UNIVERSITY OF THE CORDILLERAS

COLLEGE OF LAW
Baguio City

CRIMINAL LAW 2
REVIEW GUIDE FOR THE FINAL EXAMINATION
MAY 19, 2016

1) Memorize the following:

a. What is illegal recruitment? Enumerate the elements.
illegal recruitment shall mean any act of canvassing, enlisting, contracting, transporting,
utilizing, hiring, procuring workers and includes referring, contact services, promising or
advertising for employment abroad, whether for profit or not, when undertaken by a non-
license or non-holder of authority contemplated under Article 13(f) of Presidential Decree
No. 442, as amended, otherwise known as the Labor Code of the Philippines. Provided, that
such non-license or non-holder, who, in any manner, offers or promises for a fee
employment abroad to two or more persons shall be deemed so engaged.
Elements of illegal recruitment
1. Offender is a non-licensee or non-holder of authority to lawfully engage in the
recruitment/placement of workers.
2. Offender undertakes:
a. Any act of canvassing, enlisting, contracting, transporting, utilizing, hiring, or
procuring workers and includes referring, contract services, promising or advertising
for employment abroad, whether for profit or; or
b. Any of prohibited practices under Art. 34 of the LC.
3. For complex illegal recruitment, an additional element the offender commits the act
against three or more persons, individually, or as a group or there are three or more
offenders.

b. Ways of committing illegal recruitment involving economic sabotage.

Illegal recruitment when committed by a syndicate or in large scale shall be considered an
offense involving economic sabotage.
Illegal recruitment is deemed committed by a syndicate if carried out by a group of three
(3) or more persons conspiring or confederating with one another. It is deemed committed
in large scale if committed against three (3) or more persons individually or as a group.

c. Ways of committing rape and elements of each.

Kinds of rape under RA 8353
1. The traditional concept under Art. 335 – carnal knowledge with a woman against her
will. The offended party is always a woman and the offender is always a man.
2. Sexual assault – committed with an instrument or an object or use of the penis with
penetration of the mouth or anal orifice. The offended party or offender can either be a
man or a woman, that is, if the woman or a man uses an instrument in the anal orifice of a
male, she or he can be liable for rape.
Elements of rape by a man who shall have carnal knowledge of a woman:
1. Offender is a man;
2. Offender had carnal knowledge of the woman; and
3. Such act is accomplished under any of the following circumstances:
a. Through force, threat or intimidation; (BAR 1992)
b. When the offended party is deprived of reason or is otherwise unconscious;
c. By means of fraudulent machination or grave abuse of authority; or
d. When the offended party is under 12 years of age or is demented, even though none of
the above circumstances mentioned above be present. (BAR 1995)
Elements of rape by sexual assault (BAR 2005)
1. Offender commits an act of sexual assault;
2. The act of sexual assault is committed by any of the following means:
a. By inserting his penis into another person’s mouth or anal orifice, or
b. By inserting any instrument or object into the genital or anal orifice of another person
3. The act of sexual assault is accomplished under any of the following circumstances:
a. By using force or intimidation, or
1
 b. When the woman is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious, or
c. By means of fraudulent machination or grave abused of authority, or
d. When the woman is under 12 years of age or demented.

d. When rape is qualified?

1. When by reason or on occasion of the rape, a homicide is committed. (BAR 1998, 2009)
2. When the victim is under 18 years of age and the offender is a parent, ascendant, step-
parent, guardian, relative by consanguinity or affinity within the third civil degree, or the
common law spouse of the victim.
3. When the victim is under the custody of the police or military authorities or any law
enforcement or penal institution.
4. When rape is committed in full view of the husband, parent, any of the children or other
relatives within the third civil degree of consanguinity.
5. When the victim is engaged in a legitimate religious vocation or calling and is personally
known to be such by the offender before or after the commission of the crime.
6. When the victim is a child below 7 years old.
7. When the offender knows that he is inflicted with HIV/AIDS or any other sexually
transmissible disease and the virus or disease is transferred to the victim.
8. When committed by any member of the AFP or paramilitary units thereof or the PNP or
any law enforcement agency or penal institution, when the offender took advantage of his
position to facilitate the commission of the crime.
9. When by reason or on occasion of the rape, the victim has suffered permanent physical
mutilation or disability.
10. When the offender knew of the pregnancy of the offended party at the time of the
commission of the rape.
11. When the offender knew of the mental disability, emotional disorder, and/or physical
handicap of the offended party at the time of the commission of the crime (Art. 266-B).

e. Elements of Sexual Harassment.

Work, education or training-related sexual harassment is committed by any employer,
employee, manager, supervisor, agent of the employer, teacher, instructor, professor,
coach, trainor, or any other person who, having authority, influence or moral ascendancy
over another in a work or training or education environment, demands, requests or
otherwise requires any sexual favor from another, regardless of whether the demand,
request or requirement for submission is accepted by the object of said act.
Further, any person who directs or induces another to commit any act of sexual
harassment as defined in the law, or who cooperates in the commission thereof by another
without which it would not have been committed, shall also be held liable under the law.

f. Syndicated Child Pornography.

Syndicated child pornography is committed when it is carried out by a group of 3 or more
persons conspiring or confederating with one another (Sec. 5, RA 9775).

g. Requisites for criminal liability under BP 22.

Elements for violation of B.P. 22 (par. 1)
1. That a person makes or draws and issues any check;
2. The check is drawn or issued to apply on account or for a valuable consideration;
3. The person who makes or draws and issues the check knows at the time of issue that he
does not have sufficient funds in or credit with the drawee bank for the payment of such
check in full upon its presentment; and
4. At the time, the check was presented for payment at due date, the same was dishonoured
for insufficiency of funds or credit, or would have been dishonoured for the same reason
had not the drawer, without any valid reason, ordered the bank to stop payment.
Elements for violation of B.P. 22 (par. 2)
1. That a person has sufficient funds in or credit with the drawee bank when he makes or
draws and issues a check;
2. That he fails to keep sufficient funds or to maintain a credit to cover the full amount of
the check if presented within a period of 90 days from the date appearing thereon; and
3. That the check is dishonored by the drawee bank.

