BOOK ONE, TITLE ONE & TWO

(1) What are the three cardinal features or main characteristics of

Criminal La! "i#e the e$ce%tions thereto& (1''( )ar *uestion+ ,--.
red notes)
/N0WE12 The three cardinal principles or characteristics of criminal law are:
(a) GENERALITY. Criminal laws appl to all persons who commit crimes in
!hilippine territor" re#ardless of their nationalit" #ender" a#e or other
personal circ$mstances. E%ceptions to this are treat stip$lations" laws
of preferential application" and principles of p$&lic international laws.
(&) TERRIT'RIALITY. Criminal laws appl to all offenses committed within
!hilippine territor. E%ceptions to this r$le are those fo$nd in Art. ( of
the R!C which pro)ides for e%traterritorial *$risdiction of o$r co$rts.
(c) !R'+!ECTI,ITY. !enal laws cannot ma-e an act p$nisha&le in a
manner in which it was not p$nisha&le when committed. E%ception to
this r$le is whene)er a new stat$te dealin# with a crime esta&lishes
conditions more lenient or fa)ora&le to the acc$sed" it can &e #i)en
retroacti)e effect. .owe)er" this e%ception has no application: /) where
the new law is e%pressl made inapplica&le to pendin# actions or
e%istin# ca$ses of action and0 () where the offender is a ha&it$al
criminal $nder Art. 1(" R!C.
(,) 3istin4uish moti#e from intent (1''5+ 1'''+ ,--. red notes)
/N0WE1: 2oti)e is the reason which impels one to commit an act for a
definite res$lt while intent is the p$rpose to $se a partic$lar means to
effect s$ch res$lt. Intent is an element of the crime (e%cept in $nintentional
felonies)" whereas moti)e is not.
(6) What do 7ou understand )7 aberratio ictus, error in personae and
praeter intentionem! 3o the7 alter the criminal lia)ilit7 of the
accused! (1'('+ 1''6+ 1''8+ 1''')
/N0WE1: Aberratio ictus or mista-e in the &low occ$rs when the offender
deli)ered the &low at his intended )ictim &$t missed" and instead s$ch
&low landed on an $nintended )ictim. The sit$ation #enerall &rin#s a&o$t
comple% crimes where from a sin#le act" two or more #ra)e or less #ra)e
felonies res$lted" namel the attempt a#ainst the intended )ictim and the
conse3$ences on the $nintended )ictim. As comple% crimes" the penalt
for the more serio$s crime shall &e the one imposed and in the ma%im$m
period. It is onl when the res$ltin# felonies are onl li#ht that comple%
crimes do not res$lt and the penalties are to &e imposed distinctl for each
res$ltin# crime.
Error in personae or mista-e in identit occ$rs when the offender
act$all hit the person to whom the &low was directed &$t t$rned o$t to &e
different from and not the )ictim intended. The criminal lia&ilit of the
offender is not affected" $nless the mista-e in identit res$lted to a crime
different from what the offender intended to commit" in which case the
lesser penalt &etween the crime intended and the crime committed shall
&e imposed &$t in the ma%im$m period (Art. 45" R!C).
Praeter intentionem or where the conse3$ence went &eond that
intended or e%pected. This is a miti#atin# circ$mstance (Art. /6" par. 6"
R!C) when there is a notorio$s disparit &etween the act or means
emploed & the offender and the res$ltin# felon" i.e." the res$ltin# felon
co$ld not &e reasona&l anticipated or foreseen & the offender from the
act or means emploed & him.
(8) 3istin4uish mala in se from mala %rohi)ita& (1'((+ 1''9+ 1''(+ ,--1+
,--6+)
/N0WE1: Mala in se is a wron# from its )er nat$re" as most of those
p$nished in the R!C. .ence" in its commission" intent is an element and
#ood faith is a defense. The test to determine whether an offense is mala
in se is not the law p$nishin# it &$t the )er nat$re of the act itself.
'n the other hand" an act mala prohibita is a wron# &eca$se it is
prohi&ited & law. 7itho$t the law p$nishin# the act" it cannot &e
considered a wron#. .ence" the mere commission of that act is what
constit$tes the offense p$nished and criminal intent will &e immaterial for
reason of p$&lic polic.
(.) : elo%ed ith ;& Whereu%on, :<s father, /, and )rother, B, ent to ;<s
house& =%on reachin4 the house, B in*uired from ; a)out his sister<s
herea)outs, hile / shouted and threatened to >ill ;& The latter then
ent donstairs )ut B held his (;) aist& ?eanhile @, the elder
sister of ;, carr7in4 her oneAmonth old child, a%%roached B and ; to
%acif7 them& @ attem%ted to remo#e B<s hand from ;<s aist& But B
%ulled @<s hand causin4 her to fall o#er her )a)7& The )a)7 then died
moments later&
Is B criminall7 lia)le for the death of the child! ('8 )ar *uestion)
/N0WE1: No. The accepted r$le is that an offender is alwas lia&le for the
conse3$ences of his criminal act e)en tho$#h the res$lt &e different from
what he intended. (Art. 4" R!C) 8or s$ch lia&ilit to e%ist" two re3$isites
are necessar" namel" (/) that a crime &e committed" and (() that the
wron# s$ffered & the in*$red part &e a direct conse3$ence of the crime
committed & the offender.
9nder the circ$mstances" it cannot &e said that :" in his efforts to
pre)ent Y from #oin# down the ho$se to ha)e enco$nter with his father" &
ta-in# hold of Y;s waist and p$llin# the hand of <" who tried to free his
o$n#er &rother from his (:) hold" committed or was committin# a crime.
Conse3$entl" it cannot li-ewise &e said that the death of the child was the
direct res$lt of a crime which : committed or was in the act of committin#.
(!E'!LE ,+. +ALINA+" CA" 1( 'G 6/=1" pa#e 1=" Rees" :oo- 'ne)
ALTERNATI,E AN+7ER: Yes" : is criminall lia&le for the death of the child
&eca$se his felonio$s act was the pro%imate ca$se of s$ch death. It was
:;s act of p$llin# <;s hand which ca$sed the latter to fall on her &a&. .ad
it not &een for said act of :" which is $ndo$&tedl felonio$s (at least sli#ht
coercion) there was no ca$se for < to fall o)er her &a&. In short" :;s
felonio$s act is the ca$se of the e)il ca$sed. An person performin# a
felonio$s act is criminall lia&le for the direct" nat$ral and lo#ical
conse3$ences thereof altho$#h different from what he intended (Art. 4,
par. 1, RPC; PEOPLE VS. P!A", E# AL., !R $o %4&'4, $o(. 1), 1*)))
(5) What is an im%ossi)le crime! (1''6+ ,--6)
/N0WE1: It is an act which wo$ld &e an offense a#ainst persons or propert"
were it not for the inherent impossi&ilit of its accomplishment" or on
acco$nt of the emploment of inade3$ate or ineffect$al means. +Art. 4,
par. ',
:$t where the acts performed which wo$ld ha)e res$lted in an
impossi&le crime also /) constit$te an offense $nder the R!C" or (() wo$ld
s$&*ect the acc$sed to criminal lia&ilit altho$#h of a different cate#or" the
penalt to &e imposed sho$ld &e that for the latter and not that for an
impossi&le crime.
