty stands before the law precisely as though he
had committed no offense (Barrioquinto v. Fernandez, A: The following are the differences between pardon
G.R. No. L-1278, January 21, 1949). and amnesty:

Q: TRY was sentenced to death by final judgment. In pardon:

But subsequently he was granted pardon by the
President. The pardon was silent on the perpetual The convict is excused from serving the sentence but the
disqualification of TRY to hold any public office. effects of conviction remain unless expressly remitted
After his pardon, TRY ran for office as Mayor of APP, by the pardon; hence, for pardon to be valid there must
his hometown. His opponent sought to disqualify be a sentence already final and executory at the time the
him. TRY contended he is not disqualified because same is granted. Moreover, the grant is in favor of
he was already pardoned by the President individual convicted offenders, not to a class of
unconditionally. Is TRY'S contention correct? convicted offenders; and the crimes subject of the grant
Reason briefly. (2004) may be common crimes or political crimes. Finally, the
grant is a private act of the Chief Executive which does
A: No, TRY's contention is not correct. Art. 40 of the RPC not require the concurrence of any other public officer
expressly provides that when the death penalty is not or office.
executed by reason of commutation or pardon, the
accessory penalties of perpetual absolute In amnesty:
disqualification and civil interdiction during thirty (30)
years from the date of the sentence shall remain as The criminal complexion of the act constituting the
effects thereof, unless such accessory penalties have crime is erased, as though such act was innocent when
been expressly remitted in the pardon. This is because committed; hence, the effects of the conviction are
pardon only excuses the convict from serving the obliterated. Amnesty is granted is in favor of a class of
sentence but does not relieve him of the effects of the convicted offenders, not to individual convicted
conviction unless expressly remitted in the pardon. offenders; and the crimes involved are generally
political offenses, not common crimes. Amnesty is a

*QUAMTO is a compilation of past bar questions with answers as suggested by UPLC and other distinct
luminaries in the academe, and updated by the UST Academics Committee to fit for the 2016 Bar Exams.

public act that requires the conformity or concurrence (ARTICLES 114-365, RPC) AND SPECIFICALLY
of the Philippine Senate. INCLUDED SPECIAL LAWS

Q: Under Presidential Proclamation No. 724, CRIMES AGAINST NATIONAL SECURITY

amending Presidential Proclamation No. 347, (Arts. 114-123)
certain crimes are covered by the grant of amnesty.
Name at least 5 of these crimes. (2006) Piracy in General and Mutiny on the High Seas (Art.
122) and Qualified Piracy (Art. 123)
A: (1) Illegal assembly; (2) Alarms and scandal; (3)
Illegal association; (4) Disloyalty by public officers/ Q: The inter-island vessel M/V Viva Lines I, while
employees; and (5) Illegal possession of firearms. cruising off Batanes, was forced to seek shelter at
the harbor of Kaoshiung, Taiwan because of a strong
Q: Antero Makabayan was convicted of the crime of typhoon. While anchored in said harbor, Max, Baldo
Rebellion. While serving sentence, he escaped from and Bogart arrived in a speedboat, fired a bazooka
jail. Captured, he was charged with, and convicted of at the bow of the vessel, boarded it and divested the
Evasion of Service of Sentence. Thereafter, the passengers of their money and jewelry. A passenger
President of the Philippines issued an amnesty of M/V Viva Lines I, Dodong advantage of the
proclamation for the offense of Rebellion. Antero confusion to settle an old grudge with another
applied for and was granted the benefit of the passenger, and killed him. After their apprehension,
amnesty proclamation. Antero then filed a petition all four were charged with qualified piracy before a
for habeas corpus, praying for his immediate release Philippine court. (2008)
from confinement. He claims that the amnesty
extends to the offense of evasion of Service of a. Was the charge of qualified piracy against the
Sentence. As judge, will you grant the petition? three person (Max, Badong and Bogart) who
Discuss fully. (2009) boarded the inter-island vessel correct? Explain.

A: Yes, I will grant the petition because the sentence that A: The charge is correct. Qualified Piracy was committed
was evaded proceeded from the crime of Rebellion when the offenders seized the vessels by firing on or
which has been obliterated by the grant of amnesty to boarding the same. In the problem, they even went
the offender (Art. 89[3], RPC). Since the amnesty erased further by divesting the passengers of their money and
the criminal complexion of the act committed by the jewelry. The vessel was anchored in the harbour of
offender as a crime of rebellion and rendered such act as Kaoshioung, Taiwan and it is submitted that the crime
though innocent, the sentence lost its legal basis. The was committed within the territorial jurisdiction of
purported evasion thereof therefore cannot subsist another country. The Supreme Court has ruled that the
(People v. Patriarca, G.R. No. 135457, September 29, high seas contemplated under Art. 122 of the RPC
2000). Amnesty obliterates, not only the basis of include the three-mile limit of any state (People v. Lol-lo,
conviction, but also all the legal effects thereof. G.R. No. 17958, February 27, 1922). Moreover, piracy is
an offense that can be tried anywhere because it is a
Q: Can former DSWD Secretary Dinky Soliman apply crime against the Law of Nations.
for amnesty? How about columnist Randy David?
(You are supposed to know the crimes or offenses b. Was Dodong correctly charged before the
ascribed to them as published in almost all Philippine court for qualified piracy? Explain.
newspapers for the past several months.) (2006)
A: No, Dodong was not correctly charged with qualified
A: Both Dinky Soliman and Randy David may apply for piracy because committing piracy was never in his mind
amnesty because the crime respectively imputed to nor did he have any involvement in the piracy
them are crimes against public order which are among committed. He merely took advantage of the situation in
the crimes covered by amnesty. killing the passenger. He should be charged with murder
since there was evident premeditation and intent to kill.
Proclamation 1160, which amended Proclamation 724, Q: While the S.S. Nagoya Maru was negotiating the
applies only to offenses committed prior to 1999. Thus, sea route from Hongkong towards Manila, and while
their applications shall be ineffectual and useless. still 300 miles from Aparri, Cagayan, its engines
malfunctioned. The Captain ordered the ship to stop
Q: General Lim and General Querubin of the Scout for emergency repairs lasting for almost 15 hours.
Rangers and Philippine Marines, respectively, were Due to exhaustion, the officers and crew fell asleep.
changed with conduct unbecoming an officer and a While the ship was anchored, a motorboat manned
gentleman under the Articles of War. Can they apply by renegade Ybanags from Claveria, Cagayan, passed
for amnesty? (2006) by and took advantage of the situation. They cut the
ship's engines and took away several heavy crates of
A: Yes. General Lim and General Querubin of the Scout electrical equipment and loaded them in their
Rangers and Philippine Marines can apply for amnesty. motorboat. Then they left hurriedly towards Aparri.
Violation of conduct unbecoming an officer and a At daybreak, the crew found that a robbery took
gentleman under Article 96 of the Articles of War is place. They radioed the Aparri Port Authorities
explicitly enumerated in Section 1 of Presidential resulting in the apprehension of the culprits. (2006)
Proclamation No. 724 as one of the crimes that are
covered by the grant of amnesty. A: Piracy in the high seas was committed by the
renegade Ybanags. The culprits, who are neither
BOOK II members of the complement nor passengers of the ship,

seized part of the equipment of the vessel while it was


QuAMTO for CRIMINAL LAW (1991-2015)
three hundred miles away from Aparri, Cagayan (Art.
122, RPC). To obtain a conviction for highway robbery, the
prosecution must prove that the accused were
Q: Supposing that while the robbery was taking organized for the purpose of committing robbery
place, the culprits stabbed a member of the crew indiscriminately. If the purpose is only particular
while sleeping. What crime was committed? Explain. robbery, the crime is only robbery, or robbery in band if
there are at least four armed participants. (See People v.
A: The crime committed is qualified piracy, because it Mendoza, G.R. No. 104461, February 23, 1996)
was accompanied by physical injuries/homicide. The
culprits stabbed a member of the crew while sleeping Q: Police Sgt. Diego Chan, being a member of the
(Art. 123, RPC). Theft and Robbery Division of the Western Police
District and assigned to the South Harbor, Manila,
Anti-Piracy and Anti-Highway Robbery (P.D. 532) was privy to and more or less familiar with the
schedules, routes and hours of the movements of
Q: A postal van containing mail matters, including container vans, as well as the mobile police
checks and treasury warrants, was hijacked along a patrols, from the pier area to the different export
national highway by ten (10) men, two (2) of whom processing zones outside Metro Manila. From time
were armed. They used force, violence and to time, he gave valuable and detailed information
intimidation against three (3) postal employees who on these matters to a group interested in those
were occupants of the van, resulting in the unlawful shipments in said container vans. On several
taking and transportation of the entire van and its instances, using the said information as their basis,
contents. (2012) the gang hijacked and pilfered the contents of the
vans. Prior to their sale to "fences" in Banawe,
a. If you were the public prosecutor, would you Quezon City and Bangkal, Makati City, the gang
charge the ten (10) men who hijacked the postal Informs Sgt, Chan who then inspects the pilfered
van with violation of Presidential Decree No. goods, makes his choice of the valuable items and
532, otherwise known as the Anti-Piracy and disposes of them through his own sources or
Anti -Highway Robbery Law of 1974? Explain "fences". When the highjackers were traced on one
your answer. occasion and arrested, upon custodial investigation,
they implicated Sgt. Chan and the fiscal charged
A: No, I would not charge the 10 men with the crime of them all, including Sgt. Chan as co-principals. Sgt.
highway robbery. The mere fact that the offense charged Chan, in his defense, claimed that he should not be
was committed on a highway would not be the charged as a principal but only as an accessory after
determinant for the application of P.D. 532. If a motor the fact under P.D. 532, otherwise known as the
vehicle, either stationary or moving on a highway, is Anti-Piracy and Anti-Highway Robbery Act of 1972.
forcibly taken at gun point by the accused who Is the contention of Sgt. Chan valid and tenable?
happened to take a fancy thereto, the location of the Explain. (2001)
vehicle at the time of the unlawful taking would not
necessarily put the offense within the ambit of P.D. 532. A: No, the contention of Sgt. Chan is not valid or tenable
In this case, the crime committed is violation of the Anti- because by express provision of P.D. 532, Section 4, a
Carnapping Act of 1972 (People v. Puno, G.R. No. 97471, person who knowingly and in any manner, aids or
February 17, 1993). Moreover, there is no showing that protects highway robbers/brigands, such as giving them
the 10 men were a band of outlaws organized for the information about the movement of police officers or
purpose of depredation upon the persons and acquires or receives property taken by brigands, or who
properties of innocent and defenseless inhabitants who directly or indirectly abets the commission of highway
travel from one place to another. What was shown is one robbery/brigandage, shall be considered as accomplice
isolated hijacking of a postal van. It was not stated in the of the principal offenders and punished in accordance
facts given that the 10 men previously attempted similar with the rules in the RPC.
robberies by them to establish indiscriminate
commission thereof (Filoteo Jr. v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. CRIMES AGAINST THE FUNDAMENTAL LAW OF THE
No. 79543, October 16, 1993). STATE (Articles 124-133)

b. If you were the defense counsel, what are the Arbitrary Detention (Article 124)
elements of the crime of highway robbery that
the prosecution should prove to sustain a Q: What are the 3 ways of committing arbitrary
conviction? detention? Explain each. What are the legal grounds
for detention? (2006)
A: Under Section 2 of P.D. 532, highway robbery is
defined as the seizure of any person for ransom, A: The three (3) ways of committing arbitrary detention
extortion or other unlawful purposes, or the taking away are:
of the property of another by means of violence against a. by detaining or locking up a person without any
or intimidation of person or force upon things or other legal cause or ground therefore purposely to
unlawful means, committed by any person on any restrain his liberty (RPC, Art. 124);
Philippine highway. Hence, the elements of highway b. by delaying delivery to the proper judicial authority
robbery are: of a person lawfully arrested without a warrant
1. intent to gain; (RPC, Art. 125); and
2. unlawful taking of the property of another; c. by delaying release of a prisoner whose release has
3. violence against or intimidation of any person; been ordered by competent authority (RPC, Art.
4. committed on a Philippine highway 126).

5. indiscrimate victim;

*QUAMTO is a compilation of past bar questions with answers as suggested by UPLC and other distinct
luminaries in the academe, and updated by the UST Academics Committee to fit for the 2016 Bar Exams.

In all the above-stated ways, the principal offender prohibiting her to make phone calls, is a clear case of
should be a public officer acting under color of his deprivation of personal liberty. Giving her food and
authority. access to the bathroom will not extinguish or mitigate
the criminal liability.
The legal grounds for detention are;
a. commission of a crime; Menor is further liable for robbery, because money or
b. violent insanity or other ailment requiring personal properly was taken, with intent to gain, and
compulsory confinement in an institution with intimidation. The peculiar situation of Lo Hua
established for such purpose. practically forced her to submit to the monetary
demands of the major.
Q: After due hearing on a petition for a writ of
amparo founded on the acts of enforced CRIMES AGAINST PUBLIC ORDER
disappearance and extralegal killing of the son of (Articles 134-160)
the complainant allegedly done by the respondent
military officers, the court granted the petition. May Rebellion (Article 134)
the military officers be criminally charged in court
with enforced disappearance and extralegal killing? Q: Distinguish clearly but briefly between
Explain fully. (2008) rebellion and coup d'etat, based on their
constitutive elements as criminal offenses. (2004,
A: No. "Enforced disappearance and extralegal killing" is 1991)
not per se a criminal offense although it is wrongful. The
grant of a writ of amparo only provides a relief; it does A:
not establish a basis for a crime. Unless the writ was 1. As to overt acts:
issued because of specific overt acts shown to have been
committed by the respondent military officers and such In rebellion, there is public uprising and taking up arms
acts are crimes under penal laws, no criminal charge against the Government. In coup d'etat public uprising is
may be routinely filed just because the petition for the not necessary. The essence of the crime is a swift attack,
writ was granted. accompanied by violence, intimidation, threat, strategy
or stealth, directed against duly constituted authorities
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER: of the Government, or any military camp or installation,
Yes, the respondent military officers may be criminally communication networks, public utilities or facilities
charged in court since enforced disappearance needed for the exercise and continued possession of
constitutes arbitrary detention under Art. 124 or government power;
Unlawful Arrest under Art. 269 of the RPC. Extralegal
killing can also be considered murder and/or homicide 2. As to purpose:
under Art. 248/249, RPC.
In rebellion, the purpose is to remove from the
Q: Major Menor, while patrolling Bago-Bago allegiance of the Philippines, the whole or any part or
community in a police car with SP03 Caloy Itliong the Philippines or any military or naval camps, deprive
blew his whistle to stop a Nissan Sentra car which the Chief Executive or Congress from performing their
wrongly entered a one-way street. After demanding functions. In coup d'etat the objective is to seize or
from Linda Lo Hua, the driver, her drivers license, diminish state powers.
Menor asked her to follow them to the police
precinct. Upon arriving there, he gave instructions 3. As to participation:
to Itliong to guard Lo Hua in one of the rooms and
not to let her out of sight until he returns; then got Rebellion can be carried out by any person. Coup d'etat
the car key from Lo Hua. In the meantime, the latter is committed by any person belonging to the military or
was not allowed to make any phone calls but was police or holding public office, with or without civilian
given food and access to a bathroom. participation.
When Menor showed up after two days, he brought
Lo Hua to a private house and told her that he would Q: On May 5, 1992, at about 6:00 a.m., while
only release her and return the car if she made Governor Alegre of Laguna was on board his car
arrangements for the delivery of P500,000.00 in a traveling along the National Highway of Laguna,
doctors bag at a certain place within the next Joselito and Vicente shot him on the head resulting
twenty-four hours. When Menor went to the in his instant death. At that time, Joselito and
designated spot to pick up the bag of money, he Vicente were members of the liquidation squad of
suddenly found himself surrounded by several the New People's Army and they killed the governor
armed civilians who introduced themselves as NBI upon orders of their senior officer, Commander
agents. What criminal offense has Menor Tiago. According to Joselito and Vicente, they were
committed? Explain. (1992) ordered to kill Governor Alegre because of his
corrupt practices. If you were the prosecutor, what
A: Menor is liable under Art. 124, RPC (Arbitrary crime will you charge Joselito and Vicente? (1998)
Detention) he being a public officer who detained, a
person without legal grounds. Violation of a traffic A: If I were the prosecutor, I would charge Joselito and
ordinance by entering a one-way street is not a valid Vicente with the crime of rebellion, considering that the
reason to arrest and detain the driver. Such only merits killers were members of the liquidation squad of the
the issuance of a traffic violation ticket. Hence, when Lo New People's Army and the killing was upon orders of
Hua was ordered to follow the police officers to the their commander; hence, politically-motivated. This was
precinct (confiscating her license to compel her to do the ruling in People v. Avila, G.R. No. 84612 March 11,

so), and confining her in a room for two days and 1992) involving identical facts which is a movement


QuAMTO for CRIMINAL LAW (1991-2015)
taken judicial notice of as engaged in rebellion against
the Government. A: Persons in authority are persons directly vested with
jurisdiction, whether as an individual or as a member of
Q: VC, JG, GG, and JG conspired to overthrow the some court or government corporation, board, or
Philippine Government. VG was recognized as the commission. Barrio captains and barangay chairmen are
titular head of the conspiracy. Several meetings also deemed persons in authority (Article 152, RPC).
were held and the plan was finalized. JJ, bothered by Agents of persons in authority are persons who by direct
his conscience, confessed to Father Abraham that he, provision of law or by election or by appointment by
VG, JG and GG have conspired to overthrow the competent authority, are charged with maintenance of
government. Father Abraham did not report this public order, the protection and security of life and
information to the proper authorities. Did Father property, such as barrio councilman, barrio policeman,
Abraham commit a crime? If so, what crime was barangay leader and any person who comes to the aid of
committed? What is his criminal liability? (1994) persons in authority (Art. 152, RPC).

A: No, Father Abraham did not commit a crime because In applying the provisions of Articles 148 and 151 of the
the conspiracy involved is one to commit rebellion, not a Rev Penal Code, teachers, professors and persons
conspiracy to commit treason which makes a person charged with the supervision of public or duly
criminally liable under Art 116, RPC. And even assuming recognized private schools, colleges and universities,
that it will fall as misprision of treason, Father Abraham and lawyers in the actual performance of their
is exempted from criminal liability under Art. 12, par. 7, professional duties or on the occasion on such
as his failure to report can be considered as due to performance, shall be deemed persons in authority. (P.D.
"insuperable cause", as this involves the sanctity and No. 299, and Batas Pambansa Big. 873).
inviolability of a confession. Conspiracy to commit
rebellion results in criminal liability to the co- Q: Dancio, a member of a drug syndicate, was a
conspirators, but not to a person who learned of such detention prisoner in the provincial jail of X
and did not report to the proper authorities (US v. Province. Brusco, another member of the syndicate,
Vergara, 3 Phil. 432; People vs. Atienza, 56 Phil. 353). regularly visited Dancio. Edri, the guard in charge
who had been receiving gifts from Brusco everytime
Coup detat (Article 134-A) he visited Dancio, became friendly with him and
became relaxed in the inspection of his belongings
Q: If a group of persons belonging to the armed during his jail visits. In one of Brusco's visits, he was
forces makes a swift attack, accompanied by able to smuggle in a pistol which Dancio used to
violence, intimidation and threat against a vital disarm the guards and destroy the padlock of the
military installation for the purpose of seizing main gate of the jail, enabling Dancio to escape.
power and taking over such installation, what crime What crime(s) did Dancio, Brusco and Edri commit?
or crimes are they guilty of? (2002, 1998) Explain. (2015)

A: The perpetrators, being persons belonging to the A: Dancio committed the crime of direct assault under
Armed Forces, would be guilty of the crime of coup Article 148 for disarming the guards with the use of
d'etat, under Art. 134-A of the RPC, as amended, because pistol while they are engaged in the performance of
their attack was against vital military installations which their duties. Using a pistol to disarm the guards
are essential to the continued possession and exercise of manifests criminal intention to defy the law and its
governmental powers, and their purpose is to seize representative at all hazard. [Note: Illegal possession of
power by taking over such installations. firearms may also be considered]

Q: If the attack is quelled but the leader is unknown, Edri committed infidelity in the custody of prisoner or
who shall be deemed the leader thereof? evasion through negligence under Article 224. As the
guard in charge, Edri was negligent in relaxing the
A: The leader being unknown, any person who in inspection of the Bruscos belongings during jail visits
fact directed the others, spoke for them, signed receipts allowing him to smuggle a pistol to Dencio, which he
and other documents issued in their name, or subsequently used to escape. By accepting gifts from
performed similar acts, on behalf of the group shall be Brusco, who was part of the syndicate to which Dancio
deemed the leader of said coup d'etat (Art 135, RPC). belonged, he is also guilty of indirect bribery under
Article 211.
Q: Supposing a public school teacher participated in
a coup d'etat using an unlicensed firearm. What Brusco committed delivery of prisoner from jail under
crime or crimes did he commit? (1998) Article 156, qualified by his bribery of Edri. Helping a
person confined in jail to escape constitutes this crime.
A: The public school teacher committed only coup d'etat Helping means furnishing the prisoner with the
for his participation therein. His use of an unlicensed material means or tools which greatly facilitate his
firearm is absorbed in the coup d'etat under the new escape; hence, providing a pistol which helped Dencio to
firearms law (R.A. 8294). escape is delivery of prisoner from jail.

Q: Miss Reyes, a lady professor, caught Mariano, one

of her students, cheating during an examination.
Aside from calling Mariano's attention, she
Direct Assault (Article 148) confiscated his examination booklet and sent him
out of the room, causing Mariano extreme
Q: Who are deemed to be persons in authority and embarrassment.

agents of persons in authority? (2000)

*QUAMTO is a compilation of past bar questions with answers as suggested by UPLC and other distinct
luminaries in the academe, and updated by the UST Academics Committee to fit for the 2016 Bar Exams.

In class the following day, Mariano approached Miss A, B rushed towards Y and pinned both of the latter's
Reyes and without any warning, slapped her on the arms. Seeing his father being held by B, X went near
face. Mariano would have inflicted grave injuries on and punched B on the face, which caused him to lose
Miss Reyes had not Dencio, another student, his grip on Y. Throughout this incident, Z
intervened. Mariano then turned his ire on Dencio shouted words of encouragement at Y, her
and punched him repeatedly, causing him injuries. husband, and also threatened to slap A. Some
What crime or crimes, if any, did Mariano commit? security guards of the school arrived, intervened
(2013, 2002, 1993) and surrounded X, Y and Z so that they could be
investigated in the principal's office. Before leaving,
A: Mariano is liable for two counts of direct assault. Z passed near A and threw a small flower pot at him
First, when he slapped Miss Reyes, who is a person in but it was deflected by B. (2001)
authority expressly mentioned in Art. 152 of the RPC,
who was in the performance of her duties on the day of a. What, if any, are the respective criminal liability
the commission of the assault. Second, when he of X, Y, and Z?
repeatedly punched Dencio, who became an agent of the
person in authority when he came to the aid of a person A: X is liable for Direct Assault only, assuming the
in authority, Miss Reyes (Celig v. People, G.R. No. 173150, physical injuries inflicted on B, the Barangay Chairman,
July 28, 2010). to be only slight and hence, would be absorbed in the
direct assault. A Barangay Chairman is a person in
Q: Rigoberto gate-crashed the 71st birthday party of authority and in this case, was performing his duty of
Judge Lorenzo. Armed with a piece of wood maintaining peace and order when attacked.
commonly known as dos por dos, Rigoberto hit
Judge Lorenzo on the back, causing the latters Y is liable for the complex crimes of Direct Assault with
hospitalization for 30 days. Upon investigation, it Less Serious Physical Injuries for the fist blow on A, the
appeared that Rigoberto had a grudge against Judge teacher, which caused the latter to fall down. For
Lorenzo who, two years earlier, had cited Rigoberto purposes of the crimes in Arts. 148 and 151 of the RPC, a
in contempt and ordered his imprisonment for three teacher is considered a person in authority, and having
(3) days. (2009) been attacked by Y by reason of his performance of
official duty, direct assault is committed with the
a. Is Rigoberto guilty of Direct Assault? Why or why resulting less serious physical injuries completed.
Z, the mother of X and wife of Y may only be liable as an
A: No, Rigorberto is not guilty of Direct Assault because accomplice to the complex crimes of direct assault with
Judge Lorenzo has ceased to be a judge when he was less serious physical injuries committed by Y. Her
attacked. He has retired (71 years old) from his position participation should not be considered as that of a co-
as a person in authority when he was attacked. Hence, principal, since her reactions were only incited by her
the attack on him cannot be regarded as against a relationship to X and Y. as the mother of X and the wife
person in authority anymore. of Y.

b. Would your answer be the same if the reason for b. Would your answer be the same if B were a
the attack was that when Judge Lorenzo was still barangay tanod only?
a practicing lawyer ten years ago, he prosecuted
Rigoberto and succeeded in sending him to jail A: If B were a Barangay Tanod only, the act of X of laying
for one year? Explain your answer. hand on him, being an agent of a person in authority
only, would constitute the crime of Resistance and
A: Yes. Rigorberto is guilty of Direct Assault because the Disobedience under Art. 151, since X, a high school
employment of violence was by reason of an actual pupil, could not be considered as having acted out of
performance of a duty by the offended party acting as a contempt for authority but more of helping his father get
practicing lawyer. Lawyers are considered persons in free from the grip of B. Laying hand on an agent of a
authority by virtue of B.P. 873, which states that lawyers person in authority is not ipso facto direct assault, while
in the actual performance of their professional duties or it would always be direct assault if done to a person in
on the occasion of such performance shall be deemed authority in defiance to the latter is exercise of
persons in authority. But the crime having been authority.
committed 10 years ago, may have already prescribed
because it is punishable by a correctional penalty. Q: Because of the approaching town fiesta in San
Miguel, Bulacan, a dance was held in Barangay
Q: A, a teacher at Mapa High School, having gotten Camias. A, the Barangay Captain, was invited to
mad at X, one of his pupils, because of the latter's deliver a speech to start the dance. While A was
throwing paper clips at his classmates, twisted his delivering his speech, B, one of the guests, went to
right ear. X went out of the classroom crying and the middle of the dance floor making obscene dance
proceeded home located at the back of the school. movements, brandishing a knife and challenging
He reported to his parents Y and Z what A had done everyone present to a fight. A approached B and
to him. Y and Z immediately proceeded to the school admonished him to keep quiet and not to disturb the
building and because they were running and talking dance and peace of the occasion. B, instead of
in loud voices, they were seen by the barangay heeding the advice of A, stabbed the latter at his
chairman, B, who followed them as he suspected back twice when A turned his back to proceed to the
that an untoward incident might happen. Upon microphone to continue his speech. A fell to the
seeing A inside the classroom, X pointed him out to ground and died. At the time of the incident A was
his father, Y, who administered a fist blow on A, not armed. What crime was committed? Explain.

causing him to fall down. When Y was about to kick (2000, 1995)


QuAMTO for CRIMINAL LAW (1991-2015)
c. Falsification of Public Documents, as a principal
A: The complex crime of direct assault with murder was by inducement (Art. 172[1], RPC);
committed. A, as a Barangay Captain, is a person in 2. Willy committed the crime of Delivery of Prisoners
authority and was acting in an official capacity when he from Jail (Art. 156, RPC) as a principal by
tried to maintain peace and order during the public indispensable cooperation if he was aware of the
dance in the Barangay, by admonishing B to keep quiet criminal plan of Chito to have them escape from
and not to disturb the dance and peace of the occasion. prison and he did escape pursuant to such criminal
When B, instead of heeding A's advice, attacked the plan; otherwise he would not be liable for said crime
latter, B acted in contempt and lawless defiance of if he escaped pursuant to human instinct only;
authority constituting the crime of direct assault, 3. Vincent, being a prisoner serving sentence by final
which characterized the stabbing of A. And since A was judgment, committed the crime of Evasion of
stabbed at the back when he was not in a position to Service of Sentence (Art. 157, RPC) for escaping
neither defend him nor retaliate, there was treachery in during the term of his imprisonment;
the stabbing. Hence, the death caused by such stabbing 4. The Branch Clerk of Court committed the crimes of:
was murder and having been committed with direct a. Direct Bribery (Art. 210, RPC) for accepting the
assault, a complex crime of direct assault with P50,000.00 in consideration of the order she
murder was committed by B. issued to enable the prisoners to get out of jail;
b. Falsification of Public Document for forging the
REPEATED DOCTRINE judge's signature on said Order (Art. 171, RPC);
Q: Pablo, disobeying a judicial order, was punished c. Delivery of Prisoners from Jail (Art. 156, RPC), as
by an RTC Judge of Manila for contempt. He waited a co-principal of Chito by indispensable
for the judge to go out into the street. Upon seeing cooperation for making the false order and
the judge, Pablo hurriedly approached him, and forging the judge's signature thereon, to enable
without saying a word struck him with his fist the prisoners to get out of jail;
causing a slight contusion on the face of the Judge. d. Evasion of Service of Sentence (Art. 157, RPC);
Rex came to the rescue of the Judge but because he as a co-principal of Vincent by indispensable
was taller and bigger than Pablo, the latter used a cooperation for making the false Order that
knife in attacking Rex. Pablo limited his assault to enabled Vincent to evade service of his
the arms of Rex Inflicting lesions graves which sentence;
incapacitated Rex from labor for forty five (45) days. 5. Edwin, the jail guard who escorted the prisoners in
If you were the prosecutor called to institute a getting out of jail, committed the crimes of
criminal action against Pablo, with what crime or a. Infidelity in the Custody of Prisoners,
crimes would you charge him? Explain. (1993) specifically conniving with or consenting to
Evasion for leaving unguarded the prisoners
A: The crime of direct assault upon a person in authority escorted by him and provide them an
with respect to the slight contusion on the face of the opportunity to escape (Art. 223, RPC);
Judge. Direct assault with serious physical injuries with b. Direct Bribery for receiving the P50,000.00 as
respect to the assault on Rex. consideration for leaving the prisoners
unguarded and allowing them the opportunity
Delivery of Prisoner from Jail (Article 156) to escape (Art. 210, RPC);
6. The jail warden did not commit nor incur a crime
Q: To secure a release of his brother Willy, a there being no showing that he was aware of what
detention prisoner, and his cousin Vincent, who is his subordinates had done nor of any negligence on
serving sentence for homicide, Chito asked the RTC his part that would amount to infidelity in the
Branch Clerk of Court to issue an Order which would custody of prisoners.
allow the two prisoners to be brought out of jail. At
first, the Clerk refused, but when Chita gave her Q: A, a detention prisoner, was taken to a hospital
P50,000.00, she consented. for emergency medical treatment. His followers, all
She then prepared an Order requiring the of whom were armed, went to the hospital to take
appearance in court of Willy and Vincent, ostensibly him away or help him escape. The prison guards,
as witnesses in a pending case. She forged the seeing that they were outnumbered and that
judge's signature, and delivered the Order to the jail resistance would endanger the lives of other
warden who, in turn, allowed Willy and Vincent to patients, deckled to allow the prisoner to be taken
go out of jail in the company of an armed escort, by his followers. What crime, if any, was committed
Edwin. Chito also gave Edwin P50,000.00 to leave by A's followers? Why? (2002)
the two inmates unguarded for three minutes and
provide them with an opportunity to escape. Thus, A: A's followers shall be liable as principals in the crime
Willy and Vincent were able to escape. What crime of delivery of prisoner from jail. The felony is committed
or crimes, if any, had been committed by Chito, not only by removing from any jail or penal
Willy, Vincent, the Branch Clerk of court, Edwin, and establishment any person confined therein but also by
the jail warden? Explain your answer. (2009, 2014) helping in the escape of such person outside of said
establishments by means of violence, intimidation,
A: The crimes committed in this case are as follows: bribery, or any other means.
1. Chito committed the crimes of:
a. Delivery of Prisoners from Jail (Art. 156, RPC)
for working out the escape of prisoners Willy Evasion of Service of Sentence (Article 157)
and Vincent;
b. Two counts of Corruption of Public Officials Q: Manny killed his wife under exceptional
(Art. 212, RPC); and circumstances and was sentenced by the Regional

Trial Court of Dagupan City to suffer the penalty of

*QUAMTO is a compilation of past bar questions with answers as suggested by UPLC and other distinct
luminaries in the academe, and updated by the UST Academics Committee to fit for the 2016 Bar Exams.

destierro during which he was not to enter the city. Q: How are "forging" and "falsification" committed?
While serving sentence, Manny went to Dagupan (1999)
City to visit his mother. Later, he was arrested in
Manila. (1998) A: Forging or forgery is committed by giving to a
treasury or bank note or any instrument payable to
a. Did Manny commit any crime? bearer or to order the appearance of a true and genuine
document; or by erasing, substituting, counterfeiting, or
A: Yes. Manny committed the crime of evasion of service altering by any means the figures, letters, words or signs
of sentence when he went to Dagupan City, which he contained therein.
was prohibited from entering under his sentence of
destierro. A sentence imposing the penalty of destierro Falsification, on the other hand, is committed by:
is evaded when the convict enters any of the 1. Counterfeiting or imitating any handwriting,
place/places he is prohibited from entering under the signature or rubric;
sentence or come within the prohibited radius. Although 2. Causing it to appear that persons have participated
destierro does not involve imprisonment, it is in any act or proceeding when they did not in fact so
nonetheless a deprivation of liberty (People v. Abilong, participate;
G.R. No. L-1960, November 26, 1948). 3. Attributing to persons who have participated in an
act or proceeding statements other than those in
b. If so, where should he be prosecuted? fact made by them;
4. Making untruthful statements in a narration of facts;
A: Manny may be prosecuted in Dagupan City or in 5. Altering true dates;
Manila where he was arrested. This is so because 6. Making any alteration or intercalation in a genuine
evasion of service of sentence is a continuing offense, as document which changes its meaning;
the convict is a fugitive from justice in such case 7. Issuing in an authenticated form a document
(Parulan v. Dir. of Prisons, G.R. No. L-28519, February 17, purporting to be a copy of an original document
1968). when no such original exists, or including in such
copy a statement contrary to, or different from, that
Decree Codifying the Laws on Illegal/Unlawful of the genuine original; or
Possession, Manufacture, Dealing in, Acquisition or 8. Intercalating any instrument or note relative to the
Disposition of Firearms, Ammunition or Explosives issuance thereof in a protocol, registry, or official
(P.D. 1866, as amended by R.A. No. 8294), as further book.
amended by the Comprehensive Firearms and
Ammunition Regulation Act (R.A. No. 10591) Illegal Possession and Use of False Treasury or Bank
Notes and Other Instruments of Credit (Article 168)
Q: A has long been wanted by the police authorities
for various crimes committed by him. Acting on an Q: Is mere possession of false money bills
information by a tipster, the police proceeded to punishable under Article 168 of the Revised Penal
an apartment where A was often seen. The tipster Code? (1999)
also warned the policemen that A was always armed.
At the given address, a lady who introduced herself A: No. Possession of false treasury or bank note alone
as the elder sister of A, opened the door and let the without an intent to use it, is not punishable. But the
policemen in inside, the team found A sleeping on circumstances of such possession may indicate intent to
the floor. Immediately beside him was a clutch bag utter, sufficient to consummate the crime of illegal
which, when opened, contained a .38 caliber paltik possession of false notes.
revolver and a hand grenade. After verification, the
authorities discovered that A was not a licensed Q: The accused was caught in possession of 100
holder of the .38 caliber paltik revolver. As for the counterfeit P20 bills. He could not explain how and
hand grenade, it was established that only military why he possessed the said bills. Neither could he
personnel are authorized to carry hand grenades. explain what he intended to do with the fake bills.
Subsequently, A was charged with the crime of Can he be held criminally liable for such possession?
Illegal Possession of Firearms and Ammunition. Decide. (1999)
During trial, A maintained that the bag containing
the unlicensed firearm and hand grenade belonged A: Yes. Knowledge that the note is counterfeit and intent
to A, his friend, and that he was not in actual to use it may be shown by the conduct of the accused. So,
possession thereof at the time he was arrested. Are possession of 100 false bills reveal: (a) knowledge that
the allegations meritorious? Explain. (2000) the bills are fake; and (b) intent to utter the same.

