You are on page 1of 46

ANSWERS TO BAR ARRANGED PER ARTICLE (1-20)

FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES and ARTICLES 1 & 2

2000 BAR
Define "corpus delicti" What are the elements of "corpus delicti"?
Corpus delicti literally means the body or substance of the crime or the fact
that a crime has been committed, but does not include the identity of the person
who committed it.

The elements of corpus delicti are:


1. The existence of a certain act or result forming the basis of the criminal
charge; and
2. The existence of a criminal agency as the cause of the act or result.

2000 BAR
After drinking 1 case of San Miguel beer and taking two plates of
“pulutan”, Binoy, a Filipino seaman, stabbed to death Sio My, a
Singaporean seaman, aboard M/V “Princess of the Pacific”, an overseas
vessel which was sailing in the South China Sea. The vessel, although
Panamanian registered, is owned by Lucio Sy, a rich Filipino
businessman. When M/V “Princess of the Pacific” reached a Philippine
Port at Cebu City, the Captain of the vessel turned over the assailant
Binoy to the Philippine authorities. An information for homicide was filed
againt Binoy in the Regional Trial Court of Cebu City. He moved to quash
the information for lack of jurisdiction. If you were the Judge, will you
grant the motion? Why? (5%)

Yes, the Motion to Quash the Information should be granted. The Philippine
court has no jurisdiction over the crime committed since it was committed on the
high seas or outside the Philippine territory and on board a vessel not registered or
licensed in the Philippines.

It is the registration of the vessel in accordance with the laws of the


Philippines, not the citizenship of her owner, which makes it a Philippine ship. The
vessel being registered in Panama, the laws of Panama govern while it is in the
high seas.

2000 BAR
Mr. Carlos Gabisi, a customs guard, and Mr. Rico Yto, a private individual,
went to the office of Mr. Diether Ocuarto, a customs broker, and
represented themselves as agents of Moonglow Commercial Trading, an
Importer of children's clothes and toys. Mr. Gabisi and Mr. Yto engaged
Mr. Ocuarto to prepare and file with the Bureau of Customs the necessary
Import Entry and Internal Revenue Declaration covering Moonglow’s
shipment. Mr. Gabisi and Mr. Yto submitted to Mr. Ocuarto a packing list,
a commercial invoice, a bill of lading and a Sworn Import Duty
Declaration which declared the shipment as children's toys, the taxes and
duties of which were computed at P60,000.00. Mr. Ocuarto filed the
aforementioned documents with the Manila International Container Port.
However, before the shipment was released, a spot check was conducted
by Customs Senior Agent James Bandido, who discovered that the
contents of the van (shipment) were not children's toys as declared in the
shipping documents but 1,000 units of video cassette recorders with taxes
and duties computed at P600,000.00. A hold order and warrant of seizure
and detention were then issued by the District Collector of Customs.
Further investigation showed that Moonglow is non-existent.
Consequently, Mr. Gabisi and Mr. Yto were charged with and convicted for
violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. 3019 which makes it unlawful among
others, for public officers to cause any undue Injury to any party,
including the Government, in the discharge of official functions through
manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence. In
their motion for reconsideration, the accused alleged that the decision was
erroneous because the crime was not consummated but was only at an
attempted stage and that in fact the Government did not suffer any undue
injury.

a. Is the contention of both accused correct? Explain.


Yes, the contention of the accused that the crime was not consummated is
correct. R.A. 3019 is a special law punishing acts mala prohibita. As a rule,
attempted violation of a special law is not punished because criminal liability is
incurred only when the crime is consummated. Actual injury is required.

b. Assuming that the attempted or frustrated stage of the violation


charged is not punishable, may the accused be nevertheless convicted for
an offense punished by the Revised Penal Code under the facts of the case?
Explain.
Yes, both are liable for attempted estafa thru falsification of commercial
documents, a complex crime. They tried to defraud the Government with the use of
false commercial and public documents. Damage is not necessary.

2001 BAR
At a birthday party in Bogo, Cebu, A got intoxicated and started
quarrelling with B and C. At the height of their arguments, A left and took
a bolo from his house, after which he returned to the party and threatened
to stab everybody. B got scared and ran towards the seashore, with A
chasing him, B ran up a steep incline along the shore and was cornered on
top of a cliff. Out of fear, B jumped from the cliff into the sea, A returned to
the scene of their confrontation and seeing that nobody was there, went
home to sleep. The next day, B’s wife reported to the police station that her
husband had not yet come home. A search was conducted by the residents
of the barangay but after almost two days, B or his body could not be
located and his disappearance continued for the next few days. Based on
the testimony of C and other guests, who had seen A and B on top of the
cliff, A was arrested and charged with Murder. In his defense, he claimed
that since B's body has not been found, there was no evidence of "corpus
delicti' and therefore, he should be acquitted. Is the defense of A tenable or
not? State the reason(s) for your answer.

The defense of A is not tenable. "Corpus delicti" does not refer to the body of
the purported victim which had not been found. Even without the body of the
purported victim being found, the offender can be convicted when the facts and
circumstances of a crime, the body of the crime or "corpus delicti" is established. In
other words, the non-recovery of the body of the victim is not a bar to the
prosecution of A for Murder, but the fact of death and identity of the victim must be
established beyond reasonable doubt
2001, 2003, 2005 BAR
Distinguish between crimes mala in se and crimes mala prohibita. May an
act be malum in se and be, at the same time, malum prohibitum?

BASIS MALA IN SE MALA PROHIBITA


There must be a criminal Sufficient that the
intent prohibited act was done
Wrong from its very Wrong merely because
As to their concepts nature prohibited by statute
Criminal intent governs Criminal intent is not
necessary
Punished under the RPC Violations of special laws
Good faith, lack of k of criminal intent are
criminal intent or not valid defenses; it is
negligence are valid enough that the
defenses prohibition was
voluntarily violated
Criminal liability is Criminal liability is
incurred even when the generally incurred only
crime is attempted or when the crime is
frustrated consummated
As to legal implication Penalty is computed on The penalty of the
the basis of whether he is offender is the same as
a principal offender, or they are all deemed
merely an accomplice or principals
accessory
Mitigating and Such circumstances are
aggravating not appreciated unless the
circumstances are special law has adopted
appreciated in imposing the scheme or scale of
the penalties penalties under the RPC

Yes, an act may be malum in se and malum prohibitum at the same time. In
People v. Sunico, et al, (CA 50 OG 5880) it was held that the omission or failure of
election inspectors and poll clerks to include a voter's name in the registry list of
voters is wrong perse because it disenfranchises a voter of his right to vote. In this
regard it is considered as malum in se. Since it is punished under a speciallaw (Sec.
101 and 103, Revised Election Code), it is considered malum prohibitum

2006 BAR
When is motive relevant to prove a case? When is it not necessary to
be established? Explain.
Motive is relevant to a case when:
1. The identity of the offender is in doubt;
2. When the act committed gives rise to variant crimes and there is a need to
determine which crime should be properly imputed to the offender;
3. When the evidence is merely circumstantial;
4. When there are no eyewitnesses to the crime and where suspicion is likely
to fall upon a number of persons;
5. In ascertaining the truth between two antagonistic theories or versions of
the killing; and
6. When the act is alleged to be committed in defense of a stranger because it
must not be induced by revenge, resentment or other evil motive.
Motive is not necessary to be established in the following instances:
1. When there is a witness positively identifying the accused;
2. In commission of crimes which are mala prohibita in nature; and
3. In crimes committed through reckless imprudence.

2008 BAR (VI)


Hubert and Eunice were married in the Philippines. Hubert took
graduate studies in New York and met his former girlfriend Eula. They
renewed their friendship and finally decided to get married. The first wife,
Eunice, heard about the marriage and secures a copy of the marriage
contract in New York. Eunice filed a case of Bigamy against Hubert in the
Philippines.

(a) Will the case prosper? Explain. (4%)

No, because the Philippine Courts have no jurisdiction over a crime


committed outside of the Philippine territory. Under the principle of territoriality,
penal laws, specifically the RPC, are enforceable only within the bounds of our
territory (Art. 2, RPC).

(b) If Eunice gave her consent to the second marriage, what will your
answer be? Explain. (3%)

The answer will be the same. The consent of Eunice would not confer
jurisdiction on Philippine Courts.

2010 BAR
What is the Doctrine of Pro Reo? How does it relate to Article 48 of
the Revised Penal Code?

The Doctrine of Pro Reo provides that whenever a penal law is to be


construed or applied and the law admits of two interpretations, one lenient to the
offender and one strict to the offender, that interpretation which is lenient or
favorable to the offender will be adopted. Following this doctrine, crimes under Art.
48 of the RPC are complexed and punished with a single penalty (that prescribed
for the most serious crime and to be imposed in its maximum period). The rationale
being, that the accused who commits two crimes with a single criminal impulse
demonstrates lesser perversity than when the crimes are committed by different
acts and several criminal resolutions (People v. Comadre, G.R. No. 153559, June 8,
2004). However, Art. 48 shall be applied only when it would bring about the
imposition of a penalty lesser than the penalties imposable for all the component
crimes if prosecuted separately.

2012 BAR
What are the constitutional provisions limiting the power of
Congress to enact penal laws? (5%)

The constitutional provision limiting the power of Congress to enact penal


laws are the following:
1. The law must not be an ex post facto law or it should not be given a
retroactive effect.
2. The law must not be a bill of attainder, meaning it cannot provide
punishment without judicial proceedings.
3. The law must not impose cruel, unusual or degrading punishment.
No person shall be held to answer for a criminal offense without due process
of law.

2012 BAR
What is the fundamental principle in applying and interpreting
criminal laws, including the Indeterminate Sentence Law?

The fundamental principle in interpreting and applying penal laws is the


principle of pro reo. The phrase “in dubio pro reo” means “when in doubt, for the
accused.” (Intestate Estate of Gonzales v. People, G.R. No. 181409, February 11,
2010). In dubio pro reo, is in consonance with the constitutional guarantee that the
accused ought to be presumed innocent until and unless his guilt is established
beyond reasonable doubt (People v. Temporada, G.R. No. 173473, December 17,
2008).

2013 BAR
Assume that you are a member of the legal staff of Senator Salcedo
who wants to file a bill about imprisonment at the National Penitentiary in
Muntinlupa. He wants to make the State prison a revenue earner for the
country through a law providing for premium accommodations for
prisoners (other than those under maximum security status) whose wives
are allowed conjugal weekend visits, and for those who want long-term
premium accommodations.
For conjugal weekenders, he plans to rent out rooms with hotel-like
amenities at rates equivalent to those charged by 4-star hotels; for long-
term occupants, he is prepared to offer room and board with special meals
in air conditioned single- occupancy rooms, at rates equivalent to those
charged by 3-star hotels.
What advice will you give the Senator from the point of view of
criminal law, taking into account the purpose of imprisonment (7%) and
considerations of ethics and morality (3%)? (10% total points)

I would advice Senator Salcedo to forgo and permanently abandon his


proposed bill as it will result in economic inequality in the field of criminal justice.
The bill runs afoul with the equal protection clause of the 1987 Constitution. The
equal protection clause in the Constitution does not merely bar the creation of
inequalities but commands as well the elimination of existing inequalities.

Additionally, the purpose of imposing penalties, which is to secure justice,


retribution and reformation, will be defeated and put to naught if the bill’s
program/scheme should eventually become a law.

2014 BAR
Pierce is a French diplomat stationed in the Philippines. While on
EDSA and driving with an expired license, he hit a pedestrian who was
crossing illegally. The pedestrian died. Pierce was charged with reckless
imprudence resulting in homicide. In his defense, he claimed diplomatic
immunity. Is Pierce correct? (3%)

Yes, Pierce is correct.

Under the principle of generality, the general rule is that criminal law is
binding on all persons who live or sojourn in the Philippine territory. Exceptions to
this principle are a) sovereigns and other chiefs of state; b) ambassadors, ministers
plenipotentiary, ministers resident, and charge d’affaires.

Here, Pierce is a foreign diplomat stationed in the Philippines. A foreign


diplomat enjoys diplomatic immunity. His immunity from suit is absolute. Hence,
Pierce’s defense is correct.

2014 BAR
Ando, an Indonesian national who just visited the Philippines,
purchased a ticket for a passenger vessel bound for Hong Kong. While on
board the vessel, he saw his mortal enemy Iason, also an Indonesian
national, seated at the back portion of the cabin and who was busy reading
a newspaper. Ando stealthily approached Iason and when he was near
him, Ando stabbed and killed Iason. The vessel is registered in Malaysia.
The killing happened just a few moments after the vessel left the port of
Manila. Operatives from the PNP Maritime Command arrested Ando.
Presented for the killing of Iason, Ando contended that he did not incur
criminal liability because both he and the victim were Indonesians. He
likewise argued that he could not be prosecuted in Manila because the
vessel is a Malaysian-registered ship. Discuss the merits of Ando's
contentions. (4%)

Ando’s contentions are unmeritorious. As to the contention of citizenship, an


alien can be tried in the Philippines because under the principle of generality,
criminal law of the country governs all persons within the country regardless of
their race, belief, sex, or creed. Here, citizenship is immaterial.