(9) BC, /ries and 1andal %lanned to >ill Elsa, a resident of Br47& Cula,
Laurel, Batan4as& The7 as>ed the assistance of Ella, ho is familiar
ith the %lace&
On /%ril 6, 1'',, at a)out 1-2-- in the e#enin4, BC, /ries and
1andal, all armed ith automatic ea%ons, ent to Br47& Cula& Ella,
)ein4 the 4uide, directed her com%anions to the room in the house
of Elsa& Whereu%on, BC, /ries and 1andal fired their 4uns at her
room& Dortunatel7, Elsa as not around as she attended a %ra7er
meetin4 that e#enin4 in another )aran4a7 in Laurel&
BC, et al&, ere char4ed and con#icted of attem%ted murder )7
the 1TC at Tanauan, Batan4as&
On a%%eal to the Court of /%%eals, all the accused ascri)ed to
the trial court the sole error of findin4 them 4uilt7 of attem%ted
murder&
If 7ou ere the %onente, ho ill 7ou decide the a%%eal! ('8
)ar *uestion)
/N0WE1: If I were the ponente" I will set aside the *$d#ment con)ictin# the
acc$sed of attempted m$rder and instead find them #$ilt of impossi&le
crime $nder Art. 4" par. (" R!C" in relation to Art. >5" R!C. Lia&ilit for
impossi&le crime arises not onl when the impossi&ilit is le#al" &$t
li-ewise when it is fact$al or phsical impossi&ilit as in the case at &ar.
Elsa;s a&sence from the ho$se is a phsical impossi&ilit which renders
the crime intended inherentl incapa&le of accomplishment. To con)ict the
acc$sed of attempted m$rder wo$ld ma-e Art. 4" par. ( practicall $seless
as all circ$mstances which pre)ented the cons$mmation of the offense
will &e treated as an incident independent of the actor;s will which is an
element of attempted or fr$strated felon. (-$#O. VS CA, '1/ SCRA /')
(() 3istin4uish )eteen Eustif7in4 and e$em%tin4 circumstances ('( )ar
*uestion)
/N0WE1: In *$stifin# circ$mstances:
a) The circ$mstances affects the act" not the actor0
&) The act is done within le#al &o$nds" hence considered as not a
crime0
c) +ince the act is not a crime" there is no criminal0
d) There &ein# no crime nor criminal" there is no criminal nor ci)il
lia&ilit.
7hereas" in an e%emptin# circ$mstances:
a) The circ$mstances affects the actor" not the act0
&) The act is felonio$s and hence a crime &$t the actor acted
witho$t )ol$ntariness0
c) Altho$#h there is a crime" there is no criminal &eca$se the
actor is re#arded onl as an instr$ment of the crime0
d) There &ein# a wron# done &$t no criminal" there is ci)il lia&ilit
&$t no criminal lia&ilit.
(') What is the doctrine of im%lied cons%irac7! (1''(, ,--6 )ar)
/N0WE1: The doctrine of implied conspirac holds two or more persons
participatin# in the commission of a crime collecti)el responsi&le and
lia&le as co?conspirators altho$#h a&sent an a#reement to that effect"
when the act in concert" demonstratin# $nit of criminal intent and a
common p$rpose or o&*ecti)e. The e%istence of a conspirac shall &e
inferred or ded$ced from their criminal participation in p$rs$in# the crime
and th$s the act of one shall &e deemed the act of all.
(1-) 3istin4uish )eteen recidi#ism and *uasiArecidi#ism& ('( )ar)
/N0WE1: In recidi)ism:
a) The con)ictions of the offender are for crimes em&raced in the
same Title of the R!C0 and
&) This circ$mstance is #eneric a##ra)atin# and therefore can &e
offset & an ordinar miti#atin# circ$mstance.
7hereas in 3$asi?recidi)ism:
a) The con)ictions are not for crimes em&raced in the same title of
the R!C" pro)ided that it is a felon that was committed & the offender
&efore ser)in# sentence & final *$d#ment for another crime or while
ser)in# sentence for another crime0 and
&) This circ$mstance is a special a##ra)atin# circ$mstance which
cannot &e offset & an miti#atin# circ$mstance.
(11) In the Eeelr7 section of a )i4 de%artment store, Bulia snatched
a cou%le of )racelets and %ut these in her %urse& /t the store<s e$it,
hoe#er, she as arrested )7 the 4uard after )ein4 radioed )7 the
store %ersonnel ho cau4ht the act in the store<s mo#in4 camera& Is
the crime consummated, frustrated, or attem%ted! ('( )ar)
/N0WE1: The crime is cons$mmated theft &eca$se the ta-in# of the
&racelets was complete after @$lia s$cceeded in p$ttin# them in her p$rse.
@$lia ac3$ired complete control of the &racelets after p$ttin# them in her
p$rse0 hence" the ta-in# with intent to #ain is complete and th$s the crime
is cons$mmated.
(1,) 3istin4uish %ro#ocation from #indication of a 4ra#e offense as
miti4atin4 circumstances& (,--. red noted)
/N0WE1: In the case of pro)ocation" it is made directl onl to the person
committin# the felon0 in )indication" the #ra)e offense ma &e committed
also a#ainst the offender;s relati)es mentioned & the law.
In )indication" the offended part m$st ha)e done a #ra)e offense
to the offender or his relati)es mentioned in the law0 while in pro)ocation"
the ca$se that &ro$#ht a&o$t the pro)ocation need not &e a #ra)e offense.
In pro)ocation" it is necessar that the pro)ocation or threat
immediatel preceded the act" i.e." that there &e no inter)al of time
&etween the pro)ocation and the commission of the crime0 while in
)indication" the )indication of the #ra)e offense ma &e pro%imate" which
admits of an inter)al of time &etween the #ra)e offense done & the
offended part and the commission of the crime & the acc$sed.
(16) ?arita, hile coo>in4 at the >itchen of the Filla Nue#e Darm,
as sur%rised )7 the a%%earance of Bose, the accused, holdin4 a
>nife& Bose dra44ed ?arita outside and )rou4ht her toards a house
under construction a)out 1-- meters aa7& Once inside the house,
Bose %ushed ?arita to the floor, stoo% don in front of her, %o>ed the
>nife at her throat and %inned her arms at her )ac>& Ge then raised
her dress and %ulled don his %ants& /fterards, Bose too> off
?arita<s %ant7 and succeeded in insertin4 his %enis into her #a4ina&
0hould the a44ra#atin4 circumstance of dellin4 )e
a%%reciated in this case!
/N0WE1: Yes" it sho$ld &e appreciated. It appears from the facts that the
-itchen at the ,illa N$e)e 8arm where 2arita was dra##ed & @ose is her
dwellin# al&eit the same does not &elon# to her. In !eople )s. !araAo" the
Co$rt stressed that the dwellin# contemplated in Art. /4(6) of the R!C
does not necessaril mean that the )ictim owns the place where he li)es
or dwells. :e he a lessee" a &oarder" or a &edspacer" the place is his
home" the sanctit of which the law see-s to protect. The fact that the
crime was cons$mmated in the near& ho$se is also immaterial. 2arita
was forci&l ta-en & @ose" the acc$sed" from her dwellin# ho$se(-itchen)
and then raped her. Bwellin# is a##ra)atin# if the )ictim was ta-en from
his ho$se altho$#h the offense was not completed therein. + PEOPLE VS.
.ELA #ORRE" &%& SCRA 104, 1an. 1/, '00',
(18) 3istin4uish insti4ation from entra%ment& (1''-+ 1''.+ ,--6)
/N0WE1: -nsti2ation ta-es place when a peace officer ind$ces a person to
commit a crime. 7itho$t the ind$cement" the crime wo$ld not &e
committed. .ence" it is e%emptin# & reason of p$&lic polic. 'therwise"
the peace officer wo$ld &e a co?principal.
'n the other hand" entrapment si#nifies the was and means
de)ised & a peace officer to entrap or apprehend a person who has
committed a crime. 7ith or witho$t the entrapment" the crime has &een
committed alread. .ence" entrapment is not miti#atin#.