2
h. Distinguish BP 22 from Estafa.

B.P. 22 ESTAFA
Malum prohibitum. Malum in se.
Crime against public interest. Crime against property.

Deceit not required. Deceit is an element.

Punishes the making or drawing of any The act constituting the offense is
check that is subsequently dishonoured, postdating or issuing a check in
whether issued in payment of an payment of an obligation

i. Is violation of BP 22 a continuing crime?

A violation of BP 22 is a continuing crime and venue is determined by the place where any
of the elements of the crime was committed.

j. Elements of the crime of arson.

Simple arson is committed when the property burned is:
1. Any building used as offices of the government or any of its agencies;
2. Any inhabited house or dwelling;
3. Any industrial establishment, shipyard, oil well or mine shaft, platform or tunnel;
4. Any plantation, farm, pastureland, growing crop, grain field, orchard, bamboo grove or
forest;
5. Any rice mill, sugar mill, cane mill or mill central; or
6. Any railway or bus.
Commission of destructive Arson
1. Any person who shall burn: (BAR 2000)
a. One or more buildings or edifices, consequent to one single act of burning, or as a
result of simultaneous burnings, or committed on several or different occasions;
b. Any building of public or private ownership, devoted to the public in general or
where people usually gather or congregate for a definite purpose such as, but not
limited to official governmental function or business, private transaction, commerce,
trade workshop, meetings and conferences or merely incidental to a definite purpose
such as but not limited to hotels, motels, transient dwellings, public conveyance or
stops or terminals, regardless of whether the offender had knowledge that there are
persons in said building or edifice at the time it is set on fire and regardless also of
whether the building is actually inhabited or not; (BAR 1994)
c. Any train or locomotive, ship or vessel, airship or airplane, devoted to transportation
or conveyance, or for public use, entertainment or leisure;
d. Any building, factory, warehouse installation and any appurtenances thereto, which
are devoted to the service of public utilities; or
e. Any building the burning of which is for the purpose of concealing or destroying the
purpose of concealing bankruptcy or defrauding creditors or to collect from insurance.
(BAR 1995)
2. Two or more persons or by a group of persons, regardless of whether their purpose is
merely to burn or destroy the building or the burning merely constitutes an overt act in the
commission of another violation of law.
3. Any person who shall burn:
a. Any arsenal, shipyard, storehouse or military powder or fireworks factory, ordinance,
storehouse, archives or general museum of the Government.
b. In an inhabited place, any storehouse or factory of inflammable or explosive
materials.

k. Persons liable in violation of the Anti-hazing Law.

1. The following are liable as PRINCIPAL:
a. The officers and members of the fraternity, sorority or organization who actually
participated in the infliction of physical harm;

3
 b. The parents of the officer or member of the fraternity, sorority or organization, when
they have actual knowledge of the hazing conducted in their home but failed to take any
action to prevent the same from occurring; and
c. The officers, former officers or alumni of the organization, group, fraternity or sorority
who actually planned the hazing although not present when the acts constituting hazing
were committed (Sec. 4, RA 8049).
The presence of any person during the hazing is prima facie evidence of participation
therein as principal, UNLESS he prevented the commission of the acts punishable therein.
2. The following are liable as ACCOMPLICE:
a. The owner of the place where the hazing is conducted, when he has actual knowledge of
the hazing conducted therein but failed to take any action to prevent the same from
occurring; and
b. The school authorities including faculty members who consent to the hazing or who have
actual knowledge thereof, but failed to take any action to prevent the same from occurring
(Sec. 4, RA 8049).

l. Elements of Parricide.
Elements (BAR 1994, 1997, 1999, 2003, 2015)
1. That a person is killed;
2. That the deceased is killed by the accused; and
3. That the deceased is the:
a. Legitimate/Illegitimate father;
b. Legitimate/Illegitimate mother;
c. Legitimate/Illegitimate child;
d. Other legitimate ascendant;
e. Other legitimate descendant; or
f. Legitimate spouse.

m. Rules for the application of the circumstances that qualify the killing to murder.
1. That murder will exist with any of the circumstances.
2. Where there are more than one qualifying circumstance present, only one will qualify the
killing, with the rest to be considered as generic aggravating circumstances.
3. That when the other circumstances are absorbed or included in one qualifying
circumstance, they cannot be considered as generic aggravating.
4. That any of the qualifying circumstances enumerated must be alleged in the information.

n. Intentional/Unintentional abortion and abortion practiced by a physician or

practiced by the woman herself.
Elements of Intentional Abortion:
1. There is a pregnant woman;
2. Violence is exerted, or drugs or beverages administered, or that the accused otherwise
acts upon such pregnant woman;
3. As a result of the use of violence or drugs or beverages upon her, or any other act of the
accused, the fetus dies, either in the womb or after having been expelled therefrom; and
4. Abortion is intended.
Elements of Unintentional Abortion:
1. There is a pregnant woman;
2. Violence is used upon such pregnant woman without intending an abortion;
3. Violence is intentionally exerted; and
4. As a result of the violence exerted, the fetus dies either in the womb or after having been
expelled therefrom. (BAR 2015)
Elements of Abortion Practiced by the woman herself:
1. There is a pregnant woman who has suffered abortion;
2. Abortion is intended; and
3. Abortion is caused by:
a. The pregnant woman herself;
b. Any other person, with her consent; or
c. Any of her parents, with her consent for the purpose of concealing her dishonor.
Elements of this crime as to the physician or midwife:
1. There is a pregnant woman who has suffered abortion;
4
 2. Abortion is intended;
3. The offender must be a physician or midwife who causes or assists in causing the
abortion; and
4. Said physician or midwife takes advantage of his or her scientific knowledge or skill.
Elements of this crime as to the pharmacists:
1. Offender is a pharmacist;
2. There is no proper prescription from a physician; and
3. Offender dispenses an abortive.

o. Distinction between physical injuries and frustrated homicide.