The contention that the vessel is a Malaysian-registered ship is also


immaterial because the English rule is applicable. The English rule provides that it
recognizes that the host country has jurisdiction over crimes committed on board
the vessel unless they involve the internal management of the vessel.

2015 BAR
Distinguish between ex post facto law and bill of attainder.

Ex post facto law is any law which makes an innocent act a crime after the
act was committed. It is a Latin phrase which means “from something done
afterwards.” It could also be a law which aggravates a crime, or makes it greater
than when it was committed, or which changes the punishment and inflicts a
greater penalty than the law governing the crime when committed. A bill of
attainder is a law which inflicts punishment on a named individual or a group of
individuals without judicial trial.

Ex post facto law pertains to the act while a bill of attainder pertains to a
named individual or to members of a group.
ARTICLE 3

2001, 2004 BAR


On his way home from office, ZZ rode in a jeepney. Subsequently, XX
boarded the same jeepney. Upon reaching a secluded spot in QC, XX pulled
out a grenade from his bag and announced a hold-up. He told ZZ to
surrender his watch, wallet and cellphone. Fearing for his life, ZZ jumped
out of the vehicle. But as he fell, his head hit the pavement, causing his
instant death. Is XX liable for ZZ's death? Explain briefly.

Yes, XX is liable for ZZ's death because his acts of pulling out a grenade and
announcing a hold-up, coupled with a demand for the watch, wallet and cellphone of
ZZ is felonious, and such felonious act was the proximate cause of ZZ's jumping out
of the jeepney, resulting in the latter's death. Stated otherwise, the death of ZZ was
the direct, natural and logical consequence of XX's felonious act which created an
immediate sense of danger in the mind of ZZ who tried to avoid such danger by
jumping out of the jeepney (People v. Arpa, G.R. No. L-26789 April 25, 1969).

2015 BAR
a) How are felonies committed? Explain each. (3%)
Under Art. 3 of the RPC provides that, felonies are committed not only by
means of deceit, but also by means of fault. There is deceit when the act is
performed with deliberate intent, and there is fault when the wrongful act results
from imprudence, negligence, lack of foresight or lack of skill.

b) What is aberratio ictus? (2%)


Aberratio ictus or mistake in the blow occurs when a person unintentionally
commits a felonious act to a different person other than the supposed victim.

ARTICLE 4

2003 BAR
The conduct of wife A aroused the ire of her husband B. Incensed
with anger almost beyond his control, B could not help but inflict physical
injuries on A. Moments after B started hitting A with his fists, A suddenly
complained of severe chest pains. B, realizing that A was indeed in serious
trouble, immediately brought her to the hospital. Despite efforts to
alleviate A's pains, she died of heart attack. It turned out that she had
been suffering from a lingering heart ailment. What crime, if any, could B
be held guilty of?

B could be held liable for parricide because his act of hitting his wife with fist
blows and therewith inflicting physical injuries on her is felonious. A person
committing a felonious act incurs criminal liability although the wrongful
consequence is different from what he intended (Art. 4 [1], RPC). Although A died of
heart attack, the said attack was generated by B's felonious act of hitting her with
his fists. Such felonious act was the immediate cause of the heart attack, having
materially contributed to and hastened A's death. Even though B may have acted
without intent to kill his wife, lack of such intent is of no moment when the victim
dies. However, B may be given the mitigating circumstance of having acted without
intention to commit so grave a wrong as that committed (Art. 13[3], RPC).

2009 BAR
Charlie hated his classmate, Brad, because the latter was
assiduously courting Lily, Charlie’s girlfriend. Charlie went to a
veterinarian and asked for some poison on the pretext that it would be
used to kill a very sick, old dog. Actually, Charlie intended to use the
poison on Brad.
The veterinarian mistakenly gave Charlie a non-toxic powder which,
when mixed with Brad’s food, did not kill Brad.
Did Charlie commit any crime? If so, what and why? If not, why not?
(3%)

“Never Let The Odds Keep You From Pursuing What You Know In Your
Heart You Were Meant To Do.”-Leroy Satchel Paige

Charlie committed an impossible crime of murder. His act of mixing the


non- toxic powder with Brad‟s food, done with intent to kill, would have constituted
murder which is a crime against persons, had it not been for the employment of a
means which, unknown to him, is ineffectual.

2014 BAR
Macho married Ganda, a transgender. Macho was not then aware
that Ganda was a transgender. On their first night, after their marriage,
Macho discovered that Ganda was a transgender. Macho confronted
Ganda and a heated argument ensued. In the course of the heated
argument, a fight took place wherein Ganda got hold of a knife to stab
Macho. Macho ran away from the stabbing thrusts and got his gun which
he pointed at Ganda just to frighten and stop Ganda from continuing with
the attack. Macho had no intention at all to kill Ganda. Unfamiliar with
guns, Macho accidentally pulled the trigger and hit Ganda that caused the
latter’s death. What was the crime committed? (4%)

Macho committed the crime of homicide.

Article 4 of the Revised Penal Code provides that criminal liability is incurred
by a person committing a felony although the wrongful act done be different from
which he intended.

Here, Macho committed a felony. The fact that he had no intention of killing
Ganda when he accidentally pulled the trigger of the gun is of no moment. Hence,
he is liable for the death of Ganda.

2014 BAR
Puti detested Pula, his roommate, because Pula was courting Ganda,
whom Puti fancied. One day, Puti decided to teach Pula a lesson and went
to a veterinarian (Vet) to ask for poison on the pretext that he was going to
kill a sick pet, when actually Puti was intending to poison Pula.
The Vetinstantly gave Puti a non-toxic solution which, when mixed
with Pula’s food, did not kill Pula. (4%)

(A) What crime, if any, did Puti commit?


Puti committed an impossible crime.

Under the Revised Penal Code, criminal liability is incurred by any person
performing an act which would be an offense against persons or property, were it
not for the inherent impossibility of its accomplishment or on account of the
employment of inadequate or ineffectual means.

Here, Puti committed an impossible crime because there was an employment


of inadequate means to effect murder.

(B) Would your answer be the same if, as a result of the mixture, Pula got
an upset stomach and had to be hospitalized for 10 days?

No. Puti no longer committed an impossible crime but he can be held liable
for less serious physical injuries.

2000, 2015 BAR


What is an impossible crime? Is an impossible crime really a crime?

An impossible crime is an act which would be an offense against persons or


property, were it not for the inherent impossibility of its accomplishment or on
account of the employment of inadequate or ineffectual means (Art, 4 (2), RPC).

An impossible crime is really not a crime, nevertheless it gives rise to


criminal liability. Objectively, no felony is being committed but the accused is
punished for his criminal perversity.

2015 BAR
Can there be an impossible crime of adultery?

There is no impossible crime of adultery since this is a crime against chastity,


and not against person or property as required by Art. 4(2) of the RPC.

2015 BAR
Filipino citizens Hector and Wendy were married in New York, and
have been living happily in Manila for the last three years. Hector was
removing junk from his basement when he came across an unlabeled
recordable cd. He put it in his computer's DVD drive to check its contents.
To his surprise, he saw a video of Wendy and another man Ariel, in the act
of sexual intercourse in the master's bedroom of his house. Angered by
what he saw, he filed a complaint for adultery against Wendy and Ariel.
During the course of the trial, and again to the surprise of Hector, it was
proved that Wendy was born male and underwent sex reassignment later
in life.

a) May Hector's charge of adultery against Wendy and Ariel prosper?


Explain. (3%)

No, the case will not prosper because the aspect of a "married woman" is
absent in the case at bar. Article 333 of the Revised Penal Code provides that the
crime of adultery is committed by any married woman who shall have sexual
intercourse with a man not her husband and by the man who has carnal knowledge
of her, knowing her to be married, even if the marriage be subsequently declared
void. Wendy’s marriage to Hector is not recognized under our jurisdiction because
by nature and birth, Wendy is a man even though he underwent sex reassignment.

b) What is an impossible crime? Can there be an impossible crime of


adultery? (2%)

Impossible crime is an act which would be an offense against persons or


property were it not for the inherent impossibility of its accomplishment or on
account of the employment of inadequate or ineffectual means. (Par.2 Art.4). Thus,
there can be no Impossible crime of adultery since Adultery is a crime against
chastity.

ARTICLE 6

2005 BAR
Taking into account the nature and elements of the felonies of coup
d’ etat and rape, may one be criminally liable for frustrated coup d’ etat or
frustrated rape? Explain.

One cannot be criminally liable for frustrated coup d’ etat or frustrated rape.

In coup d’ etat, the mere attack directed against the duly constituted
authorities of the Republic of the Philippines, or any military camp or installation,
communication networks, public utilities or other facilities needed for the exercise
and continued possession of power would consummate the crime. The objective may
not be to overthrow the government but only to destabilize or paralyze the
government through the seizure of facilities and utilities essential to the continued
possession and exercise of governmental powers.

The crime of rape could only be either attempted or consummated. If the


accused who placed himself on top of a woman, raising her skirt and unbuttoning
his pants, whereby the endeavour to have sex is very apparent, is guilty of
Attempted rape. On the other hand, entry on the labia or lips of the female organ by
the penis, even without rupture of the hymen or laceration of the vagina,
consummates the crime of rape. Moreso, the Court has long abandoned its “stray”
decision in People v. Erina, 50 Phil 998 where the accused was found guilty of
frustrated rape.

2015 BAR
Senio planned to burn Bal' s house. One evening, during a drinking
spree at his house, Senio told his friends what he intended to do and even
showed them the gasoline in cans that he would use for the purpose. Carlo,
a common friend of Senio and Bal, was present at the drinking spree. He
was still sober when Senio told them his plans. Before going home, Carlo
warned Bal that Senio would burn his house and had already bought
gasoline that would be used for the purpose. Bal reported the matter to the
police authorities. Meanwhile, Senio went to Bal' s house and proceeded to
pour gasoline around the walls of the house and it was at that point when
he was caught by the police. What crime did Senio commit, if any? Explain.
(3%)
Senio committed the crime of attempted arson, because he commences the
commission of the crime directly by overt acts (by pouring gasoline around the walls
of the house of Bal) but he does not perform all the acts of execution due to the
timely intervention of the police officers.

2012 BAR
Is the crime of theft susceptible of commission in the frustrated
stage? Explain your answer in relation to what produces the crime of theft
in its consummated stage and by way of illustration of the subjective and
objective phases of the felony. (5%)

NO, the crime of Theft has no frustrated stage.

In the case of Valenzuela vs. People (GR 160188, June 21, 2007), the Supreme
Court ruled that unlawful taking is the element that produces the felony of Theft in
its consummated stage. Once unlawful taking is complete, theft is consummated.
Unlawful taking is deemed complete from the moment the offender gains possession
of the thing, even if he has no opportunity to dispose of the same. At the same time,
without unlawful taking as an act of execution, the offense could only be attempted
theft. Thus, theft cannot have a frustrated stage. Theft can only be attempted or
consummated.

ARTICLE 8

2003 BAR
A and B, both store janitors, planned to kill their employer C at
midnight and take the money kept in the cash register. A and B together
drew the sketch of the store, where they knew C would be sleeping, and
planned the sequence of their attack. Shortly before midnight, A and B
were ready to carry out the plan. When A was about to lift C's mosquito net
to thrust his dagger, a police car with sirens blaring passed by. Scared, B
ran out of the store and fled, while A went on to stab C to death, put the
money in the bag, and ran outside to look for B. The latter was nowhere in
sight. Unknown to him, B had already left the place. What was the
participation and corresponding criminal liability of each, if any? Reasons.

Both A and B are liable for the composite crime of robbery with homicide.
There was an expressed conspiracy between them to kill C and take the latter's
money. The planned killing and taking of the money appears to be intimately
related as component crimes, hence a special complex crime of robbery with
homicide. The conspiracy being expressed, not just implied, A and B are bound as
co-conspirators after they have planned and agreed on the sequence of their attack
even before they committed the crime. Therefore, the principle in law that when
there is a conspiracy, the act of one is the act of all, already governs them. In fact, A
and B were already in the store to carry out their criminal plan.

That B ran out of the store and fled upon hearing the sirens of the police car,
is not spontaneous desistance but flight to evade apprehension. It would be different
if B then tried to stop A from continuing with the commission of the crime; he did
not. So the act of A in pursuing the commission of the crime which both he and B
designed, planned, and commenced to commit, would also be the act of B because of
their expressed conspiracy.