(1.) What is ?ista>e of Dact! What are its re*uisites!(,--. red
notes)
/N0WE1: 2ista-e of 8act is a misapprehension of fact on the part of the
person who ca$sed in*$r to another. .e is not" howe)er" criminall lia&le
&eca$se he did not act with criminal intent. An honest mista-e of fact
destros the pres$mption of criminal intent which arises $pon the
commission of a felonio$s act. The re3$isites of 2ista-e of 8act are as
follows:
/. That the act done wo$ld ha)e &een lawf$l had the facts &een as
the acc$sed &elie)ed them to &e0
(. That the intention of the acc$sed in performin# the act sho$ld &e
lawf$l.
6. That the mista-e m$st &e witho$t fa$lt or carelessness on the
part of the acc$sed.
(15) Is %rior a4reement to commit a crime necessar7 for the
e$istence of cons%irac7! (,--. red notes)
/N0WE1: N'" conspirac is present so lon# as the acts of the acc$sed
clearl manifest a conc$rrence of the will and a common intent or desi#n
to commit a crime. It ma &e inferred if it is pro)en that two or more
persons aimed their acts towards the accomplishment of the same
$nlawf$l o&*ect" each doin# a part so that their acts C altho$#h apparentl
independent? were in fact connected and cooperati)e" th$s indicatin# a
closeness of personal association and a conc$rrence of sentiment. This is
also -nown as the Boctrine of Implied Conspirac.
Conspirac ma &e inferred from the acts of the acc$sed?? from the
&e#innin#" d$rin# and after the crime?? which are indicati)e of desi#n"
concerted action and conc$rrence of sentiments. 'nce it is shown that
there is conc$rrence in action or action in concert to achie)e a criminal
desi#n" the act of one is deemed the act of all the conspirators. +PEOPLE
(s. 3EL-PE, !.R. $o. 14'/0/. .ecember 11, '00&,
(19) ?ar7Eane had to suitors H Deli%e and Cesar& 0he did not
o%enl7 sho her %reference )ut on to occasions, acce%ted Cesar<s
in#itation to concerts )7 1e4ine and Co%s& Deli%e as a or>in4
student and could onl7 as> ?ar7 to see a mo#ie hich as declined&
Deli%e felt insulted and made %lans to 4et e#en ith Cesar )7 scarin4
him off someho& One da7, he entered Cesar<s room in their
)oardin4 house and %laces a ru))er sna>e hich a%%eared to )e real
in Cesar<s )ac>%ac>& Because Cesar had a ea> heart, he suffered a
heart attac> u%on o%enin4 his )ac>%ac> and seein4 the sna>e& Cesar
died ithout re4ainin4 consciousness& The %olice in#esti4ation
resulted in %in%ointin4 Deli%e as the cul%rit and he as char4ed ith
Gomicide for Cesar<s death& In his defense, Deli%e claimed that he did
not >no a)out Cesar<s ea> heart and that he onl7 intended to %la7
a %ractical Eo>e on Cesar&
Is Deli%e lia)le for the death of Cesar or ill his defense
%ros%er! Wh7! (,--1 Bar)
0=""E0TE3 /N0WE1: Yes" 8elipe is lia&le for the death of Cesar &$t he
shall &e #i)en the &enefit of the miti#atin# circ$mstance that he did not
intend to commit so #ra)e a wron# as that which was committed (Art. /6"
par. 6" R!C).
7hen 8elipe intr$ded into Cesar;s room witho$t the latter;s consent
and too- li&ert with the latter;s &ac-pac- where he placed the r$&&er
sna-e" 8elipe was alread committin# a felon. And an act done & him
while committin# a felon is no less wron#f$l" considerin# that the were
part of plans to #et e)en with Cesar.
8elipe;s claim that he intended onl to pla a practical *o-e on
Cesar does not pers$ade" considerin# that the are not friends &$t in fact
ri)als in co$rtin# 2ar*ane. This case is parallel to the case of !eople )s.
!$#a" et al.
/LTE1N/TIFE /N0WE1: No" 8elipe is not lia&le &eca$se the act of
fri#htenin# another is not a crime. 7hat he did ma &e wron#" &$t not all
wron#s amo$nt to a crime. :eca$se the act which ca$sed the death of
Cesar is not a crime" no criminal lia&ilit ma arise therefrom.
(1() Is direct %roof necessar7 to esta)lish cons%irac7! (,--. CreA
ee>)
/N0WE1: N'" direct proof is not necessar as conspirac ma &e pro)ed &
circ$mstantial e)idence. It is eno$#h that at the time of the commission of
a crime" all the malefactors had the same p$rpose and was $nited in their
e%ec$tion. 'nce esta&lished" all the conspirators are criminall lia&le as
co?principals re#ardless of the de#ree of participation of each of them for
in contemplation of the law0 the act of one is the act of all. +PEOPLE (s.
A!.E4, !.R. $os. 1&)&)56)%, Ma7 '0, '004,
(1') 3istin4uish retaliation from selfAdefense&
/N0WE1: In retaliation" the incept$al $nlawf$l a##ression had alread
ceased when the acc$sed attac-ed him. In self?defense" the $nlawf$l
a##ression was still e%istin# when the a##ressor was in*$red or disa&led
& the person ma-in# the defense. +PEOPLE (s. A$SS, !. R. $o.
14*%)4. 1ul7 14, '00&,
(,-) Is a sla% on the face an unlaful a44ression! (,--. CreAee>)
/N0WE1: YE+" since the face represents a person and his di#nit.
+lappin# the face of a person is a serio$s personal attac-0 it is a phsical
assa$lt" co$pled with a willf$l dis#race" na" a defiance" of an indi)id$al;s
personalit0 and it ma" therefore" &e fre3$entl re#arded as placin# in real
dan#er a person;s di#nit" ri#hts and safet. +R!AS (s. PEOPLE O3
#8E P8-L-PP-$ES, !.R. $o. 14%%)*, 1anuar7 14, '004,
(,1) Can the a44ra#atin4 circumstance of treacher7 )e committed
hen death is inflicted under e$ce%tional circumstances! (,--. CreA
ee>)
/N0WE1: N'" &eca$se inflictin# death $nder e%ceptional circ$mstances is
not a p$nisha&le act. Article (4D does not define or pro)ide a specific
crime" &$t #rants a pri)ile#e or &enefit to the acc$sed for the -illin# of
another or the infliction of serio$s phsical in*$ries $nder the
circ$mstances therein mentioned. In effect therefore" Article (4D amo$nts
to an e%emptin# circ$mstance. Not &ein# a p$nisha&le act" it cannot &e
3$alified & either a##ra)atin# or miti#atin# or other 3$alifin#
circ$mstances. +PEOPLE VS. A9ARCA, !.R. $o. L6%44&&, September
14, 1*)%,
(,,) Is the num)er of ounds inflicted u%on the #ictim a test in
determinin4 hether the >illin4 as attended )7 the a44ra#atin4
circumstance of cruelt7! (,--. CreAee>)
/N0WE1: N'. The n$m&er of wo$nds is not a test for determinin# cr$elt0 it
is whether the offender deli&eratel and sadisticall a$#mented the
)ictimEs phsical s$fferin#. Th$s" there m$st &e proof that the )ictim was
made to a#oniAe &efore the offender rendered the &low which sn$ffed o$t
his life. There m$st &e a showin# that he deli&eratel and inh$manl
increased the )ictim;s phsical s$fferin#. +PEOPLE (s. 3LORE$.O, !.R.
$o. 1&5)4/. October ), '00&,
(1) What is the effect of death of the offender on his criminal and ci#il
lia)ilities!