PHYSICAL INJURIES FRUSTRATED HOMICIDE

Frustrated Homicide and Physical injuries both require medical attendance and that
the offended party is prevented from engaging in his customary work.
Offender has no intention to The offender has intent to kill the offended party.
kill the offended party.

p. Distinction between robbery and theft.

Robbery
Only personal property is involved.
Taking is by means of force upon
things or violence against or
intimidation of persons.
Penalty does not necessarily depend
on the amount involved.
Offender takes the property without
the consent of the owner by using
threats, intimidation or violence.
Estafa
Only personal property is involved.
Taking is not by means of force upon
things or violence against or
intimidation of persons.
Penalty depends on the amount
involved.
Offender takes the property without
the consent of the owner and without
using threats, intimidation or
violence.

q. Presumption of Fencing.
The mere possession of any good, article, item, object, or anything of value which has been
the subject of robbery or thievery shall be prima facie evidence of fencing.

r. Ways of committing Estafa.

Three different ways of committing estafa under Art. 315, thus:
a. With unfaithfulness or abuse of confidence;
b. By means of false pretenses or fraudulent acts; or
c. Through fraudulent means.

s. Element of Adultery and Concubinage.

Elements of Adultery: (BAR 2002, 2008, 2015)
1. To convict a woman for adultery, it is necessary:
a. That she is a married woman; and
b. That she unites in sexual intercourse with a man not her husband.
2. To convict a man for adultery, it is necessary:
a. That he had actual intercourse with a married woman; and
b. That he commits the act with the knowledge that said woman is married.
Elements of Concubinage: (BAR 1994, 2002, 2010)
1. Man must be married;
2. He committed any of the following acts:
a. Keeping a mistress in the conjugal dwelling;
b. Having sexual intercourse, under scandalous circumstances, with a woman who is not
his wife; or
c. Cohabiting with her in any other place.
5
 3. As regards the woman, she must know him to be married.

t. Elements of Qualified Seduction and Simple Abduction.

Elements of Qualified Seduction: (BAR 2007)
a. Offended party is a virgin which is presumed if she is unmarried and of good
reputation;
b. She is over 12 and under 18 years of age;
c. Offender has sexual intercourse with her; and
d. There is abuse of authority, confidence or relationship on the part of the offender.
Elements of Simple Seduction:
1. Offended party is over 12 and under 18 years of age;
2. She must be of good reputation, single or widow;
3. Offender has sexual intercourse with her; and
4. It is committed by means of deceit.

u. Elements of Forcible Abduction and Consented Abduction.

Elements of Forcible Abduction:
1. Person abducted is any woman, regardless of her age, civil status, or reputation;
2. Abduction is against her will; and
3. Abduction is with lewd designs.
Elements of Consented Abduction:
1. Offended party must be a virgin;
2. She must be over 12 and under 18 years of age;
3. Taking away of the offended party must be with her consent, after solicitation or
cajolery from the offender; and
4. Taking away of the offended party must be with lewd designs.

v. Elements of Libel.
1. There must be an imputation of a crime, or of a vice or defect, real or imaginary, or any
act, omission, condition, status or circumstance;
2. Imputation must be made publicly; (BAR 2003)
3. It must be malicious;
4. It must be directed at a natural or juridical person, or one who is dead; (BAR 2002) and
5. It must tend to cause the dishonor, discredit or contempt of the person defamed.

w. There are at least 7 instances or situations in criminal cases wherein the accused,
either as an adult or as a minor, can apply for and/or be granted a suspended
sentence. Enumerate at least 5 of them. (Paulit-ulit na)
1. Where the accused became insane before sentence could be promulgated;
2. Where the offender, upon conviction by the trial court, filed an application for probation
which has been granted;
3. Where the offender needs to be confined in a rehabilitation center because of drug
dependency although convicted of the crime charged;
4. Where the offender is a youthful offender;
5. Where the crime was committed when the offender is under 18 years of age and he is
found guilty thereof in accordance with RA 9344, but the trial court subjects him to
appropriate disposition measures as prescribed by the Supreme Court in the Rule on
Juveniles in Conflict with the Law;
6. First time minor offender under RA 9165; and
7. When the sentence is death, its execution may be suspended or postponed by the
Supreme Court, through the issuance of T.R.O. upon the ground of supervening events.

6
2) Mr. P owns a boarding house where he knowingly allowed children to be videotaped while
simulating explicit sexual activities. What is Mr. P's criminal liability, if any?
(A) Corruption of minors under the Penal Code
(B) Violation of the Child Pornography Act
(C) Violation of the Child Abuse Law
(D) None

3) X and his step-father have a long-standing enmity. One day, irked by an argument with his step-
father, X smashed the windshield of his step-father’s brand new Audi sports car. X is liable for
(A) malicious mischief.
(B) malicious mischief with the alternative mitigating circumstance of relationship.
(C) malicious mischief with the alternative aggravating circumstance of relationship.
(D) RIGHT ANSWER the civil damage he caused.

4) The three accused forcibly took their victim from his car but the latter succeededin freeing himself
from their grip. What crime did the three accused commit?
(A) forcible abduction.
(B) frustrated kidnapping.
(C) attempted kidnapping.
(D) grave coercion.

5) The accused was shocked to discover his wife and their driver sleeping in the master’s bedroom.
Outraged, the accused got his gun and killed both. Can the accused claim that he killed the two
under exceptional circumstances?
(A) No, since the accused had time to reflect when he got his gun.
(B) No, since the accused did not catch them while having sexual intercourse.
(C) Yes, since the wife and their driver desecrated the marital bed.
(D) Yes, since the scene shows that they had an intimate relationship.