2003 BAR
What is the doctrine of implied conspiracy and give its legal effects.

An “implied conspiracy” is one which is inferred or deduced from the mode


and manner in which the offense is committed. It can be inferred when the persons
who committed the crime acted in concert simultaneously, indicative of meeting of
the minds towards common goal or objective

The legal effects of an “implied conspiracy” are the following:


1. Only those who participated by criminal acts in the commission of the
crime will be considered as coconspirators; and
2. Mere acquiescence to or approval of the commission of the crime or mere
presence at the scene without any act of criminal participation, shall not render one
criminally liable as co-conspirator (Bahilidad v. People, G. R. No 185195, 2010)

2008 BAR
Ricky was reviewing for the bar exam when the commander of a
vigilante group came to him and showed him a list of five policemen to be
liquidated by them for graft and corruption. He was further asked if any of
them is innocent. After going over the list, Ricky pointed to two of the
policemen as honest. Later, the vigilante group liquidated the three other
policemen in the list. The commander of the vigilante group reported the
liquidation to Ricky. Is Ricky criminally liable? Explain. (7%)

No, there was no conspiracy between Ricky and the Commander of the
vigilante. Mere vouching for the honesty of the two (2) policemen in the list
cannot make him a co-conspirator for the killing. Ricky enjoys the
presumption of innocence.

2012 BAR
A. Define conspiracy. (5%)

When two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the


commission of a felony and decide to commit it, there is conspiracy.

B. Distinguish by way of illustration conspiracy as a felony from


conspiracy as a manner of incurring liability in relation to the crimes of
rebellion and murder. (5%)

Conspiracy to commit rebellion – if “A” and “B” conspired to overthrow the


government, conspiracy is punishable. Conspiracy to commit rebellion is a felony.
Rebellion – if they committed rebellion, they are equally liable for the crime of
rebellion. However, they will not be additionally charged with conspiracy to commit
rebellion. Since they committed what they conspired, conspiracy will not be
considered as an independent felony but as a manner of incurring criminal
responsibility. Conspiracy to commit homicide, not punishable – if “A” and “B”
conspire to kill “X”, conspiracy is not punishable. The law provides no penalty for
conspiracy to be commit homicide. Homicide – if pursuant to conspiracy to commit
homicide, “A” embraced “X” and then “B” stabbed and killed “X”, the conspirators
are equally liable for homicide. Conspirators are equally liable for homicide.
Conspiracy in this case will be considered as a manner of incurring liability.

ARTICLE 11

2000 BAR
Lucresia, a store owner, was robbed of her bracelet in her home. The
following day, at about 5 o’clock in the afternoon, a neighbor, 22-year old
JunJun, who had an unsavory reputation, came to her store to buy bottles
of beer. Lucresia noticed her bracelet wound around the right arm of Jun-
Jun. As soon as the latter left, Lucresia went to a nearby police station and
sought the help of a policeman on duty, Pat. Willie Reyes. He went with
Lucresia to the house of Jun-Jun to confront the latter. Pat. Reyes
introduced himself as a policeman and tried to get hold of Jun-Jun who
resisted and ran away. Pat. Reyes chased him and fired two warning shots
in the air. Jun-Jun continued to run and when he was about 7 meters
away, Pat. Reyes shot him in the right leg. Jun-Jun was hit and he fell
down but he crawled towards a fence, intending to pass through an
opening underneath. When Pat. Reyes was about 5 meters away, he fired
another shot at Jun-Jun hitting him at the right lower hip. Pat. Reyes
brought JunJun to the hospital, but because of profuse bleeding, he
eventually died. Pat. Reyes was subsequently charged with homicide.
During the trial, Pat. Reyes raised the defense, by way of exoneration, that
he acted in the fulfilment of a duty. Is the defense tenable? Explain.

No, the defense of Pat. Reyes is not tenable. The defense of having acted in
the fulfillment of a duty requires as a condition, inter alia, that the injury or offense
committed be the unavoidable or necessary consequence of the due performance of
the duty. It is not enough that the accused acted in fulfilment of a duty. After Jun-
Jun was shot in the right leg and was already crawling, there was no need for Pat.
Reyes to shoot him further. Clearly, Pat. Reyes acted beyond the call of duty which
brought about the cause of death of the victim.

2000 BAR
Osang, a married woman in her early twenties, was sleeping on a
banig on the floor of their nipa hut beside the seashore when she was
awakened by the act of a man mounting her. Thinking that it was her
husband, Gardo, who had returned from fishing in the sea, Osang
continued her sleep but allowed the man, who was actually their neighbor,
Julio, to have sexual intercourse with her. After Julio satisfied himself, he
said “Salamat Osang” as he turned to leave. Only then did Osang realize
that the man was not her husband. Enraged, Osang grabbed a balisong
from the wall and stabbed Julio to death. When tried for homicide, Osang
claimed defense of honor. Should the claim be sustained? Why?

No, Osang’s claim of defense of honor should not be sustained because the
aggression on her honor had ceased when she stabbed the aggressor. In defense of
rights under Art. 11(1) of the RPC, it is required inter alia that there be (1)
unlawful aggression, and (2) reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent
or repel it. The unlawful aggression must be continuing when the aggressor was
injured or disabled by the person making a defense. Otherwise, the attack made is a
retaliation and not a defense. Hence, Osang’s act of stabbing Julio to death after the
sexual intercourse was finished, is not defense of honor but an immediate
vindication of a grave offense committed against her, which is only mitigating.

2002 BAR
A chanced upon three men who were attacking B with fist blows. C,
one of the men, was about to stab B with a knife. Not knowing that B was
actually the aggressor because he had earlier challenged the three men to
a fight, A shot C as the latter was about to stab B. May A invoke the
defense of a stranger as a justifying circumstance in his favor? Why?

Yes. A may invoke the justifying circumstance of defense of stranger since he


was not involved in the fight and he shot C when the latter was about to stab B.
There being no indication that A was induced by revenge, resentment or any other
evil motive in shooting C, his act is justified under par. 3, Art. 11 of the RPC.

2004 BAR
Distinguish clearly but briefly: Between justifying and exempting
circumstances in criminal law.

Justifying circumstance affects the act, not the actor; while exempting
circumstance affects the actor, not the act. In justifying circumstance, no criminal
and, generally, no civil liability is incurred; while in exempting circumstance, civil
liability is generally incurred although there is no criminal liability.

2004 BAR
BB and CC, both armed with knives, attacked FT. The victim’s son,
ST, upon seeing the attack, drew his gun but was prevented from shooting
the attackers by AA, who grappled with him for possession of the gun. FT
died from knife wounds. AA, BB and CC were charged with murder. In his
defense, AA invoked the justifying circumstance of avoidance of greater
evil or injury, contending that by preventing ST from shooting BB and CC,
he merely avoided a greater evil. Will AA’s defense prosper? Reason
briefly.

No, AA’s defense will not prosper. The act of the victim’s son, ST, appears to
be a legitimate defense of relatives; hence, justified as a defense of his father
against the unlawful aggression by BB and CC. ST’s act to defend his father’s life
and to stop BB and CC achieve their criminal objective cannot be regarded as an
evil inasmuch as it is, in the eyes of the law, a lawful act. What AA did was a lawful
defense, not greater evil. Likewise, AA’s defense will not prosper because in this
case there was a conspiracy among the three of them, hence, the act of one is the act
of all.

2010 BAR
Jack and Jill have been married for seven years. One night, Jack
came home drunk. Finding no food on the table, Jack started hitting Jill
only to apologize the following day. A week later, the same episode
occurred – Jack came home drunk and started hitting Jill. Fearing for her
life, Jill left and stayed with her sister. To woo Jill back, Jack sent her
floral arrangements of spotted lilies and confectioneries. Two days later,
Jill returned home and decided to give Jack another chance. After several
days, however, Jack again came home drunk. The following day, he was
found dead.

Jill was charged with parricide but raised the defense of “battered
woman syndrome.”

Would the defense prosper despite the absence of any of the


elements for justifying circumstances of self-defense under the Revised
Penal Code? Explain. (2%)

Yes, Section 26 of Rep. Act No. 9262 provides that victim-survivors who are
found by the courts to be suffering from battered woman syndrome do not incur any
criminal and civil liability notwithstanding the absence of any of the elements for
justifying circumstances of self-defense under the Revised Penal Code.

2010 BAR
Define "Battered Woman Syndrome." What are the three phases of
the "Battered Woman Syndrome"? Would the defense prosper despite the
absence of any of the elements for justifying circumstances of self-defense
under the Revised Penal Code? Explain.

“Battered Woman Syndrome” refers to a scientifically define pattern of


psychological and behavioural symptoms found in woman living in battering
relationships as a result of cumulative abuse (Sec. 3[d], R.A. 9262).

The three (3) phases of the BWS are: (1) tensionbuilding phase; (2) acute
battering incident; and (3) tranquil, loving, or non-violent phase (People v. Genosa,
G.R. No. 135981, January 15, 2004)

Yes, the defense will prosper. Sec. 26 of R.A. 9262 provides that victim-
survivors who are found by the courts to be suffering from battered woman
syndrome do not incur any criminal and civil liability notwithstanding the absence
of any of the elements of justifying circumstances of self-defense under the RPC.

2014 BAR
Ms. A had been married to Mr. B for 10 years. Since their marriage,
Mr. B had been jobless and a drunkard, preferring to stay with his
“barkadas” until the wee hours of the morning. Ms. A was the breadwinner
and attended to the needs of their three (3) growing children. Many times,
when Mr. B was drunk, he would beat Ms. A and their three (3) children,
and shout invectives against them. In fact, in one of the beating incidents,
Ms. A suffered a deep stab wound on her tummy that required a prolonged
stay in the hospital. Due to the beatings and verbal abuses committed
against her, she consulted a psychologist several times, as she was slowly
beginning to lose her mind. One night, when Mr. B arrived dead drunk, he
suddenly stabbed Ms. A several times while shouting invectives against
her.

Defending herself from the attack, Ms. A grappled for the possession
of a knife and she succeeded. She then stabbed Mr. B several times which
caused his instantaneous death. Medico-Legal Report showed that the
husband suffered three (3) stab wounds.

Can Ms. A validly put up a defense? Explain. (5%)


Yes, Ms. A can put up the defense of battered woman syndrome. She is
suffering from physical and psychological or emotional distress resulting from
cumulative abuse by her husband. She even consulted a psychologist several times,
as she was slowly beginning to lose her mind. Under Section 26, RA 9262 of The
Anti- Violence against Women and their Children Act, “victim survivors who are
found by the court to be suffering from battered woman syndrome do not incur any
criminal and civil liability notwithstanding the absence of any of the elements for
the justifying circumstance of self-defense under the Revised penal Code.”

2015 BAR
Dion and Talia were spouses. Dion always came home drunk since he
lost his job a couple of months ago. Talia had gotten used to the verbal
abuse from Dion. One night, in addition to the usual verbal abuse, Dion
beat up Talia. The next morning, Dion saw the injury that he had inflicted
upon Talia and promised her that he would stop drinking and never beat
her again. However, Dion did not make good on his promise. Just after one
week, he started drinking again. Talia once more endured the usual verbal
abuse. Afraid that he might beat her up again, Talia stabbed Dion with a
kitchen knife while he was passed out from imbibing too much alcohol.
Talia was charged with the crime of parricide.

a. May Talia invoke the defense of Battered Woman Syndrome to free


herself from criminal liability? Explain.

No, a single act of battery or physical harm committed by Dion against Talia
resulting to the physical and psychological or emotional distress on her part is not
sufficient to avail of the benefit of the justifying circumstance of “Battered Woman
Syndrome”. The defense of Battered Woman Syndrome can be invoked if the woman
with marital relationship with the victim is subjected to cumulative abuse or
battery involving the infliction of physical harm resulting to the physical and
psychological or emotional distress. Cumulative means resulting from successive
addition. In sum, there must be “at least two battering episodes” between the
accused and her intimate partner and such final episode produced in the battered
person’s mind an actual fear of an imminent harm from her batterer and an honest
belief that she needed to use force in order to save her life (People v. Genosa, G.R.
No. 135981, January 15, 2004).

b. Will your answer be the same, assuming that Talia killed Dion after
being beaten up after a second time? Explain.

Yes, Talia can invoke the defense of Battered Woman Syndrome to free
herself from criminal liability for killing her husband since she suffered physical
and emotional distress arising from cumulative abuse or battery. Under Section 26
of RA 9262, victim survivors of Battered Woman Syndrome do not incur any
criminal or civil liability despite the absence of the requisites of self-defense.

