ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc.

a r
1. While Pedro, Maria and their five children are travelling along the Banlat road in

B
Quezon City, a group of eight armed malefactors led by Felix suddenly opened fire

e s
and rained bullets on their vehicle. Pedro and Maria died. Two of their children
sustained fatal gunshot wounds while the rest sustained non-fatal gunshot wounds.
l
b
Is Felix and his men liable for complex crime of double Murder with double

o
Frustrated Murder and multiple Attempted Murder?

Murder, n
RFelix and his men are individually liable for separate
r
ANSWER: No. crimes of two counts of

a crime under Article 48 of the Reviseda

two counts of Frustrated Murder and three counts

B
of Attempted Murder. It is not a

h
complex Penal Code because the killing and

men. To
of the
note,
victims
Felix and
was
his
not
men
the result
opened
of
s
CPedro and his family. Thus, more than oneebullet hit the victims
wounding a
fire
single
and
discharge of firearms by Felix and his
rained bullets on the vehicle boarded

b lact of a gunman constitute and more than one gunman

acts which cannot give rise to ao

fired at the vehicle of the victims. Each distinct and individual

R and distinct acts in the commission of ofthea "single

complex crime. Felix and his men performed not only a
single act but several individual crime. Thus,
Article 48 of the Revisedn r
a Nelmida, G.R. No. 184500, September 11,B2012) a
Penal Code would not apply for it speaks only act. "

h
(See, People v. Wenceslao

2. Salvacion, C a Provincial Treasurer of Northern Samar,s

court of Malversation. While serving her sentence,eSalvacion applied and was
was convicted by the trial

granted absolute pardon by the President. It was b lexpressly provided pardon that
Salvacion was granted an absolute and unconditional
civil and political rights as well as her rightR
o pardon and restored to full
to immediately hold / resume her former

a
position as Provincial Treasurer. Salvacion n contends that her criminal liability was
a r
Bformer
effectively extinguished and she is entitled to reinstatement to her former position
without a need of a new appointment.
C h s
Cathy, the Acting Provincial Treasurer,
contends that Salvacion is not automatically entitled to reinstatement
position because absolute pardon does not ipso facto restore a convicted
l e felon to a
to her

public office. According to Cathy, Salvacion must re-apply andb undergo the usual

Ro
procedure required for a new appointment before she could regain her former post.
Whose contention is correct? Explain.

ANSWER: The contention of Salvacion is correct. Art. 36a

n a r
B
of the Revised Penal Code provides
that a pardon shall not work the restoration of theh
the terms of the pardon. The absolute s
right to hold public office, or the right
of suffrage, unless such rights be expressly restored C
pardon granted to Salvacion expressly restores the right of Salvacion to hold public office. e
by

(See, the separate opinion of Justice Padilla in Salvacion Mosanto v. Factoran, G.R. No.
b l
78239, February 9, 1989).
R o
a n
C h
www.chanroblesbar.com : www.chanroblesbar.com.ph
 ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc.

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

ANSWER: Yes. Section 2 of R.A. 7080 provides, x x x Any person who participated with

a r
the said public officer in the commission of an offense contributing to the crime of plunder

B
shall likewise be punished for such offense. (see the related cases entitled Henry Go v.

s
Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 172602, April 16, 2009 and Engr. Ricardo Santillano v. People, G.R.

e
Nos. 175045-46, March 3, 2010)
l
ob
4. Police officers Alan, Dindo and Carlo lawfully arrested Zack for Carnapping. On
their way to the police station, Zack managed to remove his handcuff, grabbed the
R
M16 rifle of Alan and jumped off the police patrol car they were riding. Dino

an r
immediately responded by firing his .9mm caliber firearm at the back leg of Zack.