6) Dagami concealed Bugna’s body and the fact that he killed him by setting Bugna’s house on fire.
What crime or crimes did Dagami commit?
(A) Murder, the arson being absorbed already
(B) Separate crimes of murder and arson
(C) Arson, the homicide being absorbed already
(D) Arson with murder as a compound crime

7) Removing, concealing or destroying documents to defraud another constitutes the crime of estafa
if committed by
(A) any public officer.
(B) a public officer officially entrusted with the document.
(C) private individuals who executed the same.
(D) private individuals.

8) X draws a check upon request of Y, the payee, who told X that he would merely show the check to
his creditor to gain more time to pay his account. The check bounced upon presentation by the
creditor. Under the circumstances, who can be prosecuted for estafa based on the dishonored
check?
(A) Y as the one who negotiated the check contrary to the agreement
(B) X as the drawer of the check
(C) Both X and Y based on conspiracy
(D) None

9) 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.
7
10)X killed B, mistakenly believing that she was his wife, upon surprising her having sex with another
man in a motel room. What is the criminal liability of X?
(A) None since he killed her under exceptional circumstances.
(B) None since he acted under a mistake of fact
(C) Parricide.
(D) Homicide.

11)A, B, and C agreed to rob a house of its cash. A and B entered the house while C remained outside
as lookout. After getting the cash, A and B decided to set the house on fire to destroy any evidence
of their presence. What crime or crimes did C commit?
(A) Robbery and arson since arson took place as an incident of the robbery.
(B) Robbery and arson since C took no step to stop the arson.
(C) Just for robbery since he only agreed to it and served as lookout.
(D) Accomplice to robbery since his role in the crime was minimal.

12)Any person who, having found lost property, shall fail to deliver the same to the local authorities
or to its owner is liable for
(A) occupation or usurpation of personal property.
(B) civil damages only.
(C) theft.
(D) other deceits.

13) What crime is committed by a person who kills a three-day old baby?
a. infanticide;
b. homicide;
c. murder;
d. parricide.

14) X, a tabloid columnist, wrote an article describing Y, a public official, as stupid, corrupt, and
having amassed ill-gotten wealth. X relied on a source from Y's own office who fed him the
information. Did X commit libel?
(A) Yes, since the article was libelous and inconsistent with good faith and reasonable care.
(B) No, since X but made a fair commentary on a matter of public interest.
(C) No, since X’s article constitutes privileged communication.
(D) No, since he wrote his article under the freedom enjoyed by the press.

15) On hearing a hospital ward patient on the next bed, shrieking in pain and begging to die, Mona
shut off the oxygen that was sustaining the patient, resulting in his death. What crime if any did
Mona commit?
(A) Homicide.
(B) Murder if she deliberated on her action.
(C) Giving Assistance to Suicide.
(D) Euthanasia.

16) 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.

17) When is a disturbance of public order deemed to be tumultuous?

a. The disturbance shall be deemed tumultuous if caused by more than three (3) persons who are
armed or provided with means of violence.
b. The disturbance shall be deemed tumultuous when a person causes a serious disturbance in a
public place or disturbs public performance, function or gathering.
c. The disturbance shall be deemed tumultuous when more than three (3) persons make any
outcry tending to incite rebellion or sedition or shout subversive or provocative words to obtain
any of the objectives of rebellion or sedition.

8
 d. The disturbance shall be deemed tumultuous when at least four (4) persons participate in a
free-for-all-fight assaulting each other in a confused and tumultuous manner.

18)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 occurs no criminal liability for the result not intended.

19) What is the criminal liability, if any, of a private person who enters the dwelling of another against
the latter's will and by means of violence or intimidation for the purpose of preventing some harm
to himself?
a. The private person is criminally liable for qualified trespass to dwelling.
b. The private person is criminally liable for simple trespass to dwelling.
c. The private person incurs no criminal liability.
d. The private person is criminally liable for light threats.

20) A entered the house of B. Once inside the house of B, A took and seized personal property by
compulsion from B with the use of violence and force upon things, believing himself to be the
owner of the personal property so seized. What is the criminal liability of A?
a. A is criminally liable for robbery with violence because he employed violence in the taking of
the personal property from B, robbery characterized by violence being graver than ordinary
robbery committed with force upon things.
b. A is criminally liable for robbery with force upon things in an inhabited house because the act
was committed in a house constituting the dwelling of one or more persons.
c. A is criminally liable for grave coercion because the presumption of intent to gain is rebutted.
d. A is criminally liable for qualified trespass to dwelling because he employed violence.

21)What crime is committed when a person ill-treats another by deed without causing any injury?
a. The offender commits maltreatment.
b. The offender commits slander by deed.
c. The offender commits assault.
d. The offender commits coercion.

22) Isabel, a housemaid, broke into a pawnshop intent on stealing items of jewelry in it. She found,
however, that the jewelry were in a locked chest. Unable to open it, she took the chest out of the
shop. What crime did she commit?
(A) Robbery in an uninhabited place or in a private building
(B) Theft
(C) Robbery in an inhabited house or public building.
(D) Qualified theft

23) The crime of robbery in an inhabited house or public building is mitigated when the offenders
(A) entered the house using false keys.
(B) although armed did not fire their weapons.
(C) entered through a window without breaking it.
(D) although armed took property valued at only P200.

24)The exchanges of highly offensive words between two quarrelling women in the presence of a
crowd of people constitute
(A) one count of grave slander against the woman who uttered the more insulting expressions.
(B) grave slander against the woman who started it and light slander against the other woman.
(C) two separate counts of light slander, one for each woman.
(D) two separate counts of grave slander, one against each of them.