2016 BAR
Pedro is married to Tessie. Juan is the first cousin of Tessie. While in
the market, Pedro saw a man stabbing Juan. Seeing the attack on Juan,
Pedro picked up a spade nearby and hit the attacker on his head which
caused the latter's death.
Can Pedro be absolved of the killing on the ground that it is in
defense of a relative? Explain. (5%)

No. the relatives of the accused for purpose of defense of relative under
Article 11 (2) of the Revised Penal Code are his spouse, ascendants, descendants, or
legitimate, natural or adopted brothers or sisters, or of his relatives by affinity in
the same degrees, and those by consanguinity within the fourth civil degree.
Relative by affinity within the same degree includes the ascendant, descendant,
brother or sister of the spouse of the accused. In this case, Juan is not the
ascendant, descendant, brother or sister of Tessie, the spouse of Pedro. Relative by
consanguinity within the fourth civil degree includes first cousin. But in this case
Juan is the cousin of Pedro by affinity but not by consanguinity. Juan, therefore is
not a relative of Pedro for purpose of applying the provision on defense of relative.

Pedro, however can invoke defense of stranger. Under the Revised Penal
Code, a person who defends a person who is not his relative may invoke the defense
of a stranger provided that all its elements exist, to wit: (a) unlawful aggression, (b)
reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel the attack; and (c)
the person defending be not induced by revenge, resentment, or other evil motive.

ARTICLE 12

2000 BAR
While they were standing in line awaiting their vaccination at the
school clinic, Pomping repeatedly pulled the ponytail of Katreena, his 11
years, 2 months and 13 days old classmate in Grade 5 at the Sampaloc
Elementary School. Irritated, Katreena turned around and swung at
Pomping with a ball pen. The top of the ball pen hit the right eye of
Pomping which bled profusely. Realizing what she had caused, Katreena
immediately helped Pomping. When investigated, she freely admitted to
the school principal that she was responsible for the injury to Pomping's
eye. After the incident, she executed a statement admitting her culpability.
Due to the injury, Pomping lost his right eye.

a. Is Katreena criminally liable? Why?

No, Katreena is not criminally liable due to her minority. She is exempted
from criminal liability for being a minor less than fifteen (15) years old although
over nine (9) years of age. Nonetheless is she civilly liable.

b. Discuss the attendant circumstances and effects thereof.

The attendant circumstances which may be considered are:


1. Minority of the accused as an exempting circumstance under Art. 12(3) of
RPC, where she shall be exempt from criminal liability, unless it was proved that
she acted with discernment. She is however civilly liable;
2. If found criminally liable, the minority of the accused is a privileged
mitigating circumstance. A discretionary penalty lower by at least two (2) degrees
than that prescribed for the crime committed shall be imposed in accordance with
Art. 68(1) of RPC. The sentence however, should automatically be suspended in
accordance with Sec. 5(a) of R.A. No. 8369 (Family Courts Act of 1997);
3. Likewise if found criminally liable, the ordinary mitigating circumstance of
not intending to commit so grave a wrong as that committed under Art. 13(3) of the
RPC may apply;
4. The ordinary mitigating circumstance of sufficient provocation on the part
of the offended party immediately preceded the act.

2000, 2002 BAR


When A arrived home, he found B raping his daughter. Upon seeing
A, B ran away. A took his gun and shot B, killing him. Charged with
homicide, A claimed he acted in defense of his daughter's honor. Is A
correct? If not, can A claim the benefit of any mitigating circumstance or
circumstances?

No, A cannot validly invoke defense of his daughter's honor in having killed B
since the rape was already consummated; moreover, B already ran away, hence,
there was no aggression to defend against and no defense to speak of. Defense of
honor as included in selfdefense, must have been done to prevent or repel an
unlawful aggression. There is no defense to speak of where the unlawful aggression
no longer exists. A may, however, invoke the benefit of the mitigating circumstance
of having acted in immediate vindication of a grave offense to a descendant, his
daughter, under par. 5, Art. 13 of the RPC.

2007 BAR
Macky, a security guard, arrived home late one night after rendering
overtime. He was shocked to see Joy, his wife, and Ken, his best friend, in
the act of having sexual intercourse. Macky pulled out his service gun and
shot and killed Ken.

The court found that Ken died under exceptional circumstances and
exonerated Macky of murder but sentenced him to destierro,
conformably with Article 247 of the Revised Penal Code. The court also
ordered Macky to pay indemnity to the heirs of the victim in the amount of
P50,000.

Did the court correctly order Macky to pay indemnity even though
he was exonerated of murder? Explain your answer. (10%)

No, the court did not act correctly in ordering the accused to indemnify the
victim. Since the killing of ken was committed under the exceptional
circumstances in Article 247, revised Penal Code, it is the consensus that no crime
was committed in the light of the pronouncement in People v Cosicor (79 Phil. 672
[1947]) that banishment (destierro) is intended more for the protection of the
offender rather than as a penalty. Since the civil liability under the Revised Penal
Code is the consequence of criminal liability, there would be no legal basis for the
award of indemnity when there is no criminal liability.

ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:

Yes, because the crime punishable by destierro was committed, which is


death under exceptional circumstances under Art. 247 of the Revised Penal Code.
2010 BAR
While his wife was on a 2-year scholarship abroad, Romeo was
having an affair with his maid Dulcinea. Realizing that the affair was
going nowhere, Dulcinea told Romeo that she was going back to the
province to marry her childhood sweetheart. Clouded by anger and
jealousy, Romeo strangled Dulcinea to death while she was sleeping in the
maid’s quarters.

The following day, Romeo was found catatonic inside the maid’s
quarters. He was brought to the National Center for Mental Health
(NCMH) where he was diagnosed to be mentally unstable.

Charged with murder, Romeo pleaded insanity as a defense.

a. Will Romeo’s defense prosper? Explain. (2%)

No, Rome’s defense of insanity will not prosper because, even assuming that
Romeo was “insane” when diagnosed after he committed the crime, insanity as a
defense to the commission of crime must have existed and proven to be so existing
at the precise moment when the crime was being committed. The fact of the case
indicate that Romeo committed the crime with discernment.

b. While his wife was on a 2-year scholarship abroad, Romeo was


having an affair with his maid Dulcinea. Realizing that the affair was
going nowhere, Dulcinea told Romeo that she was going back to the
province to marry her childhood sweetheart. Clouded by anger and
jealousy, Romeo strangled Dulcinea to death while she was sleeping in
the maid’s quarters.

The following day, Romeo was found catatonic inside the maid’s
quarters. He was brought to the National Center for Mental Health
(NCMH) where he was diagnosed to be mentally unstable.

Charged with murder, Romeo pleaded insanity as a defense.

What is the effect of the diagnosis of the NCMH on the case? (2%)

The effect of the diagnosis made by NCMH is possibly a suspension of the


proceedings against Romeo and his commitment to appropriate institution for
treatment until he could already understand the proceedings.

ARTICLE 13

2001, 2005 BAR


Maryjane had two suitors - Felipe and Cesar. She did not openly
show her preference but on two occasions, accepted Cesar's invitation to
concerts by Regine and Pops. Felipe was a working student and could only
ask Mary to see a movie which was declined. Felipe felt insulted and made
plans to get even with Cesar by scaring him off somehow. One day, he
entered Cesar's room in their boarding house and placed a rubber snake
which appeared to be real in Cesar's backpack. Because Cesar had a weak
heart, he suffered a heart attack upon opening his backpack and seeing
the snake. Cesar died without regaining consciousness. The police
investigation resulted in pinpointing Felipe as the culprit and he was
charged with Homicide for Cesar's death. In his defense, Felipe claimed
that he did not know about Cesar's weak heart and that he only intended
to play a practical joke on Cesar. Is Felipe liable for the death of Cesar or
will his defense prosper? Why?

Yes, Felipe is liable for the death of Cesar but he shall be given the benefit of
the mitigating circumstance that he did not intend to commit so grave a wrong as
that which was committed (Art. 4[1] in relation to Art. 13[3], RPC). When Felipe
intruded into Cesar’s room without the latter's consent and took liberty with the
latter's backpack where he placed the rubber snake, Felipe was already committing
a felony. And any act done by him while committing a felony is no less wrongful,
considering that they were part of "plans to get even with Cesar". Felipe's claim
that he intended only "to play a practical joke on Cesar" does not persuade,
considering that they are not friends but in fact rivals in courting Maryjane.

2009 BAR
Voluntary surrender is a mitigating circumstance in all acts and
omissions punishable under the Revised Penal Code.

False, Voluntary surrender may be appreciated in cases of criminal


negligence under Art. 365 since in such cases, the courts are authorized to imposed
a penalty without considering Art. 62 regarding mitigating and aggravating
circumstances.

2012 BAR
A. What is a privileged mitigating circumstance? (5%)

Privileged mitigating circumstances are those that mitigate criminal liability


of the crime being modified to one or two degrees lower. These circumstances cannot
be off-set by aggravating circumstance. The circumstance of incomplete justification
or exemption (when majority of the conditions are present), and the
circumstance of minority (if the child above 15 years of age acted with
discernment) are privileged mitigating circumstances.

B. Distinguish a privileged mitigating circumstance from an


ordinary mitigating circumstance as to reduction of penalty and offsetting
against aggravating circumstance/s. (5%)

The distinction between ordinary and privilege mitigating circumstances


are:

(a) Under the rules for application of divisible penalties (Article 64 of the
Revised Penal Code), the presence of a mitigating circumstance, has the effect of
applying the divisible penalty in its minimum period. Under the rules on
graduation of penalty (Articles 68 and 69), the presence of privileged mitigating
circumstance has the effect of reducing the penalty one or two degrees lower.

(b) Ordinary mitigating circumstances can be off-set by the aggravating


circumstances. Privileged mitigating circumstances are not subject to the off- set
rule.
2014 BAR
A, a young boy aged sixteen (16) at the time of the commission of the
crime, was convicted when he was already seventeen (17) years of age for
violation of Section 11 of R.A. 9165 or Illegal Possession of Dangerous
Drugs for which the imposable penalty is life imprisonment and a fine.
Section 98 of the same law provides that if the penalty imposed is life
imprisonment to death on minor offenders, the penalty shall be reclusion
perpetuato death. Under R.A. 9344, a minor offender is entitled to a
privilege mitigating circumstance. (8%)

(A) May the privilege mitigating circumstance of minority be appreciated


considering that the penalty imposed by law is life imprisonment and fine?

XXX

Yes. As stated above, under Section 98, RA 9165, if the offender is a minor,
the penalty of life imprisonment shall be considered as reclusion perpetua. Now that
it has the nomenclature of penalties under the RPC, the modifying circumstances
therein may also be applied. Even if reclusion perpetua is a single indivisible
penalty, the privileged mitigating circumstance of minority would still be
considered to lower the imposable penalty. The rule in Article 63, RPC that if the
penalty prescribed by law is a single indivisible penalty, it shall be imposed
regardless of mitigating and aggravating circumstance refers only to ordinary
mitigating circumstances.

2016 BAR
A, an OFW, worked in Kuwait for several years as a chief accountant,
religiously sending to his wife, B, 80% of all his earnings. After his stint
abroad, he was shocked to know that B became the paramour of a married
man, C, and that all the monies he sent to B were given by her to C. To
avenge his honor, A hired X, Y and Z and told them to kidnap C and his
wife, D, so that he can inflict injuries on C to make him suffer, and
humiliate him in front of his wife. X, Y and Z were paid P20,000.00 each
and were promised a reward of P50,000.00 each once the job is done.

At midnight, A, with the fully armed X, Y and Z, forcibly opened the


door and gained entrance to the house of C and D. C put up a struggle
before he was subdued by A's group. They boarded C and D in a van and
brought the two to a small hut in a farm outside Metro Manila. Both hands
of C and D were tied. With the help of X, Y and Z, A raped D in front of C. X,
Y and Z then took turns in raping D, and subjected C to torture until he
was black and blue and bleeding profusely from several stab wounds. A
and his group set the hut on fire before leaving, killing both C and D. X, Y
and Z were paid their reward. Bothered by his conscience, A surrendered
the next day to the police, admitting the crimes he committed.

XXX What mitigating and aggravating circumstances will be applied in


imposing the penalty. Explain. (5%)

XXX

The mitigating circumstances of passion and voluntary surrender can be


appreciated in favor of A. The aggravating circumstances of unlawful entry, by
means of fire, and treachery can be appreciated against A, X, Y and Z.
ARTICLE 14

2000 BAR
Rico, a member of the Alpha Rho fraternity, was killed by Pocholo, a
member of the rival group, Sigma Phi Omega. Pocholo was prosecuted for
homicide before the Regional Trial Court in Binan, Laguna. During the
trial, the prosecution was able to prove that the killing was committed by
means of poison in consideration of a promise or reward and with cruelty.
If you were the Judge, with what crime will you convict Pocholo? Explain.