B a
When Zack turned around to fire his M16 armalite rifle, Dindo fired another shot

CThehprosecution filed an Information for

hitting Zack at the chest. Zack died instantaneously.

e sHomicide against Dindo. The prosecution

contended that the killing of Zack was
b l not justified since the former did not attack
giving him the opportunity too
the policemen. The prosecution added that Dindo had no right to shoot Zack without
R surrender. Under the General Rules of Engagement,
non-violent means haven
arZack? Explain.
the use of force should be applied only as a last resort when all other peaceful and
a been exhausted. Is Dindo justified inBkilling
C h s
e when
ANSWER: Yes, Dindo is justified in killing Zack because he acted in the fulfillment of a duty.
The policemen has a duty not only to recapture Zack but also
b
Zack was committing a crime in the presence of the policemenl to recover the loose firearm.
he grabbed the M16

Armalite, which is a formidable firearm, Zack haso

rifle of Alan and jumped off the police patrol car to escape. By grabbing Mercados M16
Rtheplaced the lives of the policemen in grave

shoot Zack immediately, the latter wouldn r

danger. Thus, Dindo has to use force to place latter under arrest. Had Dindo failed to
a have fired the M16 rifle and all the policemen
B a
h
inside the police patrol car would have died.
s
Zacks act of grabbing the M16 C e imminent
danger, the policemen had to act swiftly. The duty to issue a warningl
Armalite clearly shows a hostile intention. Facing

b is not absolutely

directive to issue a warning contemplates a situation where o

mandated at all times and at all cost, to the detriment of the life of law enforcers. The

R as this case, where the

several options are still

a n
available to the law enforcers. In exceptional circumstances such
threat to the life of a law enforcer is already imminent, and there is no other option but to
a r
B
Ch July 28, 2005)
use force to subdue the offender, the law enforcers failure to issue a warning is excusable.
(SPO2 Ruperto Cabanlig v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 148431,
es
5. Jimboy pointed an icepick on the neck of Ana and ordered her to strip naked. Out
b l
of fear, she complied. Jimboy undressed himself and mounted on her. He then
inserted his penis into her vagina. When she felt the icepick being pressed into her o
R icepick.
Although she was in pain, Ana kept silent which made Jimboy n
stomach, Ana fought. Jimboy then stabbed her several times with the

a stop stabbing

C h
www.chanroblesbar.com : www.chanroblesbar.com.ph
 ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc.

believing that she was already dead. After Jimboy left the scene, Ana crawled and
shouted for help. A barangay tanod patrolling the area responded and rushed Ana to
the hospital for medical treatment. The wounds inflicted on Ana were fatal but she
survived death. The prosecution thereafter filed an Information for Rape with

a r
Frustrated Homicide. Is the charge proper?

ANSWER: No. Jimboy should beB

There is no special complexs
charged separately for Rape and for Frustrated Homicide.

the Revised Penal Code,e

crime of Rape with Frustrated Homicide. Under Art. 266-B of

b l
attempted rape, homicide
a special complex crime occurs when on occasion of rape or
is committed. The crime of homicide must be consummated in

R o
order to bring about a special complex crime. Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code is not
applicable because the same requires the commission of at least two crimes, but the two or
nmeans for committing the other. Negatively rput, when two or more crimes are
more grave or less grave felonies must be the result of a single act, or an offense must be a
a a
but (1) not by a single act or (2) oneB
necessary
h
committed
the others, there is no complex crime. In s
is not a necessary means for committing
Ccrimes of Rape and Frustrated Homicide. eRape was committed because Jimboy had carnal
the instant case, Jimboy committed separate

b l while Frustrated Homicide was committed

knowledge with Ana by means of intimidation

R o attendance. (See, People v. Uldarico Honra, Jr. , G.R.

because Jimboy tried to kill Ana by inflicting several fatal stab wounds at her but the latter
survived death due to timely medical

anAlegre, G.R. No. 184812, July 6, 2010)Bar

No. 136012-16, September 26, 2000, People v. Joey Toriaga, G.R. No. 177145, February 9,
2011 and People v. Ermilito
h
6. Eduardo engaged in a sexual congress with Tessa, as21-year old woman, at a
C
knifepoint. Eduardo is the common law husband of Tessas
l e biological mother. The
father of Tessa is Arturo.
b
Ro aggravating?
a) Is the alternative circumstance of relationship

ANSWER: The alternative circumstance ofn relationship is not aggravating. Under Articler
a B a 15
h
of the Revised Penal Code, the alternative circumstance of relationship can be considered
s
C by affinity in the same degree of the offender.
e " Tessa
only "when the offended party is the spouse, ascendant, descendant, legitimate, natural or

does not fit in the enumeration. (People v. Abundio Tolentino, G.R. No.l
adopted brother or sister, or relative

1999)
o b 130514, June 17,

R
father of Tessa and the latter is a minor 17 years
a nof age, is the alternative
b) Suppose Eduardo was charged for Qualified Rape because he is the biological
a r
circumstance of relation aggravating?
h B
C
ANSWER: The alternative circumstance of relationship is not aggravating because e s
relationship is already included as an element in the crime of qualified rape. (People l
Restituto Manhuyod, Jr. , G.R. No. 124676, May 20, 1998)
o b v.