Beath of con)ict e%tin#$ishes criminal lia&ilit at an sta#e of the
proceedin#0 ci)il lia&ilit if death occ$rs &efore final *$d#ment. F8inal *$d#mentG
refers to e%ec$tor *$d#ment. The reason is that the penalt re3$ires personal
ser)ice of sentence. If death occ$rs" there will &e no&od to ser)e the penalt for
the crime. (!eople )s. :aotas)
(,) What are the effects of %ardon )7 the offended %art7!
It does not e%tin#$ish criminal lia&ilit. The onl e%ception is in Article (11?
C of the R!C which re3$ires a )alid marria#e &etween the rapist and the )ictim
to effect an e%tin#$ishment of criminal lia&ilit. :$t ci)il lia&ilit is e%tin#$ished &
e%press wai)er of the offended part.
(6) In ra%e cases, ill the %ardon of the %arents of the #ictim ithout the
concurrence of the minor #ictim herself )e effecti#e!
N'. There are a$thorities holdin# that pardon m$st &e #ranted not onl
& the parents of an offended minor &$t also & the minor herself to &e effecti)e
as an e%press pardon $nder Article 644 of the R!C.
(8) When does a Eud4ment of con#iction )ecome final!
/. 7hen no appeal is seasona&l perfected0
(. 7hen the acc$sed commences to ser)e the sentence0
6. 7hen the ri#ht to appeal is e%pressl wai)ed in writin#" e%cept where
the death penalt was imposed & the trial co$rt0 and
4. 7hen the acc$sed applies for pro&ation" there& wai)in# his ri#ht to
appeal.
(.) What is the effect of an a%%eal of Eud4ment of con#iction on the %oer
of the Cresident to e$tend %ardon!
An appeal &rin#s the entire case within the e%cl$si)e *$risdiction of the
appellate co$rt. A &ecomin# re#ard for the doctrine of separation of powers
demands that s$ch e%cl$si)e a$thorit of the appellate co$rt &e f$ll respected
and -ept $nimpaired. .ad not the present Constit$tion adopted the Fcon)iction
& final *$d#mentG limitation" the !resident co$ld" at an time and e)en witho$t
the -nowled#e of the co$rt" e%tend e%ec$ti)e clemenc to anone whom he in
#ood faith or otherwise &elie)es to merit presidential merc. There co$ld &e the
ris- not onl of a fail$re of *$stice &$t also a fr$stration of administration of *$stice
in )iew of the dero#ation of the *$risdiction of the trial or appellate co$rt. 7here
the !resident is not so pre)ented & the Constit$tion" not e)en the Con#ress can
impose an restriction to pre)ent a presidential foll.
(5) What %rocedure should )e folloed in the 4rant of %ardon to a con#ict
ho a%%ealed his Eud4ment!
:efore an appellant ma )alidl #ranted pardon" he m$st first as- for the
withdrawal of his appeal" i.e." the appealed con)iction m$st first &e &ro$#ht to
finalit. Accordin#l" the a#encies or instr$mentalities of the Go)ernment
concerned m$st re3$ire proof from the acc$sed that he has not appealed from
his con)iction or that he has withdrawn his appeal. The acceptance of the
pardon shall not operate as an a&andonment or wai)er of the appeal and the
release of an acc$sed & )irt$e of a pardon" comm$tation of sentences" or parole
&efore the withdrawal of an appeal shall render those responsi&le thereof
administrati)el lia&le. Accordin#l" those in c$stod of the acc$sed m$st not
solel rel on the pardon as a &asis for the release of the acc$sed from
confinement.
(9) Is no#ation a means of e$tin4uishin4 criminal lia)ilit7!
N'. It is not a mode of e%tin#$ishin# criminal lia&ilit. It ma pre)ent the
rise of criminal lia&ilit as lon# as it occ$rs !RI'R to the filin# of the criminal
information in co$rt.
(() Will the %rinci%le of constructi#e notice )7 re4istration )e a%%lica)le to
the crime of )i4am7!
N'. The principle of constr$cti)e notice sho$ld not &e applied in re#ard to
the crime of &i#am as *$dicial notice ma &e ta-en of the fact that a &i#amo$s
marria#e is #enerall entered into & the offender in secrec from the spo$se of
the pre)io$s s$&sistin# marria#e. Also" a &i#amo$s marria#e is #enerall
entered into a place where the offender is not -nown to &e still a married person"
in order to conceal his le#al impediment to contract another marria#e. (!eople
)s. Rees" @$l/5=5)
(') What is the effect of the dela7 in the re%ortin4 of crimes in its
%rosecution!
None. The law on prescription wo$ld &e meanin#less if we were to ield
to the proposition that dela in the prosec$tion wo$ld &e fatal to the +tate and the
offended parties. In fi%in# the different prescripti)e periods on the &asis of the
#ra)it of the penalt prescri&ed therefor" the law ta-es into acco$nt or allows
reasona&le delas in the prosec$tion thereof. (!eople )s. Gecomo)
(1-) ?a7 the 4rant of %ardon )e su)Eect to the re#ie of the courts!
N'. It is now well?entrenched r$le in this *$risdiction that this e%ercise of
presidential *$d#ment is &eond *$dicial scr$tin. The determination of the
)iolation of the conditional pardon rests e%cl$si)el in the so$nd *$d#ment of the
Chief E%ec$ti)e. The pardonee" ha)in# consented to place his li&ert on
conditional pardon $pon the *$d#ment of the power that has #ranted it cannot
in)o-e the aid of the co$rt" howe)er erroneo$s the findin#s ma &e $pon which
his recommitment was ordered. (Tesoro )s. Bir. of !risons)
(11) What is the effect of ac*uittal of the accused in a criminal action!
Ac3$ittal in a criminal action &ars the ci)il action arisin# therefrom where
the *$d#ment of ac3$ittal holds that:
/. The acc$sed did not commit the acts imp$ted to him0
(. .e was not #$ilt of criminal or ci)il ne#li#ence.
:$t" his ac3$ittal will N'T &ar a ci)il action in the followin# cases:
/. 7here the ac3$ittal is &ased on reasona&le do$&t as onl a
preponderance of e)idence is re3$ired in ci)il cases0
(. 7here the co$rt declared that acc$sed;s lia&ilit is not criminal &$t onl
ci)il in nat$re0
6. 7here the ci)il lia&ilit does not arise from or is not &ased $pon the
criminal act of which the acc$sed was ac3$itted.
An acc$sed ac3$itted of a criminal char#e ma ne)ertheless &e held in the
same case ci)ill lia&le where the facts esta&lished & the e)idence so warrants.
(1,) /B is a %ri#ate %erson en4a4ed in cattle ranchin4& One ni4ht, he sa
L? sta) :; treacherousl7, then thro the dead man<s )od7 into a ra#ine&
Dor ,. 7ears, :;<s )od7 as ne#er seen nor found+ and /B told no one
hat he had itnessed& ;esterda7, after consultin4 the %arish %riest, OW
decided to tell the authorities hat he itnessed and re#ealed that L?
>illed :; ,. 7ears a4o& Can L? )e %rosecuted for murder des%ite the la%se
of ,. 7ears! 1eason )riefl7&
YE+" L2 can &e prosec$ted for m$rder despite the lapse of (> ears"
&eca$se the crime has not et prescri&ed and le#all" its prescripti)e period has
not e)en commenced to r$n. The period of prescription of a crime shall
commence to r$n onl from the da on which the crime has &een disco)ered &
the offended part" the a$thorities or their a#ents. A:" a pri)ate person who saw
the -illin# &$t ne)er disclosed it" is not the offended part nor has the crime &een
disco)ered & the a$thorities or their a#ents.