Pocholo should be convicted of the crime of homicide only because the


aggravating circumstances which should qualify the crime to murder were not
alleged in the Information. The circumstances of using poison, in consideration of a
promise or reward, and cruelty which attended the killing of Rico could only be
appreciated as generic aggravating circumstances since none of them have been
alleged in the information to qualify the killing to murder. A qualifying
circumstance must be alleged in the Information and proven beyond reasonable
doubt during the trial to be appreciated as such.

2001 BAR
Juan de Castro already had three (3) previous convictions by final
judgment for theft when he was found guilty of Robbery with Homicide. In
the last case, the trial Judge considered against the accused both
recidivism and habitual delinquency. The accused appealed and
contended that in his last conviction, the trial court cannot consider
against him a finding of recidivism and, again, of habitual delinquency. Is
the appeal meritorious? Explain.

No, the appeal is not meritorious. Recidivism and habitual delinquency are
correctly considered in this case because the basis of recidivism is different from
that of habitual delinquency. Juan is a recidivist because he had been previously
convicted by final judgment for theft and again found guilty for Robbery with
Homicide, which are both crimes against property, embraced under the same Title
(Title Ten, Book Two) of the Revised Penal Code. The implication is that he is
specializing in the commission of crimes against property, hence, aggravating in the
conviction for Robbery with Homicide. Habitual delinquency, which brings about an
additional penalty when an offender is convicted a third time or more for specified
crimes, is correctly considered.

2003 BAR
When would qualifying circumstances be deemed, if at all, elements
of a crime?

A qualifying circumstance would be deemed an element of a crime when:


1. It changes the nature of the crime, bringing about a more serious crime
and a heavier penalty;
2. It is essential to the crime involved, otherwise some other crime is
committed; and
3. It is specifically alleged in the Information and proven during the trial.

2009 BAR
Wenceslao and Loretta were staying in the same boarding house,
occupying different rooms. One late evening, when everyone in the house
was asleep, Wenceslao entered Loretta’s room with the use of a picklock.
Then, with force and violence, Wenceslao ravished Loretta. After he had
satisfied his lust, Wenceslao stabbed Loretta to death and, before leaving
the room, took her jewelry.

Discuss the applicability of the relevant aggravating circumstances


of dwelling, nocturnity and the use of the picklock to enter the room of the
victim. (3%)

Dwelling is aggravating because the crimes were committed in the property


of Loretta’s room which in law is considered as her dwelling. It is well settled that
“dwelling” includes a room in a boarding house being occupied by the offended
party where she enjoys privacy, peace of mind and sanctity of an abode.

Nocturnity or nighttime is also aggravating because although it was not


purposely or especially sought for by Wenceslao, nighttime was obviously taken
advantage of by him in committing the other crimes. Under the objective test,
noctunity is aggravating when taken advantage of by the offender during the
commission of the crime thus facilitating the same. The use of a picklock to enter
the room of the victim is not an aggravating circumstance under Art. 14 of the Code
but punished as a crime by itself where the offender has no lawful cause for
possessing it. The use of picklocks is equivalent to force upon things in robbery with
force upon things.

2009 BAR
The use of an unlicensed firearm in homicide is considered a generic
aggravating circumstance which can be offset by an ordinary mitigating
circumstance.

False, offsetting may not take place because the use of an unlicensed firearm
in homicide or murder is a specific aggravating circumstance provided for by Rep.
Act. No. 8294. It is not one of the generic aggravating circumstances under
Article 14 of the Revised Penal Code (People v. Avecilla, 351 SCRA 63 [2001]).

2014 BAR
During trial for theft in 2014, the prosecution managed to show that
accused AA has also been convicted by final judgment for robbery in 2003,
but she eluded capture. A subsequent verification showed that AA had
several convictions, to wit:

(1.) In 1998, she was convicted of estafa;


(2.) In 2002, she was convicted of theft;
(3.) In 2004, she was convicted of frustrated homicide;

The judge trying the theft case in 2014 is about to convict AA. What
circumstances affecting the liability or penalty may the judge appreciate
against AA? (4%)

The judge may appreciate the aggravating circumstance of a recidivist.

Under the Revised Penal Code (Art. 14), a recidivist is one who, at the time of
trial for a crime, he has been previously convicted by final judgment of another
crime embraced in the same title of the Revised Penal Code where the current crime
on trial is found.
Here, during the trial for Theft, AA had been previously convicted by final
judgment for the crime of Robbery, both crimes being embraced in the same title of
the Revised Penal Code. Hence, the judge can only appreciate the aggravating
circumstance of a recidivist.

2014 BAR
A, B, and C agreed to rob the house of Mr. D at 10 o’clock in the
evening, with C as the driver of the tricycle which they would use in going
to and leaving the house of Mr. D, and A and B as the ones who would
enter the house to get the valuables of Mr. D. As planned, C parked the
tricycle in a dark place, while A and B entered the house thru an open
door. Once inside, A entered the master’s bedroom and started getting all
the valuables he could see, while B entered another room. While inside the
room, B saw a male person and immediately B brought out his gun but he
accidentally pulled its trigger. The bullet went through the window,
hitting a neighbour that killed him. Neighbors were then awakened by
t24eighbore and policemen were alerted. Not long after, policemen
arrived. A and B panicked and got hold of a young boy and shouted to the
policemen who were already outside of the house that they would harm
the boy if the policemen did not disperse. A and B demanded that they
should be allowed to use a vehicle to bring them to a certain place and that
would be the time that they would release the young boy. The policemen
acceded. In the meantime, C was arrested by the policemen while he was
about to flee, while A and B, after releasing the young boy, were arrested.

What crime/s did A, B, and C commit, and what modifying


circumstances attended the commission of the crime/s? (6%)

XXX

A, B, and C are all liable as principals because they are conspirators. They all
agreed to the commission of the crime.

The aggravating circumstance of dwelling is present because the crime was


committed inside the dwelling of the offended party who has not given the any
provocation.

ARTICLE 15

2002 BAR
A was invited to a drinking spree by friends. After having had a
drink too many, A and B had a heated argument, during which A stabbed
B. As a result, B suffered serious physical injuries. May the intoxication of
A be considered aggravating or mitigating?

The intoxication of A may be prima facie considered mitigating since it was


merely incidental to the commission of the crime. It may not be considered
aggravating as there is no clear indication from the facts of the case that it was
habitual or intentional on the part of A. Aggravating circumstances are not to be
presumed; they should be proved beyond reasonable doubt.
2008 BAR
Dennis leased his apartment to Myla for P10,000 a month. Myla failed
to pay the rent for 3 months. Gabriel, the son of Dennis, prepared a
demand letter falsely alleging that his father had authorized him to collect
the unpaid rentals. Myla paid the unpaid rentals to Gabriel who kept the
payment.

Can Gabriel invoke his relationship with Dennis to avoid criminal


liability? Explain.

If Gabriel would be made criminally liable for falsification of a private


document, he cannot invoke his relationship with Dennis, his father, to avoid
criminal liability because Art. 332 of the RPC provides exemption from criminal
liability in crimes against property only for theft, swindling or malicious mischief
but not for falsification of document. If he would be made criminally liable for
swindling, he can invoke his relationship with Dennis because this crime cannot be
complexed with falsification of a private document. The charged could, therefore,
stand alone. The exemption in Art. 332 will obtain.

ARTICLES 16 to 19

2007 BAR
Distinguish between an accomplice and a conspirator. (10%)

The distinction between an accomplice and a conspirator are:

1. An accomplice incurs criminal liability by merely cooperating in the execution


of the crime without participating as a principal, by prior or simultaneous
acts; whereas a conspirator participates in the commission of a crime as a co-
principal.

2. An accomplice incurs criminal liability in an individual capacity by his act


alone of cooperating in the execution of the crime; while a conspirator incurs
criminal liability not only for his individual acts in the execution of the crime
but also for the acts of the other participants in the commission of the crime
collectively. The acts of the other participants in the execution of the crime
are considered also as acts of a conspirator for purposes of collective criminal
responsibility.

3. An accomplice participates in the execution of a crime when the criminal


design or plan is already in place; whereas a conspirator participates in the
adoption or making of the criminal design.

4. An accomplice is subjected to a penalty one degree lower than that of a


principal; whereas a conspirator incurs the penalty of a principal.
2009 BAR
A. Ponciano borrowed Ruben’s gun, saying that he would use it to
kill Freddie. Because Ruben also resented Freddie, he readily lent his gun,
but told Ponciano: "O, pagkabaril mo kay Freddie, isauli mo kaagad, ha."
Later, Ponciano killed Freddie, but used a knife because he did not want
Freddie’s neighbors to hear the gunshot.

What, if any, is the liability of Ruben? Explain. (3%)

Ruben’s liability is that of an accomplice only because he merely cooperated


in Ponciano’s determination to kill Freddie. Such cooperation is not indispensable to
the killing, as in fact the killing was carried out without the use of Ruben’s gun.
Neither way Ruben may be regarded as a co-conspirator since he was not a
participant in the decision-making of Ponciono to kill Freddie; he merely cooperated
in carrying out the plan which was already in place (Art. 18, RPC).

ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:

Ruben cannot be held liable as an accomplice in the killing of Freddie because


his act of lending his gun to Ponciano did not have the relation between the acts
done by the latter to that attributed to Ruben. Even if Ruben did not lend his gun,
Ponciano would have consummated the act of killing Freddie. In other words,
Ruben‟s act in lending his gun was not a necessary act to enable Ponciano to
consummate the crime.

B. Ponciano borrowed Ruben’s gun, saying that he would use it to


kill Freddie. Because Ruben also resented Freddie, he readily lent his
gun, but told Ponciano: "O, pagkabaril mo kay Freddie, isauli mo kaagad,
ha." Later, Ponciano killed Freddie, but used a knife because he did not
want Freddie’s neighbors to hear the gunshot.

Would your answer be the same if, instead of Freddie, it was Manuel,
a relative of Ruben, who was killed by Ponciano using Ruben’s gun?
Explain. (3%)

No, the answer would not be the same because Ruben lent his gun purposely
for the killing of Freddie only, not for any other killing. Ponciano‟s using Ruben‟s
gun in killing a person other then Freddie is beyond Ruben‟s criminal intent and
willing involvement. Only Ponciano will answer for the crime against Manuel.

It has been ruled that when the owner of the gun knew it would be used to
kill a particular person, but the offender used it to kill another person, the owner of
the gun is not an accomplice as to the killing of the other person. While there was
community of design to kill Freddie between Ponciano and Ruben, there was none
with respect to the killing of Manuel.

ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:

Yes, the answer would be the same because Ruben lent his gun to Ponciano
with knowledge that it would be used in killing a person, thus with knowledge that
the gun would be use to commit a crime. It is of no moment who was killed so long
as Ruben is aware when he lent the gun that it would be used to commit a crime.
2012 BAR
A. Who is an accomplice? (5%)

Accomplices are those persons who, not being a principal, cooperate in the
execution of the offense by previous or simultaneous acts (Article 18)

B. Distinguish an accomplice from a conspirator as to their


knowledge of the criminal design of the principal, their participation, the
penalty to be imposed in relation to the penalty for the principal, and the
requisites/elements to be established by the prosecution in order to hold
them criminally responsible for their respective roles in the commission of
the crime. (5%)

The differences between accomplice and conspirator are as follows:

Accomplice Conspirator
They know and agree They know of and join in
with the criminal design. the criminal design. They
They come to know it know the criminal
Knowledge of the
after the principals have intention because they
criminal design of the
reached the decision and themselves have decided
principal
only then do upon such course of
they agree to cooperate in action.
its execution.
Accomplices are mere Conspirators are the
instrument who perform author of the crime.
Participation acts not essential to the
commission of the
crime.
One degree lower than Same as principal.
that of a principal. Note: Conspiracy alone is
not punishable, except in
Penalty
cases where the law
specifically prescribes
a penalty therefor.
(1) The community of (1) That two or more
criminal design; that is, persons came to an
knowing the criminal agreement;
design of the principal by (2) That the agreement
direct participation, he concerned the commission
concurs with the latter in of a crime; and
Prerequisite
his purpose; and (3) That the execution
(2) The performance of of the felony was decided
previous or simultaneous upon
acts that is not
indispensable to the
commission of the crime.

2013 BAR
Modesto and Abelardo are brothers. Sometime in August, 1998 while
Abelardo was in his office, Modesto, together with two other men in police
uniform, came with two heavy bags. Modesto asked Abelardo to keep the
two bags in his vault until he comes back to get them. When Abelardo later
examined the two bags, he saw bundles of money that, in his rough count,
could not be less than P5 Million. He kept the money inside the vault and
soon he heard the news that a gang that included Modesto had been
engaged in bank robberies. Abelardo, unsure of what to do under the
circumstances, kept quiet about the two bags in his vault. Soon after, the
police captured, and secured a confession from, Modesto who admitted
that their loot had been deposited with Abelardo.