R at her
7. Mira was walking along the street when Alberto pointed a bladed weapon
side and ordered her to hand to him all her money. Unfortunately,
a n Mira has no

C h
www.chanroblesbar.com : www.chanroblesbar.com.ph
 ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc.

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

a r
a) Is Alberto liable for consummated Robbery?

Bforhe consummated
s
ANSWER: Alberto is not liable Robbery. The crime is only in the

l
Mira consisting of a check e in the amount of twenty thousand pesos by means of
attempted stage because, although demanded money and took the personal property of

o b
intimidation, he was not able to get anything of value from Mira since he was immediately
arrested without him encashing the check. (People v. Felicisima Basilan, G.R. No. L-66257,
R
June 20, 198. See also Gemma Jacinto v. People, G.R. No. 162540, July 13, 2009 concerning
n
the value of a check which was not encashed)
a a r
b)h Suppose Alberto went to the bank to encash Bstop the check but the same was not
Cimpossible crime?
encashed because Mira ordered the bank
e s to payment, is Alberto liable for an

b l
Robbery was committed. The acto
ANSWER: Alberto is not liable for an impossible crime because a crime of Attempted
R cannot be considered an impossible crime because there
ineffective means. In a na crime was already committed even before
fact, a r Alberto tried to
was no inherent improbability of its accomplishment or the employment of inadequate or

h
encash the check. (People v. Pablito Domasian, et al. , G.R. No. 95322,B March 1, 1993. See
C
also Gemma Jacinto v. People, G.R. No. 162540, July 13, 2009 on
e s impossible crime)

b
8. Valen is in the business of raising cock-fighting chicken.l Valen placed the chicken
and one meter high made of wooden stilts and
R obamboo strips as bars, and lock the
in the chicken pen or kulungan which is about five meters long, one meter wide

n province to sell some of his chicken,aPaul

same with a padlock. The chicken pen is located beside his house and near the gate.
Upon learning that Valen went to a nearby
a r
h
jumped from the gate, destroyed the padlock and the door of the chicken pen B and
crimes are committed, if any?C
thereafter took three roosters valued
e s
at ten thousand pesos each. What crime or

b l
Valen with intent to gain and without using force or intimidationo
ANSWER: Paul committed a crime of Theft because he took three roosters belonging to

RPaul has only one criminal

upon persons. Only one
crime is committed although three roosters were taken because
a n
intent to steal. The crime is not Robbery with Force upon Things because the chicken pen
a r
article 301 of the Revised Penal Code. Robbery withh
or cages were not inside the house nor was it a dependency thereof within the meaning of
B
C Force upon Things under Art. 299 and
302 of the Revised Penal Code applies only when the unlawful taking takes place inside e s
an inhabited house, public building or edifice devoted to worship, or inside an uninhabited
b l
house or private building. Moreover, one essential requisite of robbery with force upon
o
building. If the culprit did not enter the building, as in this case, there would beR
things under Articles 299 and 302 contemplate that the malefactor should enter the

an were taken
no robbery
with force upon things. Moreover, the chicken coop where the three roosters

Ch
www.chanroblesbar.com : www.chanroblesbar.com.ph
 ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc.