9
25) PO3 B entered the dwelling of T against the latter’s will on suspicion that T keeps unlicensed
firearms in his home. What was the crime committed by PO3 B? Violation of Domicile

26) BA and BB had been married for more than six months. They lived together with the children of
BB frim her first husband. BA had sexual relationship with C, the 14 year old daughter of BB. C
loves BA very much that is why she willingly gave in to the intercourse. What was the crime
committed by BA, if any? Qualified Seduction

27)Mida, after being berated by her mother, left their house. Tupeng, who was a neighbour of Mida,
invited the latter to his apartment to spend the night therein to which Mida voluntarily agreed.
Tupeng led Mida to a room where she was to sleep. Ten minutes after leaving the room, Tupeng
returned and sat on the bed in the evening of the same day, completely naked. He then had carnal
knowledge with Mida against her will. After gratifying his lust, Tupeng warned Mida not to tell
anyone about the incident and warned her that her mother would condemn her for sleeping at his
apartment. Mida was padlocked inside the house for five days until she was rescued. Was the
complex crime of serious illegal detention with rape committed?
SUGGESTED ANSWER: NO, Tupeng is guilty only of rape and not of serious illegal detention. The
original and primordial intention of Tupeng in keeping Mida in his apartment was to rape her and
not to deprive her of her liberty. Forcible abduction is absorbed in the crime of rape if the real
objective of the accused is to rape the victim. Hence, Tupeng is guilty only of rape under Article
335, paragraph 1of the Revised Penal Code, and not of the complex crime of serious illegal
detention with rape under Article 267, in relation to Articles 335 and 48 of the Code. Although
Mida initially agreed to stay at appellant’s apartment, she did so because she had nowhere to go
and she believed, at that time, that she was safe with Tupeng, who was her neighbor. (PEOPLE vs.
SABARDAN, G.R. No.132135. May 21, 2004.)

28)Ana has been a bar girl/GRO at a beer house for more than 2 years. She fell in love with Oniok, the
bartender, who impregnated her. But Ana did not inform him about her condition and instead,
went home to Cebu to conceal her shame. However, her parents drove her away. So she returned
to Manila and stayed with Oniok in his boarding house. Upon learning of her pregnancy, already in
an advanced state, Oniok tried to persuade her to undergo an abortion, but she refused. Because of
their constant and bitter quarrels, she suffered birth pangs and gave birth prematurely to a live
baby girl while Oniok was at his place of work. Upon coming home and learning what happened,
he prevailed upon Ana to conceal her dishonor. Hence, they placed the infant in a shoe box and
threw it into a nearby creek. However, an inquisitive neighbor saw them and with the help of
others, retrieved the infant who was already dead from drowning. The incident was reported to
the police who arrested Ana and Oniok. The 2 were charged with parricide under Article 246 of
the Revised Penal Code. After trial, they were convicted of the crime charged. Was the conviction
correct?
SUGGESTED ANSWER: The conviction of Ana and Oniok is not correct. They are liable for
infanticide because they killed a child less than three days of age (Art. 255, Revised Penal Code).

29) Insulted when he was called macho by the manager of the bank where he was employed as
security guard, B, enraged, shot the former, who died on the spot. As B was about to leave the bank
premises, he noticed the vault open. He entered it, forced a locked container and got the jewelry
therein. The prosecutor charged him with Robbery with homicide. Correct?
SUGGESTED ANSWER: No, the charge against B is incorrect. He shall be charged of two separate
crimes of Homicide and Theft. The real intention of B was to kill the manager and not to rob the
bank and take the jewelry. The taking of the jewelry only came to his mind after the killing. Where
the offender’s intention to take the personal property of the victim arises only as an afterthought
and his original intent was to kill, he is guilty of two separate crimes of homicide or murder, as the
case may be, and theft.

30) R, the city treasure of Baguio City, received from the national government five (5) new computers
for the use in the city treasurer’s office. Each computer valued at P15,000.00. Since R needed
money for the hospitalization of his sick son, he sold four (4) of the computers to his VERY CLOSE
friend, O, a general merchant, for P10,000.00. O then resold the computers. Two months after the
transaction, R audited and the investigation led to the discovery that O bought the four (4)
computers. Is O liable for violation of the Anti-Fencing Law?

10
 SUGGESTED ANSWER: O is not liable for violation of Anti-Fencing Law. The Anti-Fencing Law
refers only to the buy and sell of articles of value which are the proceeds of robbery and theft. In
the case at bar, the computers sold to be were not obtained through robbery.

31) C broke open a window and, without entering the house, took a wooden chest lying underneath
the window. He brought out the chest to the yard where he broke it open and took away the
contents thereof, all valued at P1,000.00. He was charged with robbery with force upon things.
Correct?
SUGGESTED ANSWER: No, the crime committed by A is theft. For robbery with force upon things
to be committed, the offender should have entered the house. The facts of the problem show that C
without entering the house took the wooden chest lying underneath the window which he broke
open. To constitute robbery the offender who brought outside the locked receptacle must have
entered it; otherwise, the crime committed is theft.

32) A, a young housewife, and B, her paramour, conspired to kill C. her husband, to whom she was
lawfully married, A and B bought pancit and mixed it with poison. A gave the food with poison to
C, but before C could eat it. D, her illegitimate father, and E, her legitimate son, arrived. C, D and E
shared the food in the presence of A who merely watched them eating. C, D and E died because of
having partaken of the poisoned food. What crime or crimes did A and B commit?
SUGGESTED ANSWER: A committed the crime of multiple parricide for the killing of C, her lawful
husband, D, her illegitimate father, and E, her legitimate son. All these killings constitute parricide
under Article 246 of the Revised Penal Code because of her relationship with the victims.
B committed the crime of murder as a co-conspirator of A in the killing of C because the killing was
carried out by means of poison (Art. 248. par. 3, Revised Penal Code). But for feloniously causing
the death of D and E, B committed two counts of homicide. The plan was only to kill C.