What is Abelardo's liability? (7%)

Abelardo is not criminally liable.

To be criminally liable as an accessory under Article 19 of the Code, such


person must have knowledge of the commission of the crime. The term “knowledge “
under the law is not synonymous with suspicion. Mere suspicion that the crime
has been committed is not sufficient.

Moreover, the facts as given in the problem would show lack or absent of
intent to conceal the effects of the crime as Abelardo is described as being “unsure of
what to do under the circumstances.”

Even if he can be considered as an accessory under paragraph 2 of Article


19, RPC, Abelardo is not liable, being the brother of Modesto under Article 20,
RPC.

2014 BAR
Mr. Red was drinking with his buddies, Mr. White and Mr. Blue when
he saw Mr. Green with his former girlfriend, Ms. Yellow. Already drunk,
Mr. Red declared in a loud voice that if he could not have Ms. Yellow, no
one can. He then proceeded to the men’s room but told Mr. White and Mr.
Blue to take care of Mr. Green. Mr. Blue and Mr. White asked Mr. Red what
he meant but Mr. Red simply said, "You already know what I want," and
then left. Mr. Blue and Mr. White proceeded to kill Mr. Green and hurt Ms.
Yellow. (4%)

(A) What, if any, are the respective liabilities of Mr. Red, Mr. White and Mr.
Blue for the death of Mr. Green?

Mr. Red has no liability.

Under criminal law, to be a principal by inducement, the inducement must be


the sole consideration which caused the person induced to commit the crime and
without which the crime would not have been committed.

In determining if the acts or utterances of an accused are sufficient to make


him guilty as co-principal by inducement was of such a nature and made in such a
way as to become the determining cause of the crime, and that such inducement
was offered precisely with the intention of producing the result.

It is a settled principle that mere careless comment made by one who does
not possess dominance or moral ascendancy over the offender will not make him a
principal by inducement. Here, it can be inferred that the comments of Mr. Red are
careless and vague. Hence, Mr. Red cannot be a principal by inducement in the
killing by Mr. White and Mr. Blue.
Mr. White and Mr. Blue are principals by direct participation who materially
executed the crime.

(B) What, if any, are the respective liabilities of Mr. Red, Mr. White and Mr.
Blue for the injuries of Ms. Yellow?

Mr. Red had no liability for the injuries of Ms. Yellow.

It is a settled principle that mere careless comment made by one who does
not possess dominance or moral ascendancy over the offender will not make him a
principal by inducement. Here, it can be inferred that the comment of Mr. Red are
careless and vague. Hence, Mr. Red cannot be a principal by inducement in the
killing by Mr. White and Mr. Blue.

Mr. White and Mr. Blue are principals by direct participation who materially
executed the crime.

2015 BAR
Nel learned that Elgar, the owner of the biggest house in the place,
would be out of town for three days with no one left to watch the house. He
called his friends Ben, Ardo and Gorio and they planned to take the
valuables in the house while Elgar was away. Nel and Ben would go inside
the house, Ardo would serve as the lookout, while Gorio would stay in the
getaway car. When Elgar left, they carried out their plan to the letter. Nel
and Ben went inside the house through the backdoor which was left
unlocked. None of the rooms and drawers inside were locked. They took
the money, jewelry and other valuables therefrom and immediately left
using the getaway car.

After driving for about one kilometer, Nel realized he left his bag
and wallet with IDs in the house and so he instructed Gorio to drive back
to the house. Nel just went in thinking that the house was still empty. But
to his surprise, Nel found Fermin seated on a bench with Nel's bag and
wallet beside him and appeared to be texting using his smart phone. Nel
took a golf club near him and hit Fermin with it. Fermin shouted for help,
but Nel kept hitting him until he stopped making noise. The noise alerted
the neighbor who called the police. Nel, Ben, Ardo and Gorio were caught.
Fermin died. What is the criminal liability of Nel, Ben, Ardo and Gorio?
Explain. (5%)

Nel, Ben, Ardo and Gorio are principal by direct participation in the crime of
theft. A principal by direct participation is one who participated in the criminal
resolution and carried out the plan and personally took part in its execution by acts,
which directly tended to the same end. In the case, they all participated directly in
the commission of the crime of theft.

Nel is also solely liable for the death of Fermin. The object of the conspiracy
of Nel, Ben, Ardo and Gorio is to steal only. Since Ben, Ardo and Gorio did not know
of Nel’s killing Fermin, they cannot be held criminally liable therefor.
ARTICLE 17

2000 BAR
Despite the massive advertising campaign in media against
firecrackers and gun-firing during the New Year's celebrations, Jonas and
Jaja bought ten boxes of super lolo and pla-pla in Bocaue, Bulacan. Before
midnight of December 31, 1999, Jonas and Jaja started their celebration by
having a drinking spree at Jona's place by exploding their highpowered
firecrackers in their neighborhood. In the course of their conversation,
Jonas confided to Jaja that he has been keeping a long-time grudge
against his neighbor Jepoy in view of the latter's refusal to lend him some
money. While under the influence of liquor, Jonas started throwing lighted
super lolos inside Jepoy's fence to irritate him and the same exploded
inside the latter's yard. Upon knowing that the throwing of the super lolo
was deliberate, Jepoy became furious and sternly warned Jonas to stop his
malicious act or he would get what he wanted. A heated argument
between Jonas and Jepoy ensued but Jaja tried to calm down his friend.
At midnight, Jonas convinced Jaja to lend him his .45 calibre pistol so that
he could use it to knock down Jepoy and to end his arrogance. Jonas
thought that after all, explosions were everywhere and nobody would
know who shot Jepoy. After Jaja lent his firearm to Jonas, the latter again
started started throwing lighted super lolos and pla-plas at Jepoy's yard in
order to provoke him so that he would come out of his house. When Jepoy
came out, Jonas immediately shot him with Jaja's .45 caliber gun but
missed his target. Instead, the bullet hit Jepoy's five year old son who was
following behind him, killing the boy instantaneously. If you were the
Judge, how would you decide the case? Explain.

I would convict Jonas as principal by direct participation and Jaja as co-


principal by indispensable cooperation for the complex crime of murder with
homicide. Jaja should be held liable as co-principal and not only as an accomplice
because he knew of Jonas' criminal design even before he lent his firearm to Jonas
and still he concurred in that criminal design by providing the firearm.

2002 BAR
A asked B to kill C because of a grave injustice done to A by C. A
promised B a reward. B was willing to kill C, not so much because of the
reward promised to him but because he also had his own long-standing
grudge against C, who had wronged him in the past. If C is killed by B,
would A be liable as a principal by inducement?

No. A would not be liable as a principal by inducement because the reward he


promised B is not the sole impelling reason which made B to kill C. To bring about
criminal liability of a co-principal, the inducement made by the inducer must be the
sole consideration which caused the person induced to commit the crime and
without which the crime would not have been committed. The facts of the case
indicate that B, the killer supposedly induced by A, had his own reason to kill C out
of a long standing grudge.

2013 BAR
While walking alone on her way home from a party, Mildred was
seized at gun point by Felipe and taken on board a tricycle to a house
some distance away. Felipe was with Julio, Roldan, and Lucio, who drove
the tricycle.
At the house, Felipe, Julio, and Roldan succeeded in having sexual
intercourse with Mildred against her will and under the threat of Felipe's
gun. Lucio was not around when the sexual assaults took place as he left
after bringing his colleagues and Mildred to their destination, but he
returned everyday to bring food and the news in town about Mildred's
disappearance. For five days, Felipe, Julio and Roldan kept Mildred in the
house and took turns in sexually assaulting her. On the 6th day, Mildred
managed to escape; she proceeded immediately to the nearest police
station and narrated her ordeal.

What crime/s did Felipe, Julio, Roldan, and Lucio commit and what
was their degree of participation? (7%)

XXX

As to the degree of their participation, Felipe, Julio, Roldan and Lucio are all
liable as principals. There was implied conspiracy as they acted toward a single
criminal design or purpose. (People vs. Mirandilla, Jr., GR 186417, July 27, 2011)
Although Lucio was not around when the sexual assaults took place, there is
complicity on his part as he was the one who drove the tricycle at the time the
victim was seized and he returned everyday to bring food and news to his
conspirators.

2015 BAR

Nel learned that Elgar, the owner of the biggest house in the place,
would be out of town for three days with no one left to watch the house. He
called his friends Ben, Ardo and Gorio and they planned to take the
valuables in the house while Elgar was away. Nel and Ben would go inside
the house, Ardo would serve as the lookout, while Gorio would stay in the
getaway car. When Elgar left, they carried out their plan to the letter. Nel
and Ben went inside the house through the backdoor which was left
unlocked. None of the rooms and drawers inside were locked. They took
the money, jewelry and other valuables therefrom and immediately left
using the getaway car. After driving for about one kilometer, Nel realized
he left his bag and wallet with IDs in the house and so he instructed Gorio
to drive back to the house. Nel just went in thinking that the house was
still empty. But to his surprise, Nel found Fermin seated on a bench with
Nel's bag and wallet beside him and appeared to be texting using his smart
phone. Nel took a golf club near him and hit Fermin with it. Fermin
shouted for help, but Nel kept hitting him until he stopped making noise.
The noise alerted the neighbor who called the police. Nel, Ben, Ardo and
Gorio were caught. Fermin died. What is the criminal liability of Nel, Ben,
Ardo and Gorio? Explain.

Nel, Ben, Ardo and Gorio are criminally liable as principals for the crime of
Theft. They conspired to take Elgar’s personal properties without his knowledge,
with intent to gain, and without violence against or intimidation of persons or force
upon things (Art. 308, RPC) Nel and Ben entered the house through an unlocked
backdoor and took the valuables from the rooms and drawers that wer likewise left
unlocked. Nel and Ben are liable as principals by direct participation while Ardo
and Gorio are principals by indispensable cooperation because they have concurred
in the criminal resolution and cooperated by performing another act as lookout and
driver of a getaway car, respectively, which were indispensable for the commission
of the crime (Art. 17, RPC).

Nel, however, is also liable for the separate crime of Homicide for the death of
Fermin. The killing of Fermin was a separate act and was not a necessary means
for committing Theft (Art. 48, RPC) because the latter crime was already
consummated. Nel killed Fermin for a different reason perhaps because of his anger
that Fermin was in possession of his bag and wallet and appeared to be using his
smart phone to contact the police.

ARTICLE 18

2009 BAR
Ponciano borrowed Ruben’s gun, saying that he would use it to kill
Freddie. Because Ruben also resented Freddie, he readily lent his gun, but
told Ponciano: "O, pagkabaril mo kay Freddie, isauli mo kaagad, ha." Later,
Ponciano killed Freddie, but used a knife because he did not want
Freddie’s neighbors to hear the gunshot.

a. What, if any, is the liability of Ruben? Explain.

Ruben’s liability is that of an accomplice only because he merely cooperated


in Pociano’s determination to kill Freddie. Such cooperation is not indispensable to
the killing, as in fact the killing was carried out without the use of Ruben’s gun.
Neither may Ruben be regarded as a co-conspirator since he was not a participant
in the decision-making of Ponciano to kill Freddie; he merely cooperated in carrying
out the criminal plan which was already in place (Art. 18, RPC).

b. Would your answer be the same if, instead of Freddie, it was Manuel, a
relative of Ruben, who was killed by Ponciano using Ruben’s gun?
Explain.

No. The answer would not be the same because Ruben lent his gun purposely
for the killing of Freddie only, not for any other killing. Ponciano’s using Ruben’s
gun in killing a person other than Freddie is beyond Ruben’s criminal intent and
willing involvement. Only Ponciano will answer for the crime against Manuel.

2012 BAR
a) Who is an accomplice? (5%)

An accomplice is one who, not being a principal, cooperates in the execution


of the offense by previous or simultaneous acts. (Article 18, RPC)

b) Distinguish an accomplice from a conspirator as to their knowledge of


the criminal design of the principal, their participation, the penalty to be
imposed in relation to the penalty for the principal, and the
requisites/elements to be established by the prosecution in order to hold
them criminally responsible for their respective roles in the commission of
the crime. (5%)
The distinctions between a conspirator and an accomplice are as follows:

1. As to knowledge of the principal’s criminal design: A conspirator knows


the criminal design because he was part of the planning and decision to commit the
crime; WHEREAS an accomplice knows the criminal design because he was
informed by the principal and he concurred with it.

2. As to their participation: A conspirator authors the commission of the


crime; WHEREAS an accomplice is a mere instrument who performs acts which are
not indispensable, previous or simultaneous, to the commission of the crime.

3. As to the penalty to be imposed: The penalty to be imposed on a


conspirator is the of the same degree as that of the principal WHEREAS the penalty
to be imposed on an accomplice is one degree lower than that of the principal.