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

a r
B
9. Marcial, Clifford, Benjie and Keneth, all armed with bladed weapons, waited for

s
the night and when darkness came, entered the house of Lorna through the kitchen

l e
door which was then open and they, thereafter, took turns of raping her. After
satisfying their lust, they repeatedly stabbed her in the different parts of her body

ob
until she died. They used two motorcycles to facilitate their escape. What
circumstance, if any, aggravated the commission of the crime of Rape with Homicide?
R
an r
ANSWER: The following are aggravating circumstances that attended the commission of
the crime:
B a
Cha.darkness
Nocturnity or nighttime because theyspurposely sought and took advantage of the
e or May
b l
of the night to afford impunity
(People v. Alfredo Baroy, G.R. No. 137520-22,
to prevent them from being recognized.
9, 2002)

R o who participated in the crime were all armed with

b. By a band because the offenders

an r
bladed weapons when they committed the crime. (People v. Ricardo Cayanan, G.R. Nos.
73257-58 June 16, 1995)
B a
h
c. Dwelling because they committed the crime inside s
C
party who has not given provocation therefor. Iteis considered an aggravating
the dwelling of the offended

b l that the law accords to the

circumstance primarily because of the sanctity of privacy

R o v. Edgar Evangelio, G.R. No. 181902,

human abode. He who goes to anothers house to hurt him or do him wrong is more
guilty than he who offends him elsewhere. (People

n
August 31, 2011 and People v. Arnold Agcanas, G.R. No. 174476, October 11, 2011)
a a r
v. Clarence Astudillo, et al. , G.R.h
d. Use of motor vehicle because they use motorcycles to facilitate their escape.B(People
C No. 141518, April 29, 2003)
e s
l an offense
punishable by death. James was 20 years of age at the time b
10. After trial, the court found James guilty of Kidnapping with homicide,

Rothe offense.
of promulgation of
judgment. He was 17 years old at the time of the commission of

a. May James avail of suspension of sentence?

an a r
C
ANSWER: Yes, James may avail of suspension of sentence. h Under the law, a Child in Conflict s B
with the Law (CICL) may avail of suspension of sentence even if he is no longer a minor at e

b
the time of promulgation of judgment as long as he is below 21 years old. The suspension of l
o
his sentence, however, is not automatic. He must apply for it. Moreover, even if the crime

R G.R. No.
committed is classified as heinous, the law allows the CICL to still avail of suspended
sentence. (see, Section 38 & 40, R.A. 9344. See also People v. Richard Sarcia,

a n
C h
www.chanroblesbar.com : www.chanroblesbar.com.ph
 ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc.

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

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

a r
indeterminate sentence? If yes, impose the indeterminate penalty.

Bis a minor,
s
ANSWER: Yes. Under the Anti-Death Penalty Law, the penalty of death is reduced to

e
reclusion perpetua. Since James the penalty is reduced to one degree lower.
l 24, 2012) In the computation of penalty, the reckoning point is
(People v. Florencio Agacer, G.R. No. 177751, January 7, 2013 and People v. Asia Musa, et

o b
al, G.R. No. 199735, October
the penalty of reclusion perpetua and not the death penalty. (People v. Halil Gamboa, et al. ,
R
G.R. No. 172707, October 1, 2013) One degree lower from reclusion perpetua is reclusion
[1]

n r
temporal. The minimum of indeterminate sentence is anywhere from prison mayor which
is onea degree lower from reclusion temporal. Since a
Btemporal in the medium period. (Cecilia
there is no attendant circumstance, the

C h
maximum of indeterminate sentence is reclusion
Legrama v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 178626, s

11. Francis was convicted of sale of l

e June 13, 2012)

b dangerous drugs under Section 5, R.A. 9165, the

the commission of the offense.o

penalty of which is life imprisonment to death. Francis is 16 years old at the time of
R This is the first time that Francis committed the crime
n
involving violation of the Dangerous Drugs Law.
a a r
h
a. May Francis avail of probation? B
C s
ANSWER: Francis cannot avail the benefits of the probationelaw. Under the law, any person
b l penalty imposed, cannot avail of
convicted for drug trafficking or pushing, regardless of the

also Michael Padua v. People, G.R. No. 168546, Julyo

the privilege granted by the Probation Law or P.D. No. 968. (See, Section 24, R.A. 9165. See
R 23, 2008)
a n
b. In the imposition of sentence, is the Indeterminate
a
Sentence Law applicable? If yes, r
impose the indeterminate sentence.
h B
s
Cof R.A. 9165, if the offender is a minor, theepenalty for acts
punishable by life imprisonment to death is reclusion perpetua to death.lConsidering that
ANSWER: Yes. Under Section 98

there is no mitigating or aggravating circumstance, the penalty isb

o reclusion perpetua.