A: A's allegations are not meritorious. Ownership is not Falsification by Public Officer, Employee or Notary
an essential element of the crime of illegal possession of or Ecclesiastical Minister (Article 171)
firearms and ammunition. What the law requires is
merely possession, which includes not only actual Q: Erwin and Bea approached Mayor Abral and
physical possession but also constructive possession requested him to solemnize their marriage. Mayor
where the firearm and explosive are subject to one's Abral agreed. Erwin and Bea went to Mayor Abral's
control and management (People v. De Grecia, 233 SCRA office on the day of the ceremony, but Mayor Abral
716; U.S. v. Juan, 23 Phil. 105: People v. Soyang, G.R. Nos. was not there. When Erwin and Bea inquired where
L-13983-85. December 31, 1960). Mayor Abral was, his chief of staff Donato informed
them that the Mayor was campaigning for the
CRIMES AGAINST PUBLIC INTEREST coming elections. Donato told them that the Mayor
(Article 161-187) authorized him to solemnize the marriage and that

Mayor Abral would just sign the documents when he


QuAMTO for CRIMINAL LAW (1991-2015)
arrived. Donato thereafter solemnized the marriage he being a private individual, he is culpable thereunder.
and later turned over the documents to Mayor Abral
for his signature. In the marriage contract, it was Q: In a civil case for recovery of a sum of money
stated that the marriage was solemnized by Mayor filed against him by A. B interposed the defense of
Abral. What crime(s) did Mayor Abral and Donato payment. In support thereof, he identified and
commit? Explain. (2015) offered in evidence a receipt which appears to be
signed by A On rebuttal. A denied having been paid
A: Mayor Abral is liable for falsification of public by B and having signed the receipt. He presented a
document by a public officer under Article 171. Making handwriting expert who testified that the alleged
an untruthful statement by stating in a marriage signature of A on the receipt is a forgery and that a
contract, a public document, that the marriage was comparison thereof with the specimen signatures of
solemnized by him, is an act of falsification. The crime of B clearly shows that B himself forged the signature
illegal marriage is not committed because element that of A.
the offender has performed an illegal marriage Is B liable for the crime of using a falsified docu-
ceremony is lacking (Ronulo v. People, G.R. No. 182438, ment in a judicial proceeding (last paragraph of
July 2, 2014). Article 172 of the Revised Penal Code)? (1991)

Donato committed the crime of usurpation of function A: No, B should not be liable for the crime of using a
under Article 177 of the Revised Penal Code because he falsified document, under the last paragraph of Art. 172,
performed the act of solemnizing marriage, which RPC. He would be liable for forgery of a private
pertained to the mayor, a person in authority, without document under the second mode of falsification under
being lawfully entitled to do so. The crime of illegal Art. 172, RPC. Being the possessor and user of the
marriage is not committed, because the element that falsified document he is presumed to be the forger or
the offender is authorized to solemnize marriage is falsifier and the offense of introducing falsified
lacking (Ronulo v. People, G.R. No. 182438, July 2, 2014). document is already absorbed in the main offense of for-
gery or falsification.
Falsification by Private Individual and Use of
Falsified Documents (Article 172) False Testimony (Article 180-183)

Q: A falsified official or public document was found Q: Al Chua, a Chinese national, filed a petition under
in the possession of the accused. No evidence was oath for naturalization, with the Regional Trial
introduced to show that the accused was the author Court of Manila. In his petition, he stated that he is
of the falsification. As a matter of fact, the trial court married to Leni Chua; that he is living with her in
convicted the accused of falsification of official or Sampaloc, Manila; that he is of good moral
public document mainly on the proposition that "the character; and that he has conducted himself in an
only person who could have made the erasures and irreproachable manner during his stay in the
the superimposition mentioned is the one who Philippines. However, at the time of the filing of the
will be benefited by the alterations thus made" petition, Leni Chua was already living in Cebu, while
and that "he alone could have the motive for making Al was living with Babes Toh in Manila, with whom
such alterations". Was the conviction of the accused he has an amorous relationship. After his direct
proper although the conviction was premised testimony, Al Chua withdrew his petition for
merely on the aforesaid ratiocination? Explain your naturalization. What crime or crimes, if any, did Al
answer. (1999) Chua commit? Explain. (2005)

A: Yes, the conviction is proper because there is a A: Al Chua committed perjury. His declaration under
presumption in law that the possessor and user of a oath for naturalization that he is of good moral character
falsified document is the one who falsified the same. and residing at Sampaloc, Manila are false. This
information is material to his petition for naturalization.
Q: Jose Dee Kiam, a Chinese citizen born in Macao, He committed perjury for this wilful and deliberate
having applied with a recruitment agency to work in assertion of falsehood which is contained in a verified
Kuwait, went to Quezon City Hall to procure a petition made for a legal purpose.
Community Tax Certificate, formerly called
Residence Certificate. He stated therein that his Q: A, a government employee, was administratively
name is Leo Tiampuy, a Filipino citizen born in charged with immorality for having an affair with B,
Binan, Laguna. As he paid for the Community Tax a co-employee in the same office who believed him
Certificate, Cecille Delicious, an employee in the to be single. To exculpate himself, A testified that he
office recognized him and reported to her boss that was single and was willing to marry B, He induced C
the information written in the Community Tax to testify and C did testify that B was single. The
Certificate were all lies. Shortly thereafter, an truth, however, was that A had earlier married D,
information was filed against Dee Kiam alias now a neighbor of C. Is a guilty of perjury? Are A and
Tiampuy. What crime, if any, may he be indicted for? C guilty of subordination of perjury? (1997)
Why? (1992)
A: No. A is not guilty of perjury because the willful
A: Dee Kiam can be indicted for the felony of falsehood asserted by him is not material to the charge
Falsification of a Public Document committed by a of immorality. Whether A is single or married, the
private individual under Art. 172 of the RPC in relation charge of immorality against him as a government
to Art. 171 thereof. A residence certificate is a public or employee could proceed or prosper. In other words, A's
official document within the context of said provisions civil status is not a defense to the charge of
and jurisprudence. Since Dee Kiam made an untruthful immorality, hence, not a material matter that could

statement in a narration of facts (Art. 171(4), RPC), and influence the charge. There is no crime of subornation

*QUAMTO is a compilation of past bar questions with answers as suggested by UPLC and other distinct
luminaries in the academe, and updated by the UST Academics Committee to fit for the 2016 Bar Exams.

of perjury. The crime is now treated as plain perjury A: Yes. For one to be criminally liable under Art. 181,
with the one inducing another as the principal RPC, it is not necessary that the criminal case where
inducement, and the latter, as principal by direct Andrew testified is terminated first. It is not even
participation (People v. Podol, 66 Phil. 365). Since in this required of the prosecution to prove which of the two
case A cannot be held liable for perjury, the matter that statements of the witness is false and to prove the
he testified to being immaterial, he cannot therefore be statement to be false by evidence other than the
held responsible as a principal by inducement when he contradictory statements.
induced C to testify on his status. Consequently, C is not
liable as principal by direct participation in perjury, b. Paolo was acquitted. The decision became final
having testified on matters not material to an on January 10, 1987. On June 18, 1994 a case of
administrative case. giving false testimony was filed against Andrew.
As his lawyer, what legal step will you take?
Q: Sisenando purchased the share of the
stockholders of Estrella Corporation in two A: As lawyer of Andrew, I will file a motion to quash the
installments, making him the majority stockholder Information on the ground of prescription. The crime of
thereof and eventually, its president. Because the false testimony under Art. 180 has prescribed because
stockholders who sold their stocks failed to comply Paolo, the accused in the principal case, was acquitted
with their warranties attendant to the sale, on January 10, 1987 and therefore the penalty
Sisenando withheld payment of the second prescribed for such crime is arresto mayor under Art.
installment due on the shares and deposited the 180[4] of RPC. Crimes punishable by arresto mayor
money in escrow instead, subject to release once prescribe in five (5) years (Art. 90[3], RPC). But the case
said stockholders comply with their warranties. The against Andrew was filed only on June 18, 1994,
stockholders concerned, in turn, rescinded the sale whereas the principal criminal case was decided with
in question and removed Sisenando from the finality on January 10, 1987 and, thence the prescriptive
Presidency of the Estrella Corp., Sisenando then filed period of the crime commenced to run. From January 10,
a verified complaint for damages against said 1987 to June 18, 1994 is more than five (5) years.
stockholders in his capacity as president and
principal stockholder of Estrella Corp. In retaliation, Q: Explain and illustrate subornation of perjury.
the stockholders concerned, after petitioning the (1993)
Securities and Exchange Commission to declare the
rescission valid, further filed a criminal case for A: Subordination of perjury refers to the act of a
perjury against Sisenando, claiming that the latter person procuring a false witness to testify and
perjured himself when he stated under oath in the thereby commit perjury. The procurer is a co-
verification of his complaint for damages that he is principal by inducement.
the President of the Estrella Corporation when in
fact he had already been removed as such. Under the Q: A, who was the client of B (a lawyer), signed a re-
facts of the case, could Sisenando be held liable for tainer agreement for the payment of attorneys
perjury? Explain. (1996) fees. After B rendered satisfactory service, A
refused to pay the attorneys fees. B sued. In her
A: No, Sisenando may not be held liable for perjury verified answer, A alleged that she did not owe
because it cannot be reasonably maintained that he money to plaintiff B nor did she engage his legal
wilfully and deliberately made an assertion of a services. These statements under oath were false.
falsehood when he alleged in the complaint that he is the B filed a criminal complaint for perjury against A,
President of the Corporation, obviously, he made the and an information was filed in court. If you are the
allegation on the premise that his removal from the lawyer for accused A, what is your defense, if any?
presidency is not valid and that is precisely the issue (1991)
brought about by his complaint to the SEC. It is a fact
that Sisenando has been the President of the A: I will move for the dismissal of the complaint for per-
corporation and it is from that position that the jury. The falsity of sworn statement must be required
stockholders concerned purportedly removed him, or authorized by law (Flordeliz v. Himalalaon, G.R. No. L-
whereupon he filed the complaint questioning his 48088, July 31, 1978).
removal. There is no wilful and deliberate assertion of a
falsehood which is a requisite of perjury. Anti-Money Laundering Act (R.A. No. 9194)

Q: Paolo was charged with homicide before the Q: Define Money Laundering. What are the three (3)
Regional Trial Court of Manila. Andrew, a stages in money laundering? (2010)
prosecution witness, testified that he saw Paolo
shoot Abby during their heated argument. While the A: Money Laundering is the process by which a person
case is still pending, the City Hall of Manila burned conceals the existence of unlawfully obtained money
down and the entire records of the case were and makes it appear to have originated from lawful
destroyed. Later, the records were reconstituted. sources. The intention behind such a transaction is to
Andrew was again called to the witness stand. This hide the beneficial owner of said funds and allows
time he testified that his first testimony was false criminal organizations or criminals to enjoy proceeds of
and the truth was he was abroad when the crime such criminal activities.
took place. The judge immediately ordered the
prosecution of Andrew for giving a false testimony The three (3) stages in money laundering are:
favorable to the defendant in a criminal case. (1994) a. Placement/ infusion or the physical disposal of
criminal proceeds
a. Will the case against Andrew prosper? b. Layering or the separation of the criminal proceeds

from their source by creating layers of financial


QuAMTO for CRIMINAL LAW (1991-2015)
transactions to disguise such proceeds as legitimate Q: Tiburcio asked Anastacio to join their group for a
and avoid audit trail; and session. Thinking that it was for a mah-jong
c. Integration or the provision of apparent legitimacy session, Anastacio agreed. Upon reaching Tiburcios
to the criminal proceeds. house, Anastacio discovered that it was actually a
shabu session. At that precise time, the place was
Q: There being probable cause to believe that already raided by the police, and Anastacio was
certain deposits and investments in a bank are among those arrested. What crime can Anastacio be
related to an unlawful activity of smuggling by charged with, if any? Explain your answer. (2007)
Alessandro as defined under Republic Act (R.A.) No.
9160 as amended (Anti-Money Laundering Act), an A: Anastacio may not be charged of any crime. Sec. 7 of
application for an order to allow inquiry into his R.A. 9165 on the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs of
deposit was filed with the Regional Trial Court. After 2002 punishes employees and visitors of a den, dive or
hearing the application, the court granted the resort where dangerous drugs are used in any form. But
application and issued a freeze order. Pass upon the for a visitor of such place to commit the crime, it is a
correctness of the courts order. Explain. (2010) requisite that he "is aware of the nature of the place as
such and shall knowingly visit the same." These
A: The freeze order issued by the Regional Trial Court is requisites are absent in the facts given.
not correct because jurisdiction to issue said freeze
order is now vested with the Court of Appeals under RA Q: After receiving reliable information that Dante
9194, amending the Anti-Money Laundering Act (R.A. Ong, a notorious drug smuggler, was arriving on PAL
9160). The Regional Trial Court is without jurisdiction to Flight No. PR 181, PNP Chief Inspector Samuel
issue a freeze order of the money involved. Gamboa formed a group of anti-drug agents. When
Ong arrived at the airport, the group arrested him
Q: [True or False] For a person who transacts an and seized his attache case. Upon inspection inside
instrument representing the proceeds of a covered the Immigration holding area, the attache case
unlawful activity to be liable under the Anti-Money yielded 5 plastic bags of heroin weighing 500 grams.
Laundering Act (R.A. 9160, as amended), it must be Chief Inspector Gamboa took the attache case and
shown that he has knowledge of the identities of the boarded him in an unmarked car driven by PO3
culprits involved in the commission of the predicate Pepito Lorbes. On the way to Camp Crame and upon
crimes. (2009) nearing White Plains corner EDSA, Chief Inspector
Gamboa ordered PO3 Lorbes to stop the car. They
A: False, there is nothing in the law which requires that brought out the drugs from the case in the trunk and
the accused must know the identities of the culprits got 3 plastic sacks of heroin. They then told Ong to
involved in the commission of the predicate crimes. To alight from the car. Ong left with the 2 remaining
establish liability under R.A. 9160, it is sufficient that plastic sacks of heroin. Chief Inspector Gamboa
proceeds of an unlawful activity are transacted, making advised him to keep silent and go home which the
them appear to have originated from legitimate sources. latter did. Unknown to them, an NBI team of agents
had been following them and witnessed the
Q: Don Gabito, a philanthropist, offered to fund transaction. They arrested Chief Inspector Gamboa
several projects of the Mayor. He opened an account and PO3 Lorbes. Meanwhile, another NBI team
in the Mayors name and regularly deposited various followed Ong and likewise arrested him. All of them
amounts ranging from P500,000.00 to P1 Million. were later charged. What are their respective
From this account, the Mayor withdrew and used the criminal liabilities? (2006)
money for constructing feeder roads, barangay
clinics, repairing schools and for all other municipal A: Chief Inspector Gamboa and PO3 Pepito Lorbes who
projects. It was subsequently discovered that Don conspired in taking the attache case are liable for the
Gabito was actually a jueteng operator and the following crimes defined under R.A. 9165:
amounts he deposited were proceeds from his a. Sec. 27 for misappropriation or failure to account
jueteng operations. What crime/s were committed? for the confiscated or seized dangerous drugs.
Who are criminally liable? Explain. (2005) b. Sec. 4 in relation to Sec. 3(e) for their acts as
protector/coddler of Dante Ong who imported
A: Don Gabito violated the Anti-Money Laundering Act drugs.
(Sec. 4, R.A. 9160) for knowingly transacting money or c. In addition, by allowing Ong to escape prosecution
property which involves or relates to the proceeds of an for illegal importation or illegal transportation of
unlawful activity such as jueteng. In addition, he may be dangerous drugs, where the penalty is life
prosecuted for liability as a jueteng operator (R.A. 9287). imprisonment to death, they are also liable for
The mayor who allowed the opening of an account in his qualified bribery under Art. 211-A of the RPC.
name is likewise guilty for violation of the AMLA. He,
knowing that the money instrument or property With respect to Dante Ong, he is guilty of illegal
involves the proceeds of an unlawful activity, performs importation of dangerous drugs under Sec. 4, R.A. 9165,
or fails to perform any act which results in the if PR 181 is an international flight. If PR 181 is a
facilitation of money laundering. domestic flight, he is liable for violation of Sec. 5 of R.A.
9165 for illegal transportation of dangerous drugs.
CRIMES RELATIVE TO OPIUM AND OTHER Q: Obie Juan is suspected to have in his possession
PROHIBITED DRUGS an unspecified amount of methamphetamine
The Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002 hydrochloride or shabu. An entrapment operation
(R.A. No. 9165) was conducted by police officers, resulting in his
arrest following the discovery of 100 grams of the
Punishable Acts said dangerous drug in his possession. He was

subjected to a drug test and was found positive for

*QUAMTO is a compilation of past bar questions with answers as suggested by UPLC and other distinct
luminaries in the academe, and updated by the UST Academics Committee to fit for the 2016 Bar Exams.

the use of marijuana, another dangerous drug. He of the consideration is not an element of requisite of the
was subsequently charged with two crimes: crime. If ever, the marked money is only evidentiary to
Violation of Section 11, Article II of RA 9165 for the strengthen the case of the prosecution.
possession of shabu and violation of Section 15,
Article II of RA 9165 for the use of marijuana. (2005, Q: Superintendent Al Santiago, Chief of the Narcotics
2004, 1998) Division, Western Police District, received
information that a certain Lee Lay of No. 8 Tindalo
a. Are the charges proper? Explain. Street, Tondo, Manila is a member of the 14K Gang
selling shabu and marijuana. SPOl Lorenzo and
A: The charge of possession of shabu is proper as the SPO3 Peralta were instructed to conduct
mere possession of such drug is punishable, but the surveillance and buy-bust operations against Lay.
charge of use of marijuana is not proper as Section 15 of Their informant contacted Lay and a meeting was
Rep. Act 9165 (Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of arranged at T. Pinpin Restaurant at 2:00 in the
2002) expressly excludes penalties for use of afternoon on February 14, 1993. SPO1 Lorenzo and
dangerous drugs when the person tested is also found to SPO3 Peralta, acting as poseur-buyers, purchased
have in possession such quantity of any dangerous drug" from Lay 10 sticks of marijuana and paid P500.
provided for in Section 11 of such Act. ( R.A. No. 9165, Later, Lay agreed to sell to them one kilo of dried
Sec. 11 and 16). marijuana fruiting tops which he gave them at his
residence. The policemen arrested Lay and a search
b. So as not to be sentenced to death, Obie Juan was conducted. Found were 356 grams of marijuana
offers to plead guilty to a lesser offense. Can he seeds, 932 grams of marijuana fruiting tops and 50
do so? Why? sticks of marijuana cigarettes. What offense or
offenses did Lay commit? (1998)
A: No. Obie Juan cannot plead guilty to a lower offense as
it is prohibited under the law (R.A. 9165, Sec. 23). Any A: Lay committed the offenses of illegal selling of
person charged under any provision of this Act dangerous drugs and illegal possession of dangerous
regardless of the imposable penalty shall not be allowed drugs which should be made subject of separate
to avail of the provision on plea-bargaining. information. The crime of illegal selling of dangerous
drugs is committed as regards the 10 sticks of
Q: A and his fiancee B were walking in the plaza marijuana and as regards the one (1) kilo of dried
when they met a group of policemen who had earlier marijuana fruiting tops, which should be subject of two
been tipped off that A was in possession of (2) separate information because the acts were
prohibited drugs. Upon seeing the policemen and committed at different times and in different places. The
sensing that they were after him, A handed a sachet crime of illegal possession of dangerous drugs is
containing shabu to his fiancee B, telling her to hide committed as regards the marijuana seeds, marijuana
it in her handbag. The policemen saw B placing the fruiting tops and marijuana cigarettes which are not the
sachet inside her handbag. If B was unaware that A subject of the sale. Another information shall be filed for
was a drug user or pusher or that what was inside this.
the sachet given to her was shabu, is she nonetheless
liable under the Dangerous Drugs Act? (2002) Custody and Disposition of Confiscated Drugs

A: No, B will not be criminally liable because she is Q: Following his arrest after a valid buy-bust
unaware that A was a drug user or pusher or of the operation, Tommy was convicted of violation of
content of the sachet handed to her by A, and therefore Section 5, Republic Act 9165. On appeal, Tommy
the criminal intent to possess the drug in violation of the questioned the admissibility of the evidence because
Dangerous Drugs Act is absent. There would be no basis the police officers who conducted the buy-bust
to impute criminal liability to her in the absence of operation failed to observe the requisite "chain of
animus possidendi. custody" of the evidence confiscated and/or seized
from him. What is the "chain of custody"
Q: Pat. Buensuceso, posing as a buyer, approached requirement in drug offenses? What is its rationale?
Ronnie, a suspected drug pusher, and offered to buy What is the effect of failure to observe the
P300 worth of shabu. Ronnie then left, came back requirement? (2009)
five minutes later and handed Pat. Buensuceso an
aluminum foil containing the shabu. However, A: Chain of custody requirement in drug offenses
before Pat. Buensuceso was able to deliver the refers to the duly recorded, authorized movement and
marked money to Ronnie, the latter spotted a custody of seized dangerous drugs, controlled chemicals,
policeman at a distance, whom Ronnie knew to plant sources of dangerous drugs, and laboratory
be connected with the Narcotics Command of the equipment of dangerous drugs from the time of
Police. Upon seeing the latter, Ronnie ran away but confiscation/seizure thereof from the offender, to its
was arrested thirty minutes later by other turn-over and receipt in the forensic laboratory for
policemen who pursued him. Under the examination, to its safekeeping and eventual violation,
circumstances, would you consider the crime of sale and for destruction (Dangerous Drugs Board Regulation
of a prohibited drug already consummated? Explain. No. 1 Series of 2001.) Its rationale is to preserve the
(2000, 1996) authenticity of the corpus delicti or body of the crime by
rendering it improbable that the original item seized/
A: Yes, the sale of prohibited drug is already confiscated in the violation has been exchanged or
consummated although the marked money was not yet substituted with another or tampered with or
delivered. When Ronnie handed the aluminum foil contaminated. It is a method of authenticating the
containing the shabu to Pat. Buensuceso pursuant to evidence as would support a finding beyond reasonable

their agreed sale, the crime was consummated. Payment doubt that the matter is what the prosecution claims to


QuAMTO for CRIMINAL LAW (1991-2015)
be. Failure to observe the chain of custody public functions in the Government of the Philippines, or
requirement renders the evidence questionable, not performs in said Government or in any of its branches
trustworthy and insufficient to prove the corpus delicti public duties as an employee, agent or subordinate
beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, Tommy would be official, of any rank or class (Art. 203, RPC)
acquitted on reasonable doubt.
Bribery (Article 210 212)
(Art. 200-202) Direct Bribery

Q: Pia, a bold actress living on top floor of a Q: During a PNP buy-bust operation, Cao Shih was
plush condominium in Makati City sunbathed arrested for selling 20 grams of methamphetamine
naked at its penthouse every Sunday morning. She hydrochloride (shabu) to a poseur-buyer. Cao Shih,
was unaware that the business executives holding through an intermediary, paid Patrick, the Evidence
office at the adjoining tall buildings reported to Custodian of the PNP Forensic Chemistry Section,
office every Sunday morning and, with the use of the amount of P500,000.00 in consideration for
powerful binoculars, kept on gazing at her while she the destruction by Patrick of the drug. Patrick
sunbathed. Eventually, her sunbathing became the managed to destroy the drug. State with reasons
talk of the town. (1996) whether Patrick committed the following crimes:
a. What crime, if any, did Pia commit? Explain.
a. Direct Bribery;
A: Pia did not commit a crime, the felony closest to
making Pia criminally liable is Grave Scandal, but then A: Patrick committed the crimes of Direct Bribery and
such act is not to be considered as highly scandalous and Infidelity in the Custody of Documents. When a public
offensive against decency and good customs. In the first officer is called upon to perform or refrain from
place, it was not done in a public place and within public performing an official act in exchange for a gift, present
knowledge or view. As a matter of fact it was discovered or consideration given to him (Art. 210, RPC), the crime
by the executives accidentally and they have to use committed is direct bribery. Secondly, he destroyed the
binoculars to have public and full view of Pia sunbathing shabu which is an evidence in his official custody,
in the nude. thus, constituting infidelity in the custody of
documents under Art. 226 of the RPC.
b. What crime, if any, did the business executives
commit? Explain. b. Indirect bribery;

A: The business executives did not commit any crime. A: Indirect bribery was not committed because he did
Their acts could not be acts of lasciviousness (as there not receive the bribe because of his office but in
was no overt lustful act), or slander, as the eventual talk consideration of a crime in connection with his official
of the town, resulting from her sunbathing, is not duty.
directly imputed to the business executives, and besides
such topic is not intended to defame or put Pia to c. Section 3(e) of R.A. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt
ridicule. Practices Act);

Q: Juan and Petra are officemates. Later, intimacy A: Sec. 3(e), R.A. No. 8019 was not committed because
developed between them. One day, Juan sent to there was no actual injury to the government. When
Petra a booklet contained in a pay envelope which there is no specific quantified injury, violation is not
was securely sealed. The booklet is unquestionably committed (Garcia-Rueda v. Amor, G.R. No. 116938,
indecent and highly offensive to morals. Juan was September 20, 2001).
thereafter charged under par. 3 of Art. 201 of the
Revised Penal Code, as amended by P.D. 969, which d. Obstruction of Justice under PD 1829;
provides that the penalty of prision mayor or a fine
from P6.000to P12,000, or both such imprisonment A: Patrick committed the crime of obstruction of justice
and fine shall be imposed upon those who shall sell, although the feigner penalty imposable on direct bribery
give away or exhibit films, prints, engravings, or infidelity in the custody of documents shall be
sculpture or literature which are offensive to imposed. Sec. 1 of P.D. No. 1829 refers merely to the
morals. Is Juan guilty of the crime charged? Reasons. imposition of the higher penalty and does not preclude
(1993) prosecution for obstruction of justice, even if the same
not constitute another offense.
A: No. Juan is not guilty of the crime charged because the
law (Art. 201, RPC) covers only the protection of public Q: Deputy Sheriff Ben Rivas received from the RTC
moral and not only the moral of an individual. Clerk of Court a Writ of Execution in the case of
Ejectment filed by Mrs. Maria Estrada vs. Luis Ablan.
The judgment being in favor of Estrada, Rivas went
CRIMES COMMITTED BY PUBLIC OFFICERS to her lawyer's office where he was given the
(Art. 203-245) necessary amounts constituting the sheriffs fees
and expenses for execution in the total amount of
Q: Who are public officers? (1999) P550.00, aside from P2,000.00 in consideration of
prompt enforcement of the writ from Estrada and
A: Public Officers are persons who, by direct provision her lawyer. The writ was successfully enforced.
of the law, popular election or appointment by (2001)

competent authority, takes part in the performance of

*QUAMTO is a compilation of past bar questions with answers as suggested by UPLC and other distinct
luminaries in the academe, and updated by the UST Academics Committee to fit for the 2016 Bar Exams.

a. What crime, if any, did the sheriff commit? RPC and P.D. 46).