(16) /BC as sentenced to death )7 final Eud4ment& But su)se*uentl7 he
as 4ranted %ardon )7 the Cresident& The %ardon as silent on the
%er%etual dis*ualification of /BC to hold an7 %u)lic office& /fter his
%ardon, /BC ran for office as ?a7or of Tarlac, his hometon& Gis o%%onent
sou4ht to dis*ualif7 him& /BC contended he is not dis*ualified )ecause he
as alread7 %ardoned )7 the Cresident unconditionall7& Is /BC<s
contention correct! 1eason )riefl7&
N'" A:C;s contention is incorrect &eca$se the pardon #ranted & the
!resident does not e%pressl e%tin#$ish the accessor penalt of perpet$al
dis3$alification to hold p$&lic office. A pardon #ranted & the !resident shall not
wor- the restoration of the ri#ht to hold p$&lic office" or the ri#ht of s$ffra#e"
$nless s$ch ri#ht is e%pressl restored & the terms of the pardon.
(18) ?arita as char4ed ith and con#icted of the crime of theft for
stealin4 Eeelries& 0he as also ordered to %a7 the %ri#ate offended %art7
the sums of C1&. ?illion for the #alue of the stolen Eeelries and C1--,---
for moral dama4es& 3urin4 the %endenc7 of her a%%eal to the 0u%reme
Court she died& The %ri#ate offended %art7 mo#es that she )e %aid the
sums aarded re%resentin4 the ?arita<s ci#il lia)ilit7& ?a7 amounts
re%resentin4 ci#il lia)ilit7 ex-delicto )e aarded des%ite the death of the
accused %endin4 a%%eal!
N'" the ci)il action instit$ted with the criminal action for reco)er of ci)il
lia&ilit e% delicto is ipso facto e%tin#$ished" $pon the e%tinction of the criminal
action d$e to the death of the acc$sed. The pec$niar lia&ilities ad*$d#ed
a#ainst 2arita are $ndenia&l e% delicto. +he was ordered to pa act$al
dama#es" which is the )al$e of the pieces of *ewelr alle#edl ta-en from the
pri)ate complainant" and moral dama#es for the fear and tra$ma ca$sed to the
complainant & reason of the commission of the crime. These ci)il lia&ilities
arose from the crime of Theft and are &ased solel on said delict. (Be G$Aman
)s. !eople)
(1.) "u7, hile dri#in4 a %assen4er Eee%ne7 oned and o%erated )7 ?a$,
)um%ed 3em7, a %edestrian crossin4 the street& 3em7 sustained inEuries,
hich re*uired medical attendance for three months& "u7 as char4ed
ith rec>less im%rudence resultin4 to %h7sical inEuries& Con#icted )7 the
?T0, "u7 as sentenced to suffer a strai4ht %enalt7 of three months of
arresto mayor and ordered to indemnif7 3em7 in the sum of C,-,--- and to
%a7 C1-,--- as attorne7<s fees&
=%on finalit7 of the decision, a rit of e$ecution as ser#ed u%on
"u7, )ut as returned unsatisfied due to his insol#enc7& 3em7 mo#ed for a
su)sidiar7 rit of e$ecution a4ainst ?a$& The latter o%%osed the motion on
the 4round that the decision made no mention of his su)sidiar7 lia)ilit7
and that he as not im%leaded in the case& Go ill 7ou resol#e the
motion!
The motion is to &e #ranted. 2a% as an emploer of G$ and en#a#ed in
an ind$str (transportation &$siness) where said emploee is $tiliAed" is
s$&sidiaril ci)ill lia&le $nder Art. /H6 of the R!C. E)en tho$#h the decision
made no mention of his s$&sidiar lia&ilit" the law )iolated (R!C) itself mandates
for s$ch lia&ilit and 2a% is deemed to -now it &eca$se i#norance of the law is
ne)er e%c$sed. And since his lia&ilit is not primar &$t onl s$&sidiar in case
his emploee cannot pa" he need not &e impleaded in the criminal case. It
s$ffices that he was d$l notified of the motion for iss$ance of a s$&sidiar writ of
e%ec$tion and th$s #i)en the opport$nit to &e heard.
(15) Caolo as char4ed ith homicide )efore the 1TC of ?anila& 3urin4
the trial of the case, /ndre, a itness for the %rosecution, 4a#e a false
testimon7 fa#ora)le to the defendant& 0u)se*uentl7, Caolo as ac*uitted&
The decision )ecame final on Banuar7 1-, 1'(9& On Bune 1(, 1''8 a case of
4i#in4 false testimon7 as filed a4ainst /ndre& /s his la7er, hat le4al
ste% ill 7ou ta>e!
As lawer of Andrew" I will file a motion to 3$ash the information on the
#ro$nd of prescription. The crime of false testimon $nder Art. /=H has
prescri&ed &eca$se !aolo" the acc$sed in the principal case" was ac3$itted on
@an$ar /H" /5=D and therefore the penalt prescri&ed for s$ch crime is arresto
ma7or $nder Art. /=H" par. 4" R!C.
Crimes p$nisha&le & arresto ma7or prescri&es in fi)e ears. :$t the case
a#ainst Andrew was filed onl on @$ne /=" /554" whereas the principal criminal
case was decided with finalit on @an$ar /H" /5=D and" thence the prescripti)e
period of the crime commenced to r$n. 8rom @an$ar /H" /5=D to @$ne /=" /554
is more than fi)e ears.
(19) Dor defraudin4 Lorna, /lma as char4ed )efore the ?TC of ?alolos,
Bulacan& /fter a %rotracted trial, /lma as con#icted& While the case as
%endin4 a%%eal in the 1TC of the same %ro#ince, Lorna ho as then
sufferin4 from )reast cancer died& /lma manifested to the court that ith
Lorna<s death, her (/lma<s) criminal and ci#il lia)ilities are no
e$tin4uished& Is /lma<s Contention correct! What if it ere /lma ho
died, ould it affect her criminal and ci#il lia)ilities! E$%lain
No. Alma;s contention is not correct. The death of the offended part
does not e%tin#$ish the criminal lia&ilit of the offender" &eca$se the offense is
committed a#ainst the +tate (!eople )s. 2isola). .ence" it follows that the ci)il
lia&ilit if Alma &ased on the offense committed & her is not e%tin#$ished. The
estate of Lorna can contin$e the case.
'n the other hand" if it were Alma who died pendin# the appeal of her
con)iction" her criminal lia&ilit shall &e e%tin#$ished and therewith the ci)il
lia&ilit $nder the R!C (Art. =5" par. /" R!C). .owe)er" the claim for ci)il
indemnit ma &e instit$ted $nder the Ci)il Cod (Art. //>D) if predicated on a
so$rce of o&li#ation other than delict" s$ch as law" contracts" 3$asi?contracts and
3$asi?delicts (!eople )s. :aotas).
(1() What are the e$ce%tions to the 4eneral rule that in case of ac*uittal of
the accused in a criminal case, his ci#il lia)ilit7 is li>eise e$tin4uished!
The e%ceptions are the followin#:
/. 7hen the ci)il action is &ased on o&li#ations not arisin# from the act
complained of as a felon0
(. 7hen the ac3$ittal is &ased on reasona&le do$&t or ac3$ittal is on the
#ro$nd that #$ilt has not &een pro)en &eond reasona&le do$&t (Art.
(5" NCC)0
6. Ac3$ittal d$e to an e%emptin# circ$mstance li-e insanit0
4. 7here the co$rt states in its *$d#ment that the case merel in)ol)es a
ci)il o&li#ation0
>. 7here there was a proper reser)ation for the filin# of a separate ci)il
action0
1. In cases of independent ci)il actions pro)ided for in Arts. 6/" 6(" 66
and 64 of the Ci)il Code0
D. 7hen the *$d#ment of ac3$ittal incl$des a declaration that the fact
from which the ci)il lia&ilit ma arise did not e%ist (+apiera )s. CA)0
=. 7here the ci)il lia&ilit is not deri)ed or &ased on the criminal act of
which the acc$sed is ac3$itted (+apiera )s. CA).