33) A, the husband of B, informed & TV commentator,C, that his wife had complained that their
youngest child who was allegedly extremely ill and on the verge of death was denied admission at
the RX Hospital because B, his wife, could not put up the cash deposit required by the hospital.
Without verifying said report, C, in his TV program, urged the closure by the authorities of RX
Hospital for denying medical assistance to a dying child simply because the mother could not give
a cash deposit. He added that the said hospital even refused to accept a check. It turned out
however that the story was wrong. The sick child of A and B was never in critical condition, and
there was no check involved in the incident. Subsequently, C was charged with libel. Correct?
SUGGESTED ANSWER: C, is liable for libel because the imputation tend to cause dishonor,
discredit or contempt on the hospital. It is not true that the conditions of the child was in a dying
condition at the time. There was no check offered by way of deposit so the statement of C that the
hospital refused to accept the check was false. The fact that C did not even verify the report makes
his liability clear.
SUGGESTED ANSWER: C is liable for libel. The imputation is defamatory as it tended to cause
dishonor, discredit or contempt on the hospital. Malice in law, is therefore, presumed. It is not true
that the child was extremely ill and on the verge of death nor is it true that the hospital refused to
accept a check for the admission of the child. Without verifying the facts and urging the closure of
the hospital by the authorities for denying medical admission to a dying child, the intent to cast
aspersion and injury to reputation and standing of the hospital becomes manifest as it was done
with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not.

34) B, a private individual, kidnapped E, a minor as B was enamoured with her beauty. On the second
day, B released E even before any criminal information was filed against him. At the trial of the
case, B raised the defense that he did not incur any criminal liability since he released the child
before the lapse of the 3-day period and before criminal proceedings for kidnapping were
instituted. Will B’s defense prosper?
SUGGESTED ANSWER: No, B’s defense will not prosper. Voluntary release by the offender of the
offended party in kidnapping is not absolutory. Besides, such release is irrelevant and immaterial
in this case because the victim being a minor, the crime committed is kidnapping and serious
illegal detention under Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code wherein the voluntary release of the
victim does not extinguish criminal liability. The said circumstance may be appreciated only in the
crime of Slight Illegal detention under Article 268. (Asistio v. San Diego, 10 SCRA 673)

11
35) RR represented to AA, BB, CC and DD that she could send them to London to work there as sales
ladies and waitresses. She collected and received from them various amounts of money for
recruitment and placement fees totalling P400,000. After their dates of departure were postponed
several times, the four prospects got suspicious and went to POEA (Phil. Overseas Employment
Authority). There they found out that RR was not authorized nor licensed to recruit workers for
employment abroad. They sought refund to no avail. Is RR guilty of any grave offense?
SUGGESTED ANSWER: Yes. RR is guilty of a grave offense, having engaged in illegal recruitment
constituting the offense of economic sabotage which is punishable with life imprisonment and a
fine of P100.000.00. ECONOMIC SABOTAGE is an offense defined in 38(b) of the Labor Code, as
amended by Pres. Decree No. 2018, which is incurred when the illegal recruitment is carried out in
large scale or by a syndicate. It is in a large scale when there are three or more aggrieved parties,
individually or as a group. And it is committed by a syndicate when three or more persons
conspire or cooperate with one another in carrying out the illegal transaction, scheme or activity.

36) G, a tricycle driver, plied his usual route using a Honda motorcycle with a sidecar. One evening, D
and P rode on the sidecar, poked a knife at Samuel and instructed him to go near the bridge. Upon
reaching the bridge, D alighted from the motorcycle and suddenly stabbed Samuel several times
until he was dead. D and P fled from the scene taking the motorcycle with him. What crime or
crimes did D and P commit? |5%]
SUGGESTED ANSWER: D and P committed the composite crime of Carnapping with homicide
under Sec. 14 of Rep. Act No. 6539, as amended, considering that the killing "in the course or "on
the occasion of a carnapping (People vs. De la Cruz, et al. 183 SCRA 763). A motorcycle is included
in the definition of a "motor vehicle" in said Rep. Act, also known as the 'Anti-Carnapping Act of
1972'. There is no apparent motive for the killing of the tricycle driver but for Raul to be able to
take the motorcycle. The fact that the tricycle driver was killed brings about the penalty of
reclusion perpetua to death.
Alternative Answer: The crime committed by D and P is carnapping, punished by Section 14 of
Rep. Act No. 6539. The killing of G is not a separate crime but only an aggravating circumstance.

37) A and B were once madly inlove but are now legally separated. Their child C, a minor, was placed
in the custody of A the mother, subject to monthly visitations by B, his father. On one occasion,
when B had C in his company, B decided not to return C to his mother. Instead, B took C with him
to the United States where he intended for them to reside permanently. What crime, if any, did B
commit?
SUGGESTED ANSWER: B committed the crime of kidnapping and failure to return a minor under
Article 271, in relation to Article 270, of the Revised Penal Code, as amended. Article 271 expressly
penalizes any parent who shall take from and deliberately fail to restore his or her minor child to
the parent or guardian to whom custody of the minor has been placed. Since the custody of C, the
minor, has been given to the mother and B has only the right of monthly visitation, the latter's act
of taking C to the United States, to reside there permanently, constitutes a violation of said
provisions of law.

38) Upon a laboratory examination of the fish seized by the police and agents of the Fisheries
Commission, it was indubitably determined that the fish they were selling were caught with the
use of explosives. Accordingly, the three vendors were criminally charged with the violation of
Section 33 of P.D. 704 which makes it unlawful for any person to knowingly possess, deal in, or sell
for profit any fish which have been illegally caught. During the trial, the three vendors claimed that
they bought the fish from a fishing boat which they duly identified. The prosecution however
claimed that the three vendors should nevertheless be held liable for the offense as they were the
ones caught in possession of the fish illegally caught. On the basis of the above facts, if you were
the judge, would you convict the three fish vendors?
SUGGESTED ANSWER: No, I would not convict the three fish vendors if I were the judge. Mere
possession of such fish without knowledge of the fact that the same were caught with the use of
explosives does not by itself render the seller-possessor criminally liable under P.D. 704. Although
the act penalized in said Decree may be a malum prohibitum, the law punishes the possession,
dealing in or selling of such fish only when "knowingly" done that the fish were caught with the
use of explosives; hence criminal intent is essential. The claim by the fish vendors that they only
bought the fish from fishing boats which they "duly identified", renders their possession of such

12
 fish innocent unless the prosecution could prove that they have knowledge that explosives were
used in catching such fish, and the accused had knowledge thereof.