A: The sheriff committed the crime of Direct Bribery Qualified Bribery

under Art. 210(2) of the RPC, since the P2, 000 was
received by him "in consideration" of the prompt Q: What is the crime of qualified bribery? May a
enforcement of the writ of execution which is an official judge be charged and prosecuted for such felony?
duty of the sheriff to do. How about a public prosecutor? A police officer?
Explain. (2010)
b. Was there any crime committed by Estrada and
her lawyer and if so, what crime? A: Qualified bribery is a crime committed by a public
officer who is entrusted with law enforcement and who,
A: On the part of the plaintiff and her lawyer as giver of in consideration of any offer, promise, gift of offer,
the bribe-money, the crime is Corruption of Public refrains from arresting or prosecuting an offender who
Officials under Art. 212 of the RPC. has committed a crime punishable by reclusion perpetua
and/ or death (art. 211-A, RPC)
Indirect Bribery
No, a judge may not be charged of this felony because his
Q: Commissioner Marian Torres of the Bureau of official duty as a public officer is not law enforcement
internal Revenue (BIR) wrote solicitation letters but the determination of cases already filed in court. On
addressed to the Filipino-Chinese Chamber of the other hand, a public prosecutor may be prosecuted
Commerce and Industry and to certain CEOs of for this crime in respect of the bribery committed, aside
various multinational corporations requesting from dereliction of duty committed in violation of Art.
donations of gifts for her office Christmas party. She 208 of the Revised Penal Code, should be refrain from
used the Bureau's official stationery. The response prosecuting an offender who has committed a crime
was prompt and overwhelming so much so that punishable by reclusion perpetua and / or death in
Commissioner Torres' office was overcrowded with consideration of any offer, promise, gift or present.
rice cookers, radio sets, freezers, electric stoves and Meanwhile, a police officer who refrains from arresting
toasters. Her staff also received several envelopes such offender for the same consideration above stated,
containing cash money for the employees' Christmas may be prosecuted for this felony since he is a public
luncheon. Has Commissioner Torres committed any officer entrusted with law enforcement.
impropriety or irregularity? What laws or decrees
did she violate? (2006) Malversation of Public Funds or Property
(Article 217-222)
A: Yes, Commissioner Torres violated the following:
1. Indirect Bribery (Art. 211, RPC) for receiving gifts Q: What constitutes the crime of malversation of
offered by reason of office. public funds or property? How is malversation
2. R.A. 6713 or Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards distinguished from estafa? (1999)
for Public Officials and Employees when he solicited
and accept gifts (Sec. 7[d]). A: Malversation of public funds or property is
3. P.D. 46, making it punishable for public officials and committed by any public officer who, by reason of the
employees to receive, and for private persons to duties of his office, is accountable for public funds or
give, gifts on any occasion, including Christmas. property, shall take or misappropriate or shall consent,
or through abandonment or negligence, shall permit any
Q: A, who is the private complainant in a murder other person to take such public funds or property,
case pending before a Regional Trial Court judge, wholly or partially, or shall otherwise be guilty of the
gave a judge a Christmas gift, consisting of big misappropriation or malversation of such funds or
basket of assorted canned goods and bottles of property. (Art. 217, RPC)
expensive wines, easily worth P10.000.00. The
judge accepted the gift knowing it came from A. Malversation differs from estafa in that malversation is
What crime or crimes, if any, were committed? committed by an accountable public officer involving
(1997, 1993) public funds or property under his custody and
accountability; while estafa is committed by non-
A: The judge committed the crime of indirect bribery accountable public officer or private individual involving
under Art. 211 of the RPC. The gift was offered to the funds or property for which he is not accountable to the
judge by reason of his office. In addition, the judge will government.
be liable for the violation of P.D. 46 which punishes the
receiving of gifts by public officials and employees on Q: A typhoon destroyed the houses of many of the
occasions like Christmas. inhabitants of X Municipality. Thereafter, X
Municipality operated a shelter assistance program
REPEATED DOCTRINE: whereby construction materials were provided to
Q: Arevalo, a judge who heard a civil case, received the calamity victims, and the beneficiaries provided
gifts from Maricel, the plaintiff therein, but rendered the labor. The construction was partially done when
judgment in favor of Julie, the defendant therein. the beneficiaries stopped helping with the
Who are criminally liable, and for what crime or construction for the reason that they needed to earn
crimes? Explain. (1993) income to provide food for their families. When
informed of the situation, Mayor Maawain approved
A: Arevalo, the judge, is liable for indirect bribery (Art. the withdrawal of ten boxes of food from X
210, RPC) and for violation of the Code of Conduct and Municipality's feeding program, which were given to
Ethical Standard (Sec. 7(d) R.A. 6713 and P.D. 46). the families of the beneficiaries of the shelter

Maricel is liable for corruption of public officer (Art. 212, assistance program. The appropriations for the


QuAMTO for CRIMINAL LAW (1991-2015)
funds pertaining to the shelter assistance program were not necessary means to obtain the money that
and those for the feeding program were separate were malversed. The falsifications were committed to
items on X Municipality's annual budget. (2015) cover up or hide the malversation and therefore, should
be separately treated from malversation. The given facts
a. What crime did Mayor Maawain commit? stated that Roger and Jessie falsified disbursement
Explain. vouchers and supporting documents in order to make it
appear that qualified recipients received the money.
A: Mayor Maawain committed the crime of Illegal use of Art. 48, RPC on complex crimes is not applicable. They
public funds or property punishable under Article 220 of should be charged of violation of Section 3(e) of R.A.
the RPC. This offense is also known as Technical 3019 for the breach of public trust and undue injury
Malversation. The crime has 3 elements: a.) that the caused to the Government. The violation is a crime
offender is an accountable public officer; b) that he malum prohibitum.
applies public funds or property under his
administration to some public use; and c) that the public Q: Eliseo, the deputy sheriff, conducted the
use for which such funds or property were applied is execution sale of the property of Andres to satisfy
different from the purpose for which they were the judgment against him in favor of ABC
originally appropriated by law or ordinance. The funds Corporation, a government-owned or controlled
for the feeding program are not specifically corporation with an original charter. However, the
appropriated for the beneficiaries of the shelter representative of the corporation failed to attend
assistance program in X Municipalitys annual budget. the auction sale. Gonzalo, the winning bidder,
Mayor Maawain ought to use the boxes of food purchased property for P100,000 which he paid to
earmarked particularly for the feeding program, which Eliseo. Instead of remitting the amount to the Clerk
would cater only to the malnourished among his of Court as ex-officio Provincial Sheriff, Eliseo lent
constituents who needed the resources for proper the amount to Myrna, his officemate, who promised
nourishment. to repay the amount within two months, with
interest thereon. However, Myrna reneged on her
b. May Mayor Maawain invoke the defense of good promise. Despite demands of ABC Corporation,
faith and that he had no evil intent when he Eliseo failed to remit the said amount. (2008)
approved the transfer of the boxes of food from
the feeding program to the shelter assistance a. State with reasons, the crime or crimes, if any,
program? Explain. committed by Eliseo.

A: No. Mayor Maawain cannot invoke good faith when A: The crime committed by Eliseo is malversation since
he approved the transfer of the boxes of food from the he is a public officer who received the amount in his
feeding program to the Shelter Assistance program. official capacity; thus he is accountable for it.
Criminal intent is not an element of technical
malversation. The law punishes the act of diverting b. Would your answer to the first question be the
public property earmarked by law or ordinance for a same if ABC Corp. were a private corporation?
particular purpose to another public purpose. The Explain.
offense is mala prohibita, meaning that the prohibited
act is not inherently immoral but becomes a criminal A: The crime would still be malversation even if ABC
offense because positive law forbids its commission Corporation, in whose favor the judgment was rendered,
based on considerations of public policy, order and were a private corporation. This is because the
convenience. It is the commission of an act as defined by P100,000.00 came from the sale of property levied upon
the law, and not the character or effect thereof that or seized upon execution ordered by the court. The
determines whether or not the provision has been property was in custodia legis. Although not strictly
violated. Hence, malice or criminal intent is completely public property when Eliseo, in his official capacity,
irrelevant. (Ysidoro v. People, G.R. No. 192330, 14 conducted the execution sale and received it proceeds.
November 2012). As long as Eliseo has not accounted for and turned over
the proceeds officially, he is not relieved of his official
Q: Roger and Jessie, Municipal Mayor and Treasurer, accountability.
respectively, of San Rafael, Leyte, caused the
disbursement of public funds allocated for their Q: In 1982, the Philippine National Bank (PNB), then
local development programs for 2008. Records show a government banking institution, hired Henry dela
that the amount of P2-million was purportedly used Renta, a CPA, as Regional Bank Auditor. In 1992, he
as financial assistance for a rice production resigned and was employed by the Philippine
livelihood project. Upon investigation, however, it Deposit Insurance Corporation (PDIC), another
was found that Roger and Jessie falsified the government-owned and controlled corporation. In
disbursement vouchers and supporting documents 1995, after the PNB management unearthed
in order to make it appear that qualified recipients many irregularities and violations of the bank's
who, in fact, are non-existent individuals, received rules and regulations, dela Renta was found to have
the money. Roger and Jessie are charged with manipulated certain accounts involving trust
malversation through falsification and violation of funds and time deposits of depositors. After
Section 3 (e) of R.A. 3019 for causing undue injury to investigation, he was charged with malversation of
the government. Discuss the propriety of the public funds before the Sandiganbayan. He filed a
charges filed against Roger and Jessie. Explain. motion to dismiss contending he was no longer an
(2009) employee of the PNB but of the PDIC. (2006)

A: The charge of malversation through falsification is not a. Is dela Renta's contention tenable?

correct because the falsifications of several documents

*QUAMTO is a compilation of past bar questions with answers as suggested by UPLC and other distinct
luminaries in the academe, and updated by the UST Academics Committee to fit for the 2016 Bar Exams.

A: No, dela Renta's contention is not tenable for these item which is the subject of thievery. P.D. 1612 (Anti-
reasons: Fencing Law) under Sec. 5 provides that mere
1. His contention that he is no longer an employee of possession of any good, article, item, object or anything
PNB but of PDIC has no merit since both PNB and of value which has been the subject of robbery or
PDIC are government institutions and the funds thievery shall be prima facie evidence of fencing. Jules is
thereof belong to the same Government who suffers guilty of carnapping. He took the motor vehicle
from the malversation; (Sec. 4, PD 1606, as belonging to another without the latter's consent (R.A.
amended). No. 6539).
2. Resignation or separation from office is not a
ground for extinguishing criminal liability under b. What, if any, are their respective civil liabilities?
Art. 89 of the Revised Penal Code, for any crime Explain.
committed while the offender was connected with
the office; and A: Allan is under obligation to restitute the vehicle or
3. The crime of malversation was discovered only in make reparation if not possible. Jules must pay the
1995 and so, the prescriptive period of the crime amount he gained from the sale of the car which is
only commenced to run from then. Obviously, the P20,000.00. Danny must make reparation
amount misappropriated exceeds P200.00 and so corresponding to the value of the car which is
the prescribed penalty is within the range of prision P800,000.00.
mayor already. Crimes punishable by prision mayor
prescribes in 15 years. From 1995 to the present Q: Accused Juan Santos, a deputy sheriff in a
(2006) is only around 11 years. Hence the crime can Regional Trial Court, levied on the personal
still be prosecuted. properties of a defendant in a civil case before said
court, pursuant to a writ of execution duly issued
A: The contention of Henry dela Renta is not tenable. by the court. Among the properties levied upon and
Dela Renta may be prosecuted for malversation even if deposited inside the "evidence room" of the Clerk
he had ceased to be an employee of the PNB. At the time of Court for Multiple RTC Salas were a
of the commission of the offense, PNB was a refrigerator, a stock of cassette tapes, a dining table
government owned and controlled corporation and set of chairs and several lampshades. Upon the
therefore, any crime committed by the Regional Bank defendants paying off the judgment creditor, he
Auditor, who is a public officer, is subject to the tried to claim his properties but found out that
jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan (See R.A. 7975, as several items were missing, such as the cassette
amended by RA. 8249). tapes, chairs and lampshades. After due and
diligent sleuthing by the police detectives
b. After his arraignment, the prosecution filed a assigned to the case, these missing items were found
motion for his suspension pendente lite, to in the house of accused Santos, who reasoned out
which he filed an opposition claiming that he can that he only borrowed them temporarily. If you
no longer be suspended as he is no longer an were the fiscal/prosecutor, what would be the
employee of the PNB but that of the PDIC. nature of the information to be filed against the
Explain whether he may or may not be accused? Why? (2001)
A: If I were the fiscal/prosecutor, I would file an
A: Dela Renta may still be suspended pendente lite information for Malversation against Juan Santos for the
despite holding a different public office, the PDIC, when cassette tapes, chain and lampshades which he, as
he was charged. The term "office" in Sec. 13 of R.A. deputy sheriff, levied upon and thus under his
3019 applies to any office which the officer might accountability as a public officer. Said properties being
currently be holding and not necessarily the office or under levy, are in custodia legis and thus impressed with
position in relation to which he is charged. the character of public property, misappropriation of
which constitutes the crime of malversation although
Q: Allan, the Municipal Treasurer of the Municipality said properties belonged to a private individual (Art.
of Gerona, was in a hurry to return to his office after 222, RPC). Juan Santos misappropriated such properties
a day-long official conference. He alighted from when, in breach of trust, he applied them to his own
the government car which was officially assigned to private use and benefit. His allegation that he only
him, leaving the ignition key and the car unlocked, borrowed such properties is a lame excuse, devoid of
and rushed to his office. Jules, a bystander, drove off merit as there is no one from whom he borrowed the
with the car and later sold the same to his same. The fact that it was only "after due and diligent
brother, Danny for P20,000.00, although the car sleuthing by the police detectives assigned to the case",
was worth P800,000.00. that the missing items were found in the house of
Santos, negates his pretension.
a. What are the respective crimes, if any,
committed by Allan, Danny and Jules? Explain. Q: Alex Reyes, together with Jose Santos, were
(2005) former warehousemen of the Rustan Department
Store. In 1986, the PCGG sequestered the assets,
A: Allan, the municipal treasurer is liable for fund and properties of the owners-incorporators of
malversation committed through negligence or culpa. the store, alleging that they constitute "Ill-gotten
The government car which was assigned to him is public wealth" of the Marcos family. Upon their application,
property under his accountability by reason of his Reyes and Santos were appointed as fiscal agents of
duties. By his act of negligence, he permitted the taking the sequestered firm and they were given custody
of the car by another person, resulting in malversation, and possession of the sequestered building and its
consistent with the language of Art. 217 of RPC. Danny contents, including various vehicles used in the

violated the Anti-Fencing Law. He is in possession of an firm's operations. After a few months, an inventory


QuAMTO for CRIMINAL LAW (1991-2015)
was conducted and it was discovered that two (2) acquitted by the Sandiganbayan of that charge but
delivery vans were missing. After demand was made was nevertheless convicted, in the same criminal
upon them, Reyes and Santos failed to give any case, for illegal use of public funds. On appeal,
satisfactory explanation why the vans were missing Elizabeth argued that her conviction was
or to turn them over to the PCGG; hence, they were erroneous as she applied the amount of P50,000.00
charged with Malversation of Public Property. for a public purpose without violating any law or
During the trial, the two accused claimed that they ordinance appropriating the said amount for any
are not public accountable officers and, if any crime specific purpose. The absence of such law or
was committed, it should only be Estafa under Art. ordinance was, in fact, established. Is the contention
315, par. l(b) of the Revised Penal Code. What is the of Elizabeth legally tenable? Explain. (1996)
proper offense committed? State the reason(s) for
your answer. (2001) A: Elizabeth's contention that her conviction for illegal
use of public funds (technical malversation) was
A: The proper offense committed was Malversation of erroneous is legally tenable because she was charged for
Public Property, not estafa, considering that Reyes and malversation of public funds under Art. 217 of the RPC
Santos, upon their application, were constituted as but was convicted for Illegal use of public funds which is
"fiscal agents" of the sequestered firm and were "given defined and punished under Art. 220. A public officer
custody and possession" of the sequestered properties, charged with malversation may not be validly convicted
including the delivery vans which later they could not of illegal use of public funds (technical malversation)
account for. They were thus made the depositary and because the latter crime is not necessarily included nor
administrator of properties deposited by public does it necessarily include the crime of malversation.
authority and hence, by the duties of their The Sandiganbayan should have followed the procedure
office/position, they are accountable for such properties. provided in Sec. 11, Rule 119 of the Rules of Court and
Such properties, having been sequestered by the order the filing of the proper Information (Parungao v.
Government through the PCGG, are in custodia legis Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 96025, May 15, 1991). From the
and therefore impressed with the character of public facts, there is no showing that there is a law or
property, even though the properties belong to a private ordinance appropriating the amount to a specific public
individual (Art. 222, RPC).The failure of Reyes and purpose. As a matter of fact, the problem categorically
Santos to give any satisfactory explanation why the vans states that the absence of such law or ordinance was, in
were missing, is prima facie evidence that they had put fact, established." So, procedurally and substantially, the
the same to their personal use. Sandiganbayan's decision suffers from serious infirmity.

Q: A Municipal Treasurer, accountable for public Q: Randy, an NBI agent, was issued by the NBI an
funds or property, encashed with public funds armalite rifle (Ml6) and a Smith and Wesson
private checks drawn in favor of his wife. The checks Revolver. Cal. 38. After a year, the NBI Director made
bounced, the drawer not having enough cash in the an inspection of all the firearms issued. Randy, who
drawee bank. The Municipal Treasurer, in encashing reported for work that morning, did not show up
private checks from public funds, violated during the inspection. He went on absence without
regulations of his office. Notwithstanding restitution leave (AWOL). After two years, he surrendered to
of the amount of the checks, can the Municipal the NBI the two firearms issued to him. He was
Treasurer nevertheless be criminally liable? What charged with malversation of government property
crime did he commit? Explain. (1999) before the Sandiganbayan. Randy put up the defense
that he did not appropriate the armalite rifle and the
A: Yes, notwithstanding the restitution of the amount of revolver for his own use, that the delay in
the check, the Municipal Treasurer will be criminally accounting for them does not constitute conversion
liable as restitution does not negate criminal liability and that actually the firearms were stolen by his
although it may be considered as a mitigating friend, Chiting. Decide the case. (1994)
circumstance similar or analogous to voluntary
surrender. (People v. Velasquez, GR No. L-47741, April 28, A: Randy is guilty as charged under Art. 217, RPC. He is
1941). He will be criminally liable for malversation. accountable for the firearms they issued to him in his
However, if the restitution was made immediately, official capacity. The failure of Randy to submit the
under vehement protest against an imputation of firearms upon demand created the presumption that he
malversation and without leaving the office, he may not converted them for his own use. Even if there is no
be criminally liable. direct evidence of misappropriation, his failure to
account for the government property is enough factual
Q: Elizabeth is the municipal treasurer of Masinloc, basis for a finding of malversation. Indeed, even his
Zambales. On January 10, 1994, she received, as explanation that the guns were stolen is incredible for if
municipal treasurer, from the Department of Public the firearms were actually stolen, he should have
Works and Highways, the amount of P100, 000.00 reported the matter immediately to the authorities.
known as the fund for construction, rehabilitation,
betterment, and Improvement (CRBI) for the
concreting of Barangay Phanix Road located in
Masinloc, Zambales, a project undertaken on Infidelity in the Custody of Prisoners
proposal of the Barangay Captain. Informed that the (Article 223-230)
fund was already exhausted while the concreting of
Barangay Phanix Road remained unfinished, a Q: During a town fiesta, A, the chief of police,
representative of the Commission on Audit permitted B, a detention prisoner and his
conducted a spot audit of Elizabeth who failed to compadre, to leave the municipal jail and entertain
account for the Pl00,000 CRBI fund. Elizabeth, who visitors in his house from 10:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. B

was charged with malversation of public funds, was

*QUAMTO is a compilation of past bar questions with answers as suggested by UPLC and other distinct
luminaries in the academe, and updated by the UST Academics Committee to fit for the 2016 Bar Exams.

returned to the municipal jail at 8:30 p.m. Was there

any crime committed by A? (1997) Q: Malo, a clerk of court of a trial court, promised the
accused in a drug case pending before the court, that
A: Yes, A committed the crime of infidelity in the custody he would convince the judge to acquit him for a
of a prisoner since B is a detention prisoner. As Chief of consideration of P5 million. The accused agreed and
Police, A has custody over B. Even if B returned to the delivered the money, through his lawyer, to the
municipal jail at 8:30 p.m. A, as custodian of the clerk of court. The judge, not knowing of the deal,
prisoner, has maliciously failed to perform the duties of proceeded to rule on the evidence and convicted the
his office, and when he permits said prisoner to obtain a accused. (2014)
relaxation of his imprisonment, he consents to the
prisoner escaping the punishment of being deprived of a. Malo was charged with violation of Section 3(b),
his liberty which can be considered real and actual Republic Act (R.A.) No. 3019, which prohibits a
evasion of service under Art. 223 of RPC (US v. Bandino, public officer from directly or indirectly
G.R. No. 9964. February 11, 1915). requesting or receiving any gift, present, share
percentage or benefit wherein the public officer,
Q: A chief of police of a municipality, believing in in his official capacity, has to intervene under
good faith that a prisoner serving a ten-day sentence the law. He was later charged also with indirect
in the municipal jail, would not escape, allowed said bribery under the Revised Penal Code. Malo
prisoner to sleep at the latter's house because the claims he can no longer be charged under the
municipal jail was so congested and there was no Revised Penal Code for the same act under R.A.
bed space available. Accordingly, the prisoner went 3019. Is he correct?
home to sleep every night but returned to jail early
each morning, until the ten-day sentence had been A: No. One may be charged with violation of R.A. 3019 in
fully served. Did the Chief of Police commit any addition to a felony under the RPC for the same delictual
crime? Explain. (1996) act, either concurrently or subsequent to being charged
with a felony under the RPC. This is very clear from Sec.
A: The Chief of Police is guilty of violation of Art. 223 of 3 of R.A. 3019. Also, R.A. 3019 is a special law, the
RPC, consenting or conniving to evasion, the elements of elements of the crime is not the same as those punished
which are (a) he is a public officer, (b) he is in charge or under the RPC.
custody of a prisoner, detention or prisoner by final
judgment, (c) that the prisoner escaped, and (d) there b. Malo was charged with estafa under Article 315
must be connivance. Relaxation of a prisoner is because he misrepresented that he had influence,
considered infidelity, thus making the penalty when he actually had none. Is the charge correct?
ineffectual, although the convict may not have (US v.
Bandino, G.R. No. 9964. February 11, 1915). It is still A: Yes, estafa is committed by any person who shall ask
violative of the provision. It also includes a case when for money from another for the alleged purpose of
the guard allowed the prisoner, who is serving a six-day bribing a government employee when in truth the
sentence in the municipal jail, to sleep in his house and offender intended to convert the money to his own
eat there (People v. Revilla). personal use and benefit (Art. 315(2)(c), RPC).

Maltreatment of Prisoners (Article 235) Q: May a public officer charged under Section 3(b) of
Republic Act No. 3019 directly or indirectly
Q: AA was arrested for committing a bailable offense requesting or receiving any gift, present, share,
and detained in solitary confinement. He was able to percentage or benefit, for himself or for any other
post bail after two (2) weeks of defection. During the person, in connection with any contract or
period of detention, he was not given any food. Such transaction between the government and any other
deprivation caused him physically discomfort. What party, wherein the public officer in his official
crime, if any, was committed in connection with the capacity has to intervene under the law" also be
solitary confinement and food deprivation of AA? simultaneously or successively charged with direct
Explain your answer. (2012) bribery under Article 210 of the Revised Penal
Code? Explain. (2010)
A: The crime of torture and maltreatment of prisoner is
committed. Food deprivation and confinement in A: Yes, a public officer charged under Sec. 3 (b) of R.A.
solitary cell are considered as physical and 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act) may also be
psychological torture under Sec. 4(2) of the Anti-Torture charged simultaneously or successively for the crime of
Act of 2009 or R.A. 9745. Torture refers to an act by direct bribery under Art. 210 of the RPC, because the
which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or two crimes are essentially different and are penalized
mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such under distinct legal philosophies. Whereas violation of
purposes as obtaining from him/her or a third person Sec. 3(b) of R.A. 3019 is a malum prohibitum, the crime
information or a confession; punishing him/her for an under Art. 20 of the Code is a malum in se.
act which he/she or a third person has committed or is
suspected of having committed; or intimidating or Q: Proserfina, an assistant public high school
coercing him/her or a third person; or for any reason principal, acted to facilitate the release of salary
based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or differentials and election duty per diem of
suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with classroom teachers with the agreement that they
the consent of acquiescence of a person in authority or would reimburse her for her expenses. Did
agent of a person in authority (R.A. 9745, Sec. 3). Proserfina commit a crime? Explain. (2010)

Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act A: Yes, Proserfina committed violation of Sec. 3 (b) of

(R.A. No. 3019, as amended) R.A. 3019 which considers as a corrupt practice, the act


QuAMTO for CRIMINAL LAW (1991-2015)
of (b) Directly or indirectly requesting or receiving any Regulatory Board, who was charged with violation
gift, present, share, percentage, or benefit, for himself or of Section 3 (h) of Republic Act 3019 (Anti-Graft and
for any other person, in connection with any contract or Corrupt Practices Act) before the Sandiganbayan,
transaction between the Government and any other the Office of the Special Prosecutor filed a Motion to
party, wherein the public officer in his official capacity Suspend Accused Pendente Lite pursuant to Section
has to intervene under the law. Being the assistant 13 of the Anti-Graft Law. The Court granted the
public high school principal, it is her duty to intervene in motion and suspended accused Brad Kit for a period
the release of salary differentials and per diem of of 90 days. Accused assailed the constitutional
classroom teachers under her. Her act of doing so, made validity of the suspension order on the ground that
with a request for a share of benefit therefor constitutes it partakes of a penalty before Judgment of
graft or corrupt practice under Sec. 3 (b) of Rep. Act No. conviction is reached and is thus violative of his
3019. Considering that the acts prohibited or punished constitutional right to be presumed innocent. He
under this law are mala prohibita, and thus punishable also claimed that this provision of the law on
thereunder, whether done with criminal intent or not. suspension pendente lite applies only to elective
officials and not to appointed ones like him. Rule
Q: Charina, Clerk of Court of an RTC Branch, with reasons. (2000)
promised the plaintiff in a case pending before the
court that she would convince the Presiding Judge to A: The suspension order does not partake of a penalty
decide the case in plaintiffs favor. In consideration and is thus not violative of Brad Kit's constitutional right
therefor, the plaintiff gave Charina P20,000.00. to be presumed innocent. Under the law, the accused
Charina was charged with violation of Section 3 (b) public officers shall be suspended from office while the
of Republic Act No. 3019, prohibiting any public criminal prosecution is pending in court (R.A. 3019, Sec.
officer from directly or indirectly requesting or 13). Such preventive suspension is mandatory to
receiving any gift, present, percentage, or benefit in prevent the accused from hampering the normal
connection with any contract or transaction x x x course of the investigation (Rios v. Sandiganbayan,
wherein the public officer, in his official capacity, [G.R. No. 129913, September 26, 1997; Bunye v. Escareal,
has to intervene under the law. While the case was G.R. No. 110216, September 10, 1993).
being tried, the Ombudsman filed another
information against Charina for Indirect Bribery Neither is there merit in Brad Kits claim that the
under the Revised Penal Code. Charina demurred to provision on suspension pendente lite applies only to
the second information, claiming that she can no elective officials and not to appointed ones like him. It
longer be charged under the Revised Penal Code applies to all public officials indicted upon a valid
having been charged for the same act under R.A. information under R.A. No. 3019, whether they be
3019. Is Charina correct? Explain. (2009) appointive or elective officials; or permanent or
temporary employees, or pertaining to the career or
A: No, Charina is not correct. Although the charge for non-career service
violation of R.A. No. 3019 and the charge for Indirect
Bribery (Art. 211, RPC) arose from the same act, the Q: A public officer was accused before the
elements of the violation charged under R.A. No. 3019 Sandiganbayan of a violation of Section 3 (e) of R.A.
are not the same as the felony charged for Indirect No. 3019, the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.
Bribery under the RPC (Mejia v. Pamaran, G.R. No. L- Just after arraignment and even before evidence
56741-42 April 15, 1988). Hence, the crime charged is was presented, the Sandiganbayan issued an order
separate and distinct from each other, with different for his suspension pendente lite. The accused
penalties. The two charges do not constitute a ground questioned the said Order contending that it is
for a motion to dismiss or motion to quash as there is no violative of the constitutional provision against an
jeopardy against the accused. ex post facto law. (1999)

Q: The Central Bank (Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas), a. Will you sustain the objection of the accused?
by a resolution of the monetary board, hires Theof Why?
Sto. Tomas, a retired manager of a leading bank
as a consultant. Theof later receives a valuable gift A: No, I will not sustain the objection of the accused.
from a bank under investigation by the Central Suspension of the accused pendente lite is not violative
Bank. May Thereof be prosecuted under Republic of the constitutional provision against ex-post facto law.
Act No. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act) Ex-post facto law means making an innocent act a crime
for accepting such a gift? Explain. (2003) before it is made punishable.

A: No, Theof may not be prosecuted under Rep. Act b. What pre-conditions are necessary to be met or
3019, but may be prosecuted for violation of P.D. 46, satisfied before preventive suspension may be
under which such act of receiving a valuable gift is ordered?
punished. Although Theof is a "public officer" within
the application of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices A: The pre-conditions necessary to be met or satisfied
Act (R.A. 3019), yet his act of receiving such gift does not before a suspension may be ordered are: (1) there must
appear to be included among the punishable acts under be proper notice requiring the accused to show cause at
R.A. 3019 since he is not to intervene in his official a specific date of hearing why he should not be ordered
capacity in the investigation of the bank which gave the suspended from office pursuant to R.A. 3019, as
gift. Penal laws must be strictly construed against the amended; and (2) there must be a determination of a
State. In any case, Thereof is administratively liable. valid information against the accused that warrants his
Q: A month after the arraignment of Brad Kit

Commissioner of the Housing and Land Use

*QUAMTO is a compilation of past bar questions with answers as suggested by UPLC and other distinct
luminaries in the academe, and updated by the UST Academics Committee to fit for the 2016 Bar Exams.

Q: A is charged with the crime defined in Section which was way beyond his legitimate income.
3(e) of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act in an (2014)
Information that reads: That from 01 to 30 January
1995, in the City of Pasig and within the jurisdiction a. If you are the Ombudsman, what charge or
of this Honorable Court, the accused, being then charges will you file against City Engr. A?
employed in the Office of the District Engineer,
Department of Public Works and Highways and in A: If I am the Ombudsman, I would file a case of Plunder
the discharge of his official administrative under R.A. 7080 agasint City Engr. A. It is very clear from
functions, did then and there willfully and the facts given that all the elements of plunder are
unlawfully work for and facilitate the approval of B's present, namely:
claim for the payment of the price of his land which 1. The offender is a public officer holding a public
the government had expropriated, and after the office in the Government of the Republic of the
claim was approved, the accused gave B Phlippines;
onlyP1,000.00 of the approved claim of P5,000 2. The offender amassed, accumulated, or acquired ill-
and willfully and unlawfully appropriated for gotten wealth through a combination of overt or
himself the balance of P4,000, thus causing undue criminal acts of misuse, misaapropriation,
injury to B and the Government." A has filed a conversion or malversation of public funds,
motion to quash the information, contending that it receiving kickbacks from persons in connection
does not charge an offense. Is he correct? (1997) with a government contract or project by reason of
his office or position and illegally or fraudulently
A: Yes, the contention of A is correct. The information conveying or disposing of assets belonging to the
failed to allege that the undue injury to B and the national government or any of its subdivisions; and
government was caused by the accused's manifest 3. The aggregate amount or total value of the ill gotten
partiality, evident bad faith, or gross inexcusable wealth amassed, accumulated, or acquired is at least
negligence, which are necessary elements of the offense P50M.
charged, i.e. violation of Sect. 3(e) of the Anti-Graft and
Corrupt Practices Act. The accused is employed in the b. Suppose the discovered net worth of City Engr. A
Office of the District Engineer of the DPWH which has is less than P50 million, will your answer still be
nothing to do with the determination and fixing of the the same?
price of the land expropriated, and for which
expropriated land the Government is legally obligated to A: Yes, the answer will be the same since in plunder the
pay. There is no allegation in the information that the basis is the combination of criminal acts or series of acts,
land was overpriced or that the payment of the amount which constitutes the accumulation of more than P50M.
was disadvantageous to the Government. It appears that The predicate crimes are already absorbed in the crime
the charge was solely based on the accused having of plunder. City Engr. As net worth being less than
followed up the payment for B's land which the P50M is not determinative of his liability, as long as the
Government has already appropriated, and that the wealth amassed/ accumulated is more than P50M.
accused eventually withheld for himself from the price
of the said land, the amount of P4,000 for his services. Q: Through kickbacks, percentages or
No violation of Sec. 3(e) of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt commissions and other fraudulent
Act appears. At most, the accused should be merely schemes/conveyances and taking advantage of his
charged administratively. position, Andy, a former mayor of a suburban town,
acquired assets amounting to P10 billion which is
Anti-Plunder Act (R.A. No. 7080, as amended) grossly disproportionate to his lawful income. Due
to his influence and connections and despite
Q: City Engr. A, is the city engineer and the Chairman knowledge by the authorities of his Ill-gotten wealth,
of the Bids and Awards Committee (BAC) of the City he was charged with the crime of plunder only after
of Kawawa. In 2009, the City of Kawawa, through an twenty (20) years from his defeat in the last
ordinance, allotted the amount of P100 million for elections he participated in. (1993)
the construction of a road leading to the poblacion.
City Engr. A instead, diverted the construction of the a. May Andy still be held criminally liable? Why?
road leading to his farm. Investigation further
showed that he accepted money in the amount A: Andy will not be criminally liable because Section 6 of
of P10 million each from three (3) contending RA 7080 provides that the crime punishable under this
bidders, who eventually lost in the bidding. Act shall prescribe in twenty years and the problem
asked whether Andy can still be charged with the crime
Audit report likewise showed that service vehicles of plunder after 20 years.
valued at P2 million could not be accounted for
although reports showed that these were lent to City b. Can the State still recover the properties and
Engr. As authorized drivers but the same were assets that he illegally acquired, the bulk of
never returned. Further, there were funds under which is in the name of his wife and children?
City Engr. As custody amounting to P10 million Reason out.
which were found to be missing and could not be
accounted for. In another project, he was A: Yes, because Section 6 provides that recovery of
instrumentalin awarding a contract for the properties unlawfully acquired by public officers from
construction of a city school building costing P10 them or their nominees or transferees shall not be
million to a close relative, although the lowest bid barred by prescription, laches or estoppel.
was P8 million. Investigation also revealed that City
Engr. A has a net worth of more than P50 million, CRIMES AGAINST PERSON (Article 246 266)


QuAMTO for CRIMINAL LAW (1991-2015)
Parricide (Article 246) A: Ricky committed parricide because the person killed
was his own father, and the law punishing the crime
Q: Who may be guilty of the crime of parricide? (Art. 246, RPC) does not require that the crime be
(1999) "knowingly" committed. Should Ricky be prosecuted and
found guilty of parricide, the penalty to be imposed is
A: Any person who kills his father, mother, or child, Art. 49 of the RPC for Homicide (the crime he intended
whether legitimate or illegitimate, or his ascendants or to commit) but in its maximum period.
descendants, or spouse, shall be guilty of parricide. (Art.
246, RPC) b. Suppose Ricky knew before the killing that
Pedro is his father, but he nevertheless killed
Q: After a heated argument over his philandering, him out of bitterness for having abandoned him
Higino punched on the head his wife Aika, who was and his mother, what crime did Ricky commit?
six and a half months pregnant. Because of the Explain.
impact, Aika lost her balance, fell on the floor with
her head hitting a hard object. Aika died and the A: The crime committed should be parricide if Ricky
child was expelled prematurely. After thirty-six knew before the killing that Pedro is his father, because
hours, the child died. (2015) the moral basis for punishing the crime already exists.
His having acted out of bitterness for having been
a. What crime(s) did Higino commit? Explain. abandoned by his father may be considered mitigating.