(1') One fateful ni4ht in Banuar7 1''-, hile a fi#eA7ear old /l)ert as
urinatin4 at the )ac> of their house, he heard a stran4e noise comin4 from
the >itchen of their nei4h)or and %la7mate, /ra& When he %ee%ed inside,
he sa ?ina, /ra<s ste%mother, #er7 an4r7 and stran4lin4 the .A7ear old
/ra to death& /l)ert sa ?ina carr7 the dead )od7 of /ra, %alce it inside
the truc> of her car and dri#e aa7& The dead )od7 of /ra as ne#er found&
?ina s%read the nes in the nei4h)orhood that /ra ent to li#e ith her
4rand%arents in Ormoc Cit7& Dor fear of his life, /l)ert did not tell an7oe,
e#en his %arents and relati#es, a)out hat he itnessed& Tent7 and a half
7ears after the incident, and ri4ht after his 4raduation in Criminolo47,
/l)ert re%orted the crime to NBI authorities& The crime of homicide
%rescri)es in ,- 7ears& Can the 0tate still %rosecute ?ina for the death of
/ra des%ite the la%s of ,- & I 7ears! E$%lain&
YE+" the +tate can till prosec$te 2ina for the death of Ara despite the
lapse of (H I J ears. 9nder Article 5/" R!C" the period of prescription
commences to r$n from the da on which the crime is disco)ered & the offended
part" the a$thorities or their a#ents. In the case at &ar" the commission of the
crime was -nown onl & Al&ert" who was not the offended part nor an a$thorit
or an a#ent of an a$thorit. It was disco)ered & the N:I a$thorities onl when
Al&ert re)ealed to them the commission of the crime. .ence" the period of
prescription of (H ears for homicide commenced to r$n onl from the time Al&ert
re)ealed the same to the N:I a$thorities.
(,-) "i#e the rules on ci#il lia)ilit7 in %articular cases&
A person insane" im&ecile" $nder 5" or o)er 5 &$t $nder />:
/. !rimar lia&ilit is on the person who has control or a$thorit o)er
them" $nless he is witho$t fa$lt or ne#li#ence0
(. +econdar lia&ilit is on the propert of the minor or insane" if there &e
no s$ch person" or if he is insol)ent" e%cept propert e%empt from
lia&ilit.
A person who a)oided a #reater e)il or in*$r (Art. //" par. 4):
!rimar lia&ilit is on the one who &enefited from s$ch a)oidance. If there
were se)eral persons &enefited" the co$rt shall determine their proportionate
share.
In irresisti&le force or $ncontrolla&le fear KArt. /( (>) and (1)L:
/. !rimar lia&ilit is on s$ch person emploin# the force or ca$sin# the
fear0
(. +econdar lia&ilit is on the person doin# the act" sa)e for their
propert e%empt from e%ec$tion.
"&1& No& 15'-9(& ?arch 1-, ,--5
Ceo%le of the Chili%%ines Fs& 1icardo B& ?iranda&
M$estion: In /551" N forci&l dra##ed Y inside the ho$se" remo)ed Y;s panties
and proceeded to $ndress himself. N tried to insert his penis into Y;s pri)ate part
&$t was not s$ccessf$l so he inserted his fin#er into her instead. 7hat crime did
% committed and applin# the I+Law" what penalt sho$ld &e imposed to NO
Answer: Attempted rape. N;s act wo$ld ha)e constit$ted cons$mmated rape
thro$#h se%$al assa$lt $nder Rep$&lic Act No. =6>6 or the Anti?Rape Law of
/55D. .owe)er" since the offense occ$rred on Becem&er (=" /551 or prior to the
effecti)it of the Anti?Rape Law of /55D" the same finds no application in this
case.
7e now come to the penalt.
9nder Article >/ of the Re)ised !enal Code" the penalt to &e imposed $pon
persons fo$nd #$ilt of an attempted crime is the penalt lower & two de#rees
than that prescri&ed & law for the cons$mmated felon. The penalt for
cons$mmated rape is death" p$rs$ant to Article 66> of the Re)ised !enal Code"
as amended & Rep$&lic Act No. D1>5 or the Beath !enalt Law" since @olene
was &elow D ears old when raped. The penalt for attempted rape is reclusion
temporal which is two de#rees lower than that prescri&ed for cons$mmated rape.
Applin# the Indeterminate +entence Law" the appellant ma &e sentenced to an
indeterminate imprisonment penalt whose minim$m is within the ran#e of
prision ma7or" that is" si% (1) ears and one (/) da to twel)e (/() ears and
whose ma%im$m shall &e within the ran#e of reclusion temporal in its medi$m
period p$rs$ant to Article 14(/) of the Re)ised !enal Code" the ran#e of which is
fo$rteen (/4) ears" ei#ht (=) months and one (/) da to se)enteen (/D) ears
and fo$r (4) months.
"&1& No& 19-.5.& Banuar7 61, ,--5
Ceo%le of the Chili%%ines Fs& Isidro Dlores 7 La4ua
M: 2a the acc$sed or the co$rt wai)e the a$tomatic re)iew of his case wherein
the death penalt was imposedO
A: No" e%cept in criminal cases where the penalt imposed is reclusion perpetua
or death" all appeals to this Co$rt are not a matter of ri#ht &$t of so$nd *$dicial
discretion. Con)ersel" appeal in criminal cases where the penalt of reclusion
perpetua or death is imposed" is a matter of ri#ht. This is speciall tr$e in death
penalt cases where a re)iew of the trial co$rt;s *$d#ment of con)iction is
a$tomatic and does not depend on the whims of the death con)ict. It is
mandator and lea)es the re)iewin# co$rt witho$t an option.
M: what is the rationale &ehind the Co$rt;s a$tomatic re)iew of death penalt
casesO
A: The re3$irement that the +$preme Co$rt pass $pon a case in which capital
p$nishment has &een imposed & the sentence of the trial co$rt is one ha)in# for
its o&*ect simpl and solel the protection of the acc$sed. .a)in# recei)ed the
hi#hest penalt which the law imposes" he is entitled $nder that law to ha)e the
sentence and all the facts and circ$mstances $pon which it is fo$nded placed
&efore the hi#hest tri&$nal of the land to the end that its *$stice and le#alit ma
&e clearl and concl$si)el determined. +$ch proced$re is mercif$l. It #i)es a
second chance for life. Neither the courts nor the accused can ai#e it& It is a
positi)e pro)ision of the law that &roo-s no interference and tolerates no
e)asions.
"&1& No& LA696'5 /%ril 6-, 1'9'
?/1CELINO LONTOK, B1&, petitioner )s. GON& /LD1E3O "O1"ONIO, as
Cresidin4 Bud4e of the ?unici%al Court of 0an Buan, 1iJal, respondent.
M: 'n @an$ar H6" (HH1" while N was rec-lessl dri)in# his car" he &$mped a
passen#er *eep and ca$sed dama#ed to it and also ca$sed phsical in*$ries to
three passen#ers who were incapacitated from performin# their c$stomar la&or
for a period of less than ten das. 'n 2a H6" (HH1" information was filed
char#in# him the comple% crime of dama#e to propert and sli#ht phsical
in*$ries thro$#h rec-less impr$dence. Can N &e tried on the said informationO
A: N sho$ld &e tried onl for dama#e to propert thro$#h rec-less impr$dence.