Rindeterminate sentence is
Taking into consideration the privileged circumstance of minority, the penalty is lowered
to one degree which is reclusion temporal. The minimum of the
a n
anywhere from prision mayor while the maximum of the indeterminate sentence is
a r
B
Ch
reclusion temporal in the medium period. (See, Michael Padua v. People, G.R. No. 168546,
July 23, 2008)
es
12. Myrna was on her way home late in the afternoon when Jake suddenly appeared
b l
R
anus. Myrna resisted but Jake prevailed. Myrna is a ten-year old child while Jake is o
and dragged her into the grassy area. Jake thereafter inserted his finger into Myrnas

an adult.

a n
C h
www.chanroblesbar.com : www.chanroblesbar.com.ph
 ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc.

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

ANSWER: Yes. Jake may be prosecuted for acts of lasciviousness under Section 5 (b) of R.A.

a r
7610 because he performed lascivious conduct on a child by inserting his finger in the

B
latters anus. Under the implementing Rules and Regulations of R.A. 7610, inserting a finger

s
or tongue into the vagina or anal orifice of a child constitutes acts of lasciviousness. The

l e
lascivious conduct was performed by an adult on a child while the latter is under coercion.
(Salvador Flordeliz v. People, G.R. No. 186441, March 3, 2010 and v. Court of Appeals and
b
Gaspar Olayon, G.R. No. 171863, August 20, 2008)
o
R
b. Suppose Jake had a carnal knowledge with Myrna under similar circumstance,
n r
may he be held liable for rape under R.A. 7610? If not, what crime or crimes are
a if any? a
B
committed,
h
ANSWER: No. Jake is liable for statutory rapesunder the Revised Penal Code. Under Section
C5 (b) of R.A. 7610, if the victim is less thane12 years old, the offender should be prosecuted
b
under the Revised Penal Code for statutory l rape. (People v. Luis Aycardo, G.R. No. 168299,
o
October 6, 2008 and People v. Ernesto Fragante, G.R. No. 182521, February 9, 2011)
R
r Manuel and
nas a result thereof. The police officers aarrested
13. Manuel shot Auriel with the use of his unlicensed .38 revolver while the latter
was asleep. Auriel died a
recovered the gun from him. What crime/s is/are committed,B
C h if any?
sby treachery. The crime is
qualified by treachery because Manuel shot Auriel l
ANSWER: Manuel committed a crime of Murder qualified e
b while the latter was asleep and
oof an unlicensed firearm is inherent in
completely defenseless. The crime is attended by the special aggravating circumstance of
R
use unlicensed firearm. Under the law, when the use
the commission of a crime, the same is aggravating. Manuel also committed a separate
a
crime of Illegal Possession of Firearm. Under r
n the law, Illegal Possession of Firearm isanow
h
punished as a separate offense. (See, Section 28, R.A. 10591)
B
14. Wilbur abducted Sherry,C
s
e andfromkilled
l
a 3-year old child, brought her to the field

Sherrys parents in exchange for the latters freedom. The b

her. Thereafter, Wilbur demanded ransom in the amount of P100,000.00 the

oable to recover their

parents of Sherry

child. Is Wilbur liable for kidnapping for ransom? If not, R

complied and delivered the money to Wilbur but they were not

an r
what crime or crimes are
committed, if any?
a
C
ANSWER: Wilbur is not liable for kidnapping for ransom h because the intention of Wilbur in s B
abducting Sherry is not to deprive her of her liberty but to kill her. Demand for ransom did e
not convert the crime into kidnapping because no detention or deprivation of liberty was
b l
involved as Sherry was already dead when he demanded for ransom. (People v. Estacio,
G.R. No. 171655, July 22, 2009).
R o
a n
C h
www.chanroblesbar.com : www.chanroblesbar.com.ph
 ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc.