A: With respect to the killing of the wife, parricide under Q: A, a young housewife, and B, her paramour,
Article 246 of the Revised Penal Code is committed conspired to kill C, her husband, to whom she was
because of the qualifying circumstance of relationship. lawfully married, A and B bought pancit and mixed it
With respect to the killing of the child, Higino is liable with poison. A gave the food with poison to C, but
for infanticide under Article 255 of the Revised Penal before C could eat it. D, her illegitimate father, and E,
Code because his child was born alive and was already her legitimate son, arrived. C, D, and E shared the
viable or capable of independent existence and the food in the presence of A who merely watched them
childs age is less than three (3) days for the latter died eating. C, D, and E died because of having partaken
after thirty-six hours from expulsion. Higino shall incur of the poisoned food. What crime or crimes did A
criminal liability for parricide and infanticide although and B commit? (1997)
these crimes committed are different from his criminal
intention of maltreating his wife (Article 4, RPC). A: A committed the crime of multiple parricide for the
Inasmuch as the single act of Higino produced two grave killing of C, her lawful husband, D, her illegitimate
felonies, it falls under Art. 48, RPC, ie. a complex crime. father, and E, her legitimate son. All these killings
constitute parricide under Art. 246 of the RPC because
b. Assuming that when the incident occurred, Aika of her relationship with the victims. B committed the
was only six months pregnant, and when she crime of murder as a co-conspirator of A in the killing of
died, the fetus inside her womb also died, will C because the killing was carried out by means of poison
your answer be different? Explain. (Art. 248[3], RPC). But for feloniously causing the death
of D and E, B committed two counts of homicide. The
A: If the child died inside the womb of Aika, who was plan was only to kill C.
only six months, the crime committed is complex crime
of parricide with unintentional abortion. Killing the Q: Aldrich was dismissed from his Job by his
unborn child as a result of the violence employed against employer. Upon reaching home, his pregnant wife,
the mother without intent to abort is unintentional Carmi, nagged him about money for her medicines.
abortion. Since the child died inside the womb of the Depressed by his dismissal and angered by the
mother, unintentional abortion is committed regardless nagging of his wife, Aldrich struck Carmi with his
of viability of the victim. Because the same violence that fist. She fell to the ground. As a result, she and her
killed the mother also caused unintentional abortion, the unborn baby died. What crime was committed by
crime committed is a complex crime (People v. Pacayna, Aldrich? (1994)
Jr. G.R. No. 179035, April 16, 2008; People v. Robinos, G.R.
No. 138453, May 29, 2002; People v. Villanueva, G.R. No. A: Aldrich committed the crime of parricide with
95851, March 01, 1995; People v. Salufrania, G.R. No. L- unintentional abortion. When Aldrich struck his wife,
50884, March 30, 1988). Carmi, with his fist, he committed the crime of
maltreatment under Art. 266(3) of RPC. Since Carmi
Q: In 1975, Pedro, then a resident of Manila, died because of the felonious act of Aldrich, he is
abandoned his wife and their son, Ricky, who was criminally liable of parricide under Art. 246, RPC in
then only three years old. Twenty years later, an relation to Art. 4(1) of the same Code. Since the unborn
affray took place in a bar in Olongapo City between baby of Carmi died in the process, but Aldrich had no
Pedro and his companions, on one hand, and Ricky intention to cause the abortion of his wife, Aldrich
and his friends, upon the other, without the father committed unintentional abortion as defined in Art.
and son knowing each other. Ricky stabbed and 257, RPC. Inasmuch as the single act of Aldrich produced
killed Pedro in the fight, only to find out, a week two grave or less grave felonies, he falls under Art. 48,
later, when his mother arrived from Manila to visit RPC, ie. a complex crime.
him in jail, that the man whom he killed was his own
father. (1996) Death or Physical Injuries Inflicted Under
Exceptional Circumstances (Article 247)
a. What crime did Ricky commit? Explain.
Q: Procopio, a call center agent assigned at a

graveyard shift, went home earlier than usual. He

*QUAMTO is a compilation of past bar questions with answers as suggested by UPLC and other distinct
luminaries in the academe, and updated by the UST Academics Committee to fit for the 2016 Bar Exams.

proceeded immediately to their bedroom to change when the victim suffers any other kind of physical
his clothes. To his surprise, he found his wife Bionci injury. A will suffer the penalty of destierro.
in bed making love to another woman Magna.
Enraged, Procopio grabbed a knife nearby and b. Is A liable for B's injuries? Why?
stabbed Bionci, who died. (2015)
A: Likewise, A is liable for the serious physical injuries
a. What crime did Procopio commit, and what he inflicted on his wife B but under the same exceptional
circumstance attended the case? Explain. circumstances in Art. 247 of the RPC, for the same
A: The crime committed by Procopio is parricide
qualified by the circumstance of relationship. Killing a Q: At 10:00 oclock in the evening of 10 November
spouse after having been surprised in the act of 1990, upon his arrival from Cebu City, Marco
committing sexual intercourse with another woman is surprised his wife, Rosette, and her former
death under exceptional circumstance under Article 247 boyfriend, Raul, both naked and in the act of illicit
of the Revised Penal Code. However, in this case this is copulation. Raul got his revolver and, upon seeing
not death under exceptional circumstance because the revolver, Marco ran toward the street, took a
Bionci was having homosexual intercourse with another pedicab and proceeded to the house of his brother,
woman and not sexual intercourse with a man. a policeman, from whom he borrowed a revolver.
Homosexual intercourse is not within the With the weapon, he returned to his residence.
contemplation of the term sexual intercourse in Article Unable to find Raul and Rosette, Marco proceeded
247. However, the crime of parricide is attended by the to a disco jointly owned and operated by Raul. It
circumstance of passion arising from a lawful sentiment was already 11:00 oclock that evening when he
as a result of having caught his wife in the act of arrived at the joint. Upon seeing Raul with two (2)
infidelity with another woman (People v. Belarmino, G.R. male companions, A and B, drinking beer at one of
No. L-4429, April 18, 1952, En Banc). the tables, Marco fired two (2) shots at Raul, who
was hit on his forehead with one of the bullets; the
b. Assuming that Procopio and Bionci were other bullet hit A, injuring him on his stomach. As a
common-law spouses,will your answer be the consequence of the gunshot wound, Raul died
same? Explain. instantaneously. Due to the timely medical
attention given to him, A survived; he was, however,
A: No, the answer is not the same. The crime committed hospitalized for 45 days. Marco was prosecuted for
is Homicide if Procopio and Bionci were common law Murder for the death of Raul and for frustrated
spouses. Parricide contemplates killing by spouse who murder in the case of A. The informations in both
are legally married. cases allege the qualifying circumstances of evident
premeditation and treachery and the generic
Q: A and B are husband and wife. A is employed as a aggravating circumstance of nighttime. You are
security guard at Landmark, his shift being from Marcos lawyer. What would be your defense(s)?
11:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. One night, he felt sick and
cold, hence, he decided to go home around midnight A: The defense with respect to the death of Raul is
after getting permission from his duty officer. Upon death under exceptional circumstances (Art. 247, RPC,
reaching the front yard of his home, he noticed that People v. Abarca, G.R. No. 74433 September 14, 1987).
the light in the master bedroom was on and that the Although the killing happened one hour after having
bedroom window was open. Approaching the front surprised the spouse, that would still be within the
door, he was surprised to hear sighs and giggles context of immediately thereafter. With respect to the
inside the bedroom. He opened the door very wounding of the stranger, the defense of lawful exercise
carefully and peeped inside where he saw his wife B of a right is a justifying circumstance under Art. 11(5)
having sexual intercourse with their neighbor C. A could be invoked. At the time accused shot Raul, he was
rushed inside and grabbed C but the latter managed not committing a felonious act and therefore could not
to wrest himself free and jumped out of the window, have been criminality liable under Art. 4, RPC.
A followed suit and managed to catch C again and
after a furious struggle, managed also to strangle Murder (Article 248)
him to death. A then rushed back to his bedroom
where his wife B was cowering under the bed covers. Q: Define murder. What are the elements of the
Still enraged, A hit B with fist blows and rendered crime? (1999)
her unconscious. The police arrived after being
summoned by their neighbors and arrested A who A: Murder is the unlawful killing of a person which
was detained, inquested and charged for the death otherwise would constitute only homicide, had it not
of C and serious physical Injuries of B. (2005, 2001) been attended by any of the following circumstances:
1. With treachery or taking advantage of superior
a. Is A liable for C's death? Why? strength, or with the aid of armed men, or
employing means to weaken the defense or of
A: Yes, A is liable for C's death but under the exceptional means or persons to insure or afford impunity;
circumstances in Art. 247 of the RPC, where only 2. In consideration of a price, reward or promise;
destierro is prescribed. Art. 247 governs since A 3. By means or on the occasion of inundation, fire,
surprised his wife B in the act of having sexual poison, explosion, shipwreck, stranding of a vessel,
intercourse with C, and the killing of C was "immediately derailment or assault upon a railroad, fall of an
thereafter" as the discovery, escape, pursuit and killing airship, or by means of motor vehicles, or with the
of C form one continuous act. A person who commits use of any other means involving great waste and
acts penalized under Art. 247 is still criminally liable. ruin;

However, this is merely an exempting circumstance


QuAMTO for CRIMINAL LAW (1991-2015)
4. On occasion of an earthquake, eruption of a volcano, shooting, Lito was fifteen years and one month old.
destructive cyclone, epidemic or other public What is Lito's criminal liability? Explain. (2015)
5. With evident premeditation; A: Lito is criminally liable for murder qualified by the
6. With cruelty, by deliberately and inhumanly circumstance of treachery, or evident premeditation, as
augmenting the suffering of the victim, or outraging well as illegal possession of firearms. Minority is not an
or scoffing at his person or corpse. exempting under Section 7 of RA No. 9644 since his age
is above fifteen years but below eighteen years and he
The elements of murder are: (1) that a person was acted with discernment. Circumstance will show that he
unlawfully killed; (2) that such a killing was attended by discerned the consequences of his criminal acts as
any of the above-mentioned circumstances; (3) that the shown from the fact he employed means to make a
killing is not parricide nor infanticide; and (4) that the surprise attack and he even hid the murder weapon in
accused killed the victim. an empty container. It was also clear that he planned the
killing. However, minority will be considered as a
Q: Honesto and Wilma were married but had been privileged mitigating circumstance, which will require
living separately due to irreconcilable differences. the graduation of the penalty prescribed by law to one
Honesto later met Celia and fell in love with her. degree lower (Article 68).
Thinking that he could marry Celia if Wilma were to
die, Honesto decided to kill Wilma. He secretly Q: Roger, the leader of a crime syndicate in Malate,
followed Wilma for weeks to learn her daily routine. Manila, demanded the payment by Antonio, the
He decided to kill her at night on her way home. On owner of a motel in that area, of P10,000 a month as
the night he was to kill Wilma, Honesto wore dark "protection money". With the monthly payment,
clothes so that he would not be easily seen. He Roger assured, the syndicate would provide
waited in the dark alley for Wilma to pass by. He saw protection to Antonio, his business, and his
someone whom he thought looked like Wilma and employees. Should Antonio refuse, Roger warned,
shot her with a revolver. The bullet passed through the motel owner would either be killed or his
the person's head and grazed another passerby's establishment destroyed. Antonio refused to pay the
arm. Some bystanders who heard the shot were able protection money. Days later, at round 3:00 in the
to stop Honesto. It turned out that Wilma did not morning, Mauro, a member of the criminal
report for work on that day, and the one who was syndicate, arrived at Antonio's home and hurled a
shot in the head was Melba, who died. The passerby grenade into an open window of the bedroom where
whose arm was grazed by the bullet required Antonio, his wife and their three year-old daughter
medical attendance for two days. (2015) were sleeping. All three of them were killed
instantly when the grenade exploded. State, with
a. What crime(s) did Honesto commit? Explain. reason, the crime or crimes that had been
committed as well as the aggravating circumstances,
A: Honesto is liable for murder qualified by the if any, attendant thereto. (2008)
circumstance of treachery for killing Melba due to error
in personae or mistake of identity and slight physical A: By demanding protection money under threat and
injuries for the wound sustained by the passerby due to intimidation, the crime of grave threats is committed by
aberratio ictus or mistake of blow. Although his Roger, the leader of the crime syndicate. For killing the
intention to commit parricide, he is liable for murder businessman, his wife and three year old daughter, the
and slight physical injuries since they are the direct, complex crime of multiple murder was committed by
natural and logical consequence of act committed with Mauro. The killing is qualified by the use of an explosive
intent to kill his wife. (hand grenade). The treachery attending the killing shall
be separately appreciated as another aggravating
b. Will your answer be the same, assuming that the circumstance aside from the use of explosive as the
other passerby was hit in the left eye which caused qualifying circumstance.
his/her blindness? Explain.
Other aggravating circumstances which may be
A: If the passerby was hit in the left eye causing appreciated are:
blindness, the crime committed by Honesto is serious 1. Dwelling, because the killings were committed in
physical injuries. Unlike slight physical injuries, serious the home of the victims who had not given any
physical injuries can be made a component of a complex provocation;
crime under Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code. Since 2. Nocturnity, considering that the offenders carried
a single act of shooting the victim constitutes murder out the killing at around 3:00 a.m., indicative of a
and serious physical injuries, they can be merged deliberate choice of nighttime for the commission of
together to form a complex crime. Thus, my answer the crime;
would be different since the crime would be Murder 3. Treachery under Art. 14(16) of the RPC considering
with Serious physical injuries. that victims were all asleep when killed; and

Q: Lito, a minor, was bullied by Brutus, his The offense was committed by a person who belongs to
classmate. Having had enough, Lito got the key to the an organized/ syndicated crime group under the
safe where his father kept his licensed pistol and Heinous Crimes Law (Sec. 23, R.A. 7659), amending for
took the weapon. Knowing that Brutus usually hung this purpose Art. 62(1) of the RPC.
out at a nearby abandoned building after class, Lito
went ahead and hid while waiting for Brutus. When Q: Mang Jose, a septuagenarian, was walking with
Lito was convinced that Brutus was alone, he shot his ten-year old grandson along Paseo de Roxas and
Brutus, who died on the spot. Lito then hid the gun decided to cross at the intersection of Makati

in one of the empty containers. At the time of the Avenue but both were hit by a speeding CRV

*QUAMTO is a compilation of past bar questions with answers as suggested by UPLC and other distinct
luminaries in the academe, and updated by the UST Academics Committee to fit for the 2016 Bar Exams.

Honda van and were sent sprawling on the

pavement a meter apart. The driver, a Chinese A: All the assailants are liable for the crime of murder,
mestizo, stopped his car after hitting the two victims qualified by treachery, (which absorbed abuse of
but then reversed his gears and ran over Mang Jose's superior strength) as the attack was sudden and
prostrate body anew and third time by advancing unexpected and the victim was totally defenseless.
his car forward. The grandson suffered broken legs Conspiracy is obvious from the concerted acts of the
only and survived but Mang Jose suffered multiple assailants. Direct assault would not complex the crime,
fractures and broken ribs, causing his instant death. as there is no showing that the assailants knew that the
The driver was arrested and charged with Murder victim was a policeman; even if there was knowledge,
for the death of Mang Jose and Serious Physical the fact is that he was not in the performance of his
Injuries through Reckless Imprudence with respect official duties, and therefore there is no direct assault.
to the grandson. Are the charges correct? Explain.
(2001) Q: Harry, an overseas contract worker, arrived from
Saudi Arabia with considerable savings. Knowing
A: Yes, the charges are correct. For deliberately running him to be "loaded", his friends Jason, Manuel and
over Mang Jose's prostrate body after having bumped Dave invited him to poker session at a rented beach
him and his grandson, the driver indeed committed cottage. When he was losing almost all his money
Murder, qualified by treachery. Said driver's deliberate which to him was his savings of a lifetime, he
intent to kill Mang Jose was demonstrated by his discovered that he was being cheated by his friends.
running over the latter's body twice, by backing up the Angered by the betrayal he decided to take revenge
van and driving it forward, whereas the victim was on the three cheats. Harry ordered several bottles of
helpless and not in a position to defend himself or to Tanduay Rhum and gave them to his companions to
retaliate. drink, as they did, until they all fell asleep. When
Harry saw his companions already sound asleep he
As to the serious physical injuries sustained by Mang hacked all of them to death. Then he remembered
Jose's 10-year old grandson, as a result of having been his losses. He rifled through the pockets of his
hit by the speeding vehicle of said driver, the same were victims and got back all the money he lost. He then
the result of reckless imprudence which is punishable as ran away but not before burning the cottage to hide
a quasi-offense in Art. 365 of the RPC. The charge of his misdeed. The following day police investigators
Reckless Imprudence Resulting to Serious Physical found among the debris the charred bodies of Jason,
Injuries is correct. The penalty next higher in degree to Manuel, Dave and the caretaker of the resort. After
what ordinarily should be imposed is called for since the preliminary investigation, the Provincial Prosecutor
driver did not lend help on the spot, which help he could charged Harry with the complex crime of arson with
have given to the victims. quadruple homicide and robbery. Was Harry
properly charged? Discuss fully. (1995)
Q: Fidel and Fred harbored a long standing grudge
against Jorge who refused to marry their sister A: No, Harry was not properly charged. Harry should
Lorna, after the latter got pregnant by Jorge. After have been charged with three (3) separate crimes,
weeks of surveillance, they finally cornered Jorge in namely: murder, theft and arson. Harry killed Jason,
Ermita, Manila, when the latter was walking home Manuel and Dave with evident premeditation, as there
late at night. Fidel and Fred forcibly brought Jorge was considerable lapse of time before he decided to
to Zambales where they kept him hog-tied in a small commit the crime and the actual commission of the
nipa house located in the middle of a rice field. Two crime. In addition, Harry employed means which
days later, they killed Jorge and dumped his body weakened the defense of Jason, Manuel and Dave. Harry
into the river. What crime or crimes did Fidel and gave them the liquor to drink until they were drunk and
Fred commit? Explain. (1996) fell asleep. This gave Harry the opportunity to carry out
his plan of murder with impunity.
A: Fidel and Fred committed the crime of Murder under
Art. 248, RPC, the killing being qualified by evident The taking of the money from the victims was a mere
premeditation. This is due to the long standing grudge afterthought of the killings. Hence, Harry committed the
entertained by the two accused occasioned by the separate crime of theft and not the complex crime of
victim's refusal to marry their sister after impregnating robbery with homicide. Although theft was committed
her. The intention of the accused is determinative of the against dead persons, it is still legally possible as the
crime committed. Where the intention is to kill the offended party are the estates of the victims.
victim and the latter is forcibly taken to another place
and later killed, it is murder. There is no indication that In burning the cottage to hide his misdeed, Harry
the offenders intended to deprive the victim of his became liable for another separate crime, arson. This
liberty. Whereas, if the victim is kidnapped, and taken to act of burning was not necessary for the consummation
another situs and killed as an afterthought, it is of the two (2) previous offenses he committed. The fact
kidnapping with homicide under Art. 267, RPC. that the caretaker died from the blaze did not qualify
Harry's crime into a complex crime of arson with
Q: On his way to buy a lotto ticket, a policeman homicide for there is no such crime.
suddenly found himself surrounded by four men.
One of them wrestled the police officer to the ground Q: Two (2) Philippine National Police (PNP) officers,
and disarmed him while the other three companions X and Y, on board on motorboat with Z, a civilian as
who were armed with a hunting knife, an ice pick, motorman, arrested A and B who were in a banca,
and a balisong, repeatedly stabbed him. The for dynamite fishing. The latters banca was towed
policeman died as a result of the multiple stab towards the municipality. On the way, the PNP
wounds inflicted by his assailants. What crime or motorboat was intercepted by a third banca whose

crimes were committed? Discuss fully. (1995) occupants, C, D. and E, tried to negotiate for the


QuAMTO for CRIMINAL LAW (1991-2015)
release of A and B and their banca. The PNP officers
refused and instead shouted at C, D, and E that they Intentional felony and culpable felony Homicide
are all under arrest. Thereupon, C, D, and E regardless of stages must be committed with malice
simultaneously threw dynamite sticks at the PNP (general intent) and intent to kill (specific intent). Even
motorboats. The first explosion killed X. A and B if there is no intent to kill and evil intent, the offender is
also reacted by throwing dynamite at the PNP liable for culpable felony if the victim dies or was injured
motorboat, its explosion killed Y and Z. What crime as a result of the recklessness of the former. If there is
or crimes did A, B, C, D and E commit? (1991) no intent to kill, evil intent and recklessness on the part
of the accused, he is not liable for his intentional act,
A: C. D and E are liable for the complex crime of Murder, which caused the death of or injury upon the victim
qualified by explosion, with direct assault for the death because of the exempting circumstance of accident.
of X. A and B are liable for the complex crime of Murder
Qualified by explosion as to death of Y, and simple Q: In a free-for-all brawl that ensued after some
Murder qualified by explosion for the death of Z. No customers inside a night club became unruly, guns
crime of direct assault can be filed insofar as the death were fired by a group, among them A and B, that
of Z is concerned, he being a civilian. This, of course, finally put the customers back to their senses.
assumes that there is no conspiracy among A, B, C, D Unfortunately, one customer died. Subsequent
and E, otherwise all would have the same criminal investigation revealed that A's gunshot had inflicted
liability as the act of one becomes the act of all. on the victim a slight wound that did not cause the
deceased's death nor materially contribute to it. It
Homicide (Article 249) was B's gunshot that inflicted a fatal wound on the
deceased. A contended that his liability should, if at
Q: Explain and illustrate the stages of execution of all, be limited to slight physical injury. Would you
the crime of homicide, taking into account the agree? Why? (2003)
nature of the offense, the essential element of each
of the stages of execution and the manner of A: No, I beg to disagree with A's contention that his
committing such intentional felony as distinguished liability should be limited to slight physical injury only.
from felony committed through reckless He should be held liable for attempted homicide because
imprudence. (2012) he inflicted said injury with the use of a firearm which is
a lethal weapon. Intent to kill is inherent in the use of a
A: Elements of the crime Homicide as an intentional firearm (Araneta, Jr. v. CA, G.R. No. L-43527, July 3, 1990).
felony has three stages, attempted, frustrated and
consummated. In whatever stages homicide is ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
committed, intent to kill must be established for being Yes, I would agree to As contention that his criminal
an indispensible element thereof. However, if the victim liability should be for slight physical injury only, because
died as a consequence of wounds caused by an act he fired his gun only to pacify the unruly customers of
committed with malice, intent to kill is conclusively the night club and therefore, without intent to kill. Bs
presumed and the crime committed is consummated gunshot that inflicted a fatal wound on the deceased
homicide. Because of this conclusive presumption, lack may not be imputed to A because conspiracy cannot
of intent to kill is not a defense in consummated exist when there is a free-for-all brawl or tumultuous
homicide. (NOTE: In consummated homicide, the affray. A and B are liable only for their respective act.
accused may prove lack of intent to kill for purpose of
appreciating the mitigating circumstance of praeter Q: The accused, not intending to kill the victim,
intentionem). But if the victim did not die as a treacherously shot the victim while the victim was
consequence of wounds caused by an act committed turning his back to him. He aimed at and hit the
with malice, intent to kill must be established beyond victim only on the leg. The victim, however, died
reasonable doubt. If intent to kill is proven, the crime because of loss of blood. Can the accused be liable
committed is frustrated or attempted homicide. If intent for homicide or murder, considering that treachery
to kill is not proven, the crime committed is physical was clearly involved but there was no attempt to
injuries. Thus, lack of intent to kill is a defense in kill? Explain your answer. (1999)
attempted or frustrated homicide.
A: The accused is liable for the death of the victim even
Nature of the crime If the offender with intent to kill though he merely aimed and fired at the latter's leg, "not
attempted to inflict or inflicted non-mortal wounds upon intending to kill the victim", considering that the
the victim, he already directly commenced an overt act gunshot was felonious and was the proximate cause of
to commit homicide. Hence, the crime committed is death. An offender is liable for all the direct, natural, and
attempted homicide if he failed to inflict moral wounds logical consequences of his felonious act although
upon the victim by reason of some cause or accident different from what he intended. However, since specific
other than his own spontaneous desistance. If the intent to kill is absent, the crime for said death is only
offender with intent to kill inflicted mortal wounds upon homicide and not murder (People v. Pugay and Samson,
the victim, he already performed all acts of execution G.R. No. L-74324, November 17, 1988).
which would produce the homicide as a consequence. If
death is not produced despite the mortal character of Q: A killed: (1) a woman with whom he lived
the wounds due to causes independent of the will of the without benefit of clergy, (2) their child who was
offender, the crime committed is frustrated homicide. If only two days old, (3) their daughter, and (4) their
death is produced, the crime committed is consummated adopted son. What crime or crimes did A commit?
homicide. In this situation, all the elements necessary for (1999)
execution and accomplishment of homicide are present
if the victim dies due to the wounds inflicted by the A: A committed the following crimes:

offender with the intent to kill.

*QUAMTO is a compilation of past bar questions with answers as suggested by UPLC and other distinct
luminaries in the academe, and updated by the UST Academics Committee to fit for the 2016 Bar Exams.

1. HOMICIDE or MURDER as the case may be, for the the idea of an affray. The liability of the attackers should
killing of his common-law wife who is not legally be collective for the crime of homicide or murder as the
considered a "spouse". case may be.
2. INFANTICIDE for the killing of the child as said child
is less than three (3) days old (Art. 255, RPC). Q: During a town fiesta, a free-for-all fight erupted in
However, the penalty corresponding to parricide the public plaza. As a result of the tumultuous affray,
shall be imposed since A is related to the child A sustained one fatal and three superficial stab
within the degree defined in the crime of parricide. wounds. He died a day after. B, C, D and E were
3. PARRICIDE for the killing of their daughter, whether proven to be participants in the "rumble", each
legitimate or illegitimate, as long as she is not less using a knife against A, but it could not be
than three (3) days old at the time of the killing. ascertained who among them inflicted the mortal
4. MURDER for the killing of their adopted son as the injury. Who shall be held criminally liable for the
relationship between A and the said son must be by death of A and for what? (1997)
blood in order for parricide to arise.
A: B, C, D, and E being participants in the tumultuous
Q: Tommy saw Lino and Okito engaged in a street affray and having been proven to have inflicted serious
fight. Lino then suddenly drew his balisong and physical injuries, or at least, employed violence upon A,
lunged at Okito. In an effort to break up the fight, are criminally liable for the latter's death. And because it
Tommy tried to snatch the balisong from Lino but cannot be ascertained who among them inflicted the
not before the latter had inflicted a wound on Okito. mortal injury on A, there being a free-for-all fight or
As Lino withdrew the weapon and attempted to stab tumultuous affray. B, C, D, and E are all liable for the
Okito a second time. Tommy tried to grab the crime of death caused in a tumultuous affray under Art.
weapon again. In so doing, his left forearm was 251 of the RPC.
slashed. As he succeeded in snatching away the
balisong with his right arm, it flew with such force, Giving Assistance to Suicide (Article 253)
that it hit Nereo, a passerby who was seriously
injured. Explain your answers fully. What is the Q: Francis and Joan were sweethearts, but their
criminal liability of Lino with respect to Okito, parents had objected to their relationship because
Tommy and Nereo? (1992) they were first cousins. They forged a pact in writing
to commit suicide. The agreement was shoot each
A: As far as Okito is concerned, Lino is liable for frus- other in the head which they did. Joan died. Due to
trated homicide, assuming that the wound suffered by medical assistance, Francis survived. Is Francis
Okito is such that for reasons or causes independent of criminally liable for the death of Joan? Explain.
the will of Lino (such as timely medical attention) Okito (2008)
would have died. If the injury is not serious enough, the
liability is only attempted homicide. Intent to kill is A: Yes, Francis is criminally liable for Joans death. His
manifest because of the use of a deadly weapon. For the act of shooting her, although done pursuant to a solemn
injury on the arm of Tommy, Uno is liable only for pact, is nevertheless felonious and is the proximate
physical injuries (serious, less serious or slight, cause of Joans death (Art. 4[1], RPC). Moreover, the
depending on the nature of the injury). Apparently there mere act of giving assistance to a suicide is a crime (Art.
is no intent to kill. For Nereo, Lino should be liable for 253, RPC).
serious physical injuries as the wounding of Nereo was
the natural and logical consequence of Linos felonious Infanticide (Article 255)
Q: Ana has been a bar girl/GRO at a beer house for
Death Caused in a Tumultuous Affray (Article 251) more than 2 years. She fell in love with Oniok, the
bartender, who impregnated her. But Ana did not
Q: A, B and C are members of SFC Fraternity. While inform him about her condition and instead, went
eating in a seaside restaurant, they were attacked by home to Cebu to conceal her shame. However, her
X, Y and Z, members of a rival fraternity. A rumble parents drove her away. So she returned to Manila
ensued in which the above named members of the and stayed with Oniok in his boarding house. Upon
two fraternities assaulted each other in a confused learning of her pregnancy, already in an advanced
and tumultuous manner resulting in the death of A. state, Oniok tried to persuade her to undergo an
As it cannot be ascertained who actually killed A, the abortion, but she refused. Because of their constant
members of the two fraternities who took part in the and bitter quarrels, she suffered birth pangs and
rumble were charged for death caused in a gave birth prematurely to a live baby girl while
tumultuous affray. Will the charge prosper? Explain. Oniok was at his place of work. Upon coming home
(2010) and learning what happened, he prevailed upon Ana
to conceal her dishonor. Hence, they placed the
A: No, the charge of death caused in the tumultuous infant in a shoe box and threw it into a nearby creek.
affray will not prosper. In death caused by tumultuous However, an inquisitive neighbor saw them and with
affray under Art. 251 of the RPC, it is essential that the the help of others, retrieved the infant who was
person involved did not compose groups organized for already dead from drowning. The incident was
the common purpose of assaulting and attacking each reported to the police who arrested Ana and Oniok.
other reciprocally. In this case, there is no tumultuous The 2 were charged with parricide under Article 246
affray since the participants in the rumble belong to of the Revised Penal Code. After trial, they were
organized fraternities. The killer of A, a member of the convicted of the crime charged. Was the conviction
SFC Fraternity could not be any other but member of the correct? (2006)
rival fraternity. Conspiracy is therefore present among

the attackers from the rival fraternity and thus rules out


QuAMTO for CRIMINAL LAW (1991-2015)
A: The conviction of Ana and Oniok is not correct. They although rape has been reclassified from a crime against
are liable for infanticide because they killed a child less chastity, to that of a crime against persons.
than three days of age. (Art. 255, RPC) In this case, Ana
gave birth to a live baby girl, thus the victim is already Q: GV was convicted of raping TC, his niece, and he
viable and breathing on its own upon separation from was sentenced to death. It was alleged in the
womb. Infanticide involves a killing where the victim is information that the victim was a minor below seven
already a person. years old, and her mother testified that she was only
six years and ten months old, which her aunt
Rape (Article 266A) corroborated on the witness stand. The information
also alleged that the accused was the victim's uncle,
Q: What other acts are considered rape under the a fact proved by the prosecution. On automatic
Anti-Rape Law of 1997, amending the Revised Penal review before the Supreme Court, accused-appellant
Code? (2002) contends that capital punishment could not be
imposed on him because of the inadequacy of the
A: The other acts considered rape under the Anti-Rape charges and the insufficiency of the evidence to
Law of 1997 are: prove all the elements of the heinous crime of rape
1. having carnal knowledge of a woman by a man by beyond reasonable doubt. Is appellant's contention
means of fraudulent machination or grave abuse of correct? Reason briefly. (2004)
2. having carnal knowledge of a demented woman by a A: Yes, appellant's contention is correct insofar as the
man even if none of the circumstances required in age of the victim is concerned. The age of the victim
rape be present; and raped has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt to
3. committing an act of sexual assault by inserting a constitute the crime as qualified rape and deserving of
persons penis into the victims mouth or anal the death penalty. The guidelines in appreciating age as
orifice, or by inserting any instrument or object, into a qualifying circumstance in rape cases have not been
the genital or anal orifice of another person. met, to wit:
1. The primary evidence of the age of the victim is her
Q: Charlie was charged for the qualified rape of AAA. birth certificate;
The Information alleged that AAA was 14 years old 2. In the absence of the birth certificate, age of the
at the time the crime was committed and that victim maybe proven by authentic document, such
Charlie was AAA's stepfather. The presentation of as baptismal certificate and school records;
AAA's birth certificate during the trial duly 3. If the aforesaid documents are shown to have been
established the following: (1) that AAA was indeed lost or destroyed or otherwise unavailable, the
14 years old at the time of the rape; and (2) that testimony, if clear and credible of the victim's
AAA's mother is BBB and her father was the late CCC. mother or any member of the family, by
BBB and Charlie only became live-in partners after consanguinity or affinity, who is qualified to testify
CCC's death. The RTC found Charlie guilty of on matters respecting pedigree such as the exact age
qualified rape. On appeal, the Court of Appeals or date of birth of the offended party pursuant to
convicted Charlie of simple rape. Charlie appealed Section 40, Rule 130 of the Rules on Evidence shall
before the Supreme Court. How will you rule and be sufficient but only under the following
why? (2015) circumstances: (a) If the victim is alleged to
be below 3 years of age and what is sought to
A: The CA ruling is correct. The crime committed by be proved is that she is less than 7 years old; (b) If
Charlie is simple rape. To be held liable for qualified the victim is alleged to be below 7 years of age and
rape, a qualifying circumstance should be alleged in the what is sought to be proved is that she is less than
information and proven by evidence beyond reasonable 12 years old; (c) If the victim is alleged to be below
doubt. Although minority and step-relationship as a 12 years of age and what is sought to be proved is
qualifying circumstance are alleged in the information, that she is less than 18 years old.
what is proven by the evidence is the qualifying 4. In the absence of a certificate of live birth, authentic
circumstance of minority and common-law relationship document, or the testimony of the victim's mother
with the mother of the victim. The concept of step- or relatives concerning the victim's age under the
relationship is different from that of common-law circumstances above-stated, complainant's sole
relationship because in the former the mother of the testimony can suffice, provided that it is expressly
victim and the offender are legally married while in the and clearly admitted by the accused (People v.
latter they are not. To appreciate this qualifying Pruna, G.R. No. 138471, October 10, 2002).
circumstance of minority and common-law relationship
will offend the constitutional right of the accused to be Q: A, a male, takes B, another male, to a motel and
informed of the nature of the crime charged against him. there, through threat and intimidation, succeeds in
inserting his penis into the anus of B. What, if any, is
Q: The Anti-Rape Law of 1997 reclassified rape from As criminal liability? Why? (2002)
a crime against honor, a private offense, to that of a
crime against persons. Will the subsequent marriage A: A shall be criminally liable for rape by committing an
of the offender and the offended party extinguish act of sexual assault against B, by inserting his penis into
the criminal action or the penalty imposed? Explain. the anus of the latter. Even a man may be a victim of
(2002) rape by sexual assault under par. 2 of Article 266-A of
the RPC, as amended, "when the offender's penis is
A: Yes. By express provision of Article 266-C of the inserted into his mouth or anal orifice."
RPC, as amended, the subsequent valid marriage
between the offender and offended party shall Q: Flordeluna boarded a taxi on her way home to

extinguish the criminal action or the penalty imposed, Quezon City which was driven by Roger, Flordeluna