As s$ch" it cannot &e comple%ed with the li#ht offense of sli#ht phsical in*$ries
thro$#h rec-less impr$dence which had alread prescri&ed since that crime
prescri&es in si%t das.
2oreo)er" applin# article 4=" it follows that if one offense is li#ht" there is no
comple% crime. The res$ltin# offenses ma &e treated as a separate or the li#ht
felon ma &e a&sor&ed & the #ra)e felon. Th$s" the li#ht felonies of dama#e to
propert and sli#ht phsical in*$ries" &oth res$ltin# from a sin#le act of
impr$dence" do not constit$te a comple% crime. The cannot &e char#ed in one
information. The are separate offenses s$&*ect to distinct penalties.
"&1& No& 1.,-88 Bul7 6, ,--6
3O?IN"O L/"1O0/ and O0I/0 B/"=IN, petitioners"
)s. TGE CEOCLE OD TGE CGILICCINE0 and TGE GONO1/BLE CO=1T OD
/CCE/L0, respondents.
M: N was fo$nd #$ilt of )iolatin# +ection 1= of !.B. DH>" as amended (The
Re)ised 8orestr Code)" for ha)in# in their possession forest prod$cts witho$t
the re3$isite permits. The trial co$rt sentenced them to s$ffer the indeterminate
penalt of imprisonment from two (() ears" fo$r (4) months and one (/) da of
prision correccional" as minim$m" to ei#ht (=) ears of prision maor" as
ma%im$m. N appealed the decision to the CA which affirmed N;s con)iction &$t
red$ced the penalt to an indeterminate penalt ran#in# from si% (1) months and
one (/) da of prision correccional" as minim$m" to one (/) ear" ei#ht (=) months
and twent one ((/) das of prision correccional" as ma%im$m.. N then filed an
application for pro&ation ar#$in# that he onl &ecame eli#i&le for pro&ation after
the CA modified the *$d#ment of the trial co$rt and red$ced the ma%im$m term of
the penalt imposed. 7ill N;s application for pro&ation &e #rantedO
A: No" ha)in# appealed from the *$d#ment of the trial co$rt and ha)in# applied
for pro&ation onl after the Co$rt of Appeals had affirmed their con)iction" N was
clearl precl$ded from the &enefits of pro&ation.
8or s$re" N ne)er manifested that he was appealin# onl for the p$rpose of
correctin# a wron# penalt C to red$ce it to within pro&ationa&le ran#e. .ence"
$pon interposin# an appeal" more so after assertin# his innocence therein" N
sho$ld &e precl$ded from see-in# pro&ation. : perfectin# his appeal" N ipso
facto relin3$ished the alternati)e remed of a)ailin# of the !ro&ation Law" the
p$rpose of which is simpl to pre)ent spec$lation or opport$nism on the part of
an acc$sed who" altho$#h alread eli#i&le" does not at once appl for pro&ation"
&$t did so onl after failin# in his appeal.
!ro&ation ma &e #ranted whether the sentence imposes a term of imprisonment
or a fine onl. An application for pro&ation shall &e filed with the trial co$rt. The
filin# of the application shall &e deemed a wai)er of the ri#ht to appeal.
An order #rantin# or denin# pro&ation shall not &e appeala&le.
9nder +ection 5 (a) of the !ro&ation Law" offenders who are sentenced to ser)e
a ma%im$m term of imprisonment of more than si% ears are dis3$alified from
see-in# pro&ation.
BOOK TWO
0/?CLE C1OBLE?0 /N3 0=""E0TE3 /N0WE10
1& C1OBLE?
7itho$t s$fficient e)idence" some !N! officers threatened to arrest fi)e
part?list representati)es (,oltes >) for an alle#ed co$p plot. As a pre)enti)e
meas$re" the .o$se of Representati)es offered protecti)e c$stod of said
con#ressmen. The ,oltes > accepted the offer and staed at the :atasan#
!am&ansa comple% for se)eral das. The !N! officers are now char#ed with
ar&itrar detention. 7o$ld the case prosperO
0=""E0TE3 /N0WE1
The case wo$ld not prosper. Altho$#h there is no )alid #ro$nd to s$pport
the cond$ct of the police officers in ma-in# the threat to arrest" there is no
detention to spea- of. It is tr$e that in the case of 9enito Astor2a (s. Philippines
+Oct 1, '00&,, the Co$rt held that detention need not in)ol)e an phsical
restraint as it is s$fficient that the acts of the acc$sed can prod$ce s$ch fear in
the mind of the )ictim s$fficient to compel the )ictim to limit his own actions and
mo)ements in accordance with the wishes of the acc$sed" the a&o)e?stated facts
do not" howe)er" show s$ch circ$mstances. :ein# lawmen" the threat to arrest is
not s$fficient to prod$ce fear in the mind of the con#ressmen so as to paralAe
them a#ainst their will. 7hat is e)ident is that" the Con#ress has offered" and the
:i# > has )ol$ntaril accepted the protecti)e c$stod. (Art /(4" R!C)
,& C1OBLE?
'n !res. Arroo;s >5
th
&irthda" se)eral senators and mem&ers of
Con#ress la$nched a nationwide campai#n to force the !resident o$t of office.
The directed their allies in the pro)inces to emplo force" intimidation" and other
means o$tside of le#al methods in con)incin# the p$&lic to s$pport s$ch
campai#n. Their allies did as directed.
The senators and the con#ressmen were then char#ed with the crime of
co$p d;etat. 7ill the case prosperO .ad the char#e &een sedition" will o$r
answer &e the sameO If the allies of the senators and con#ressmen were also
incl$ded in the information" what criminal lia&ilit if an" will the inc$rO
0=""E0TE3 /N0WE1
No" the char#e for co$p d;etat will not prosper. 'ne of the elements of the
crime of co$p d;etat is that" it is committed & means of a swift attac-"
accompanied & )iolence" intimidation" threat" strate#" or stealth. In the pro&lem"
while there is emploment of force" intimidation" and other means o$tside of le#al
methods" it is not shown that it is committed in the co$rse of a swift attac-.
.ence" there is no crime of co$p d;etat.
.ad the char#e &een sedition" m answer will &e the same C it will not
prosper.
'ne of the elements of the crime of sedition is that" the offenders rise
t$m$lt$o$sl0 and as esta&lished & *$rispr$dence" it is t$m$lt$o$s when it is
ca$sed & more than three (6) persons who are armed or pro)ided with the
means of )iolence. +$ch circ$mstance does not appear in the case. .ence" there
is no sedition.
9nder the law" not the leaders onl of the co$p d;etat andPor sedition are
lia&le &$t also those who participate in the crime li-e the allies in the case. :$t
where there is in fact neither the crime of co$p d;etat nor of sedition" nat$rall"
the participants will not inc$r an criminal lia&ilit. (Art. /64?A" /6>" /65" R!C)
6& C1OBLE?
After a heated ar#$ment" N en#a#ed in a fist fi#ht with Y in which the
former s$ffered a c$t in the forehead. Incidentall" when N ran for maor" Y was a
poll official in the localit. 9nfort$natel" N lost in the maoralt race. 7hen N
chanced $pon Y" he tho$#ht of ta-in# re)en#e on the latter for the in*$r he
s$ffered d$rin# their fist fi#ht. N hit Y;s head with a hardwood" ca$sin# the latter
to fall $nconscio$s. N was then char#ed with direct assa$lt. Is the char#e properO
0=""E0TE3 /N0WE1
Yes" the char#e for direct assa$lt is proper. Altho$#h the act of N in hittin#
Y;s head was not & reason of the latter;s performance of d$t as an election
officer" the act falls s3$arel within the am&it of direct assa$lt in the first form" i.e"
witho$t p$&lic $prisin#" & emploin# force or intimidation for the attainment of
an of the p$rposes en$merated in definin# the crimes of sedition and re&ellion0
and one of the o&*ects of sedition is to inflict an act of hate or re)en#e $pon the
person or propert of an p$&lic officerPemploee. 9nder the crime of direct
assa$lt in the first form" the law does not re3$ire that the infliction or attac- is &
reason or on the occasion of the performance & the )ictim of an official d$t. It is
eno$#h that the attac- $pon the p$&lic officer or emploee is to inflict an act of
hate or re)en#e. (Art. /4=" R!C)
8& C1OBLE?