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

Wilbur also committed the crime of Estafa under Art. 315 para. 2 (a) since he deceived

a r
Sherrys parents by falsely representing himself to have the living body of Sherry and he

B
has the capacity to free her in exchange of the amount of P100,000.00. Sherrys parents

s
were induced to part with their money on the belief that they would recover back their

e
child. Wilbur, however, could no longer free Sherry since she is already dead.
l
ob
15. Roger called Nida on the phone and threatened to burn her car if the latter will
not deliver the amount of fifty thousand pesos within a period of three days. Two
R
days after the demand, Roger was arrested without obtaining the money.

an B ar
a. Is Roger guilty of attempted Robbery? If not, what crime or crimes are committed,
h
if any?
CANSWER: s
Roger is not guilty of Attemptede
b
immediate or on the spot (U.S. v. Osorio,l21 Phil. 237). In Attempted Robbery the offender
Robbery because the demand for money was not

R
of violence or intimidation but theooffender did not succeed in taking the same by reason of
intended to immediately take the money or other personal properties of another by means

demand for money was a nimmediate because Roger gave Nida threeadays
not r within which to
some cause or accident other than the spontaneous desistance. In the instant case, the

deliver the money.

h B
C
Roger is, nonetheless, liable for Grave Threats under Art.e
s
Code since he threatened to burn the car of Nida and he l
282 no. 1 of the Revised Penal

o b
Grave Threats is consummated with or without the offender
demanded for money. The crime of
attaining his purpose and with
R
or without demanding for money. (People v. Felicisima Basilan, G.R. No. L-66257, June 20,
1989)
a n a r
latter failed to deliver the moneyh
b. In the above-stated problem, suppose Roger actually burned Nidas car after B the
C e s
within the period stated, what crime or crimes are
committed, if any?
l
ANSWER: Roger committed two separate crimes of Grave Threats andb

Rounder
simple Arson. Roger
is criminally liable for Grave Threats because he threatened to inflict harm on the property

a n
of Nida and he demanded for money. Roger is also liable for Arson P.D. 1613 Section
1 no. 4 because he burned the car of Nida. There is no complex crime because two separate
a r
B
Ch
criminal acts were committed on separate occasions. Moreover, the crime of Grave Threats
is not a necessary means to commit Arson and vice versa.
es
16. While April was walking on her way home, Rogelio suddenly pointed a knife at
bto l
her and dragged the latter to a nearby vacant lot. Rogelio then ordered April
o
into Aprils private organ. After satisfying his lustful desire, Rogelio pickR
undress herself and the latter complied out of fear. Rogelio then forced his organ

a n up Aprils

C h
www.chanroblesbar.com : www.chanroblesbar.com.ph
 ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc.

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

ANSWER: Rogelio is not liable for special complex crime of Robbery with rape. In Robbery

a r
with rape, the primary intention of the offender is to take the personal property of another

B
by means of intimidation and the rape was committed on occasion thereof. In the instant

s
case, the unlawful taking of Aprils personal property was not the original evil plan of the

e
accused but it was an afterthought following the rape.
l
ob
Rogelio committed the crime of rape because he had a carnal knowledge with April by
means of intimidation. Rogelio also committed the crime of theft because he took the
R
cellular phone of April without using force or intimidation. The crime is not robbery

an r
because the intimidation he employed on April was for the purpose of accomplishing his

B a
lustful desire and not for the purpose of taking her cellular phone. (People v. Rogelio

C17.hLenny was using her cellular phoneeswhen Leo suddenly grabbed the same and
Moreno, G.R. No. 140033, January 25, 2002)

b
run away with it using his motorcycle. lThe police officer who saw the incident chased
R
motorcycle turned turtle and hit oan old woman. The old woman died instantly. Is Leo
Leo. While Leo was trying to evade arrest, Leo bumped into the road gutter. Leos

n r
liable for Robbery with homicide? If not, what crime/s is/are committed, if any?
a a
ANSWER: Leo is not liable for Robbery with homicide. In RobberyB
C h with homicide, homicide
s case, there is no robbery
in the first place because Leo did not employ violence oreintimidation in taking Lennys
is committed by reason of or on occasion of robbery. In the instant

cellular phone.
b l
R
Leo committed the crime of Theft when he suddenlyo grabbed the cellular phone of Lenny
a
G.R. No. 200922, July 18, 2012 and Rommel n Briones v. People, G.R. No. 156009, June
without emloying violence or intimidation upon her person. (People v. Cesar Conception,
a r5,
2009).
h B
Leo also committed the crime ofC Reckless Imprudence resulting in Homicidee
s
l because an old

The crime is not Homicide because he did not deliberately intended tob
woman died as a result of his negligence and lack of precaution in driving his motorcycle.

o kill the old woman.