4. As to the elements to be established by the prosecution:


To convict one as a conspirator, the elements are: (a) that two or more persons come
to an agreement; (b) that the agreement concerns the commission of felony; and (c)
that these persons decide to commit the felony; WHEREAS the elements to be
proved to convict one as an accomplice are: (a) that there is a community of design
between the principal and the accomplice; (b) that the accomplice performs acts
previous or simultaneous to the commission of the crime; and (c) that the acts
performed by an accomplice is related to those of the principal.

ARTICLE 19

2010 BAR
Immediately after murdering Bob, Jake went to his mother to seek
refuge. His mother told him to hide in the maid’s quarters until she finds a
better place for him to hide. After two days, Jake transferred to his aunt’s
house. A week later, Jake was apprehended by the police. Can Jake’s
mother and aunt be made criminally liable as accessories to the crime of
murder? Explain.

Obviously, Jake’s mother was aware of her son’s having committed a felony,
such that her act of harbouring and concealing him renders her liable as an
accessory. But being an ascendant of Jake, she is exempt from criminal liability by
express provision of Art. 20 of the RPC. On the other hand, the criminal liability of
Jake’s aunt depends on her knowledge of his commission of the felony, her act of
harbouring and concealing Jake would render her criminally liable as accessory to
the crime of murder; otherwise, without knowledge of Jake’s commission of the
felony, she would not be liable.

2013 BAR
Modesto and Abelardo are brothers. Sometime in August 1998 while
Abelardo was in his office, Modesto, together with two other men in police
uniform, came with two heavy bags. Modesto asked Abelardo to keep the
two bags in his vault until he comes back to get them. When Abelardo later
examined the two bags, he saw bundles of money that, in his rough count,
could not be less than P5 Million. He kept the money inside the vault and
soon he heard the news that a gang that included Modesto had been
engaged in bank robberies. Abelardo, unsure of what to do under the
circumstances, kept quiet about the two bags in his vault. Soon after, the
police captured, and secured a confession from, Modesto who admitted
that their loot had been deposited with Abelardo. What is Abelardo's
liability?

Abelardo is not criminally liable. To be criminally liable as an accessory


under Art. 19, such person must have knowledge of the commission of the crime.
The term “knowledge “under the law is not synonymous with suspicion. Mere
suspicion that the crime has been committed is not sufficient. Even if he can be
considered as an accessory under Art. 19(2) of RPC, Abelardo is not liable, being the
brother of Modesto under Art. 20, RPC.

ARTICLE 20

2004 BAR
DCB, the daughter of MCB, stole the earrings of XYZ, a stranger.
MCB pawned the earrings with TBI Pawnshop as a pledge for P500 loan.
During the trial, MCB raised the defense that being the mother of DCB,
she cannot be held liable as an accessory. Will MCB's defense prosper?
Reason briefly.

No, MCB's defense will not prosper because the exemption from criminal
liability of an accessory by virtue of relationship with the principal does not cover
accessories who themselves profited from or assisted the offender to profit by the
effects or proceeds of the crime. This non-exemption of an accessory, though related
to the principal of the crime, is expressly provided in Art. 20 of the RPC.

2010 BAR

Immediately after murdering Bob, Jake went to his mother to seek


refuge. His mother told him to hide in the maid’s quarters until she finds a
better place for him to hide. After two days, Jake transferred to his aunt’s
house. A week later, Jake was apprehended by the police.

Can Jake’s mother and aunt be made criminally liable as accessories


to the crime of murder? Explain. (3 %)

Obviously, Jake’s mother was aware of her son’s having committed a felony,
such that her act of harboring and concealing him renders her liable as an
accessory. But being an ascendant to Jake, she is exempt from criminal liability by
express provision of Article 20 of the Revised Penal Code.

On the other hand, the criminal liability of Jak’s aunt depends on her
knowledge of his commission of the felony, her act of harboring and concealing Jake
would render her criminally liable as accessory to the crime of murder; otherwise
without knowledge of Jak’s commission of the felony, she would not be liable.
ANSWERS TO BAR MCQ PER ARTICLE (1-20)

GENERAL PRINCIPLES

2011 (6) Principles of public international law exempt certain


individuals from the Generality characteristic of criminal law. Who
among the following are NOT exempt from the Generality rule?

A. Ministers Resident
B. Commercial Attache of a foreign country
C. Ambassador
D. Chiefs of Mission

2011 (27) X, a court employee, wrote the presiding judge a letter,


imputing to Y, also a court employee, the act of receiving an
expensive gift from one of the parties in a pending case. Because of
this, Y accused X of libel. Does Y need to prove the element of malice
in the case?

A. No, since malice is self-evident in the letter.


B. Yes, malice is not presumed since X wrote the letter to the presiding
judge who has a duty to act on what it states.
C. No, since malice is presumed with respect to defamatory imputations.
D. Yes, since malice is not presumed in libel.

2011 (31) It is a matter of judicial knowledge that certain individuals


will kill others or commit serious offenses for no reason at all. For
this reason,

A. lack of motive can result in conviction where the crime and the
accused's part in it are shown.
B. motive is material only where there is no evidence of criminal intent.
C. lack of motive precludes conviction.
D. the motive of an offender is absolutely immaterial.

2011 (39) X, without intent to kill, aimed his gun at Z and fired it,
hitting the latter who died as a consequence. Under the
circumstances

A. X cannot plead praetor intentionem since the intent to kill is presumed


from the killing of the victim.
B. X may plead praetor intentionem since he intended only to scare, not
kill Z.
C. X may plead aberratio ictus as he had no intention to hit Z.
D. X may plead commission of only Discharge of Firearm as he had no
intent to kill Z when he fired his gun.

2011 (73) What court has jurisdiction when an Indonesian crew


murders the Filipino captain on board a vessel of Russian registry
while the vessel is anchored outside the breakwaters of the Manila
bay?

A. The Indonesian court.


B. The Russian court.
C. The Philippine court.
D. Any court that first asserts jurisdiction over the case.

2013 (IX) Choose from the list below the correct principle in
considering "motive". (0.5%)

(A) If the evidence is merely circumstantial, proof of motive is


essential.
(B) Generally, proof of motive is not necessary to pin a crime on the
accused if the commission of the crime has been proven and the evidence of
identification is convincing.
(C) Motive is important to ascertain the truth between two
antagonistic theories.
(D) Motive is relevant if the identity of the accused is uncertain.
(E) All of the above are correct.

ARTICLE 2

2012 (44) A foreigner residing in Hong Kong counterfeits a twenty-


peso bill issued by the Philippine Government. May the foreigner be
prosecuted before a civil court in the Philippines?

a) No. The provisions of the Revised Penal Code are enforceable only within
the Philippine Archipelago.
b) No. The Philippine Criminal Law is binding only on persons who reside or
sojourn in the Philippines.
c) No. Foreigners residing outside the jurisdiction of the Philippines are
exempted from the operation of the Philippine Criminal Law.
d) Yes. The provisions of the Revised Penal Code are enforceable also outside
the jurisdiction of the Philippines against those who should forge or
counterfeit currency notes of the Philippines or obligations and securities
issued by the Government of the Philippines.

2012 (45) Can the crime of treason be committed only by a Filipino


citizen?

a) Yes. The offender in the crime of treason is a Filipino citizen only because
the first element is that the offender owes allegiance to the Government of
the Philippines.
b) No. The offender in the crime of treason is either a Filipino citizen or a
foreigner married to a Filipino citizen, whether residing in the Philippines or
elsewhere, who adheres to the enemies of the Philippines, giving them aid or
comfort.
c) No. The offender in the crime of treason is either a Filipino citizen or an
alien residing in the Philippines because while permanent allegiance is owed
by the alien to his own country, he owes a temporary allegiance to the
Philippines where he resides.
d) Yes. It is not possible for an alien, whether residing in the Philippines or
elsewhere, to commit the crime of treason because he owes allegiance to his
own country.
ARTICLE 3

2011 (22) A crime resulting from negligence, reckless imprudence,


lack of foresight or lack of skill is called

A. dolo.
B. culpa.
C. tortious crimes.
D. quasi delict.

2011 (41) Culpa can either be a crime by itself or a mode of


committing a crime. Culpa is a crime by itself in

A. reckless imprudence resulting in murder.


B. medical malpractice.**
C. serious physical Injuries thru reckless imprudence.
D. complex crime of reckless imprudence resulting in serious physical
injuries.
** NOTE: Letter D is also a correct answer based on the decision of the
Supreme Court in Ivler vs. Modesto-San Pedro (GR#172716, 11/172010)

2012 (16) B was convicted by final judgment of theft. While serving


sentence for such offense, B was found in possession of an
unlicensed firearm. Is B a quasi-recidivist?

a) B is a quasi-recidivist because he was serving sentence when found in


possession of an unlicensed firearm.
b) B is not a quasi-recidivist because the offense for which he was serving
sentence is different from the second offense.
c) B is not a quasi-recidivist because the second offense is not a felony.
d) B is not a quasi-recidivist because the second offense was committed while
still serving for the first offense.

ARTICLE 4

2011 (50) A public officer who immediately returns the bribe money
handed over to him commits

A. no crime.
B. attempted bribery.
C. consummated bribery.
D. frustrated bribery.

2012 (2) Under which of the following circumstances is an accused


not liable for the result not intended?
a) Accused is not criminally liable for the result not intended when there is
mistake in the identity of the victim.
b) Accused is not criminally liable for the result not intended when there is
mistake in the blow.
c) Accused is not criminally liable for the result not intended when the
wrongful act is not the proximate cause of the resulting injury.
d) Accused is not criminally liable for the result not intended when there is
mistake of fact constituting an involuntary act.

2012 (3) Can there be a frustrated impossible crime?

a) Yes. When the crime is not produced by reason of the inherent


impossibility of its accomplishment, it is a frustrated impossible crime.
b) No. There can be no frustrated impossible crime because the means
employed to accomplish the crime is inadequate or ineffectual.
c) Yes. There can be a frustrated impossible crime when the act performed
would be an offense against persons.
d) No. There can be no frustrated impossible because the offender has already
performed the acts for the execution of the crime.

2012 (10) AA was appointed for a two-year term to serve the


unexpired portion of a resigned public official. Despite being
disqualified after the lapse of the two-year term, AA continued to
exercise the duties and powers of the public office to which
appointed. What is the criminal liability of AA?

a) AA is criminally liable for malfeasance in office.


b) AA is criminally liable for prolonging performance of duties and powers.
c) AA is criminally liable for disobeying request for disqualification.
d) AA incurs no criminal liability because there is no indication that he
caused prejudice to anyone.

2012 (12) What is the criminal liability, if any, of a pregnant woman


who tried to commit suicide by poison, but she did not die and the
fetus in her womb was expelled instead?

a) The woman who tried to commit suicide is not criminally liable because the
suicide intended was not consummated.
b) The woman who tried to commit suicide is criminally liable for
unintentional abortion which is punishable when caused by violence.
c) The woman who tried to commit suicide is criminally liable for abortion
that resulted due to the poison that she had taken to commit suicide.
d) The woman who tried to commit suicide incurs no criminal liability for the
result not intended.

2012 (24) A, B and C, all seventeen (17) years of age, waited for
nighttime to avoid detection and to facilitate the implementation of
their plan to rob G. They entered the room of G through a window.
Upon instruction of A, G opened her vault while B was poking a
knife at her. Acting as lookout, C had already opened the main door
of the house when the helper was awakened by the pleading of G to
A and B to just take the money from the vault without harming her.
When the helper shouted for help upon seeing G with A and B inside
the room, B stabbed G and ran towards the door, leaving the house
with C. A also left the house after taking the money of G from the
vault. G was brought to the hospital where she died as a result of the
wound inflicted by B. Under the given facts, are A, B and C exempt
from criminal liability? If not, what is the proper charge against
them or any of them?

a) A, B and C, being under eighteen (18) years of age at the time of the
commission of the offense, are exempt from criminal liability and should be
merely subjected to intervention program for child in conflict with the law.
b) There being no indication of having acted with discernment, A, B and C
are exempt from criminal liability, subject to appropriate programs in
consultation with the person having custody over the child in conflict with
the taw or the local social welfare and development officer.
c) Considering the given facts which manifest discernment, A, B and C are
not exempt from criminal liability and should be charged with the complex
crime of robbery with homicide, subject to automatic suspension of sentence
upon finding of guilt.
d) Under the given facts, A, B and C are not exempt from criminal liability
because they conspired to commit robbery for which they should be
collectively charged as principals, and in addition, B should be separately
charged with homicide for the death of G, subject to diversion programs for
children over 15 and under 18 who acted with discernment.

2012 (25) The guard was entrusted with the conveyance or custody of
a detention prisoner who escaped through his negligence. What is
the criminal liability of the escaping prisoner?

a) The escaping prisoner does not incur criminal liability.


b) The escaping prisoner is liable for evasion through negligence.
c) The escaping prisoner is liable for conniving with or consenting to, evasion.
d) The escaping prisoner is liable for evasion of service of sentence.