*QUAMTO is a compilation of past bar questions with answers as suggested by UPLC and other distinct
luminaries in the academe, and updated by the UST Academics Committee to fit for the 2016 Bar Exams.

noticed that Roger was always placing his car 7659, the Heinous Crimes Law, amended Art. 335, RPC,
freshener in front of the car aircon ventilation but by adding the phrase "or is demented."
did not bother asking Roger why. Suddenly,
Flordeluna felt dizzy and became unconscious. Q: Gavino boxed his wife Alma for refusing to sleep
Instead of bringing her to Quezon City, Roger with him. He then violently threw her on the floor
brought Flordeluna to his house in Cavite where she and forced her to have sexual intercourse with him.
was detained for two (2) weeks. She was raped for As a result Alma suffered serious physical injuries.
the entire duration of her detention. May Roger be Can Gavino be charged with rape? Explain. (1995)
charged and convicted of the crime of rape with
serious illegal detention? Explain. (2000) A: Yes. A woman is no longer the chattel-antiquated
practices labeled her to be. A husband who has sexual
A: No, Roger may not be charged and convicted of the intercourse with his wife is not merely using a property,
crime of rape with serious illegal detention. Roger may he is fulfilling a marital consortium with a fellow human
be charged and convicted of multiple rapes. Each rape is being with dignity equal to that he accords himself. He
a distinct offense and should be punished separately. cannot be permitted to violate this dignity by coercing
Evidently, his principal intention was to abuse her to engage in a sexual act without her full and free
Flordeluna; the detention was only incidental to the consent sexual intercourse, albeit within the realm of
rape. marriage, if not consensual, is rape. (People vs. Jumawan,
G.R. No. 187495, April 21, 2014).
Q: King went to the house of Laura who was alone.
Laura offered him a drink and after consuming three NOTE: Prior to R.A. 8353 (Anti-Rape Law), a husband
bottles of beer, King made advances to her and with cannot be guilty of rape committed upon his wife
force and violence ravished her. Then King killed because of the matrimonial consent which she gave
Laura and took her jewelry. Doming, Kings adopted when she assumed the marriage relation. However,
brother, learned about the incident. He went to under Art. 266-C of R.A. 8353, a husband may be guilty
Laura's house, hid her body, cleaned everything and of rape of his wife if it is the legal husband who is the
washed the bloodstains inside the room. Later, King offender.
gave Jose, his legitimate brother, one piece of
jewelry belonging to Laura. Jose knew that the DOCTRINE NO LONGER CONTROLLING:
jewelry was taken from Laura but nonetheless he A: No. A husband cannot be charged with the rape of his
sold it for P2,000. What crime or crimes did King, wife because of the matrimonial consent which she gave
Doming and Jose commit? Discuss their criminal when she assumed the marriage relation, and the law
liabilities. (1998) will not permit her to retract in order to charge her
husband with the offense (Sate v. Haines, 11 La. Ann. 731
A: King committed the composite crime of Rape with So. 372; 441 RA 837).
homicide as a single indivisible offense, not a complex
crime. His act of taking Laura's jewelry when she is Q: Three policemen conducting routine surveillance
already dead likewise constitute theft. Domings acts, of a cogonal area in Antipole chanced upon Ruben, a
having been done with knowledge of the commission of 15-year old tricycle driver, on top of Rowena who
the crime and done to conceal the body to prevent its was known to be a child prostitute. Both were naked
discovery, makes him an accessory to the crime of rape from the waist down and appeared to be enjoying
with homicide (Art. 19[2], RPC) but he is exempt from the sexual activity. Ruben was arrested by the
criminal liability (Art. 20, RPC) being an adopted brother policemen despite his protestations that Rowena
of the principal. Jose incurs criminal liability either as an enticed him to have sex with her in advance
accessory to the crime of theft or a fence. Although he is celebration of her twelfth birthday. The town
a legitimate brother of King, the exemption under Art. physician found no semen nor any bleeding on
20 does not include the participation he did because he Rowena's hymen but for a healed scar. Her hymenal
profited from the effect of such theft. opening easily admitted two fingers showing that no
external force had been employed on her. Is Ruben
Q: The complainant, an eighteen-year old mental liable for any offense? Discuss fully. (1995)
retardate with an intellectual capacity between the
ages of nine and twelve years, when asked during A: Ruben is liable for rape, even if force or intimidation
the trial how she felt when she was raped by the is not present. The gravamen of the offense is the carnal
accused, replied "Masarap, it gave me much knowledge of a woman below twelve years of age
pleasure." With the claim of the accused that the (People v. Dela Cruz, G.R. No. L-30912 April 30, 1980)
complainant consented for a fee to the sexual since the law doesn't consider the consent voluntary and
intercourse, and with the foregoing answer of the presumes that a girl below twelve years old does not
complainant, would you convict the accused of rape and cannot have a will of her own. In People v. Perez, CA
if you were the judge trying the case? Explain. 37 OG 1762, it was held that sexual intercourse with a
(1996) prostitute below twelve years old is rape. Similarly, the
absence of spermatozoa does not disprove the
A: Yes, I would convict the accused of rape. Since the consummation as the important consideration is not the
victim is a mental retardate with an intellectual capacity emission but the penetration of the female body by the
of a child less than 12 years old, she is legally incapable male organ.
of giving a valid consent to the sexual intercourse. The
sexual intercourse is tantamount to a statutory rape Q: Ariel intimidated Rachel, a mental retardate, with
because the level of intelligence is that of a child less a bolo into having sexual intercourse with him.
than twelve years of age. Where the victim of rape is a Rachel's mother immediately filed a complaint,
mental retardate, violence or intimidation is not supported by her sworn statement, before the City

essential to constitute rape. As a matter of fact, R.A. Prosecutor's Office. After the necessary preliminary


QuAMTO for CRIMINAL LAW (1991-2015)
investigation, an information was signed by the and in a moment of bravado, placed his hand on her
prosecutor but did not contain the signature of left hip and gently massaged it. She screamed and
Rachel nor of her mother. shouted for help. Eduardo was arrested and charged
with acts of lasciviousness. Is the designation of the
a. Citing Art. 344 of the RPC, Ariel moves for the crime correct? (2006)
dismissal of the case. Resolve with reason.
(1993) A: No. The crime should be Other Acts of Child Abuse
under Section 10(b) of R.A. 7610 of Section 3 that refers
A: The case should not be dismissed. This is allowed by to child abuse committed by any act, deeds or words
law. It is enough that a complaint was filed by the which debases, degrades or demeans the intrinsic worth
offended party or the parents in the Fiscal's Office. and dignity of a child as a human being. In relation
thereto, Section 10 provides criminal liability for other
b. After the prosecution had rested its case, Ariel acts of child abuse, cruelty or exploitation, or for other
presented a sworn affidavit of desistance conditions prejudicial to the child's development. The
executed by Rachel and her mother stating that reaction of the victim, screaming for help upon the
they are no longer interested in prosecuting the occurrence of the touching indicates that she perceived
case and that they have pardoned Ariel. What her dignity was being debased or violated.
effect would this affidavit of desistance have on
the criminal and civil aspects of the case? Q: Mrs. MNA was charged of child abuse. It appears
Explain fully. (1993, 1991) from the evidence that she failed to give
immediately the required medical attention to her
A: The case should not be dismissed. While the affidavit adopted child, BPO, when he was accidentally
of desistance executed by the victim amounts to a bumped by her car, resulting in his head injuries
pardon, the same does not extinguish criminal liability. and impaired vision that could lead to night
In the crime of rape, pardon by the offended party only blindness. The accused, according to the social
bars prosecution if given before the institution of the worker on the case, used to whip him when he failed
criminal action. After the criminal action had been to come home on time from school. Also, to punish
instituted, such pardon only waives the civil liability but him for carelessness in washing dishes, she
not the criminal liability of the offender. sometimes sent him to bed without supper. She
moved to quash the charge on the ground that there
Anti-Hazing Law (R.A. No. 8049) is no evidence she maltreated her adopted child
habitually. She added that the accident was caused
Q: What is hazing as defined by law? (2002) by her drivers negligence. She did punish her ward
for naughtiness or carelessness, but only mildly. Is
A: Hazing, as defined by law, is an initiation rite or her motion meritorious? Reason briefly. (2004)
practice as a prerequisite for admission into
membership In a fraternity, sorority or organization by A: No, the motion to quash is not meritorious. It is not
placing the recruit, neophyte or applicant in some necessary that movants maltreatment of a child be
embarrassing or humiliating situations such as forcing "habitual" to constitute child abuse. The wrongful acts
him to do menial, silly, foolish and similar tasks or penalized as "Child Abuse" under R.A. 7610 refers to the
activities or otherwise subjecting him to physical or maltreatment of the child, "whether habitual or not":
psychological suffering or injury. this is expressly stated in Sec. 2(b) of the said law. Mrs.
MNA should be liable for child abuse.
Q: What does the law require before initiation rites
SECURITY (Articles 267-292)
A: Section 2 of Rep. Act No. 8049 (Anti-Hazing Law)
requires that before hazing or initiation rites may be Kidnapping and Serious Illegal Detention
performed, notice to the school authorities or head of (Article 267)
organizations shall be given seven (7) days before the
conduct of such rites. The written notice shall indicate Q: Sexy boarded a taxi on her way home from a
(a) the period of the initiation activities, not exceeding party. Because she was already tipsy, she fell asleep.
three (3) days; (b) the names of those to be subjected to Pogi, the taxi driver, decided to take advantage of
such activities, and (c) an undertaking that no physical the situation and drove Sexy to a deserted place
violence shall be employed by anybody during such where he raped her for a period of two (2) weeks.
initiation rites. What crime did Pogi commit? (2014)

Special Protection of Children Against Child A: The crime committed by Pogi is kidnapping and
Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination Act Serious Illegal Detention with rape. Since Sexy was
(R.A. No. 7610, as amended) raped for two weeks, there was a clear deprivation of
liberty, which constitutes the crime of kidnapping with
Q: Eduardo Quintos, a widower for the past 10 years, serious illegal detention. The crime is committed when
felt that his retirement at the age of 70 gave him one kidnaps or detains another, or in any other manner
the opportunity to engage in his favorite pastime deprives her of his liberty and the kidnapping or
voyeurism. If not using his high-powered detention has lasted more than three days or the victim
binoculars to peep at his neighbor's homes and is a female. Since as a consequence of the detention, the
domestic activities, his second choice was to follow victim is raped, the crime committed is special complex
sweet young girls. One day, he trailed a teenage girl crime of kidnapping with rape, the resultant crime is
only one kidnapping with rape. This is because the

up to the LRT station at EDSA-Buendia. While

ascending the stairs, he stayed one step behind her composite acts are regarded as a single indivisible

*QUAMTO is a compilation of past bar questions with answers as suggested by UPLC and other distinct
luminaries in the academe, and updated by the UST Academics Committee to fit for the 2016 Bar Exams.

offense as in fact R.A. 7659 punishes these acts with only day, Mildred managed to escape; she proceeded
a single penalty (People v. Mirandilla, Jr., G.R. No. 186417, immediately to the nearest police station and
July 27, 2011). narrated her ordeal. What crime/s did Felipe, Julio,
Roldan, and Lucio commit and what was their
Q: Pretty was a campus beauty queen who, because degree of participation? (2013)
of her looks and charms, attracted many suitors.
Having decided that she would become a nun, Pretty A: Felipe, Julio, Roldan and Lucio are all liable of the
turned down all her suitors. Guapo, one of her most special complex crime of kidnapping and serious illegal
persistent suitors, could not handle rejection and detention with rape. It was sufficiently proved that the
one night, decided to accost Pretty as she walked four kidnapped Madrid and held her in detention for five
home. Together with Pogi, Guapo forced Pretty into days and carnally abused her. Notably, however, no
his car and drove her to an abandoned warehouse matter how many rapes have been committed in the
where he and Pogi forced Pretty to dance for them. special complex crime of kinapping with rape, the
Later, the two took turns in raping her.After resultant crime is only one kidnapping with rape. The
satisfying their lusts, Guapo and Pogi dropped her composite acts are regarded as a single indivisible
off at her house. (2014, 2006) offense with only one penalty. The offense is not forcible
abduction with rape since it was obvious that the intent
a. What crime or crimes did Guapo and Pogi is to detain the victim.
As to the degree of their participation, all of them are
A: The crimes committed by Guapo and Pogi are forcible principally liable because of implied conspiracy as they
abduction with rape. There is no doubt at all that the acted toward a single criminal design or purpose (People
forcible abduction of Pretty as she walked home was a v. Miranda, Jr., G.R. No. 186417, July 27, 2011). Albeit,
necessary if not indispensible means which enabled Lucio was not around when the sexual assault took
them to commit the successive acts of rape upon her place, his complicity is evident as he was the one who
person. It bears noting, however, that even while the drove the tricycle and returned every day to bring food
first act of rape was being performed, the crime of and news to his cohorts.
forcible abduction had already been consummated, so
that the second rape cannot legally be considered as still Q: Virgilio, armed with a gun, stopped a van along a
connected with the abduction in other words, the major thoroughfare in Manila, pointed the gun at the
second rape would be detached from, and considered driver and shouted: "Tigil! Kidnap ito!" Terrified,
independently of, that of forcible abduction and, the driver, Juanito, stopped the van and allowed
therefore, the former can no longer be complexed with Virgilio to board. Inside the van were Jeremias, a 6-
the latter (People v. Jose, G.R. No. L-28232, February 6, year-old child, son of a multi-millionaire, and Daday,
1971; People v. Garcia, G.R. No. 141125, February 28, the childs nanny. Virgilio told Juanito to drive to a
2002). Since there is conspiracy, Guapo and Pogi are deserted place, and there, ordered the driver to
responsible not only for the rape each personally alight. Before Juanito was allowed to go, Virgilio
committed but also for the rape committed by his co- instructed him to tell Jeremias parents that unless
conspirator (People v. Villa, G.R. No. L-59, June 30, 1948) they give a ransom of P10-million within two (2)
days, Jeremias would be beheaded. Daday was told
b. Pretty, after the ordeal, decided to take her own to remain in the van and take care of Jeremias until
life by hanging herself one hour after the rape. the ransom is paid. Virgilio then drove the van to his
Would Guapo and Pogi be liable for Prettys safehouse. What crime or crimes, if any, did Virgilio
death? Explain. commit? Explain. (2009)

A: Guapo and Pogi cannot be held liable for the death of A: The crime committed against Jeremias, the 6 year-old
Pretty due to suicide committed by reason of the rapes. child, is Kidnapping and Serious Illegal Detention under
Suicide is an intervening cause that breaks the Art 267(4), RPC. The evident criminal intent of the
connection between the rapes and death. The death offender, Virgilio, is to lock up the child to demand
resulting from suicide cannot be considered as the ransom. Whether or not the ransom was eventually
direct, natural and logical consequence of the rapes obtained will not affect the crime committed because the
committed by Guapo and Pogi. In People v. Napudo (G.R. demand for ransom is not an element of the crime; it
No. 168448, October 8, 2008), the victim committed only qualifies the penalty to death but the imposition of
suicide due to rape. However, the accused was only this penalty is now prohibited by R.A. No. 9346.
charged with and convicted of rape.
As to Daday, the nanny of the child who was told to
Q: While walking alone on her way home from a remain in the van and take care of the child until the
party, Mildred was seized at gun point by Felipe and ransom is paid, the crime committed is Serious Illegal
taken on board a tricycle to a house some distance Detention because the offended party deprived of liberty
away. Felipe was with Julio, Roldan, and Lucio, who is a female (Art. 267[4], RPC).
drove the tricycle. At the house, Felipe, Julio, and
Roldan succeeded in having sexual intercourse with As to Juanito, the driver of the van who was seriously
Mildred against her will and under the threat of intimidated with a gun pointed at him and directed to
Felipe's gun. Lucio was not around when the sexual stop the van and allow the gun-man to board the same,
assaults took place as he left after bringing his and thereafter to drive to a deserted place, the crime
colleagues and Mildred to their destination, but he committed by Virgilio is Grave Coercion (Art. 286, RPC)
returned everyday to bring food and the news in and Slight Illegal Detention (Art. 268, RPC) for holding
town about Mildred's disappearance. For five days, the driver before he was allowed to go.
Felipe, Julio and Roldan kept Mildred in the house

and took turns in sexually assaulting her. On the 6th


QuAMTO for CRIMINAL LAW (1991-2015)
Q: Jaime, Andy and Jimmy, laborers in the noodles with homicide and shall be penalized with the
factory of Luke Tan, agreed to kill him due to his maximum penalty. In this case, notwithstanding the fact
arrogance and miserliness. One afternoon, they that the one-week-old child was merely kept in the attic
seized him and loaded him in a taxi driven by Mario. of his house, gagged with stockings and placed in a box
They told Mario they will only teach Luke a lesson in sealed with tape, the deprivation of liberty and the
Christian humility. Mario drove them to a fishpond intention to kill becomes apparent. Though it may
in Navotas where Luke was entrusted to Emil and appear that the means employed by Paz was attended by
Louie, the fishpond caretakers, asking them to hide treachery (killing of an infant), nevertheless, a separate
Luke in their shack because he was running from the charge of murder will not be proper in view of the
NBI. The trio then left in Mario's car for Manila amendment. Here, the term "homicide" is used in its
where they called up Luke's family and threatened generic sense and covers all forms of killing whether in
them to kill Luke unless they give a ransom within the nature of murder or otherwise. It is of no moment
24 hours. Unknown to them, because of a leak, the that the evidence shows the death of the child took place
kidnapping was announced over the radio and TV. three minutes after the box was sealed and the demand
Emil and Louie heard the broadcast and panicked, for the ransom took place in the afternoon. The
especially when the announcer stated that there is a intention is controlling here, that is, ransom was
shoot-to-kill order for the kidnappers. Emil and demanded.
Louie took Luke to the seashore of Dagat-dagatan
where they smashed his head with a shovel and Q: DAN, a private individual, kidnapped CHU, a
buried him in the sand. However, they were seen by minor. On the second day, DAN released CHU even
a barangay kagawad who arrested them and before any criminal information was filed against
brought them to the police station. Upon him. At the trial of his case, DAN raised the defense
interrogation, they confessed and pointed to Jaime, that he did not incur any criminal liability since he
Andy, Jimmy and Mario as those responsible for the released the child before the lapse of the 3-day
kidnapping. Later, the 4 were arrested and charged. period and before criminal proceedings for
What crime or crimes did the 6 suspects commit? kidnapping were instituted. Will DAN's defense
(2006) prosper? Reason briefly. (2004)

A: Jaime, Andy and Jimmy committed kidnapping with A: No. DAN's defense will not prosper. Voluntary release
homicide. The original intention was to demand ransom by the offender of the offended party in kidnapping is
from the family with the threat of killing. As a not absolutory. Besides, such release is irrelevant and
consequence of the kidnapping, however, Luke was immaterial in this case because the victim being a minor,
killed. Thus, the victim was deprived of his freedom and the crime committed is kidnapping and serious illegal
the subsequent killing, though committed by another detention under Art. 267 to which such circumstance
person, was a consequence of the detention. Hence, this does not apply. The circumstance may be appreciated
properly qualified the crime as the special complex only in the crime of Slight Illegal Detention in Art. 268.
crime of kidnapping for ransom with homicide. Emil and
Louie who smashed the head of the victim and buried Q: A and B conspiring with each other, kidnapped C
the latter in the sand committed murder qualified by and detained him. The duo then called up C's wife
treachery or abuse of superior strength. They are not informing her that they had her husband and would
liable for kidnapping because they did not conspire, nor release him only if she paid a ransom in the amount
are they aware of the intention to detain Luke whom of P10,000,000 and that, if she were to fail, they
they were informed was hiding from the NBI. Mario has would kill him. The next day, C, who had just
no liability since he was not aware of the criminal intent recovered from an illness had a relapse. Fearing he
and design of Jaime, Andy and Jimmy. His act of bringing might die if not treated at once by a doctor, A and B
Luke to Navotas for "a lesson in Christian humility" does released C during the early morning of the third day
not constitute a crime. of detention. Charged with kidnapping and serious
illegal detention provided in Article 267, RPC, A and
Q: Paz Masipag worked as a housemaid and yaya of B filed a petition for bail. They contended that since
the one week old son of the spouses Martin and Pops they had voluntarily released C within three days
Kuripot. When Paz learned that her 70 year-old from commencement of the detention, without
mother was seriously ill, she asked Martin for a cash having been paid any amount of the ransom
advance of P1,000.00 but Martin refused. One demanded and before the institution of criminal
morning, Paz gagged the mouth of Martins son with proceedings against them, the crime committed was
stockings; placed the child in a box; sealed it with only slight illegal detention prescribed in Article
masking tape and placed the box in the attic. Later in 268, RPC. After hearing, the trial court found the
the afternoon, she demanded P5,000.00 as ransom evidence of guilt to be strong and therefore denied
for the release of his son. Martin did not pay the the petition for bail. On appeal, the only issue was:
ransom. Subsequently, Paz disappeared. After a Was the crime committed kidnapping and serious
couple of days, Martin discovered the box in the attic detention or slight illegal detention? Decide. (1997)
with his child already dead. According to the
autopsy report, the child died of asphyxiation barely A: The crime committed by A and B is kidnapping and
three minutes after the box was sealed. What crime serious illegal detention because they made a demand
or crimes did Paz commit? Explain. (2005) for ransom and threatened to kill C if the latter's wife did
not pay the same. Without the demand for ransom, the
A: Paz committed the composite crime of kidnapping crime could have been slight illegal detention only. The
with homicide under Art. 267, RPC as amended by R.A. contention of A and B that they had voluntary released C
No. 7659. Under the law, any person who shall detain within three days from the commencement of the
another or in any manner deprive him of liberty and the detention is immaterial as they are charged with a crime

victim dies as a consequence is liable for kidnapping where the penalty prescribed is death (Asistio v. San

*QUAMTO is a compilation of past bar questions with answers as suggested by UPLC and other distinct
luminaries in the academe, and updated by the UST Academics Committee to fit for the 2016 Bar Exams.

Diego, G.R. No. L-21991 March 31, 1964). They were

properly denied bail because the trial court found that Q: The creditor who resorts to forced labor of a child
the evidence of guilt in the information for kidnapping under the pretext of reimbursing himself for the
and serious Illegal detention is strong. debt incurred by the childs father commits the
crime of slavery. (2009)
Q: Edgardo induced his friend Vicente, in
consideration of money, to kidnap a girl he is A: False, the proper offense is exploitation of child labor
courting so that he may succeed to raping her and (Art. 273, RPC). Exploitation of child labor is committed
eventually making her accede to marry him. Vicente by a person, who under the pretext of reimbursing
asked for more money which Edgardo failed to put himself of a debt incurred by an ascendant, guardian or
up. Angered because Edgardo did not put up the person entrusted with the custody of a minor, shall
money he required, he reported Edgardo to the against the minors will, retain him in his services.
police. May Edgardo be charged with attempted
kidnapping? Explain. (1996) Q: Aling Maria received an urgent telephone call
from Junior, her eldest son, asking for P2,000.00 to
A: No, Edgardo may not be charged with attempted complete his semestral tuition fees preparatory to
kidnapping inasmuch as no overt act to kidnap or his final exams in Commerce. Distressed and
restrain the liberty of the girl had been commenced. At disturbed, she borrowed money from her compadre
most, what Edgardo has done in the premises was a Mang Juan with the assurance to pay him within 2
proposal to Vicente to kidnap the girl, which is only a months. Two months lapsed but Aling Maria failed to
preparatory act and not an overt act. The attempt to settle her obligation. Mang Juan told Aling Maria that
commit a felony commences with the commission of she does not have to pay the loan if she will allow
overt act, not preparatory act. Proposal to commit her youngest 10-year old daughter Annie to work as
kidnapping is not a crime. a housemaid in his house for 2 months at
Pl,000.00 a month. Despite Aling Maria's objection,
REPEATED DOCTRINE Mang Juan insisted and brought Annie to his house
Q: A charged B with the crime of rape. While the to work as a maid.
case was pending in court, B, together with his
mother and brother, overpowered A while riding a a. Was a crime committed by Mang Juan when
tricycle, dragged her inside a carinderia owned by he brought Annie to his house as maid for the
them and detained her for two (2) days. They purpose of repaying her mother's loan? (2006)
demanded that she sign an affidavit of desistance
and reimburse B the sum of P5,000.00 which he A: Yes. Mang Juan committed the crime of exploitation of
paid to his lawyer in the case. She was released only child labor which is committed by any persons who
after she signed the affidavit asking for the under the pretext of reimbursing himself of a debt
dismissal of the case and delivered to B P1,000.00. incurred by an ascendant, guardian or person entrusted
She promised to deliver the balance of P4.000.00 with the custody of a minor, shall, against the latter's
thirty (30) days later. What crime or crimes will, retain him in his service (Art. 273, RPC). He can also
was/were committed by B, his mother, and be liable as an employer for the employment of a minor
brother? (1991) below 15 yrs. old, under Sec. 12, Art. 8 of R.A.7610.

A: This is kidnapping with Ransom which is kidnapping b. If Aling Maria herself was made to work as a
or illegal detention committed by a private person for house-maid in Mang Juan's household to pay her
the purpose of extorting ransom. Since the victim is a loan, did he commit a crime?
woman, it is serious.
A: Yes. Mang Juan committed the crime of involuntary
Kidnapping of Minors (Article 270 271) servitude for rendering services under compulsion and
payment of debts. This is committed by any person who,
Q: A and B were legally separated. Their child C, a in order to require or enforce the payment of a debt,
minor, was placed in the custody of A the mother, shall compel the debtor to work for him, against his will,
subject to monthly visitations by B, his father. On as household servant or farm labourer (Art. 274, RPC).
one occasion, when B had C in his company, B
decided not to return C to his mother. Instead, B Trespass to Dwelling (Article 280-281)
took C with him to the United States where he
intended for them to reside permanently. What Q: What is the difference between violation of
crime, if any, did B commit? Why? (2002) domicile and trespass to dwelling? (2002)

A: B committed the crime of kidnapping and failure to A: The differences between violation of domicile and
return a minor under Art. 271, in relation to Art. 270, of trespass to dwelling are:
the RPC, as amended. Art. 271 expressly penalizes any a. The offender in violation of domicile is a public
parent who shall take from and deliberately fail to officer acting under color of authority; in trespass to
restore his or her minor child to the parent or guardian dwelling, the offender is a private person or public
to whom custody of the minor has been placed. Since the officer acting in a private capacity.
custody of C, the minor, has been given to the mother b. Violation of domicile is committed in 3 different
and B has only the right of monthly visitation, the ways: (1) by entering the dwelling of another
latter's act of taking C to the United States, to reside against the will of the latter, (2) searching papers
there permanently, constitutes a violation of said and other effects inside the dwelling without the
provisions of law. previous consent of the owner or (3) refusing to
leave the premises which he entered surreptitiously,

Slavery and Servitude (Article 272 274) after being required to leave the premises. Trespass


QuAMTO for CRIMINAL LAW (1991-2015)
to dwelling is committed only in one way; that is, by law in order to compel him to confess a crime
entering the dwelling of another against the express imputed to him. The agents failed, however, to draw
or implied will of the latter. from him a confession which was their intention to
obtain through the employment of such means.
Q: Under what situations may a private person enter What crime was committed by the agents of the law?
any dwelling, residence, or other establishments Explain your answer. (1999)
without being liable for trespass to dwelling? (2006)
A: In this case the suspect was forcibly brought to the
A: A private person may enter a dwelling, residence, or police headquarters to make him admit the crime and
other establishment without being liable for trespass to was tortured or maltreated to make him confess to such
dwelling in the following situations: crime, but later released because the agents failed to
a. where a person so enters to avoid some serious draw such confession, thus the crime of grave coercion
harm to himself; or is committed because of the violence employed to
b. he did so to save or help an occupant thereof or compel such confession without the offended party
some other person from serious harm; being confined in jail (US v. Cusi, G.R. No. L-3699, March
c. where a person so enters to render service to 18, 1908). It is noted that the offended party was merely
humanity or to the cause of justice; and "brought" to the police headquarters and is thus not a
d. where a person enters establishments which cater detention prisoner. Had he been validly arrested, the
to public service while still open for such patronage crime committed would be maltreatment of prisoners.
(RPC, Art. 280 last par.)
e. if a public officer or person authorized is conducting ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
a valid arrest or valid search and seizure (Rules on Evidently, the person tortured and maltreated by the
Criminal Procedure, Rule 113). agents of the law is a suspect and may have been
detained by them. If so and he had already been booked
Q: At about 11:00 in the evening, Dante forced his and put in jail, the crime is maltreatment of prisoner and
way inside the house of Mamerto. Jay, Mamerto's the fact that the suspect was subjected to torture to
son, saw Dante and accosted him, Dante pulled a extort a confession would bring about a higher penalty
knife and stabbed Jay on his abdomen. Mamerto in addition to the offender's liability for the physical
heard the commotion and went out of his room. injuries inflicted.
Dante, who was about to escape, assaulted Mamerto.
Jay suffered Injuries which, were it not for the timely Q: Isagani lost his gold necklace bearing his initials.
medical attendance, would have caused his death. He saw Roy wearing the said necklace. Isagani asked
Mamerto sustained Injuries that incapacitated him Roy to return to him the necklace as it belongs to
for 25 days. What crime or crimes did Dante him, but Roy refused. Isagani then drew his gun and
commit? (1994) told Roy, "If you will not give back the necklace to
me, I will kill you!" Out of fear for his life and against
A: Dante committed qualified trespass to dwelling, his will, Roy gave the necklace to Isagani, What
frustrated homicide for the stabbing of Jay, and less offense did Isagani commit? (1998)
serious physical injuries for the assault on Mamerto. The
crime of qualified trespass to dwelling should not be A: Isagani committed the crime of grave coercion (Art.
complexed with frustrated homicide because when the 286, RPC) for compelling Roy, by means of serious
trespass is committed as a means to commit a more threats or intimidation, to do something against the
serious offense, trespass to dwelling is absorbed by the latter's will, whether it be right or wrong. Serious
greater crime, and the former constitutes an aggravating threats or intimidation approximating violence
circumstance of dwelling (People v. Abedosa, G.R. No. L- constitute grave coercion, not grave threats. Such is the
28600, March 21, 1928). nature of the threat in this case because it was
committed with a gun, is a deadly weapon. The crime is
Threats and Coercion (Article 282 289) not robbery because intent to gain, which is an essential
element of robbery, is absent since the necklace belongs
Q: Distinguish coercion from illegal detention. to Isagani.
Light Coercion
A: Coercion may be distinguished from illegal detention
as follows: Q: A widower of ten years, septuagenarian Canuto
In coercion, the basis of criminal liability is the felt that he had license to engage in voyeurism. If not
employment of violence or serious intimidation peeping into his neighbors rooms through his
approximating violence, without authority of law, to powerful single-cylinder telescope, he would trail
prevent a person from doing something not prohibited young, shapely damsels along the hallways of
by law or to compel him to do something against his will, shopping malls. While going up the escalator, he
whether it be right or wrong. In illegal detention, the stayed a step behind a mini-skirted one, and in a
basis of liability is the actual restraint or locking up of a moment of excitement, put his hand on her left hip
person, thereby depriving him of his liberty without and massaged it. The damsel screamed and hollered
authority of law. If there was no intent to lock up or for help. Canuto was apprehended and brought up
detain the offended party unlawfully, the crime of illegal on inquest. What charge/s, if any, may he be held
detention is not committed. responsible for? Explain. (2010)
A: Canuto may be held liable only for the milder crime of
Grave Coercion unjust vexation which is a form of light coercion under
Art. 287 of the RPC, instead of the crime of acts of
Q: Forcibly brought to the police headquarters, a lasciviousness although the offender is known for his

person was tortured and maltreated by agents of the voyeurism. Our RPC inclines towards milder criminal