R P200.00 which he is
18. Mark is the manager of a vulcanizing shop. He pocketed
a n
supposed to remit to the shop. To avoid detection, Mark falsified the shops logbook
a r
the shop. What crime or crimes are committed, ifh
to make it appear that the vulcanizers attended to a lesser number of customers in
B
C any? es
ANSWER: Mark committed the crime of Qualified Theft because he took the P200.00
b l
o
belonging to his employer, with intent to gain, but without using violence or intimidation.

Remployer
The crime is qualified because the same was committed with grave abuse of confidence. As

reposed trust on him. Mark gravely abused such trust when he pocketed then
a manager of the vulcanizing shop, Mark was entrusted was with money. His

a money that he

C h
www.chanroblesbar.com : www.chanroblesbar.com.ph
 ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc.

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

a r
Mark also committed the crime of Falsification of private document by a private individual

B
because he falsified the logbook by making untruthful statements therein. The crime of

s
falsification cannot be complexed with Qualified Theft because the falsification was not a

l e
necessary means to commit estafa; rather, the falsification was intended to conceal the
Theft already committed. (Anna Patula v. People, G.R. No. 164457, April 11, 2012)

ob
19. Bimbo and Carla are married. During the existence of said marriage, Bimbo
R
married Weng. Bimbo and Weng thereafter lived together as husband and wife. Is
n r
Bimbo liable for Bigamy and for Concubinage at the same time?
a a
h
ANSWER: Yes, Bimbo is liable for Bigamy because Bis likewise
he entered marriage with Weng during
Che cohabited with Weng who is not hiseswife. These twoliablearefordistinct
the existence of his marriage with Carla. Bimbo concubinage because

b
celebration of the second marriage, whilel offenses. The
the first still existing, characterizes the crime of

wife characterizes the crime ofo

bigamy; on the other hand, mere cohabitation by the husband with a woman who is not his
R concubinage. The first is an offense against civil status
chastity and may be a n only at the instance of the offended
prosecuted a rparty. (People v.
which may be prosecuted at the instance of the state; the second, is an offense against

Rodolfo Schneckenburger, G.R. No. L-48183, November 10, 1941)B

C h s Tantan took the cellular
phone of Helen, a co-passenger, with intent to gain l
20. While on board a ferry boat traversing Pasig River, e
o b and without the latters consent.
Is X guilty of Piracy? If not, what crime/s is/are committed, if any?
R
a n passenger must be effected by means
ANSWER: Tantan is not guilty of Piracy under P.D. 532. Under P.D. 532, the taking of
personal property of a passenger by a fellow
a rof
h
violence against or intimidation to persons or by means of force upon things. Tantan B is not
the vessel. The offender under C Art. 122 of the Revised Penal Code must bee
guilty of piracy under Art. 122 of the
s
Revised Penal Code because Tantan is passenger in

he must not be a member of its complement nor a passenger of the vessel.l

an outsider

b
Tantan committed the crime of Theft because he took the cellular
Rophone of Helen with
an r
intent to gain without using force or intimidation.

B a
Ch es
See, the contrary Supreme Court ruling in the earlier cases of People v. Alfredo Bon,b
l
o G.R.
[1]

2011. In those cases, the Supreme Court held that: Under Article 68 of R
No. 166401, October 30, 2006 and People v. Hermie Jacinto, G.R. No. 182239, March 16,

an lower than
the Revised
Penal Code, when the offender is a minor under 18 years, the penalty next

Ch
www.chanroblesbar.com : www.chanroblesbar.com.ph
ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc.

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

a r
B
e s
b l
R o
an B ar
Ch e s
b l
R o
an B ar
C h s
l e
o b
R
an B ar
C h s
e
bl
Ro
an B a r
Ch es
b l
R o
an
Ch
www.chanroblesbar.com : www.chanroblesbar.com.ph