39) Two [2] Philippine National Police (PNPJ officers. X and Y, on board on motorboat with Z, a
civilian as motor-man, arrested A and B who were in a banca, for dynamite fishing. The latter's
banca was towed towards the municipality. On the way, the PNP motorboat was intercepted by a
third banca whose occupants, C, D, and E, tried to negotiate for the release of A and B and their
banca. The PNP officers refused and instead shouted at C, D. and E that they are all under arrest.
Thereupon, C, D, and E simultaneously threw dynamite sticks at the PNP motorboats. The first
explosion killed X. A and B also reacted by throwing dynamite at the PNP motorboat: its explosion
killed Y and Z. What crime or crimes did A, B, C, D and E commit?
SUGGESTED ANSWER: C, D and E are liable for the complex crime of Murder, qualified by
explosion, with direct assault for the death of X. A and B are liable for the complex crime of Murder
Qualified by explosion as to death "of Y, and simple Murder qualified by explosion for the death of
Z. No crime of direct assault can be filed insofar as the death of Z is concerned, he being a civilian.
This, of course, assumes that there is no conspiracy among A, B, C, D and E, otherwise all would
have the same criminal liability as the act of one becomes the act of all.

40) J and N committed two counts of the complex crime of forcible abduction with rape (Art. 342,
RPC) and the separate offense of murder against D. The crime committed is abduction because
there was lewd design when they took the victims away and subsequently raped them. The killing
thereafter, constitutes the separate offense of murder qualified by treachery. Correct? Will
minority exculpate him?
SUGGESTED ANSWER: Under RA. 9344, the Juvenile Justice and Reform Act, which retroacts to
the date that the crime was committed, Nonoy will be exculpated if he was 15 years old or below.
However, if he was above 15 years old but below 18 years of age, he will be liable if he acted with
discernment. As the problem shows that Nonoy acted with discernment, he will be entitled to a
suspension of sentence. (2006 Bar:Kidnapping;Illegal Detention ito, pero di binigay ng buo ni sir sa
reviewer yung facts)

41) Michael was 17 years old when he was charged for violation of Sec. 5 of R.A. 9165 (illegal sale of
prohibited drug). By the time he was convicted and sentenced, he was already 21 years old. The
court sentenced him to suffer an indeterminate penalty of imprisonment of six (6) years and one
(1) day of prision mayor, as minimum, to seventeen (17) years and four (4) months of reclusion
temporal, as maximum, and a fine of P500,000.Michael applied for probation but his application
was denied because the probation law does not apply to drug offenders under R.A. 9165. Michael
then sought the suspension of his sentence under R.A. 9344 or the Juvenile Justice and Youth
Welfare Code. Can Michael avail of the suspension of his sentence provided under this law?
SUGGESTED ANSWER: The benefits of a suspended sentence can no longer apply to Michael. The
suspension of sentence lasts only until the law reaches the maximum age and thus, could no
longer be considered a child for purposes of applying Rep. Act No. 9344. However, he shall be
entitled to the right of restoration, rehabilitation and reintegration in accordance with the law to
give him the chance to live a normal life and become a productive member of the community.
Accordingly, Michael may be confined in an agricultural camp and other training facility in
accordance with Section 51 of Rep. Act No. 9344 (People v. Jacinto, GR No. 182239, March 16,
2011; People v. Salcedo, GR. No. 186523, June 22, 2011; Padua v. People, GR No. 1683, July 23,
2008 and People v. Sarcia, GR No. 169641, September 10, 2009). (Iba na ata ang ruling dito)

42) A, a male, takes B, another male, to a motel and there, through threat and intimidation, succeeds
in inserting his penis into the anus of B. What, if any, is A’s criminal liability?
SUGGESTED ANSWER: A shall be criminally liable for rape by committing an act of sexual assault
against B, by inserting his penis into the anus of the latter. Even a man may be a victim of rape by
sexual assault under par. 2 of Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, "when the
offender's penis is inserted into his mouth or anal orifice."

43) Mrs. MNA was charged of child abuse. It appears from the evidence that she failed to give
immediately the required medical attention to her adopted child, BPO, when he was accidentally
bumped by her car, resulting in his head injuries and impaired vision that could lead to night
blindness. The accused, according to the social worker on the case, used to whip him when he
failed to come home on time from school. Also, to punish him for carelessness in washing dishes,
13
 she sometimes sent him to bed without supper. She moved to quash the charge on the ground that
there is no evidence she maltreated her adopted child habitually. She added that the accident was
caused by her driver's negligence. She did punish her ward for naughtiness or carelessness, but
only mildly. Is her motion meritorious?
SUGGESTED ANSWER: No. The motion to quash is not meritorious. It is not necessary that
movant's maltreatment of a child be "habitual" to constitute child abuse. The wrongful acts
penalized as "Child Abuse" under Rep. Act No. 7610 refers to the maltreatment of the child,
"whether habitual or not": this is expressly stated in Sec. 2(b) of the said Law. Mrs. MNA should be
liable for child abuse.