*QUAMTO is a compilation of past bar questions with answers as suggested by UPLC and other distinct
luminaries in the academe, and updated by the UST Academics Committee to fit for the 2016 Bar Exams.

responsibility, consistent with the presumption of policemen arrived. A and B panicked and got hold of
innocence under our fundamental law and the rule of a young boy and shouted to the policemen who were
pro reo permeating our system of applying penal laws. already outside of the house that they would harm
Holding the hip of a person is not per se lascivious but the boy if the policemen did not disperse. A and B
undoubtedly annoys, irritates, and vexed the young demanded that they should be allowed to use a
offended party. The attitude to prosecute the offender vehicle to bring them to a certain place and that
for the milder crime of unjust vexation may be proper would be the time that they would release the young
considering his age and civil status. boy. The policemen acceded. In the meantime, C was
arrested by the policemen while he was about to
Q: Pinky was a lessee of a market stall owned by flee, while A and B, after releasing the young boy,
Giovanni. When Pinky refused to pay her rental, were arrested. What crime/s did A, B, and Ccommit,
Giovanni nailed some wooden barricades on one of and what modifying circumstances attended the
the sides of the market stall and posted this commission of the crime/s? (2014)
warning: We have closed this portion of the door.
Do not open it or else something may happen to A: A, B and C committed the crime of robbery with
you. What crime/s did Giovanni commit, if any? homicide under Art. 294(1) of the RPC. It is immaterial
Explain your answer. (2007) that the death of the person occurred by mere accident,
as long as homicide is produced by reason or on
A: The crime committed by Giovanni is light coercion occasion of the robbery, the crime is robbery with
under Art. 287 of the RPC, commonly referred to as homicide as it is only the result, without reference or
unjust vexation. Although what was done by Giovanni distinction as to the circumstances, causes, modes or
could reasonably be assumed as retaliation to the persons intervening in the commission of the crime that
lessees refusal to pay rent, absent any clear violence in has to be taken into consideration they are not liable for
the premises, such would not bring about a case of grave the detention of the boy as illegal detention is absorbed
coercion. The situation should be interpreted liberally in by the crime of robbery. The modifying circumstance of
favor of the offender. The rule of pro reo precludes any dwelling attended the commission of the crime. The
finding for grave coercion, because it would be against settled rule is that dwelling is aggravating in robbery
the offender. The written warning which states or else with homicide.
something may happen to you is so equivocal that it
may not be interpreted as felonious. A crime is never Q: Christopher, John, Richard, and Luke are
presumed; it is the contrary that is presumed. fraternity brothers. To protect themselves from
rival fraternities, they all carry guns wherever they
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER: go. One night, after attending a party, they boarded a
The crime committed by Giovanni is grave coercion taxicab, held the driver at gunpoint and took the
because barricading one of the sides of the market stall latters earnings. (2010)
was an act of violence deliberately done. It is not only an
act of unjust vexation or light coercion but of grave a. What crime, if any, did the four commit?
A: The crime committed is robbery by a band since there
Q: When is embracing, kissing and touching a girl's were four (4) offenders acting in concert in committing
breast considered only unjust vexation instead of the robbery and all the four were armed.
acts of lasciviousness? (1994)
b. Would your answer be the same if they killed the
A: The acts of embracing and kissing of a woman arising driver? Explain.
either out of passion or other motive and the touching of
her breast as a mere incident of the embrace without A: No, the crime becomes robbery with homicide and all
lewd design constitutes merely unjust vexation. the fraternity brothers are liable. The existence of a
However, where the kissing, embracing and the touching band shall be appreciated only as generic aggravating
of the breast of a woman are done with lewd design, the circumstance. Also, if the firearms used were unlicensed,
same constitute acts of lasciviousness. the same would only be taken as generic aggravating
circumstance as provided by R.A. 8294.
Q: While Alfredo, Braulio, Ciriaco, and Domingo
Robbery (Article 293-305) were robbing a bank, policemen arrived. A firefight
ensued between the bank robbers and the
Q: A, B, and C agreed to rob the house of Mr. D at 10 responding policemen, and one of the policemen
oclock in the evening, with C as the driver of the was killed. (2009)
tricycle which they would use in going to and leaving
the house of Mr. D, and A and B as the ones who a. What crime or crimes, if any, had been
would enter the house to get the valuables of Mr. D. committed? Explain.
As planned, C parked the tricycle in a dark place,
while A and B entered the house thru an open door. A: The crimes committed are Robbery with Homicide
Once inside, A entered the masters bedroom and (Art 294[1] RPC), a single indivisible offense, and Direct
started getting all the valuables he could see, while B Assault with Multiple Attempted Homicide, a complex
entered another room. While inside the room, B saw crime. Robbery with Homicide was committed because
a male person and immediately B brought out his one of the responding policemen was killed by reason or
gun but he accidentally pulled its trigger. The bullet on occasion of the robbery being committed. The
went through the window, hitting a neighbor that complex crime of Direct Assault with Multiple
killed him. Neighbors were then awakened by the Attempted Homicide was committed in respect of the

gunfire and policemen were alerted. Not long after, offenders firing guns at the responding policemen who


QuAMTO for CRIMINAL LAW (1991-2015)
are agents of person in authority performing their duty and convicted of robbery with homicide, with the
when fired at to frustrate such performance (People v. aggravating circumstances of arson, dwelling, and
Ladjaalam, G.R. Nos. 136149-51, September 19, 2000). nighttime. Mario moved to reconsider the decision
maintaining that he was not at the scene of the crime
b. Suppose it was Alfredo who was killed by the and was not aware that Henry killed the victim;
responding policemen, what charges can be filed hence, he was guilty only of robbery, as an
against Braulio, Ciriaco and Domingo? Explain. accomplice. Mario also claimed that he conspired
with Henry to commit robbery but not to kill Jose.
A: The crime of which Braulio, Ciriaco and Domingo can Henry, likewise, moved to reconsider the decision,
be charged is Robbery with Homicide (Art. 294[1], RPC) asserting that he is liable only for attempted
because the killing resulted by reason or on the occasion robbery with homicide with no aggravating
of the robbery. It is of no moment that the person killed circumstance, considering that he and Mario did not
is one of the robbers. A killing by reason or on the benefit from the P500,000.00. He further alleged
occasion of the robbery, whether deliberate or that arson is a felony and not an aggravating
accidental, will be a component of the crime of Robbery circumstance; dwelling is not aggravating in
with Homicide, a single indivisible offense, as long as it attempted robbery with homicide; and nighttime is
is intimately connected to the robbery. not aggravating because the house of Jose was
lighted at the time he was killed. Resolve with
c. Suppose in the course of the robbery, before the reasons the respective motions of Mario and Henry.
policemen arrived, Braulio shot and killed (2005)
Alfredo following a heated disagreement on who
should carry the money bags, what would be the A: Mario is not correct. Mario conspired and acted in
criminal liability of Braulio, Ciriaco and concert with Henry to commit robbery. Hence, the act of
Domingo? Explain. one is the act of all and the extent of the specific
participation of each individual conspirator becomes
A: Braulio shall be liable for Robbery with Homicide secondary, each being held liable for the criminal
(Art. 294[1], RPC) for killing Alfredo, since the killing was deed(s) executed by another or others. As a conspirator,
by reason of the robbery. Ciriaco and Domingo having Mario casts his lot with his fellow conspirators and
conspired only in the commission of the robbery, should becomes liable to any third person who may get killed in
incur liability only for the crime conspired uponthe the course of implementing the criminal design. Henry is
robbery, unless they were with Braulio during the killing incorrect, since he acquired possession of the money.
and could have prevented the same but they did not, in The crime of robbery with force and intimidation is
which case they shall also be liable for Robbery with consummated when the robber acquires possession of
Homicide. It is of no moment that the person killed is the property, even if for a short time. It is no defense
one of the robbers and he was killed during the robbery. that they had no opportunity to dispose of or benefit
from the money taken. Since the crime in robbery with
Q: Jervis and Marlon asked their friend, Jonathan, to force and intimidation against persons (robbery with
help them rob a bank. Jervis and Marlon went inside homicide), dwelling is aggravating. Arson, which
the bank, but were unable to get any money from the accompanied the crime of robbery with homicide is
vault because the same was protected by a time- absorbed (Art. 294, RPC as amended by R.A. 7659) and is
delay mechanism. They contended themselves with not aggravating because the RPC does not provide
the customers cellphones and a total of P5,000 in that such crime is an aggravating circumstance (People
cash. After they dashed out of the bank and rushed v. Regala, G.R. No. 130508, April 5, 2000). Nighttime,
into the car, Jonathan pulled the car out of the curb, likewise, is not aggravating. There is no showing that the
hitting a pedestrian which resulted in the latters same was purposely sought by the offenders to facilitate
death. What crime or crimes did Jervis, Marlon and the commission of the crime or impunity.
Jonathan commit? Explain your answer. (2007)
Q: Together XA, YB and ZC planned to rob Miss OD.
A: Jervis, Marlon and Jonathan committed robbery with They entered her house by breaking one of the
homicide, because there was conspiracy among them to windows in her house. After taking her personal
commit the robbery and the death of the pedestrian was properties and as they were about to leave, XA
caused on the occasion of the robbery. Even though the decided on impulse to rape OD. As XA was molesting
death was accidental, it is enough that such death was her, YB and ZC stood outside the door of her
caused by any of the robbers felonious act and on the bedroom and did nothing to prevent XA from raping
occasion of the commission of the robbery (People v. OD. What crime or crimes did XA, YB and ZC commit,
Guiapar, G.R. No. L-35465, May 31, 1984). and what is the criminal liability of each? Explain
briefly. (2004, 1998)
Q: Jose employed Mario as gardener and Henry as
cook. They learned that Jose won P500,000.00 in the A: The crime committed by XA, YB and ZC is the
lotto, and decided to rob him. Mario positioned composite crime of Robbery with Rape, a single,
himself about 30 meters away from Joses house and indivisible offense under Art. 294(1) of the RPC.
acted as lookout. For his part, Henry surreptitiously Although the conspiracy among the offenders was only
gained entry into the house and killed Jose who was to commit robbery and only XA raped CD, the other
then having his dinner. Henry found the robbers, YB and ZC, were present and aware of the rape
P500,000.00 and took it. Henry then took a can of being committed by their co-conspirator. Having done
gasoline from the garage and burned the house to nothing to stop XA from committing the rape, YB and ZC
conceal the acts. Mario and Henry fled, but were thereby concurred in the commission of the rape by
arrested around 200 meters away from the house by their co-conspirator XA. The criminal liability of all, XA,
alert barangay tanods. The tanods recovered the YZ and ZC, shall be the same, as principals in the

P500,000.00. Mario and Henry were charged with special complex crime of robbery with rape which is a

*QUAMTO is a compilation of past bar questions with answers as suggested by UPLC and other distinct
luminaries in the academe, and updated by the UST Academics Committee to fit for the 2016 Bar Exams.

single, indivisible offense where the rape accompanying What charge or charges should be filed against A?
the robbery is just a component. Explain. (2001)

Q: A learned two days ago that B had received dollar A: The charge for Robbery under Art. 298 of the RPC
bills amounting to $10,000 from his daughter should be filed against A. Said Article provides that any
working in the United States. With the intention of person who, with intent to defraud another, by means of
robbing B of those dollars, A entered B's house at violence or intimidation, shall compel him to sign,
midnight, armed with a knife which he used to gain execute and deliver any public instrument or
entry, and began quietly searching the drawers, document shall be held guilty of robbery. The paltik
shelves, and other likely receptacles of the cash. caliber .45 firearm carried by A was obviously intended
While doing that, B awoke, rushed out from the to intimidate B and thus, used in the commission of the
bedroom, and grappled with A for the possession of robbery. If it could be established that A had no license
the knife which A was then holding. After stabbing B or permit to possess and carry such firearm, it should be
to death, A turned over B's pillow and found the taken only as special aggravating circumstance to the
latter's wallet underneath the pillow, which was crime of robbery, not subject of a separate prosecution.
bulging with the dollar bills he was looking for. A
took the bills and left the house. What crime or Q: A, B, C, D and B were in a beerhouse along
crimes were committed? (2003) MacArthur Highway having a drinking spree. At
about 1 o'clock in the morning, they decided to leave
A: The crime committed is robbery with homicide, a and so asked for the bill. They pooled their money
composite crime. This is so because A's primordial together but they were still short of P2,000.00. E
criminal intent is to commit a robbery and in the course then orchestrated a plan whereby A, B, C and D
of the robbery, the killing of B took place. Both the would go out, flag a taxicab and rob the taxi driver of
robbery and the killing were consummated, thus giving all his money while E would wait for them in the
rise to the special complex crime of robbery with beer house. A. B, C and D agreed. All armed with
homicide. The primary criminal intent being to commit a balisongs, A, B, C and D hailed the first taxicab they
robbery, any killing on the "occasion" of the robbery, encountered. After robbing X, the driver, of his
though not by reason thereof, is considered a earnings, which amounted to P1,000.00 only, they
component of the crime of robbery with homicide as a needed P1 ,000.00 more to meet their bill. So, they
single indivisible offense. decided to hail another taxicab and they again
robbed driver T of his hard-earned money
Q: A entered the house of another without amounting to P1,000. On their way back to the
employing force or violence upon things. He was beerhouse, they were apprehended by a police
seen by a maid who wanted to scream but was team upon the complaint of X, the driver of the first
prevented from doing so because A threatened her cab. They pointed to E as the mastermind. What
with a gun. A then took money and other valuables crime or crimes, if any, did A, B, C, D and B commit?
and left. Is A guilty of theft or of robbery? Explain. Explain fully. (2000)
A: A. B, C, D and E are liable for two (2) counts of
A: A is liable for robbery because of the intimidation he robbery under Art. 294 not for highway Robbery under
employed on the maid before the taking of the money P.D. 532. The offenders are not brigands but only
and other valuables. It is the intimidation of person committed the robbery to raise money to pay their bill
relative to the taking that qualifies the crime as robbery, because it happened that they were short of money to
instead of simply theft. The non-employment of force pay the same.
upon things is of no moment because robbery is
committed not only by employing force upon things but Q: Distinguish Highway Robbery under Presidential
also by employing violence against or intimidation of Decree No. 532 from Robbery committed on a
persons. highway. (2000)

Q: A and B are neighbors in Barangay Nuevo I, Silang, A: Highway Robbery under Pres. Decree 532 differs
Cavite. A is a barangay Kagawad and known to be a from ordinary Robbery committed on a highway in
bully, while B is reputed to be gay but noted for his these respects:
industry and economic savvy which allowed him 1. In Highway Robbery under PD 532, the robbery is
to amass wealth in leaps and bounds, including committed indiscriminately against persons who
registered and unregistered lands in several commute in such highways, regardless of the
barangays. Resenting B's riches and relying on his potentiality they offer; while in ordinary Robbery
political influence, A decided to harass and committed on a highway, the robbery is committed
intimidate B into sharing with him some of his lands, only against predetermined victims;
considering that the latter was single and living 2. It is Highway Robbery under PD 532, when the
alone. One night, A broke into B's house, forced him offender is a brigand or one who roams in public
to bring out some titles and after picking out a title highways and carries out his robbery in public
covering 200 square meters in their barangay, highways as venue, whenever the opportunity to do
compelled B to type out a Deed of Sale conveying the so arises. It is ordinary Robbery under the Revised
said lot to him for P1.00 and other valuable Penal Code when the commission thereof in a public
considerations. All the while, A carried a paltik highway is only incidental and the offender is not a
caliber .45 in full view of B, who signed the deed out brigand; and
of fear. When A later on tried to register the deed, B 3. In Highway Robbery under PD 532, there is
summoned enough courage and had A arrested and frequency in the commission of the robbery in
charged in court after preliminary investigation. public highways and against persons travelling

thereat; whereas ordinary Robbery In public


QuAMTO for CRIMINAL LAW (1991-2015)
highways is only occasional against a b. Suppose it was robber D who was killed by the
predetermined victim, without frequency in public policemen and the prosecutor charged A, B and
highways. C with Robbery and Homicide. They demurred
arguing that they (A, B and C) were not the ones
Q: A, brother of B, with the intention of having a who killed robber D, hence, the charge should
night out with his friends, took the coconut shell only be Robbery. How would you resolve their
which is being used by B as a bank for coins from argument? (1998)
inside their locked cabinet using their common key.
Forthwith, A broke the coconut shell outside of their A: The argument is valid, considering that a separate
home in the presence of his friends. (2000) charge for Homicide was filed. It would be different if
the charge filed was for the composite crime of robbery
a. What is the criminal liability of A, if any? with homicide which is a single, indivisible offense.
Q: After raping the complainant in her house, the
A: A is criminally liable for Robbery with force upon accused struck a match to smoke a cigarette before
things, because the coconut shell with the coins inside, departing from the scene. The brief light from the
was taken with intent to gain and broken outside of match allowed him to notice a watch in her wrist. He
their home (Art. 299[b][2], RPC). demanded that she hand over the watch. When she
refused, he forcibly grabbed it from her. The accused
b. Is A exempted from criminal liability under was charged with and convicted of the special
Article 332 of the Revised Penal Code for being a complex crime of robbery with rape. Was the court
brother of B? Explain. correct? (1997)

A: No, A is not exempt from criminal liability under Art. A: No, the court erred in convicting the accused of the
332 because said Article applies only to theft, special complex crime of robbery with rape. The accused
swindling or malicious mischief. Here, the crime should instead be held liable for two (2) separate crimes
committed is robbery. of Robbery and Rape, since the primary intent or
objective of the accused was only to rape the
Q: Two young men, A and B, conspired to rob a complainant, and his commission of the robbery was
residential house of things of value. They merely an afterthought. The robbery must precede the
succeeded in the commission of their original rape. In order to give rise to the special complex crime
plan to simply rob. A, however, was sexually for which the court convicted the accused.
aroused when he saw the lady owner of the house
and so, raped her. The lady victim testified that B REPEATED QUESTION:
did not in any way participate in the rape but B Q: Jose, Domingo, Manolo, and Fernando, armed
watched the happening from a window and did with bolos, at about one o'clock in the morning,
nothing to stop the rape. Is B as criminally liable as A robbed a house at a desolate place where Danilo, his
for robbery with rape? Explain. (1999, 1996) wife, and three daughters were living. While the four
were in the process of ransacking Danilo's house,
A: Yes, B is as criminally liable as A for the composite Fernando, noticing that one of Danilo's daughters
crime of robbery with rape under Art. 294(1). Although was trying to get away, ran after her and finally
the conspiracy of A and B was only to rob, B was present caught up with her in a thicket somewhat distant
when the rape was being committed which gave rise to a from the house. Fernando, before bringing back the
composite crime, a single indivisible offense of robbery daughter to the house, raped her first. Thereafter,
with rape. B would not have been liable had he the four carted away the belongings of Danilo and
endeavored to prevent the commission of the rape. But his family.
since he did not when he could have done so, he in effect
acquiesced with the rape as a component of the robbery a. What crime did Jose, Domingo, Manolo and
and so he is also liable for robbery with rape. Fernando commit? Explain.

REPEATED DOCTRINE A: Jose, Domingo, and Manolo committed Robbery,

Q: A, B, C and D all armed, robbed a bank, and when while Fernando committed complex crime of Robbery
they were about to get out of the bank, policemen with Rape, Conspiracy can be inferred from the manner
came and ordered them to surrender but they fired the offenders committed the robbery but the rape was
on the police officers who fired back and shot it out committed by Fernando at a place "distant from the
with them. house" where the robbery was committed, not in the
presence of the other conspirators. Hence, Fernando
a. Suppose a bank employee was killed and the alone should answer for the rape, rendering him liable
bullet which killed him came from the firearm of for the special complex crime.
the police officers, with what crime shall you
charge A, B. C and D? b. Suppose, after the robbery, the four took turns
in raping the three daughters of Danilo inside
A: A, B, C and D should be charged with the crime of the latter's house, but before they left, they
robbery with homicide because the death of the bank killed the whole family to prevent identification,
employee was brought about by the acts of said what crime did the four commit? Explain. (1996)
offenders on the occasion of the robbery. They shot it
out with the policeman, thereby causing such death by A: The crime would be Robbery with Homicide because
reason or on the occasion of a robbery; hence, the the killings were by reason (to prevent identification)
composite crime of robbery with homicide. and on the occasion of the robbery.

*QUAMTO is a compilation of past bar questions with answers as suggested by UPLC and other distinct
luminaries in the academe, and updated by the UST Academics Committee to fit for the 2016 Bar Exams.

Q: Five robbers robbed, one after the other five

houses occupied by different families located inside BRIGANDAGE ROBBERY IN A
a compound enclosed by a six-feet high hollow block BAND
fence. How many robberies did the five commit? 1. There are at More than three
Explain. (1996) least four persons; armed
2. They form a malefactors take
A: The offenders committed only one robbery in the band of robbers; part in the
eyes of the law because when they entered the Elements
3. The purpose is commission of a
compound, they were impelled only by a single any of the robbery
indivisible criminal resolution to commit a robbery as following: (see
they were not aware that there were five families below)
inside said compound, considering that the same was 1. To commit Commit robbery,
enclosed by a six-feet high hollow-block fence. The robbery in high but not
series of robbery committed in the same compound at way; necessarily in a
about the same time constitutes one continued crime, 2. Kidnap or extort highway.
motivated by one criminal impulse. Purpose or get ransom;
3. Any other
Q: Victor, Ricky, Rod and Ronnie went to the store of achieved by means
Mang Pandoy. Victor and Ricky entered the store of force or violence
while Rod and Ronnie posted themselves at the The agreement The agreement is
door. After ordering beer Ricky complained that he among more than to commit only a
was shortchanged although Mang Pandoy three armed men particular
vehemently denied it. Suddenly Ricky whipped out a Agreement
is to commit robbery.
knife as he announced "Hold-up ito!" and stabbed robbery in the
Mang Pandoy to death. Rod boxed the stores highway.
salesgirl Lucy to prevent her from helping Mang
Pandoy. When Lucy ran out of the store to seek help Theft (Article 308 311)
from people next door she was chased by Ronnie. As
soon as Ricky had stabbed Mang Pandoy, Victor Q: Bruno, a taxi driver, had an indebtedness in the
scooped up the money from the cash box. Then sum of Pl 0,000.00 which would become due in one
Victor and Ricky dashed to the street and shouted, week. He was starting to worry because he still had
"Tumakbo na kayo!" Rod was 14 and Ronnie was 17. not raised the amount to pay for his debt. Every day,
The money and other articles looted from the store he had prayed for divine intervention. One night,
of Mang Pandoy were later found in the houses of while returning the taxi to the garage, he found a
Victor and Ricky. Discuss fully the criminal liability wallet on the back seat. Inspecting it, he learned that
of Victor, Ricky, Rod and Ronnie. (1995) it contained exactly Pl 0,000.00 cash, the amount of
his obligation, and IDs. Thinking it was divine
A: All are liable for the special complex crime of robbery intervention, and that his prayers were answered,
with homicide. The acts of Ricky in stabbing Mang he took the money and used it to pay his debt.
Pandoy to death, of Rod in boxing the salesgirl to (2015)
prevent her from helping Mang Pandoy, of Ronnie in
chasing the salesgirl to prevent her in seeking help, of a. What crime, if any, did Bruno commit? Explain.
Victor in scooping up money from the cash box, and of
Ricky and Victor in dashing to the street and announcing A: Bruno committed the crime of theft. The owner is
the escape, are all indicative of conspiracy. The rule is known to Bruno because there are IDs found in the
settled that when homicide takes place as a consequence wallet. Failure to deliver to the local authorities or to its
or on the occasion of a robbery, all those who took part owner the lost property which he found constitutes theft
in the robbery are guilty as principals of the crime of under Article 308 of the Revised Penal Code.
robbery with homicide, unless the accused tried to
prevent the killing. Further, the aggravating b. Assuming that instead of using the money,
circumstance of craft could be assessed against the Bruno turned over the wallet and its contents to
accused for pretending to be customers of Mang Pandoy. the nearby police station, and it was the chief of
police of that station who appropriated the
Brigandage (Article 306-307) money for his own benefit, what crime was
committed by the chief of police?
Q: Who are brigands? Distinguish brigandage from
robbery in band as to elements, purpose of the A: The chief of police is liable for theft. Although he is
offender and agreement among the offenders. not the one who found the property, he is considered as
(2012) finder in fact since the property was surrendered to him
by the actual finder. He acquired the position occupied
A: When more than three armed persons form a band of by the actual finder and assumed by voluntary
robbers for the purpose of committing robbery in the substitution the obligation to surrender the property to
highway, or kidnapping persons for the purpose of the lawful owner. Appropriating the property is of the
extortion or to obtain ransom, for any other purpose to same character of that made by one who originally
be attained by means of force and violence, they shall be found the same (People v. Avila, G.R. No. L-19786, March
deemed highway robbers or brigands (Art. 306, RPC). 31, 1923). The liability of the finder in fact is the same
liability of the finder in law. Thus, what the Chief of
The following distinctions between brigandage and Police committed is Theft.

robbery by band:


QuAMTO for CRIMINAL LAW (1991-2015)
Q: Clepto went alone to a high-end busy shop and taking, which is the deprivation of ones personal
decided to take one of the smaller purses without property, is the element which produces the felony in its
paying for it. Overcame by conscience, she decided consummated stage. At the same time, without unlawful
to leave her own purse in place of the one she took. taking as an act of execution, the offense could only be
Her act was discovered and Clepto was charged with attempted theft, if at all. Thus, the theft cannot have a
theft. She claimed that there was no theft, as the frustrated stage. Theft can only be attempted or
store suffered no injury or prejudice because she consummated (Valenzuela v. People, G.R. No. 160188,
had left a purse in place of the one she took. June 21, 2007).
Comment on her defense. (2014)
Q: On her way home, Eva Marie saw an injured chow
A: Her defense is untenable. Theft was already chow puppy behind a bush. Since the puppy did not
consummated from the taking of personal property of have a collar, she brought it home so she could have
another with intent to gain without the consent of the it as a pet. Her son in fact begged Eva Marie to keep
latter. The presence of injury or damage is not an the puppy. The following day, Eva Marie bought a
element of theft. Her leaving behind her own purse will collar for the puppy and brought it to a veterinarian
not alter the fact that she took a purse from the high-end for treatment. (2010)
shop without the consent of the owner.
a. Did Eva Marie incur criminal liability in bringing
Q: Madam X, a bank teller, received from depositor the puppy home as a pet? Explain.
Madam Y a check payable to cash in the amount
of P1 million, to be deposited to the account of A: Yes, Eva Marie incurred criminal liability for the
Madam Y. Because the check was not a crossed crime of simple theft. The puppy is personal property
check, Madam X credited the amount to the account which is susceptible of taking and has pecuniary value.
of her good friend, Madam W, by accomplishing a Obviously, she took it with intent to own it; hence, with
deposit slip. Seven (7) days after, Madam X intent to gain.
contacted her good friend, Madam W and told her
that the amount of P1 million was wrongfully b. Did she incur civil liability? Explain.
credited to Madam W, thus, Madam X urged Madam
W to withdraw the amount of P1 million from her A: Eva Marie may incur civil liability of the owner of the
accountand to turn over the same to Madam X. As a puppy would incur a loss due to non-restitution or
dutiful friend, Madam W readily acceded. She was return thereof to the owner. Finding any property of
gifted by Madam X with an expensive Hermes bag value, legally regarded as lost property, would constitute
after the withdrawal of the amount. What crime/s, if theft if the finder failed to deliver the same to the local
any, did Madam X and Madam W commit? Explain. authorities or to its owner (Art. 308[1], RPC). Once Eva
(2014) Marie is found guilty of theft, she will incur civil liability
which consists of restitution or reparation for damage
A: Madam X shall be liable as principal in the crime of caused and indemnification for consequential damages
qualified theft committed with grave abuse of (Art. 100, RPC). The general rule is that a person who is
confidence defined and punishable under Art. 310 of the criminally liable is also civilly liable.
RPC. Being a bank teller, she had only the physical
possession not juridical possession of the money Q: Paul lives with his long-time girlfriend Joan in a
received by her. Consequently, her subsequent condominium in Makati. For more than a year, he
misappropriation of the same shall constitute the crime has been secretly saving money in an envelope
of theft, qualified with grave absue of confidence. under their bed to buy her an engagement ring. One
day, while Joan was cleaning their room, she found
Madam W is not criminally liable. She had no knowledge the envelope, took the money, and left Paul. As
of the crime and withdrew the money from her account prosecutor, what crime, if any, would you charge
and turned over the same to Madam X because of the Joan? Explain. (2010)
misrepresentaition of the latter that the P1M was
wrongfully deposited to her account. Her participation is A: Joan may be charged for qualified theft because she
not based on conspiracy or community of design, took away personal property belonging to Paul without
without which she cannot be held liable as principal by the latters consent, so obviously with intent to gain, and
direct particiapation, principal by indispensable with grave abuse of confidence. But Joan may invoke as
cooperation or accomplice. Receiving an expensive a defense Art. 332 of the RPC, under which no criminal
Hermes bag from Madam X will not make Madam W liability but only civil liability shall result from the crime
liable as an accessory since the latter has no actual of theft, swindling or malicious mischief committed by
knowledge of the commission of the crime of theft by the spouses, among others. The reference to theft under
former and the bag cannot be considered as the effects the Article embraces both simple theft and qualified
of the crime since there is no showing that the money theft, and the reference to spouses includes common-
withdrawn was used in buying it. law or live-in relationships (People v. Constantino, 60
O.G. 3603, September 6, 1963).
Q: Is the crime of theft susceptible of commission in
the frustrated stage? Explain your answer in relation Q: Lucas had been the stay-in houseboy of spouses
to what produces the crime of theft in its Nestor and Julia for five years. One night, while
consummated stage and by way of illustration of the Nestor and Julia were out having dinner, Lucas and
subjective and objective phases of the felony. (2012) his friend Pedro gained entry into the masters'
bedroom with the use of a false key. They found
A: No. Unlawful taking is deemed complete from the Julia's jewelry box in one of the cabinets which was
moment the offender gains possession of the thing, even unlocked. Lucas believed that Julia's jewelry inside

if he has no opportunity to dispose of the same. Unlawful the box. Unknown to Lucas and Pedro, the box was

*QUAMTO is a compilation of past bar questions with answers as suggested by UPLC and other distinct
luminaries in the academe, and updated by the UST Academics Committee to fit for the 2016 Bar Exams.