ARTICLE 6

2011 (68) In an attempted felony, the offender’s preparatory act

A. itself constitutes an offense.


B. must seem connected to the intended crime.
C. must not be connected to the intended crime.
D. requires another act to result in a felony.
ARTICLE 8

2013 (V) Conspiracy to commit a felony is punishable only in cases


where the law specifically provides a penalty.

Which of the following combinations contain specific felonies


under the Revised Penal Code? (0.5%)
(A) Conspiracy to commit treason, conspiracy to commit rebellion,
conspiracy to commit coup d'etat, conspiracy to commit misprision of treason.
(B) Conspiracy to commit rebellion, conspiracy to commit coup
d'etat, conspiracy to commit treason, conspiracy to commit sedition.
(C) Conspiracy to commit rebellion or insurrection, conspiracy to
commit sedition, conspiracy to commit illegal assemblies, conspiracy to
commit treason.
(D) Conspiracy to commit treason, conspiracy to commit sedition,
conspiracy to commit terrorism.
(E) None of the above.

ARTICLE 9

2011 (60) The classification of felonies into grave, less grave, and
light is important in ascertaining

A. if certain crimes committed on the same occasion can be complexed.


B. the correct penalty for crimes committed through reckless imprudence.
C. whether the offender is liable as an accomplice.
D. what stage of the felony has been reached.

2012 (9) When are light felonies punishable?

a) Light felonies are punishable in all stages of execution.


b) Light felonies are punishable only when consummated.
c) Light felonies are punishable only when consummated, with the exception
of those committed against persons or property.
d) Light felonies are punishable only when committed against persons or
property.

ARTICLE 11

2011 (14) The husband has for a long time physically and mentally
tortured his wife. After one episode of beating, the wife took the
husband’s gun and shot him dead. Under the circumstances, her act
constitutes

A. mitigating vindication of grave offense.


B. battered woman syndrome, a complete self-defense.
C. incomplete self-defense.
D. mitigating passion and obfuscation.

2011 (43) To save himself from crashing into an unlighted truck


abandoned on the road, Jose swerved his car to the right towards
the graveled shoulder, killing two bystanders. Is he entitled to the
justifying circumstance of state of necessity?
A. No, because the bystanders had nothing to do with the abandoned
truck on the road.
B. No, because the injury done is greater than the evil to be avoided.
C. Yes, since the instinct of self-preservation takes priority in an
emergency.
D. Yes, since the bystanders should have kept off the shoulder of the road.

ARTICLE 12

2012 (29) What is the minimum age of criminal responsibility?

a) fifteen (15) years old or under;


b) nine (9) years old or under;
c) above nine (9) years old and under fifteen (15) who acted with discernment;
d) above fifteen ( 15) years old and under eighteen ( 18) who acted with
discernment.

ARTICLE 13

2011 (4) The presence of a mitigating circumstance in a crime

A. increases the penalty to its maximum period.


B. changes the gravity of the offense.
C. affects the imposable penalty, depending on other modifying
circumstances.
D. automatically reduces the penalty.

2011 (23) To mitigate his liability for inflicting physical injury to


another, an accused with a physical defect must prove that such
defect restricted his freedom of action and understanding. This
proof is not required where the physical defect consists of

A. a severed right hand.


B. complete blindness.
C. being deaf mute and dumb.
D. a severed leg.

2011 (24) An extenuating circumstance, which has the same effect


as a mitigating circumstance, is exemplified by

A. the mother killing her 2-day old child to conceal her dishonor.
B. the accused committing theft out of extreme poverty.
C. the accused raping his victim in extreme state of passion.
D. the accused surrendering the weapon he used in his crime to the
authorities.

2011 (32) Minority is a privileged mitigating circumstance which


operates to reduce the penalty by a degree where the child is

A. 15 years and below acting without discernment.


B. above 15 years but below 18 acting without discernment.
C. below 18 years acting with discernment.**
D. 18 years old at the time of the commission of the crime acting with
discernment.
** NOTE: This should be “above 15 years but below 18 years acting
with discernment
2011 (42) The mitigating circumstance of immediate vindication of a grave
offense cannot be appreciated in a case where

A. Following the killing of his adopted brother, P went to the place where
it happened and killed S whom he found there.
B. X kills Y who attempted to rape X’s wife.
C. P severely maltreats S, a septuagenarian, prompting the latter to kill
him.
D. M killed R who slandered his wife.

2011 (46) Deeply enraged by his wife’s infidelity, the husband shot
and killed her lover. The husband subsequently surrendered to the
police. How will the court appreciate the mitigating circumstances
of (i) passion or obfuscation, (ii) vindication of a grave offense, and
(iii) voluntary surrender that the husband invoked and proved?

A. It will appreciate passion or obfuscation and voluntary surrender as


one mitigating circumstance and vindication of a grave offense as another.
B. It will appreciate all three mitigating circumstances separately.
C. It will appreciate the three mitigating circumstances only as one.
D. It will appreciate passion or obfuscation and vindication of a grave
offense as just one mitigating circumstance and voluntary surrender as
another.

2011 (49) Without meaning anything, Z happened to stare into the


eye of one of four men hanging out by a store which he passed.
Taking offense, the four mauled and robbed him of his wages. Z went
home, took a knife, and stabbed one of his attackers to death.
Charged with murder, Z may raise the mitigating circumstance of

A. praeter intentionem.
B. incomplete self-defense preceded by undue provocation.
C. passion or obfuscation.
D. complete self-defense.

2011 (63) W allowed a man to have sex with her thinking that he was
her husband. After realizing that the man was not her husband, W
stabbed him to death. Under the circumstances, the mitigating
circumstance in attendance constitutes

A. defense of honor.
B. immediate vindication of a grave offense.
C. passion or obfuscation.
D. self-defense.

2011 (65) After properly waiving his Miranda rights, the offender led
the police to where he buried the gun he used in shooting the victim.
How does this affect his liability?

A. This serves as an analogous mitigating circumstance of voluntary


surrender.
B. It has no effect at all since the law provides none.
C. He is considered to have confessed to murder.
D. This serves as aggravating circumstance of concealment of weapon.

2012 (21) A killed M. After the killing, A went to the Barangay


Chairman of the place of incident to seek protection against the
retaliation of M's relatives. May voluntary surrender be appreciated
as a mitigating circumstance in favor of A?

a) Yes. A surrendered to the Barangay Chairman who is a person in


authority.
b) Yes. The surrender of A would save the authorities the trouble and
expense for his arrest.
c) No. A did not unconditionally submit himself to the authorities in order to
acknowledge his participation in the killing or to save the authorities the
trouble and expenses necessary for his search and capture. (* People vs. Del
Castillo, GR 169084, January 18, 2012)
d) No. The surrender to the Barangay Chairman is not a surrender to the
proper authorities.

2014 (XV) Which of the following is not a privilege mitigating


circumstance? (1%)
(A) 17-year-old offender
(B) 14-year-old offender
(C) incomplete self-defense
(D) incomplete defense of a relative

ARTICLE 14

2011 (3) Arthur, Ben, and Cesar quarrelled with Glen while they
were at the latter’s house. Enraged, Arthur repeatedly stabbed Glen
while Ben and Cesar pinned his arms. What aggravating
circumstance if any attended the killing of Glen?

A. Evident premeditation.
B. None.
C. Abuse of superior strength.
D. Treachery.
2011 (30) Ana visited her daughter Belen who worked as Caloy’s
housemaid. Caloy was not at home but Debbie, a casual visitor in the
house, verbally maligned Belen in Ana’s presence. Irked, Ana
assaulted Debbie. Under the circumstances, dwelling is NOT
regarded as aggravating because

A. Dwelling did nothing to provoke Ana into assaulting Debbie.


B. Caloy, the owner of the house, was not present.
C. Debbie is not a dweller of the house.
D. Belen, whom Debbie maligned, also dwells in the house.

2011 (47) The aggravating circumstance of uninhabited place is


aggravating in murder committed

A. on a banca far out at sea.


B. in a house located in cul de sac.
C. in a dark alley in Tondo.
D. in a partly occupied condominium building.

2011 (66) A qualifying aggravating circumstance

A. changes the description and the nature of the offense.


B. increases the penalty to its next degree but absorbs all the other
aggravating circumstances.
C. raises the penalty by two periods higher.
D. is one which applies only in conjunction with another aggravating
circumstance.

2012 (4) FF and his two (2) sons positioned themselves outside the
house of the victim. The two (2) sons stood by the stairs in front of
the house, while the father waited at the back. The victim jumped
out of the window and was met by FF who instantly hacked him. The
two (2) sons joined hacking the victim to death. They voluntarily
surrendered to the police. How will the attendant circumstances be
properly appreciated?

a) Treachery and abuse of superior strength qualify the killing to murder.


b) Only treachery qualifies the killing to murder because abuse of superior
strength is absorbed by treachery.
c) Treachery is the qualifying aggravating circumstance, while abuse of
superior strength is treated as a generic aggravating circumstance.
d) The qualifying circumstance of treachery or abuse of superior strength can
be offset by the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender.

2012 (5) Which of the following circumstances may be taken into


account for the purpose of increasing the penalty to be imposed
upon the convict?

a) Aggravating circumstances which in themselves constitute a crime


specially punishable by law.
b) Aggravating circumstances which are inherent in the crime to such a
degree that they must of necessity accompany the crime.
c) Aggravating circumstances which arise from the moral attributes of the
offender.
d) Aggravating circumstances which are included by the law in defining a
crime.
2012 (11) For treachery to qualify killing to murder, the evidence
must show:

a) The time when the accused decided to employ treachery, the overt act
manifestly indicating that he clung to such determination, and a sufficient
lapse of time between the decision and the execution, allowing him to reflect
upon the consequence of his act.
b) Unlawful aggression, reasonable necessity of the means to prevent or repel
the aggression, and lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the victim.
c) That the accused employed such means, methods or manner to ensure his
safety from the defensive or retaliatory acts of the victim, and the mode of
attack was consciously adopted.
d) Actual sudden physical assault or threat to inflict real imminent injury to
an unsuspecting victim.

2012 (32) When is a crime deemed to have been committed by a band?

a) When armed men, at least four (4) in number, take direct part in the
execution of the act constituting the crime.
b) When three (3) armed men act together in the commission of the crime.
c) When there are four ( 4) armed persons, one of whom is a principal by
inducement.
d) When there are four (4) malefactors, one of whom is armed.

2014 (XX) Which of the following is not a qualifying aggravating


circumstance? (1%)

(A) treachery
(B) evident premeditation
(C) dwelling
(D) cruelty
ARTICLE 15

2011 (2) The alternative circumstance of relationship shall NOT be


considered between

A. mother-in-law and daughter-in-law.


B. adopted son and legitimate natural daughter.
C. aunt and nephew.
D. stepfather and stepson.

ARTICLE 17

2011 (16) X, a police officer, placed a hood on the head of W, a


suspected drug pusher, and watched as Y and Z, police trainees, beat
up and tortured W to get his confession. X is liable as

A. as accomplice in violation of the Anti-Torture Act.


B. a principal in violation of the Anti-Torture Act.
C. a principal in violation of the Anti-Hazing Law.
D. an accomplice in violation of the Anti-Hazing Law.

2011 (34) A private person who assists the escape of a person who
committed robbery shall be liable

A. as a principal to the crime of robbery.


B. as an accessory to the crime of robbery.
C. as a principal to the crime of obstruction of justice.
D. as an accessory to the crime of obstruction of justice.

2012 (55) What is the criminal liability of a person who knowingly


and in any manner aids or protects highway robbers/brigands by
giving them information about the movement of the police?

a) He is criminally liable as principal by indispensable cooperation in the


commission of highway robbery or brigandage.
b) He is criminally liable as an accessory of the principal offenders.
c) He is criminally liable as an accomplice of the principal offenders.
d) He is criminally liable as principal for aiding and abetting a band of
brigands.

ARTICLE 18

2011 (5) He is an accomplice who

A. agreed to serve as a lookout after his companions decided to murder


the victim.
B. watched quietly as the murderer stabbed his victim.
C. helped the murderer find the victim who was hiding to avoid detection.
D. provided no help, when he can, to save the victim from dying.

ARTICLE 19

2014 (XXVI) A was bitten by a dog owned by a neighbor. The


following day, angered by the incident, A took the dog without the
knowledge of the owner, had it butchered and cooked the meat. He
then invited his friends to partake of the dish with his friends who
knew fully well that the dog was taken without the knowledge of the
owner. What are the friends of A liable for? (1%)

(A) Theft
(B) Malicious mischief
(C) Accessories
(D) Obstruction of Justice