44) Aling Maria received an urgent telephone call from Junior, her eldest son, asking for P2,000.00 to
complete his semestral tuition fees preparatory to his final exams in Commerce. Distressed and
disturbed, she borrowed money from her compadre Mang Juan with the assurance to pay him
within 2 months. Two months lapsed but Aling Maria failed to settle her obligation. Mang Juan told
Aling Maria that she does not have to pay the loan if she will allow her youngest 10-year old
daughter Annie to work as a housemaid in his house for 2 months at Pl,000.00 a month. Despite
Aling Maria's objection, Mang Juan insisted and brought Annie to his house to work as a maid. Was
a crime committed by Mang Juan when he brought Annie to his house as maid for the purpose of
repaying her mother's loan?
SUGGESTED ANSWER: Yes. Mang Juan committed the crime of exploitation of child labor which is
committed by any persons who under the pretext of reimbursing himself of a debt incurred by an
ascendant, guardian or person entrusted with the custody of a minor, shall, against the latter's
will, retainh im in his service (Art. 273, Revised Penal Code). He can also be liable as an employer
for the employment of a minor below 15 yrs. old, under Sec. 12, Art. 8 of RA. 7610.

45) The president, treasurer, and secretary of ABC Corporation were charged with syndicated estafa
under the following Information: That on or about the 1st week of January 2010 or subsequent
thereto in Cebu City and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused,
conspiring and confederating together and all of them mutually helping and aiding one another in
a syndicated manner, through a corporation registered with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (SEC), with intention of carrying out the unlawful or illegal act, transaction,
enterprise or scheme, with intent to gain and by means of fraud and deceit, did then and there
willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously defraud Virna, Lana, Deborah and several other persons by
falsely or fraudulently pretending or representing in a transaction or series of transactions, which
they made with complainants and the public in general, to the effect that they were in a legitimate
business of foreign exchange trading successively or simultaneously operating under the name
and style of ABC Corporation and DEF Management Philippines, Incorporated, induced and
succeeded in inducing complainants and several other persons to give and deliver to said accused
the amount of at least P20,000,000.00 on the strength of said manifestations and representations,
the accused knowing fully well that the abovenamed corporations registered with the SEC are not
licensed nor authorized to engage in foreign exchange trading and that such manifestations and
representations to transact in foreign exchange were false and fraudulent, that these resulted to
the damage and prejudice of the complainants and other persons, and that the defraudation
pertains to funds solicited from the public in general by such corporations/associations. Will the
case for syndicated estafa prosper?
SUGGESTED ANSWER: No, a case for syndicated estafa will not prosper because a syndicate for
such crime under Pres. Decree 1689 must be comprised of five (5) or more persons committing
the estafa or other forms of swindling defined in Arts. 315 and 316 of the Revised Penal Code;
whereas the case given involved only three (3) accused who are alleged to have conspired in the
commission of the swindling. But because the amount defrauded exceeds P100,000.00, the case is
still under the same P.D. 1689 with a lower penalty than syndicated estafa.

46) X stole the calf of Y. When Y inquired about his cow, X denied seeing it. The cow was eventually
found in X’s possession, but X claimed persistently that the cow was entrusted to him by his
brother Z, such that Y had to enlist the aid of the Barangay captain and PC soldiers to retrieve his
cow. What is the crime committed?
SUGGESTED ANSWER: The crime committed is Qualified Theft of large cattle. There may be
qualified theft of large cattle if such is not taken but is received by the offender, or where only the
material possession thereof has been transferred, or when he misappropriates it.

14
 SUGGESTED ANSWER: The crime committed is cattle rustling. Under PD 533, cattle rustling is
committed by taking away by any mean, method or scheme, without the consent of the
owner/raiser of any of the mentioned animals in the law, whether or not for profit or gain, or
whether committed with or without violence against or intimidation of any person or force upon
things.

47) A asked financial support from her showbiz friend B who accommodated her by issuing in her
favor a postdated check in the sum of P90,000.00. Both of them knew that the check would not be
honored because B’s account had just been closed. The two then approached trader C whom they
asked to change the check with cash, even agreeing that the exchange be discounted at P85,000.00
with the assurance that the check shall be funded upon maturity. Upon C’s presentment of the
check for payment on due date, it was dishonored because the account had already been closed.
What action/s may C commence against A and B to hold them to account for the loss of her
P85,000.00?
SUGGESTED ANSWER: A criminal action for violation of BP 22 may be filed against B who drew
the postdated check against a closed bank account, for value paid by C, and with knowledge at the
time he issued the check that the account thereof is already closed. A cannot be held liable under
BP 22 because he was a mere endorser of B‟s check to C who exchanged the check in cash. BP 22
does not apply to endorser of checks. Hence only a civil action may be filed by C against A to
recover the P85,000.00. Although a simultaneous action for estafa is authorized by law for the
issuance of a worthless check, under the given facts, the check was discounted and thus issued in a
credit transaction for a pre-existing indebtedness. Criminal liability for estafa does not arise when
a check has been issued in payment for a pre-existing debt.

48) Samuel, a tricycle driver, plied his usual route using a Honda motorcycle with a sidecar. One
evening. Raul rode on the sidecar, poked a knife at Samuel and instructed him to go near the
bridge. Upon reaching the bridge, Raul alighted from the motorcycle and suddenly stabbed Samuel
several times until he was dead. Raul fled from the scene taking the motorcycle with him. What
crime or crimes did Raul commit? (Same with No.36)
SUGGESTED ANSWER: Raul committed the composite crime of Carnapping with homicide under
Sec. 14 of Rep. Act No. 6539, as amended, considering that the killing "in the course or "on the
occasion of a carnapping (People vs. De la Cruz, et al. 183 SCRA 763). A motorcycle is included in
the definition of a "motor vehicle" in said Rep. Act, also known as the 'Anti-Carnapping Act of
1972'. There is no apparent motive for the killing of the tricycle driver but for Raul to be able to
take the motorcycle. The fact that the tricycle driver was killed brings about the penalty of
reclusion perpetua to death.
Alternative Answer: The crime committed by Raul is carnapping, punished by Section 14 of Rep.
Act No. 6539. The killing of Samuel is not a separate crime but only an aggravating circumstance.

15