empty. Pedro took the box and left the bedroom he saw Rene and Dante coming out of the gate with
with Lucas. They were shock when they saw Nestor some more newly-cut logs. He apprehended and
in the sala, pointing a gun at them. Nestor ordered charged them with the proper offense.
them to stop and hand over the box. Pedro complied.
It turned out that Nestor had just arrived in time to a. What is the offense? Explain. (2006)
see Lucas and Pedro leaving the master's bedroom
with the box. State with reasons, the crime or A: The offense is Qualified Theft under Sec. 68 of P.D.
crimes, if any, Lucas and Pedro committed. (2008) 705, amending P.D. No. 330, which penalizes any person
who directly or indirectly cuts, gathers, removes, or
A: Lucas committed qualified theft. Pedro committed smuggles timber, or other forest products from any of
simple theft only. There was taking of personal property, the public forest. The Balara Watershed is protected by
the jewelry box, belonging to another (Julia), with intent the cited laws.
to gain and without the consent of the owner but
without violence, intimidation of persons or force upon b. During the preliminary investigation and up to
things. The use of a false key is legally considered as a the trial proper, Rene and Dante contended that
force upon things, if used to gain entry to the house or if they were to be held liable, their liability
building but not when used to enter a locked room should be limited only to the newly-cut logs
inside such house or building. Thus, the taking only found in their possession but not to those found
constitutes theft. The crime is qualified theft as to Lucas outside the gate. If you were the judge, what will
only, although there is evident conspiracy between him be your ruling?
and Pedro; because the circumstance qualifying the theft
is personal only to Lucas but not to Pedro. A: The contention is untenable, the presence of the
newly cut logs outside the gate is circumstantial
The theft is already consummated because the offenders evidence, which, if unrebutted, establishes that they
had already taken out of the cabinet Julias jewelry box, are the offenders who gathered the same.
which she intended to remain in the cabinet. The
asportation was completed when they succeeded in Q: DD was engaged in the warehouse business.
taking out Julias jewelry box from the cabinet. Sometime in November 2004, he was in dire need of
money. He, thus, sold merchandise deposited in his
Q: Eman, a vagrant, found a bag containing warehouse to VR for P500,000.00. DD was charged
identification cards and a diamond ring along Roxas with theft, as principal, while VR as accessory. The
Blvd. Knowing that it was not his, he went to a court convicted DD of theft but acquitted VR on the
nearest police station to seek help in finding the ground that he purchased the merchandise in good
owner of the bag. At the precint PO1 Melvin faith. However, the court ordered VR to return the
attended to him. In the investigation Eman proposed merchandise to the owner thereof and ordered DD
to PO1 Melvin, "in case you don't find the owner let's to refund the P500,000.00 to VR. DD moved for the
just pawn straight to the pawnshop and pawned the reconsideration of the decision insisting that he
ring for P50,000.00 Eman never saw PO1 Melvin should be acquitted of theft because being the
again. (2008, 2001, 1998) depositary, he had juridical possession of the
merchandise. VR also moved for the reconsideration
a. What is the criminal liability of Eman, If any? of the decision insisting that since he was acquitted
Explain. of the crime charged, and that he purchased the
merchandise in good faith, he is not obligated to
A: Eman has no criminal liability, unless he received part return the merchandise to its owner. Rule on the
of the proceeds of the pawned ring. The facts do not motions with reasons. (2005)
state that Eman received any part of the P50,000.00
proceeds of the ring pledged. The facts state that after A: The motion for reconsideration of DD should be
turning over the bag to PO1 Melvin, Eman never saw granted. By depositing the merchandise in his
PO1 Melvin against. The proposal Eman made to PO1 warehouse, he transferred not merely physical but
Melvin is not a crime as to bring about criminal liability. also juridical possession. The element of taking in the
crime of theft is wanting. At the most, he could be held
b. What is the criminal liability of PO1 Melvin, is liable for estafa for misappropriation of the merchandise
any? Explain deposited. On the other hand, the motion of VR must
also be denied. His acquittal is of no moment because
A: PO1 Melvin is criminally liable for theft for having the thing, subject matter of the offense, shall be restored
pawned the ring, which he does not own, and to the owner even though it is found in the possession of
appropriating the proceeds thereof without the consent a third person who acquired it by lawful means (Art.
of the owner thus demonstrating intent to gain. PO1 105, RPC).
Melvin is simply substituted to the possession Eman had
when the latter found the bag containing the ring. He ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
was under a legal obligation to deliver it to its owner The motion for reconsideration of DD should be denied.
and his failure to do so amounts to a taking which In this case, there being no proof that title to the goods
would constitute theft when shown to be motivated by was transferred to DD, only physical possession is
intent to gain (Art. 308[1] , RPC); People v. Avila, G.R. No. presumed transferred to and obtained by DD. (U.S. v. De
L-19786 March 31, 1923). Vera, G.R. No. L-16961, September 19, 1921). The
principal distinction between the two crimes is that in
Q: Forest Ranger Jay Velasco was patrolling the theft the thing is taken while in estafa the accused
Balara Watershed and Reservoir when he noticed a received the property and converts it to his own use or
big pile of cut logs outside the gate of the watershed. benefit. However, there maybe theft even if the accused

Curious, he scouted around and after a few minutes, has possession of the property, if he was entrusted only


QuAMTO for CRIMINAL LAW (1991-2015)
with the material or physical (natural) or de facto arrested by the guard after being radioed by the
possession of the thing, his misappropriation of the store personnel who caught the act in the store's
same constitutes theft, but if he has the juridical moving camera. Is the crime consummated,
possession of the thing, his conversion of the same frustrated, or attempted? (1998)
constitutes embezzlement or estafa (Santos v. People,
G.R. No. 77429, January 29, 1990). A: The crime is consummated theft because the taking of
the bracelets was complete after Julia succeeded in
Q: A vehicular accident occurred on the national putting them in her purse. Julia acquired complete
highway in Bulacan. Among the first to arrive at the control of the bracelets after putting them in her purse;
scene of the accident was A, who found one of the hence, the taking with intent to gain is complete and
victims already dead and the others unconscious. thus the crime is consummated.
Before rescuers could come, A, taking advantage of
the helpless condition of the victims, took their Q: At the height of the eruption of Mt. Pinatubo at
wallets and jewelry. However, the police, who around midnight, Aniceto joined some neighbors in
responded to the report of the accident, caught A. evacuating his family, a few possessions and two
What crime or crimes did A commit? Why? (2002) horses to higher ground. Miguel, taking advantage of
the darkness and the confusion, got one of the
A: A committed the crime of qualified theft because he horses and asked his friend Doro to accompany him
took the wallets and jewelry of the victims with evident to Angeles City where he sold the same to an
intent to gain and on the occasion of a vehicular acquaintance Peping. Searching for his horse,
accident wherein he took advantage of the helpless Aniceto found it, with identifying brand intact, in the
condition of the victims. But only one crime of qualified possession of Peping who refused to surrender the
theft was committed although there were more than one same saying that he had paid good money for it.
victim divested of their valuables, because all the taking Whereupon, Aniceto reported the matter to the
of the valuables were made on one and the same police who promised to accompany him to the
occasion, thus constituting a continued crime. Prosecutors office. May Miguel and Doro be charged
criminally for any offense? If you were the counsel
Q: A fire broke out in a department store, A, taking for both, what defense could you possibly set up for
advantage of the confusion, entered the store and them? (1992)
carried away goods which he later sold. What crime,
if any, did he commit? Why? (2002) A: Miguel should be charged of Qualified Theft of Large
Cattle, a horse being classified as such under Art. 310,
A: A committed the crime of qualified theft because he RPC. Doro, on the other hand, should be charged as
took the goods on the occasion of and taking advantage accessory if he is aware that the horse was stolen as he
of the fire which broke out in the department store. The assisted ' the principal, Miguel, in profiting from the
occasion of a calamity such as fire, when the theft was crime. If I were the defense counsel, I will put up the
committed, qualifies the crime under Art. 310 of the defense of consent of the owner; hence, there is only
RPC, as amended. civil liability.

Q: Sunshine, a beauteous "colegiala" but a shoplifter, Usurpation (Article 312)

went to the Ever Department Store and proceeded to
the women's wear section. The saleslady was of the Q: Teresita is the owner of a two-hectare land in
impression that she brought to the fitting room Bulacan which she planted rice and corn. Upon her
three (3) pieces of swimsuits of different colors. arrival from a three-month vacation in the United
When she came out of the fitting room, she returned States, she was surprised to discover that her land
only two (2) pieces to the clothes rack. The saleslady had been taken over by Manuel and Teofilo who
became suspicious and alerted the store detective. forcibly evicted her tenant-caretaker Juliana, after
Sunshine was stopped by the detective before she threatening to kill the latter if she would resist their
could leave the store and brought to the office of the taking of the land. Thereafter, Manuel and Teofilo
store manager. The detective and the manager plowed, cultivated and appropriated the harvest for
searched her and found her wearing the third themselves to the exclusion of Teresita. (1996)
swimsuit under her blouse and pants. Was the theft
of the swimsuit consummated, frustrated, or a) What crime or crimes did Manuel and Teofilo
attempted? Explain. (2000, 1998) commit? Explain.

A: The theft was consummated because the taking or A: Manuel and Teofilo committed the crime of
transportation was complete. The transportation is usurpation of real rights under Art. 312, RPC, for
complete when the offender acquired exclusive employing violence against or intimidation of persons.
control of the personal property being taken; in this The threats to kill employed by them in forcibly
case, when Sunshine wore the swimsuit under her entering the land is the means of committing the
blouse and pants and was on her way out of the store. crime and therefore absorbed in the felony, unless the
With evident intent to gain, the taking constitutes theft intimidation resulted in a more serious felony.
and being complete, it is consummated. It is not
necessary that the offender is in a position to dispose of b) Suppose Manuel and Teofilo killed Juliana when
the property. the latter refused to surrender possession of the
land, what crime or crimes did the two commit?
Q: In the jewelry section of a big department store,
Julia snatched a couple of bracelets and put these in A: The crime would still be usurpation of real rights

her purse. At the store's exit, however, she was under Art. 312, RPC, even if the said offenders killed the

*QUAMTO is a compilation of past bar questions with answers as suggested by UPLC and other distinct
luminaries in the academe, and updated by the UST Academics Committee to fit for the 2016 Bar Exams.

caretaker because the killing is a violence against Deed of Sale covering the sale of the Fortuner,
persons which is the means for committing the crime signed by Iigo, also bore the same chassis and
and as such, determinative only. However, this gives motor numbers as Roberto's Registration
way to the proviso that the penalty provided for therein Certificate. The chassis and motor numbers on the
is "in addition to the penalty incurred in the acts of Fortuner were found, upon verification with the
violence (murder or homicide) executed by them. The Land Transportation Office, to correspond to a
crime is similar to a robbery where a killing is vehicle previously reported as carnapped. Roberto
committed by reason thereof, giving rise only to one claimed that he was in good faith; Iigo sold him a
indivisible offense, plus the fine mentioned therein. carnapped vehicle and he did not know that he was
buying a carnapped vehicle. If you were the
Anti-Fencing Law (P.D. 1612) prosecutor, would you or would you not charge
and its Implementing Rules and Regulations Roberto with a crime? (2013)

Q: What are the elements of fencing? (2010, 1995) A: I will charge Roberto with violation of Anti-Fencing
Law. In this case, someone carnapped the vehicle, sold it
A: The elements of fencing are: to Roberto who did not take part in the crime. Roberto
1. a crime of robbery or theft has been committed; should have known also that the car was stolen because
2. accused, who is not a principal or accomplice in it was not properly documented as the deed of sale and
the crime, buys, receives, possesses, keeps, registration certificate did not reflect the correct
acquires, conceals, or disposes, or buys and numbers of the vehicles engine and chassis. Apparently,
sells, or in any manner deals in any article, item he made no effort to check the papers covering his
, object or anything of value, which has been purchase. Lastly, Robertos defense of good faith is
derived from the proceeds of said crime; flawed because P.D. 1612 is a special law and, therefore,
3. the accused knows or should have known that its violation is regarded as malum prohibitum, requiring
said article, item, object or anything of value has no proof of criminal intent (Dimat v. People, G.R. No.
been derived from the from the proceeds of the 181184, January 25, 2012).
crime of robbery or theft; and
4. there is, on the part of the accused, intent to Q: Arlene is engaged in the buy and sell of used
gain for himself or for another. garments, more popularly known as "ukay-
ukay." Among the items found by the police in a raid
Q: Manolo, an avid art collector, was invited to of her store in Baguio City were brand-new Louie
Tonios house. There, Manolo noticed a nice painting Feraud blazers. Arlene was charged with "fencing."
that exactly looked like the painting which he Will the charge prosper? Why or why not? (2010)
reported was stolen from him some years back.
Manolo confronted Tonio about the painting, but A: No, a charge of fencing will not prosper. Fencing is
Tonio denied any knowledge, claiming that he committed when a person, with intent to gain for
bought the painting legitimately from a friend. himself or for another, deals in any manner with an
Manolo later proved to Tonio that the painting was article of value which he knows or should be known to
indeed the stolen painting. (2014) him to have been derived from proceeds of theft or
robbery (Sec. 2, P.D. 1612). Thus, for a charge of fencing
a) What crime/s, if any, may Tonio be charged to prosper, it must first be established that a theft or
with? robbery of the article subject of the alleged fencing has
been committeda fact which is wanting in this case. It
A: Tonio may be charged with the crime of fencing. should be noted that the suspect is engaged in the buy
Under Sec. 5 of P.D. 1612, mere possession of a stolen and sell of used garments, which are in the nature of
article or object or anything of value which has been the personal property. In civil law, possession of personal or
subject of robbery or thievery is prima facie evidence of movable property carries with it a prima facie
fencing. Since Tonio is in possession of a stolen property, presumption of ownership. The presumption of
it is presumed that he committed the crime of fencing. fencing arises only when the article or item involved is
the subject of a robbery or thievery (Sec. 5, P.D. 1612).
b) Manolo decided to take matters into his own
hands and, one night, broke into Tonios house Q: Flora, who was engaged in the purchase and sale
by destroying the wall and taking the painting. of jewelry, was prosecuted for the violation of P.D.
What, if any, would be the liability of Manolo? 1612, otherwise known as the Anti-Fencing Law, for
having been found to be in possession of recently
A: Manalo is liable for the crime of trespass to dwelling stolen jewelry valued at P100,000.00 at her jewelry
qualified by use of force since he entered the house of shop at Zapote Road, Las Pinas, Metro Manila. She
Tonio against the latters will. There is no robbery testified during the trial that she merely bought the
because the owner of the property taken cannot commit same from one named Cecilino and even produced a
robbery. receipt covering the sale. Cecilino, in the past, used
to deliver to her jewelries for sale but is presently
Q: Roberto bought a Toyota Fortuner from Iigo for nowhere to be found. Convicted by the trial court for
P500,000. While driving his newly-bought car, violation of the Anti-Fencing Law, she argued (or her
Roberto met a minor accident that made the acquittal on appeal, contending that the prosecution
examination of his vehicle's Registration Certificate failed to prove that she knew or should have known
necessary. When the policeman checked the plate, that the jewelries recovered from her was the
chassis and motor numbers of the vehicle against proceeds of the crime of robbery or theft. (1996)
those reflected in the Registration Certificate, he
found the chassis and motor numbers to be different A: No, Flora's defense is not well-taken because mere

from what the Registration Certificate stated. The possession of any article of value which has been the


QuAMTO for CRIMINAL LAW (1991-2015)
subject of theft or robbery shall be prima facie evidence times until he was dead. Raul fled from the scene
of fencing (P.D. 1612). The burden is upon the taking the motorcycle with him. What crime or
accused to prove that she acquired the jewelry crimes did Raul commit? (1998)
legitimately. Her defense of having bought the jewelry
from someone whose whereabouts is unknown, does A: Raul committed the composite crime of Carnapping
not overcome the presumption of fencing against her with homicide under Sec. 14 of R.A. 6539, also known as
(Pamintuan v. People, G.R. No. 111426, July 11, 1994). the 'Anti-Carnapping Act of 1972 as amended,
Buying personal property puts the buyer on caveat considering that the killing "in the course or "on the
because of the phrases that he should have known or occasion of a carnapping. A motorcycle is included in the
ought to know that it is the proceed from robbery or definition of a "motor vehicle" in said Act. There is no
theft. Besides, she should have followed the apparent motive for the killing of the tricycle driver but
administrative procedure under the decree that of for Raul to be able to take the motorcycle. The fact that
getting a clearance from the authorities in case the the tricycle driver was killed brings about the penalty of
dealer is unlicensed in order to escape liability. reclusion perpetua to death.

Q: What is the difference between a fence and an Swindling (Estafa) and Other Deceits
accessory to theft or robbery? Explain. Is there any (Article 315-318)
similarity between them? (1995)
Q: Dora gave Elen several pieces of jewelry for sale
A: A fence is punished as a principal under P.D. No. 1612 on commission basis. They agreed that Elen would
and the penalty is higher, whereas an accessory to remit the proceeds of the sale and return the unsold
robbery or theft under the Revised Penal Code is items to Dora within sixty days. The period expired
punished two degrees lower than the principal, unless without Elen remitting the proceeds of the sale or
he bought or profited from the proceeds of theft or returning the pieces of jewelry. Dora demanded by
robbery arising from robbery in Philippine highways phone that Elen turn over the proceeds of the sale
under P.D. No. 532 where he is punished as an and return the unsold pieces of jewelry. Elen
accomplice, hence the penalty is one degree lower. In promised to do so the following day. El en still failed
addition thereto fencing is a malum prohibitum and to make good on her promise but instead issued
therefore there is no need to prove criminal intent of the post-dated checks. Thereafter, Dora made several
accused; this is not so in violations of Revised Penal more demands, the last of which was in writing, but
Code. they were all unheeded. When the checks were
deposited in Dora's bank account, the checks were
Yes, there is a similarity in the sense that all the acts of returned unpaid for insufficient funds. Elen was
one who is an accessory to the crimes of robbery or theft charged with estafa and violation of Batas Pambansa
are included in the acts defined as fencing. In fact, the Big. 22. Will the charges against Elen prosper?
accessory in the crimes of robbery or theft could be Explain. (2015)
prosecuted as such under the Revised Penal Code or as a
fence under P.D. No. 1612. (Dizon-Pamintuan vs. People, A: Art. 315 par.1(b) of the RPC punishes Estafa through
GR 111426, July 11, 1994) Misappropriation. To prove the foregoing crime, the
prosecution must establish the following elements: (1)
Anti-Carnapping Act of 1972 (R.A. No. 6539), the offenders receipt of money, goods, or other personal
as amended by R.A. No. 7659 property in trust, or on commission, or for
administration, or under any other obligation involving
REPEATED QUESTION the duty to deliver, or to return the same; (2)
Q: While Carlos was approaching his car, he saw it misappropriation or conversion by the offender of the
being driven away by Paolo, a thief. Carlos tried to money or property received, or denial of receipt of the
stop Paolo by shouting at him, but Paolo ignored money or property; (3) the misappropriation,
him. To prevent his car from being carnapped, conversion or denial is to the prejudice of another; and
Carlos drew his gun, aimed at the rear wheel of the (4) demand by the offended party that the offender
car and fired. The shot blew the tire which caused return the money or property received.
the car to veer out of control and collide with an
oncoming tricycle, killing the tricycle driver. What is In the case at hand, the pieces of jewelry were received
the criminal liability of Paolo, if any? Explain. (2008) by Elen from Dora, an act which transferred the juridical
possession of the former. To have juridical possession
A: Paolo is criminally liable for (1) carnapping under means possession which gives the transferee a right
R.A. No. 6539 for driving away the motor vehicle of over the thing which the transferee may set up against
Carlos against the latters will and obviously with intent the owner.
to gain and (2) for homicide for the death of the tricycle
driver which resulted from the criminal act deliberately Generally, demand for the return of the thing delivered
being committed by Paolo (which is the carnapping). in trust is necessary before an accused is convicted of
The homicide was the result of praetor intentionem and Estafa. However, if there is an agreed period for the
not a component of the crime of carnapping or a result return of the thing received in trust and the accused
of reckless impurdence or of simple negligence. failed to return it within the agreed period, demand is
unnecessary. Failure to return the thing within the
Q: Samuel, a tricycle driver, plied his usual route agreed period consummates the crime of Estafa, i.e., the
using a Honda motorcycle with a sidecar. One misappropriation of the thing received in trust. In this
evening, Raul rode on the sidecar, poked a knife at case, Dora and Elen agreed on a period, within 60 days,
Samuel and instructed him to go near the bridge. for the delivery of the proceeds of the sale and return of
Upon reaching the bridge, Raul alighted from the the unsold items to Dora. Elens failure to return within

motorcycle and suddenly stabbed Samuel several 60 days is a presumption of misappropriation of the

*QUAMTO is a compilation of past bar questions with answers as suggested by UPLC and other distinct
luminaries in the academe, and updated by the UST Academics Committee to fit for the 2016 Bar Exams.

jewelry. Thus, there would be no more need to present presentment for payment. When the checks were
any act of misappropriation. presented for payment, all were dishonored for
insufficiency of funds and corresponding notices of
Q: Dela convinced Nita to work in Taiwan, promising dishonor were sent and received by Mr. Ed. One
Nita that she would take care of the processing of the month after receipt of the notices of dishonor, Mr. Ed
neccessary documents. Dela collected P120,000.00 failed to make good the checks. Thereafter, Mr.
from Nita purportedly for the processing of her Benjie filed before the public prosecutors office a
papers. Upon receipt of the money, Nita was made to complaint against Mr. Ed, although no demand letter
accomplish certain forms and was told that she was earlier sent to Mr. Ed.
would be deployed to Taiwan within one month.
After one month, Nita followed up on her During the preliminary investigation, Mr. Benjie
application. Dela made some excuses and told Nita accepted several amounts from Mr. Edas partial
that the deployment would be delayed. Another payments. The wife of Mr. Benjie protested and
month passed and Dela made other excuses which insisted that the complaint should continue despite
made Nita suspicious. Nita later discovered that Dela the partial payments. On the other hand, Mr. Ed
was not licensed to recruit. Nita confronted Dela and counters that no demand letter was earlier sent to
demanded the return of her money. Dela promised him, that the obligation is merely civil in character
to return the same in a week's time. (2015) and that novation took place when Mr. Benjie
accepted the partial payments. Discuss the criminal
a. A week later, Dela was nowhere to be found. liability, if any, of Mr. Ed. (2014)
What crime(s) did Dela commit? Explain.
A: Mr. Ed is liable for one count of estafa under Art.
A: Dela defrauded Nita by leading her to believe that she 315(2)(d) for the issuance of the first three checks
has the capacity to send her to Taiwan for work, even because he issued them simultaneous with the
though she does not have a license or authority for the transaction in order to defraud another. However, the
purpose. Such misrepresentation came before Nita gave two other checks are deemed to have been issued in
Dela P120,000 for the processing of her papers. Clearly, payment of a pre-existing obligation, hence the same act
Nita would have not parted with her money were it not could not have been the efficient cause of defraudation
for such enticement by Dela. As a consequence of Delas required in estafa under the RPC. He is liable for two
false pretenses, Nita suffered damages as the promised counts if violation of B.P. 22 for the issuance of the five
employment abroad never materialized and the money checks which were dishonoured for insufficiency of
she paid was never recovered. Thus, the crime of estafa funds. The gravamen of B.P. 22 is the issuance of a
through falsification of public documents is committed. worthless or unfunded check. Deceit is not material to
Since Dela has no license to recruit, the crime of illegal B.P. 22.
recruitment is also committed. (People v. Chua, G.R. No.
187052, September 13, 2012). Mr. Eds defense of partial payments constituting
novation and absence of demand letter will not
b. Will your answer still be the same, assuming exculpate dim from the criminal liability incurred. The
that the promise to deploy for employment partial payments made would only affect his civil
abroad was made by Dela to Celia, Digna and liability while his claim of absence of demand letter
Emma, in addition to Nita, and from whom Dela negated by his receipt of notices of dishonour.
also collected the same amount of processing
fee? Q: William is the son-in-law of Mercedes who owns
several pieces of real property. In 1994, William's
A: Yes, Dela shall be liable for both Estafa under Par.2 wife, Anita, died. In 1996, William caused the
(a) of Art. 315 of the RPC and Illegal Recruitment, but in preparation of a Special Power of Attorney (SPA)
large-scale. Illegal recruitment is deemed committed in giving him the authority to sell two (2) parcels of
large scale if committed against three or more persons land registered in the name of Mercedes. The
individually or as a group. Since there are at least 3 signature of Mercedes in the SPA was forged and,
victims in this case, Cela, Digna, Emma, and Nita, Dela through this forged SPA and without the consent and
shall be liable for large scale illegal recruitment under knowledge of Mercedes, William succeeded in
the earlier cited provisions (People v. Tolentino, G.R. No. selling the two (2) parcels for Php 2,000,000. He
208686, July 1, 2015). pocketed the proceeds of the sale. Mercedes
eventually discovered William's misdeeds and filed
Q: Mr. Benjie is the owner of a hardware store a criminal complaint. William was subsequently
specializing in the sale of plumbing materials. On charged with estafa through falsification of public
February 1, 2014, Mr. Ed, a friend and regular document. Was the criminal charge proper? (2013)
customer of Mr. Benjie, visited the hardware store
and purchased several plumbing materials in the A: The criminal charge of estafa through falsification is
total amount of P5 million. Mr. Benjie readily correct. William forged the signature of his mother-in-
accepted Mr. Eds payment of three (3) postdated law in the Special Power of Attorney, which is a public
checks in the amount of P1 million Pesos each in document, as a necessary means to sell her properties to
view of the assurance of Mr. Ed that the checks will third parties without delivering the proceeds thereof.
be honored upon presentment for payment. Mr. Although the relationship of affinity created between
Benjie, as a consequence, immediately delivered the William and his mother-in-law survived the death of
materials to the house of Mr. Ed. The following day, either party to the marriage, the coverage of the
Mr. Ed went back to Mr. Benjie to tender another absolutory cause under Art. 332 (1) of the RPC cannot
two (2) postdated checks in the amount of P1 be applied to him. It is strictly limited to the simple
million each to complete the payment, with the same crimes of theft, estafa and malicious mischief. It does not

assurance that the checks will be honored upon apply where any of the crimes mentioned is complex


QuAMTO for CRIMINAL LAW (1991-2015)
with another crime. This is because when estafa is
committed through falsification of a public document, A: If the talaan or ledger which Fe made to show a
the matter acquires a very serious public dimension and falsehood was a private document, the only crime that
goes beyond the respective rights and liabilities of Fe committed was estafa thru abuse of confidence or
family member among themselves. Effectively, when the unfaithfulness. Criminal liability for falsification of a
offender resorts to an act that breaches the public private document does not arise without damage or at
interest in the integrity of public documents as a mean least proof of intent to cause damage. It cannot co-exist
to violate the property rights of a family member, he is with the crime of estafa which is also essentially
removed from the protective mantle of the absolutory requires damage or at least proof of intent to cause
cause under Article 332 (Intestate Estate of Carungcong damage. Since the talaan was falsified to cover-up or
v. People, G.R. No. 181409, February 11, 2010). conceal the misappropriation of the amount involved,
whatever damage or intent to cause damage attends the
Q: The president, treasurer, and secretary of ABC falsification, it will be the same damage or intent to
Corporation were charged with syndicated estafa cause damage that will attend the estafa.
under the following Information: That on or about
the 1st week of January 2010 or subsequent thereto If such talaan or ledger was a commercial document,
in Cebu City and within the jurisdiction of this damage or proof of intent to cause damage is not
Honorable Court, the above-named accused, necessary. The falsification alone if done with intent to
conspiring and confederating together and all of pervert the truth would bring about criminal liability for
them mutually helping and aiding one another in a falsification of a commercial document. Damage or
syndicated manner, through a corporation intent to cause damage, would sustain the estafa
registered with the Securities and Exchange independently of the falsification of the commercial
Commission (SEC), with intention of carrying out the document. In this case, two (2) separate crimes are
unlawful or illegal act, transaction, enterprise or committed; namely, estafa and falsification of the
scheme, with intent to gain and by means of fraud commercial document. The falsification should not be
and deceit, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully, complexed with the estafa since it was not committed as
and feloniously defraud Virna, Lana, Deborah and a necessary means to commit the estafa but rather
several other persons by falsely or fraudulently resorted to, to conceal or hide the misappropriation of
pretending or representing in a transaction or series the amount she pocketed.
of transactions, which they made with complainants
and the public in general, to the effect that they were Q: DD purchased a television set for P50,000.00 with
in a legitimate business of foreign exchange trading the use of a counterfeit credit card. The owner of
successively or simultaneously operating under the the establishment had no inkling that the credit card
name and style of ABC Corporation and DEF used by DD was counterfeit. What crime or crimes
Management Philippines, Incorporated, induced and did DD commit? Explain. (2005)
succeeded in inducing complainants and several
other persons to give and deliver to said accused the A: DD committed the crime of estafa under Art.
amount of at least P20,000,000.00 on the strength of 315(2)(a) of the RPC by falsely pretending to possess
said manifestations and representations, the credit. The elements of estafa under this penal provision
accused knowing fully well that the abovenamed are: (1) the accused defrauded another by means of
corporations registered with the SEC are not deceit; and (2) damage or prejudice capable of
licensed nor authorized to engage in foreign pecuniary estimation is caused to the offended party or
exchange trading and that such manifestations and third party. The accused also violated R.A. No. 8484,
representations to transact in foreign exchange which punishes the use or possession of fake or
were false and fraudulent, that these resulted to the counterfeit credit card.
damage and prejudice of the complainants and other
persons, and that the defraudation pertains to funds Q: A sold a washing machine to B on credit with
solicited from the public in general by such the understanding that B could return the appliance
corporations/associations. Will the case for within two weeks if after testing the same, B decided
syndicated estafa prosper? Explain. (2010) not to buy it. Two weeks lapsed without B returning
the appliance. A found out that B had sold the
A: No, a case for syndicated estafa will not prosper washing machine to a third party. Is B liable for
because a syndicate for such crime under P.D. 1689 estafa? Why? (2002)
must be comprised of five (5) or more persons
committing the estafa or other forms of swindling A: No, B is not liable for estafa because he is not just an
defined in Arts. 315 and 316 of the RPC whereas the entrustee of the washing machine which he sold; he is
case given involved only three (3) accused who are the owner thereof by virtue of the sale of the
alleged to have conspired in the commission of the washing machine to him. The sale being on credit, B as
swindling. But because the amount defrauded exceeds buyer is only liable for the unpaid price of the washing
P100,000.00, the case is still under the same P.D. 1689 machine; his obligation is only a civil obligation. There is
with a lower penalty than syndicated estafa. no felonious misappropriation that could constitute
Q: Fe is the manager of a rice mill in Bulacan. In
order to support a gambling debt, Fe made it appear
that the rice mill was earning less than it actually REPEATED QUESTION
was by writing in the talaan or ledger a figure Q: Mr. Carlos Gabisi, a customs guard, and Mr. Rico
lower than what was collected and paid by their Yto, a private Individual, went to the office of Mr.
customers. Fe then pocketed the difference. What Diether Ocuarto, a customs broker, and represented
crime/s did Fe commit, if any? Explain your answer. themselves as agents of Moonglow Commercial

(2007) Trdg., an Importer of children's clothes and toys. Mr.

*QUAMTO is a compilation of past bar questions with answers as suggested by UPLC and other distinct
luminaries in the academe, and updated by the UST Academics Committee to fit for the 2016 Bar Exams.

Gabisi and Mr. Yto engaged Mr. Ocuarto to prepare Victoria insisting that delivery to a third person of
and file with the Bureau of Customs the necessary the thing held in trust is not a defense in estafa. Is
Import Entry and Internal Revenue Declaration Rosa criminally liable for estafa under the
covering Moonglow's shipment. Mr. Gabisi and Mr. circumstances? Explain. (1999)
Yto submitted to Mr. Ocuarto a packing list, a
commercial invoice, a bill of lading and a Sworn A: No, Rosa cannot be held criminally liable for estafa.
Import Duty Declaration which declared the Although she received the jewelry from Victoria under
shipment as children's toys, the taxes and duties of an obligation to return the same or deliver the proceeds
which were computed at P60,000.00. Mr. Ocuarto thereof, she did not misappropriate it. In fact, she gave
filed the aforementioned documents with the Manila them to Aurelia specifically to be returned to Victoria.
International Container Port. However, before the The misappropriation was done by Aurelia, and absent
shipment was released, a spot check was conducted the showing of any conspiracy between Aurelia and
by Customs Senior Agent James Bandido, who Rosa, the latter cannot be held criminally liable for
discovered that the contents of the van (shipment) Amelia's acts. Furthermore, as explained above, Rosa's
were not children's toys as declared in the shipping negligence which may have allowed Aurelia to
documents but 1,000 units of video cassette misappropriate the jewelry does not make her
recorders with taxes and duties computed at criminally liable for estafa.
P600,000.00. A hold order and warrant of seizure
and detention were then issued by the District Q: Divina, is the owner of a 500-square meter
Collector of Customs. Further investigation showed residential lot in Makati City covered by TCT No.
that Moonglow is non-existent. Consequently, Mr, 1998. As her son needed money for his trip abroad,
Gabisi and Mr. Yto were charged with and convicted Divina mortgaged her lot to her neighbor Dino for
for violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. 3019 which P1,000,000. Later Divina sold the same lot to Angel
makes it unlawful among others, for public officers for P2,000,000. In the Deed of Sale, she expressly
to cause any undue Injury to any party, including the stated that the property is free from any lien or
Government. In the discharge of official functions encumbrance. What crime, if any, did Divina
through manifest partiality, evident bad faith or commit? (1998)
gross inexcusable negligence. In their motion for
reconsideration, the accused alleged that the A: Divina committed estafa or swindling under Art.
decision was erroneous because the crime was not 316(2) of the RPC because, knowing that the real
consummated but was only at an attempted stage, property being sold is encumbered, she still made a
and that in fact the Government did not suffer any misrepresentation in the Deed of Sale that the same is
undue injury.Assuming that the attempted or free from any lien or encumbrance. There is thus a
frustrated stage of the violation charged is not deceit or fraud causing damage to the buyer of the lot.
punishable, may the accused be nevertheless
convicted for an offense punished by the Revised Q: On March 31, 1995, Orpheus Financing Corp.
Penal Code under the facts of the case? Explain. received from Maricar the sum of P500,000 as
(2000) money market placement for sixty days at fifteen
(15) per cent interest, and the President of said
A: Yes, both are liable for attempted estafa thru Corp. issued a check covering the amount including
falsification of commercial documents, a complex crime. the interest due thereon, postdated May 30, 1995.
They tried to defraud the Government with the use of On the maturity date, however, Orpheus Financing
false commercial and public documents. Damage is not Corp. failed to deliver back Maricar's money
necessary. placement with the corresponding interest earned,
notwithstanding repeated demands upon said
Q: Is there such a crime as estafa through Corporation to comply with its commitment. Did
negligence? Explain. (1999) the President of Orpheus Financing Corporation
incur any criminal liability for estafa for reason of
A: There is no such crime as estafa through negligence. the non-payment of the money market placement?
In estafa, the profit or gain must be obtained by the Explain. (1996)
accused personally, through his own acts. In the case of
People v. Nepomuceno (CA, 460G 6135), it was held that A: No, the President of the financing corporation does
the mere negligence in allowing another to take not incur criminal liability for estafa because a money
advantage of or benefit from the entrusted chattel market transaction partakes of the nature of a loan, such
cannot constitute estafa. that non-payment thereof would not give rise to estafa
through misappropriation or conversion. In money
Q: Aurelia introduced Rosa to Victoria, a dealer in market placement, there is transfer of ownership of the
jewelry who does business in Timog, Quezon City. money to be invested and therefore the liability for its
Rosa, a resident of Cebu City, agreed to sell a return is civil in nature.
diamond ring and bracelet to Victoria on a
commission basis, on condition that, if these items Q: Julio obtained a letter of credit from a local bank
cannot be sold, they may be returned to Victoria in order to import auto tires from Japan. To secure
forthwith. Unable to sell the ring and bracelet, Rosa payment of his letter of credit, Julio executed a trust
delivered both items to Aurelia in Cebu City with the receipt in favor of the bank. Upon arrival of the tires,
understanding that Aurelia shall, in turn, return the Julio sold them but did not deliver the proceeds to
items to Victoria in Timog, Quezon City. Aurelia the bank. Julio was charged with estafa under P.D.
dutifully returned the bracelet to Victoria but sold No. 115 which makes the violation of a trust receipt
the ring kept the cash proceeds thereof to her and agreement punishable as estafa under Art. 315, par.
issued a check to Victoria which bounced. Victoria (1), subpar. (b), of the Revised Penal Code. Julio

sued Rosa for estafa under Article 315, R.P.C.. contended that P.D. No. 115 was unconstitutional


QuAMTO for CRIMINAL LAW (1991-2015)
because it violated the Bill of Rights provision the time he issued the check that the account thereof is
against imprisonment for non-payment of debt. Rule already closed. A cannot be held liable under B.P. 22
on the contention of Julio, Discuss fully. (1995) because he was a mere endorser of Bs check to C who
exchanged the checks with cash. B.P. 22 does not apply
A: Such contention is invalid. A trust receipt to endorser of checks. Hence only a civil action may be
arrangement doesn't involve merely a simple loan filed by C against A to recover to P85,000.00.
transaction but includes likewise a security feature Although a simultaneous action for estafa is authorized
where the creditor bank extends financial assistance to by law for the issuance of a worthless check, under the
the debtor-importer in return for the collateral or given facts, the check was discounted and thus issued in
security title as to the goods or merchandise being a credit transaction for a pre-existing indebtedness.
security is the one sought to be protected and not the Criminal liability for estafa does not arise when a check
loan which is a separate and distinct agreement. has been issued in payment for a pre-existing debt.
What is being penalized under P.D. 115 is the misuse or
misappropriation of the goods or proceeds realized from Q: A and B agreed to meet at the latter's house to
the sale of the goods, documents or instruments which discuss B's financial problems. On his way, one of A's
are being held in trust for the entrustee-banks. In other car tires blew up. Before A left following the
words, the law punishes the dishonesty and abuse of meeting, he asked B to lend him money to buy a new
confidence in the handling of money or goods to the spare tire. B had temporarily exhausted his bank
prejudice of the other, and hence there is no violation of deposits, leaving a zero balance. Anticipating,
the right against imprisonment for non-payment of debt however, a replenishment of his account soon, B
(People v. Nitafan, G.R. Nos. 81559-60, Apri 6, 1992). issued A a postdated check with which A negotiated
for a new tire. When presented, the check bounced
Bouncing Checks Law (B.P. Blg. 22), plus for lack of funds. The tire company filed a criminal
Administrative Circular No. 12-2000 case against A and B. What would be the criminal
liability, if any, of each of the two accused? Explain.
Q: Frank borrowed P1,000,000 from his brother (2003)
Eric. To pay the loan, Frank issued a post-dated
check to be presented for payment a month after the A: A who negotiated the unfunded check of B in buying a
transaction. Two days before maturity, Frank called new tire for his car may only be prosecuted for estafa if
Eric telling him he had insufficient funds and he was aware at the time of such negotiation that the
requested that the deposit of the check be deferred. check has no sufficient funds in the drawee bank;
Nevertheless, Eric deposited the check and it was otherwise, he is not criminally liable. B who
dishonored. When Frank failed to pay despite accommodated A with his check may nevertheless be
demand, Eric filed a complaint against him for prosecuted under B.P. 22 for having issued the check,
violation of Batas Pambansa Big. 22 (The Bouncing knowing at the time of issuance that it has no funds in
Checks Law). Was the charge brought against Frank the bank and that A will negotiate it to buy a new tire,
correct? (2013) i.e., for value. B may not be prosecuted for estafa because
the facts indicate that he is not actuated by intent to
A: Yes, the charge brought against Frank is correct. defraud in issuing the check which A negotiated.
Violation of B.P. 22 is malum prohibitum which is Obviously, B issued the postdated check only to help A;
committed by mere issuance of a check. Good faith is not criminal intent or dolo is absent.
a defense. As long as the check was issued on account or
for value, the purpose for which the check was issued, Q: A a businessman, borrowed P500,000.00 from
the terms and conditions relating to the issuance are B, a friend. To pay the loan, A issued a postdated
irrelevant to the prosecution of the offender. For this check to be presented for payment 30 days after the
reason, the request of Frank to defer the deposit of the transaction. Two days before the maturity date of
check as it has insufficient funds will not militate against the check, A called up B and told him not to deposit
his prosecution for B.P. 22. Despite notice, Frank can still the check on the date stated on the face thereof, as A
be charged. Moreover, if what is charged is Estafa, Frank, had not deposited in the drawee bank the amount
being a brother of the offended party, cannot be held needed to cover the check. Nevertheless, B
criminally liable under Art. 332, RPC. deposited the check in question and the same was
dishonored of insufficiency of funds. A failed to
Q: A asked financial support from her showbiz settle the amount with B in spite of the latter's
friend B who accommodated her by issuing in her demands. Is A guilty of violating B.P. Blg. 22,
favor a postdated check in the sum of P90,000.00. otherwise known as the Bouncing Checks Law?
Both of them knew that the check would not be Explain. (2002)
honored because Bs account had just been closed.
The two then approached trader C whom they asked A: Yes, A Is liable for violation of B.P. 22. Although
to change the check with cash, even agreeing that knowledge by the drawer of insufficiency or lack of
the exchange be discounted at P85,000.00 with the funds at the time of the issuance of the check is an
assurance that the check shall be funded upon essential element of the violation, the law presumes
maturity. Upon Cs presentment of the check for prima facie such knowledge, unless within five (5)
payment on due date, it was dishonored because the banking days of notice of dishonor or non-payment,
account had already been closed. What action/s may the drawer pays the holder thereof the amount due
C commence against A and B to hold them to account thereon or makes arrangements for payment in full by
for the loss of her P85,000.00? Explain. (2010, 1992) the drawee of such checks. A mere notice by the drawer
A to the payee B before the maturity date of the check
A: A criminal action for violation of B.P. 22 may be filed will not defeat the presumption of knowledge created
against B who drew the postdated check against a closed by the law; otherwise, the purpose and spirit of B.P. 22

bank account, for value paid by C, and with knowledge at will be rendered useless.

*QUAMTO is a compilation of past bar questions with answers as suggested by UPLC and other distinct
luminaries in the academe, and updated by the UST Academics Committee to fit for the 2016 Bar Exams.

The mere act of issuing a worthless check is a malum

Q: The accused was convicted under B.P. Blg. 22 for prohibitum. The understanding that the check will not
having issued several checks which were be presented at the bank but will be redeemed by the
dishonored by the drawee bank on their due date maker when the loan falls due is a mere private
because the accused closed her account after the arrangement which may not prevail to exempt it from
issuance of checks. On appeal, she argued that she the penal sanction of B.P. Blg. 22.
could not be convicted under B.P. Blg. 22 by reason
of the closing of her account because said law Arson (Anti-Arson Law or P.D. 1613 and Article 320,
applies solely to checks dishonored by reason of RPC as amended by R.A. 7659)
insufficiency of funds and that at the time she issued
the checks concerned, she had adequate funds in the Q: Senio planned to burn Bal's house. One evening,
bank. While she admits that she may be held liable during a drinking spree at his house, Senio told his
for estafa under Article 215 of the Revised Penal friends what he intended to do and even showed
Code, she cannot however be found guilty of having them the gasoline in cans that he would use for the
violated B.P. Blg. 22. Is her contention correct? purpose. Carlo, a common friend of Senio and Bal,
Explain. (1996) was present at the drinking spree. He was still sober
when Senio told them his plans. Before going home,
A: No, the contention of the accused is not correct. As Carlo warned Bal that Senio would burn his house
long as the checks issued were issued to apply on and had already bought gasoline that would be used
account or for value, and was dishonored upon for the purpose. Bal reported the matter to the
presentation for payment to the drawee bank for lack of police authorities. Meanwhile, Senio went to Bal' s
insufficient funds on their due date, such act falls within house and proceeded to pour gasoline around the
the ambit of B.P. 22. Said law expressly punishes any walls of the house and it was at that point when he
person who may have insufficient funds in the drawee was caught by the police. What crime did Senio
bank when he issues the check, but fails to keep commit, if any? Explain. (2015)
sufficient funds to cover the full amount of the check
when presented to the drawee bank within ninety (90) A: Senio is liable for attempted arson. He manifested
days from the date appearing thereon. before his intention to burn the house of Bal to his
friends. He then performed the act of pouring gasoline
Q: What is a memorandum check? Is the "bouncing" around the walls of the house to execute his criminal
thereof within the purview of BP Blg. 22? (1995, design to commit arson. This is not just a preparatory
1994) act, because it already ceased to be equivocal and
revealed a clear intention to burn the house. In sum, he
A: A memorandum check is an ordinary check with the already commenced the commission of the crime of
word Memorandum,Memo", or Mem" written across arson directly by overt acts but he did not perform all
the face, signifying that the maker or drawer engages to acts to execute his criminal design to commit arson by
pay its holder absolutely thus partaking the nature of a setting the house on fire due to a cause other than his
promissory note. It is drawn on a bank and is a bill of spontaneous desistance, and that is, having been caught
exchange within the purview of Sec. 185 of the by the police.
Negotiable Instruments Law. Yes, a person who issued a
memorandum check without sufficient funds is guilty of ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
violating B.P. Big. 22 as said law covers all checks The crime could only be malicious mischief as the
whether it is an evidence of indebtedness, or in payment problem does not mention that he is carrying a match or
of a pre-existing obligation, or as deposit or guarantee. a lighter. It was not shown that SEnio was about to light
(People vs. Nitafan, G.R. No. 75954,1992) a match or ignite a lighter to set the house on fire.

Q: Jane is a money lender. Edmund is a businessman Q: CD is the stepfather of FEL. One day, CD got very
who has been borrowing money from Jane by mad at FEL for failing in his college courses. In his
rediscounting his personal checks to pay his loans. fury, CD got the leather suitcase of FEL and burned it
In March 1989, he borrowed P100,000 from Jane together with all its contents. What crime was
and issued to her a check for the same amount. The committed by CD? (2004)
check was dishonored by the drawee bank for
having been drawn against a closed account. When A: The crime committed by CD is arson under P.D. 1613
Edmund was notified of the dishonor of his check he (the new Arson Law) which punishes any person who
promised to raise the amount within five days. He burns or sets fire to the property of another (Sec. 1, P.D.
failed. Consequently, Jane sued Edmund for 1613). CD is criminally liable although he is the
violation of the Bouncing Checks Law (B.P. Blg. 22). stepfather of FEL whose property he burnt, because
The defense of Edmund was that he gave the check such relationship is not exempting from criminal
to Jane to serve as a memorandum of his liability in the crime of arson but only in crimes of theft,
indebtedness to her and was not supposed to be swindling or estafa, and malicious mischief (Art. 332,
encashed. Is the defense of Edmund valid? Discuss RPC). The provision (Art. 323, RPC) of the Code to the
fully. (1995) effect that burning property of small value should be
punished as malicious mischief has long been
A: The defense of Edmund is not valid. A memorandum repealed by P.D. 1613; hence, there is no more legal
check upon presentment is generally accepted by the basis to consider burning property of small value as
bank. It does not matter whether the check is in the malicious mischief.
nature of a memorandum as evidence of indebtedness.
What the law punishes is the mere issuance of a Q: One early evening, there was a fight between
bouncing check and not the purpose for which it was Eddie Gutierrez and Mario Cortez. Later that

issued nor the terms and conditions relating thereto. evening, at about 11 o'clock, Eddie passed by the


QuAMTO for CRIMINAL LAW (1991-2015)
house of Mario carrying a plastic bag containing Ariel, is sufficient to charge his wife with Adultery. The
gasoline, threw the bag at the house of Mario who fact that Wendy was later discovered by Hector to be
was inside the house watching television, and then born male who simply underwent sexual re-assignment
lit it. The front wall of the house started blazing and later in life, is immaterial to the charge of Adultery
some neighbors yelled and shouted. Forthwith, considering that the marriage between the same sex is
Mario poured water on the burning portion of the considered valid in the USA where they were married.
house. Neighbors also rushed in to help put the fire
under control before any great damage could be b. What is an impossible crime? Can there be an
inflicted and before the flames have extensively impossible crime of adultery?
spread. Only a portion of the house was burned.
Discuss Eddie's liability. (2000) A: An impossible crime is an act which would be an
offense against persons or property, were it not for the
A: Eddie is liable for destructive arson in the inherent impossibility of its accomplishment or on
consummated stage. It is destructive arson because fire account of the employment of inadequate or ineffectual
was resorted to in destroying the house of Mario which means. There is no impossible crime of adultery since
is an inhabited house or dwelling. The arson is this is a crime against chastity, and not against person or
consummated because the house was in fact already property.
burned although not totally. In arson, it is not required
that the premises be totally burned for the crime to be Q: Suspecting that her husband of twenty years was
consummated. It is enough that the premises suffer having an affair, Leilanie hired a private investigator
destruction by burning. to spy on him. After two weeks, the private
investigator showed Leilanie a video of her husband
Q: Tata owns a three-storey building located at No. 3 having sexual intercourse with another woman in a
Herran Street. Paco, Manila. She wanted to construct room of a five-star hotel. Based on what she saw on
a new building but had no money to finance the the video, Leilanie accused her husband of
construction. So, she insured the building for concubinage. Will the case of concubinage prosper?
P3,000,000.00. She then urged Yoboy and Yongsi, for Explain. (2010)
monetary consideration, to bum her building so she
could collect the insurance proceeds. Yoboy and A: No, a case for concubinage will not prosper because
Yongsi burned the said building resulting to its total said crime may be committed only be a husband in three
loss. What crime did Tata, Yoboy and Yongsi (3) ways, viz:
commit? (1994) a. By keeping a mistress in the conjugal dwelling; or
b. By having sexual intercourse with a woman not his
A: Tata, Yoboy and Yongsi committed the crime of wife under scandalous circumstances; or
destructive arson because they collectively caused the c. By cohabiting with a woman not his wife in any
destruction of property by means of fire under the other place (Art. 334, RPC)
circumstances which exposed to danger the life or The facts of the case given do not constitute any of the
property of others. situations above-stated.

CRIMES AGAINST CHASTITY Q: A, a married woman, had sexual intercourse with

(Articles 333-334, 336-346) a man who was not her husband. The man did not
know she was married. What crime, if any, did each
Adultery and Concubinage (Art. 333-334) of them commit? Why? (2002)

Q: Filipino citizens Hector and Wendy were married A: A, the married woman, committed the crime of
in New York, and have been living happily in Manila adultery under Art. 333 of the RPC, as amended, for
for the last three years. Hector was removing junk having sexual intercourse with a man not her husband
from his basement when he came across an while her marriage is still subsisting. But the man who
unlabeled recordable ed. He put it in his computer's had carnal knowledge of her, not knowing her to be
DVD drive to check its contents. To his surprise, he married, shall not be liable for adultery.
saw a video of Wendy and another man Ariel, in the
act of sexual intercourse in the master's bedroom of Q: A is married. He has a paramour with whom he
his house. Angered by what he saw, he filed a has sexual relations on a more or less regular basis.
complaint for adultery against Wendy and Ariel. They meet at least once a week in hotels, motels and
During the course of the trial, and again to the other places where they can be alone. Is A guilty of
surprise of Hector, it was proved that Wendy was any crime? Why? (2002)
born male and underwent sex reassignment later in
life. (2015) A: A is guilty of the crime of concubinage by having
sexual intercourse under scandalous circumstances with
a. May Hector's charge of adultery against Wendy a woman who is not his wife. Having sexual relations on
and Ariel prosper? Explain. a more or less regular basis in hotels, motels and other
places may be considered a scandalous circumstance
A: Yes, Hectors charge of Adultery will prosper. that offends public conscience, giving rise to criticism
Adultery has the following elements: (1) the woman is and general protest such acts being imprudent and
married; (2) she has sexual intercourse with a man not wanton and setting a bad example.
her husband; (3) as regards the man with whom she has
sexual intercourse, he must know her to be married. Acts of Lasciviousness (Article 336)

In the case at hand, the discovery by Hector of the video Q: At the Maligaya Disco Club, Leoncio and Evelyn

of Wendy having sexual intercourse with another man, were intimately dancing a very seductive dance

*QUAMTO is a compilation of past bar questions with answers as suggested by UPLC and other distinct
luminaries in the academe, and updated by the UST Academics Committee to fit for the 2016 Bar Exams.

number. While gyrating with their bodies, Leoncio reaction of the victim, screaming for help upon the
dipped his private parts in Evelyns buttocks. occurrence of the touching indicates that she perceived
Incensed, Evelyn protested, but Leoncio continued her dignity was being debased or violated.
and tightly embraced her. (2009)
a. What crime or crimes, if any, did Leoncio PERSONS (Articles 347-352)
commit? Explain.
Illegal Marriages (Articles 349-352)
A: Leoncio committed the crime of unjust vexation only
because the act was done in the course of dancing. The Q: What are the elements of the crime of bigamy? If
act of dipping his private parts in Evelyns buttocks you were the judge in a bigamy case where the
during a very seductive dance, although offensive to defense was able to prove that the first marriage
Evelyn, may be viewed as part of a dirty dancing. Lewd was null and void or a nullity, would you render a
intent cannot simply be presumed from the act of dirty judgment of conviction or acquittal? Explain your
dancing. The fact that the act was perpetrated in a public answer. (2012, 1996)
place and with an audience negates lewd designs or
lascivious intent, which is essential in the crime of acts A: the following are the elements of bigamy:
of lasciviousness. 1. the offender has been legally married;
2. the marriage has not been legally dissolved or, in
b. Would your answer be the same if, even after the case of absence, the absent spouse vould not yet be
music had stopped, Leoncio continued to dance presumed dead according to NCC;
dirty, rubbing his private parts on Evelyns 3. he contracts a second or subsequent marriage; and
buttocks? Explain. 4. the subsequent marriage has all the essential
requisites for validity (Mercado v. Tan, G.R. No.
A: The crime would then be acts of lasciviousness. That 137110, 2000)
the music for dancing had already stopped puts an end If I were the judge, I will render judgment of conviction.
to any pretense of dancing by Leoncio. His continued Proof that the first marriage is null and void is not a
dirty acts absent the dancing as there was no music defense in bigamy. As long as the previous marriage was
anymore is patently lewd and lascivious. More so, not lawfully dissolved or judicially declared as null and
Evelyn already protested Leoncios lewd acts in the void, contracting a new marriage constitutes bigamy
course of dancing. So where the dance ended, Leoncios (People v. Manuel, G.R. No. 165842, November 29, 2005).
continued dirty acts cannot be veiled as still part of
dancing. Q: Assuming the existence of the first marriage when
accused contracted the second marriage and the
Q: Eduardo Quintos, a widower for the past 10 years, subsequent judicial declaration of nullity of the
felt that his retirement at the age of 70 gave him second marriage on the ground of psychological
the opportunity to engage in his favorite pastime incapacity, would you render a judgment of
voyeurism. If not using his high-powered conviction or acquittal? Explain your answer. (2012)
binoculars to peep at his neighbor's homes and
domestic activities, his second choice was to follow A: I will render a judgment of conviction. A declaration
sweet young girls. One day, he trailed a teenage girl of the nullity of the second marriage on the ground of
up to the LRT station at EDSA-Buendia. While psychological incapacity is absolutely of no moment
ascending the stairs, he stayed one step behind her insofar as the States penal laws are concerned. Since a
and in a moment of bravado, placed his hand on her marriage contracted during the subsistence of a valid
left hip and gently massaged it. She screamed and marriage is automatically void, the nullity of this second
shouted for help. Eduardo was arrested and charged marriage is not per se an argument for the avoidance of
with acts of lasciviousness. Is the designation of the criminal liability for bigamy. Although the judicial
crime correct? (2006) declaration of nullity of a marriage on the ground of
psychological incapacity retroacts to the date of the
A: The designation of the crime as acts of lasciviousness celebration of marriage insofar as the vinculum between
is not correct. There is no lewd design exhibited by the spouses is concerned, it is significant to note that the
Eduardo when he placed his hand on the left hip of the said marriage is not without legal effects. Among these
victim and gently massaging it. The overt act he legal consequences is incurring criminal liability for
committed by Eduardo still falls short of the crime of bigamy. To hold otherwise would render the States
acts of lasciviousness. The nature of the act done does penal laws on bigamy completely nugatory, and allow
not manifest sexual desire. It is more appropriate to individuals to deliberately ensure that each marital
consider such overt act as as unjust for causing contract be flawed in some manner, and to thus escape
annoyance, irritation or disturbance to the victim. The the consequences of contracting multiple marriages,
Revised Penal Code favors a milder criminal while beguiling throngs of hapless women with the
responsibility. promise of futurity and commitment (Tenebro v. CA, G.R.
No. 150758, February 18, 2004).
A: The crime should be Other Acts of Child Abuse under REPEATED QUESTION:
Section 10(b) of R.A. 7610 of Section 3 that refers to Q: Hubert and Eunice were married in the
child abuse committed by any act, deeds or words which Philippines. Hubert took graduate studies in New
debases, degrades or demeans the intrinsic worth and York and met his former girlfriend Eula. They
dignity of a child as a human being. In relation thereto, renewed their friendship and finally decided to get
Section 10 provides criminal liability for other acts of married. The first wife, Eunice, heard about the
child abuse, cruelty or exploitation, or for other marriage and secures a copy of the marriage

conditions prejudicial to the child's development. The contract in New York. (2008, 1994)


QuAMTO for CRIMINAL LAW (1991-2015)
defense that his first marriage is void ab initio and
a. Eunice filed a case of Bigamy against Hubert in therefore, there is no previous marriage to speak of.
the Philippines. Will the case prosper? Explain. Will you sustain Bobby's defense? (1994)

A: No, a case for bigamy filed in the Philippines will not A: No. I will not sustain Bobby's defense. Bobby
prosper because the bigamous marriage appears to have remarried in 1993, or after the Family Code took effect
been committed in New York, U.S.A., not in the on August 3, 1988, and therefore his capacity to marry
Philippines. The governing rule of procedure as to the in 1993 shall be governed by said Code. In Art. 40 of the
place where the criminal action is to be instituted Family Code, it is mandated that the absolute nullity of a
directs that the criminal action should be instituted and previous marriage may be invoked for purposes of
tried in the court of the municipality or territory where remarriage on the basis solely of a final judgment
the offense was committed, or where any of its essential declaring such previous marriage void. In short, there is
ingredients occurred if it were a continuing crime. In a need of a judicial declaration of such nullity before
criminal cases, the venue where the action should be Bobby may validly remarry.
instituted is jurisdictional; if this is not complied with, it
would render the prosecution invalid or void. REPEATED QUESTION:
Q: Abe, married to Liza, contracted another
b. If Eunice gave her consent to the second marriage with Connie in Singapore. Thereafter, Abe
marriage, what will your answer be? Explain. and Connie returned to the Philippines and lived as
husband and wife in the hometown of Abe in
A: The answer would be the same even if the wife by the Calamba, Laguna. (1994)
first marriage, which is subsisting, gave her consent to
the second marriage. Bigamy is a public crime and not a. Can Abe be prosecuted for bigamy?
subject to agreement between the victim and the
accused. Moreover, the legal obstacle to the institution A: No, Abe may not be prosecuted for bigamy since the
of a case for bigamy in the Philippines is jurisdictional bigamous marriage was contracted or solemnized in
and cannot be excused or waived by the parties affected. Singapore, hence such violation is not one of those
where the Revised Penal Code, under Art. 2 thereof, may
Q: CBP is legally married to OEM. Without obtaining be appplied extraterritorially. The general rule on
a marriage license, CBP contracted a second territoriality of criminal law governs the situation.
marriage to RST. Is CBP liable for bigamy? Reason
briefly. (2004) b. If not, can he be prosecuted for any other crime?

A: Whether CBP could be held liable for bigamy or not A: Yes, Abe, together with Connie, may be prosecuted for
depends on whether the second marriage is invalid or concubinage under Art. 334 of the RPC for having
valid even without a marriage license. Although as a cohabited as husband and wife. But concubinage being a
general rule, marriages solemnized without license are private crime requires the sworn complaint of Liza, the
null and void ab initio, there are marriages exempted offended spouse in accordance with Rule 110 of the
from license requirement under Chapter 2, Title 1 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure.
Family Code, such as in Art. 27 which is a marriage in
articulo mortis. If the second marriage was valid even CRIMES AGAINST HONOR (Articles 353-364)
without a marriage license, then CBP would be liable for
bigamy. Otherwise, CBP is not liable for bigamy but for Libel (Articles 353-362)
Illegal Marriage in Art. 350 of the RPC specifically
designated as "Marriage contracted against provisions of Q: In her weekly gossip column in a tabloid, Gigi
laws." wrote an unflattering article about Pablo, a famous
singer, and his bitter separation from his wife. The
(DOCTRINE REPEATED IN OTHER QUESTIONS) article portrayed Pablo as an abusive husband and
Q: Joselito married Ramona in July 1995, only to caused him to lose lucrative endorsement contracts.
learn later on that Ramona was previously married Pablo charged Gigi with libel. In her defense, Gigi
to David, from whom Ramona had been separated countered that she did not commit libel because
for more than ten years. Believing that his marriage Pablo has attained the status of a public figure so
to Ramona was an absolute nullity, Joselito that even his personal life has become a legitimate
contracted a subsequent marriage with Anabelle. subject of public interest and comment. Is Gigi
Can Joselito be prosecuted for bigamy? Explain. correct? (2013)
A: No, Gigi is nor correct. Although wider latitude is
A: Yes, Joselito can be prosecuted for bigamy for his given to defamatory utterances against public figures in
subsequent marriage with Anabelle even though his relation to matters of public interest involving them,
marriage with Ramona was an absolute nullity. Despite such defamatory utterances do not automatically fall
the nullity of the first marriage, Joselito should have filed within the ambit of constitutionally protected speech. If
a case of dissolution of such marriage under Art. 40 the utterances are false, malicious or unrelated to a
Family Code, before contracting a second marriage with public figures work, the same may give rise to criminal
Anabelle. liblity (Fermin v. People, G.R. No. 157643, March 28,
2008). Any attack upon the private character of the
Q: Issa and Bobby, who were first cousins, were public figure on matters which are not related to their
married in 1975. In 1993, Bobby was told that his works may constitute liber under Art. 355 (Sazon v. CA,
marriage to Issa was incestous under the law then in G.R. No. 120715, March 29, 1996). Here, Gigi was
force and therefore void ab initio. He married attacking the personal life of Pablo as a husband and not

Caring. Charged with bigamy, Bobby raised the his public life as a famous singer.

*QUAMTO is a compilation of past bar questions with answers as suggested by UPLC and other distinct
luminaries in the academe, and updated by the UST Academics Committee to fit for the 2016 Bar Exams.

there is no definite person or persons dishonored. The

Q: Angelina maintains a website where visitors can crime of libel or slander is a crime against honor such
give their comments on the posted pictures of the that the person or persons dishonored must be
goods she sells in her exclusive boutique. Bettina identifiable even by innuendoes; otherwise the crime
posted a comment that the red Birkin bag shown in against honor is not committed. Moreover, A was not
Angelinas website is fake and that Angelina is making a malicious imputation, but merely stating an
known to sell counterfeit items. Angelina wants to opinion; he was delivering a lecture with no malice at all
file a case against Bettina. She seeks your advice. during a seminar workshop. Malice being inherently
What advice will you give her? (2010) absent in the utterance, the statement is not actionable
as defamatory.
A: I will advise Angelina to file a criminal case of libel
against Bettina because the imputations made by Q: A was nominated Secretary of a Department in
Bettina are libellous. Whether the imputation of a defect, the Executive Branch of the government. His
status or condition is real or imaginary, if it publicly nomination was thereafter submitted to the
tends to discredit, dishonor or place in contempt or Commission on Appointments for confirmation.
ridicule a particular person who is identified, the While the Commission was considering the
imputation is presumed by law to be malicious and thus nomination, a group of concerned citizens caused to
penalized as libel under Art. 355 of the RPC. Moreover, if be published in the newspapers a full-page
Bettina is engaged in similar line of trade, her statement statement objecting to A's appointment They
against the goods sold by Angelina may constitute a alleged that A was a drug dependent, that he had
violation of the law on Unfair Competition (R.A. 8291). several mistresses, and that he was corrupt,
having accepted bribes or favors from parties
Q: In an interview aired on television, Cindee transacting business in his previous office, and
uttered defamatory statements against Erika, a therefore he was unfit for the position to which he
successful and reputable businesswoman. What had been nominated. As a result of the publication,
crime or crimes did Cindee commit? Explain. (2005) the nomination was not confirmed by the
Commission on Appointments. The official sued the
A: Cindee committed libel for uttering defamatory concerned citizens and the newspapers for libel and
remarks tending to cause dishonor or discredit to Erika. damages on account of his non-confirmation.
Libel can be committed in television programs or
broadcasts, though it was not specifically mentioned in a. How will you decide the case? (2002)
the article since it was not yet in existence then, but it is
included as "any similar means." Defamatory A: I will acquit the concerned citizens and the
statements aired on television is similar to radio, newspapers involved, from the crime of libel, because
theatrical exhibition or cinematographic exhibition, obviously they made the denunciation out of a moral or
which are among the modes for the commission of libel social duty and thus there is absence of malice. Since A
(Art. 353, 355, RPC). was a candidate for a very important public position of a
Department Secretary, his moral, mental and physical
Q: Distinguish clearly but briefly between oral fitness for the public trust in such position becomes a
defamation and criminal conversation. (2004) public concern as the interest of the public is at stake. It
is pursuant to such concern that the denunciation was
A: Oral defamation, known as Slander, is a malicious made; hence, bereft of malice.
imputation of any act, omission, condition or
circumstance against a person, done orally in public, b. If defamatory imputations are made not by
tending to cause dishonor, discredit, contempt, publication in the newspapers but by broadcast
embarassment or ridicule to the latter. This is a crime over the radio, do they constitute libel? Why?
against honor penalized in Art. 358 of the RPC. (2002)
Criminal conversation is used in making a polite
reference to sexual intercourse as in certain crimes, like A: Yes, because libel may be committed by radio
rape, seduction and adultery. It has no definite concept broadcast Art. 355 of the RPC punishes libel committed
as a crime. by means, among others, of radio broadcast, inasmuch
as the broadcast made by radio is public and may be
Q: During a seminar workshop attended by defamatory.
government employees from the Bureau of Customs
and the Bureau of Internal Revenue, A, the speaker, Q: For some time, bad blood had existed between the
in the course of his lecture, lamented the fact that a two families of Maria Razon and Judge Gadioma who
great majority of those serving in said agencies were neighbors. First, there was a boundary dispute
were utterly dishonest and corrupt. The following between them which was still pending in court.
morning, the whole group of employees in the two Maria's mother also filed an administrative
bureaus who attended the seminar, as complainants, complaint against the judge which was however
filed a criminal complaint against A for uttering dismissed. The Razons also felt intimidated by the
what the group claimed to be defamatory position and alleged influence of their neighbor.
statements of the lecturer. In court, A filed a motion Fanning fire to the situation was the practice of the
to quash the information, reciting fully the above Gadiomas of throwing garbage and animal
facts, on the ground that no crime was committed. If excrement into the Razon's premises. In an
you were the judge, how would you resolve the explosion of anger, Maria called Judge Gadioma
motion? (2003) "land grabber", "shameless", and "hypocrite." What
crime was committed by Maria, if any? Explain
A: I would grant the motion to quash on the ground that briefly. (1998)

the facts charged do not constitute an offense, since


QuAMTO for CRIMINAL LAW (1991-2015)
A: Maria committed the crime of slander or slight
defamation only because she was under the influence of
anger. When Maria called Judge Gadioma a hypocrite
and land grabber she imputed to him the commission of

Q: Because of a pendency of a labor dispute, two (2)

belligerent labor unions had a confrontation in a
picket line during which the President and the
Secretary of one union shouted to the members and
officers of the rival union composed of men and
women, the following: Mga supot, mga walang
bayag, mga kabit ng Intsik, mga tuta, mga segunda
mano." Are the President and the Secretary of said
union liable for oral defamation/slander? Explain.

A: No. The President and the Secretary of the Union are

not liable for oral defamation or slander because there is
no identity of the offended party. The individual
defamed or slandered was not singled out ( Uy Tioco v.
Yang Shu Wen, G. R. Nos. 9986 & 9891, December 22,


*QUAMTO is a compilation of past bar questions with answers as suggested by UPLC and other distinct
luminaries in the academe, and updated by the UST Academics Committee to fit for the 2016 Bar Exams.