:ri#adier?General Banilo Lim heads an elite +co$t Ran#er $nit. In
conspirac with other militar officers" he planned and decided to lead his men to
an opposition rall and call for !resident Arroo;s resi#nation. .e was then
arrested and char#ed with conspirac to commit co$p d;etat. If o$ were the
*$d#e" wo$ld o$ con)ict Gen. Lim and his co?conspiratorsO 7h or wh notO
0=""E0TE3 /N0WE1
If I were the *$d#e" I will not con)ict Gen. Lim and his co?conspirators of
the crime of conspirac to commit co$p d;etat. 7hile Gen. Lim" a person
&elon#in# to the militar" is act$all in conspirac with other militar officers" and
their conspirac is directed a#ainst a d$l constit$ted a$thorit of the !hilippines"
in order to diminish if not to seiAe state power" their conspirac was onl to sta#e
a rall that wo$ld call for the resi#nation of the !resident. It was not a conspirac
to ma-e a swift attac-" accompanied & )iolence" intimidation" threat" strate#" or
stealth as in co$p d;etat.
.ence" conspirac to commit co$p d;etat was not committed. (Art. /61"
R!C)
.& C1OBLE?
A war &etween !hilippines and China was declared as the latter so$#ht to
in)ade the co$ntr. 2em&ers of the Chinese arm then &o$#ht &anda#es from a
dr$#store owned & @$an. 7hen the !hilippine arm fo$nd o$t" @$an was
char#ed and later on con)icted of treason. 7as his con)iction properO
0=""E0TE3 /N0WE1
No" the con)iction was improper. The second mode of committin# the
crime of treason re3$ires &oth adherence to the enemies and #i)in# of aid or
comfort. And as esta&lished & *$rispr$dence" there is Fadherence to enemG
when there is intent to &etra or the offender intellect$all or emotionall fa)ors
the enem and har&ors smpathies or con)ictions disloal to his co$ntr;s
interest.
In the case" while the sale of the &anda#es ma constit$te #i)in# of aid or
comfort" there is no e)idence that as well" @$an adhered to the enemies. The
articles sold & @$an" not &ein# per se" for war p$rposes" the sale is not indicati)e
of the intention of @$an to har&or smpathies to the enem. (Art. //4" R!C0
!eople )s. A#oncillo" =H !hil 66)
5& C1OBLE?
!ri)ate 8irst?Class 2anatad was #$nned down & = men while mannin# a
traffic. Bas later" police officers arrested Rodri#o and Edwin in a safeho$se of
the New !eople;s Arm (N!A) +parrow 9nit. Rodri#o confessed that he and the
#ro$p of Edwin -illed !fc. 2anatad. .e li-ewise admitted that he and Edwin were
mem&ers of the +parrow 9nit and that the $ndertoo- the -illin# of !fc. 2anatad
$pon the orders of their re&el commander.
+ho$ld Rodri#o and Edwin &e con)icted of direct assa$lt with m$rderO
0=""E0TE3 /N0WE1
No. 7here the acc$sed admitted his mem&ership in the N!A and the
-illin# of an a#ent of a person in a$thorit" the crime committed is not direct
assa$lt with m$rder &$t re&ellion. +ince the -illin# was made p$rs$ant to the
order of a re&el commander" the crime was politicall moti)ated" in that the same
was committed in f$rtherance of re&ellion. Crimes committed in f$rtherance of
re&ellion are deemed a&sor&ed therein and are not p$nisha&le separatel.
The crime of re&ellion consists of a )ast mo)ement of men and a
comple% net of intri#$es and plots. Acts committed in the
f$rtherance of re&ellion tho$#h crimes in themsel)es are deemed
a&sor&ed in one sin#le crime of re&ellion. It cannot &e made the
&asis of a separate char#e. (!eople )s. Basi#" ((/ +CRA >45)
9& C1OBLE?
B$rin# the 2a (HH4 elections" fi)e persons" armed with #$ns and -ni)es"
attac-ed a *eepne wherein ei#ht policemen" the chief of police" and other
passen#ers were ridin#. Two policemen" the *eepne dri)er and two children
were -illed while two policemen were wo$nded. The acc$sed were char#ed with
the crime of sedition with m$ltiple m$rder and do$&le fr$strated m$rder. Becide.
0=""E0TE3 /N0WE1
The acc$sed cannot &e con)icted of sedition. To constit$te sedition" the
act m$st &e shown to ha)e &een done in attainment of an of the followin#
p$rposes:
/. to pre)ent the prom$l#ation or e%ec$tion of an law or the holdin# of
an pop$lar election0
(. to pre)ent the national #o)ernment" or an pro)incial or m$nicipal
#o)ernment" or an p$&lic officer thereof from freel e%ercisin# its or
his f$nctions" or pre)ent the e%ec$tion of an administrati)e order0
6. to inflict an act of hate or re)en#e $pon the person or propert of an
p$&lic officer or emploee0
4. to commit" for an political or social end" an act of hate or re)en#e
a#ainst pri)ate persons or an social class0 and
>. to despoil" for an political or social end" an person" m$nicipalit or
pro)ince" or the national #o)ernment of all its propert or an part
thereof.
In the a&o)e case" the p$rpose of the attac- was not shown. A&sent an
s$ch showin#" the act cannot &e considered as sedition. (Art. /65" R!C)
(& C1OBLE?
7hile patrollin#" 2a*or 2enor &lew his whistle to stop a car which wron#l
entered a one?wa street. After demandin# from the dri)er L$ .$a her dri)er;s
license" 2enor as-ed her to follow him to the police precinct. 9pon arri)in# there"
2enor #a)e instr$ctions to another officer to #$ard L$ .$a in one of the rooms
and not to let her o$t of si#ht $ntil he ret$rns. Then he #ot the car -e from Lo
.$a. In the meantime" the latter was not allowed to ma-e an phone calls &$t
was #i)en food and access to the &athroom.
7hat criminal offense has 2enor committedO E%pain.
0=""E0TE3 /N0WE1
2enor committed ar&itrar detention" he &ein# a p$&lic officer who
detained a person witho$t le#al #ro$nd. ,iolation of traffic ordinance & enterin#
one?wa street is not a )alid reason to arrest and detain the dri)er. +$ch onl
merits the iss$ance of a traffic )iolation tic-et. .ence" when Lo .$a was ordered
to follow the police officers to the precinct (confiscatin# her license to compel her
to do so) and confinin# her in a room for two das and prohi&itin# her to ma-e
phone calls" is a clear case of depri)ation of personal li&ert. Gi)in# her food and
access to the &athroom will not e%tin#$ish or miti#ate the criminal lia&ilit.
'& C1OBLE?
Tse +i Y$an is a Taiwanese citiAen who esta&lished his residence in !asa
Cit. .e was elected president of an association composed of Taiwanese
nationals residin# in the !hilippines. 7hen China declared war a#ainst the
!hilippines" Tse +i Y$an secretl #athered his mem&ers in a meetin# in order to
disc$ss effecti)e means of disarmin# the 8ilipino forces and cripplin# their
reso$rces as a means of helpin# the Chinese win their &attle . If o$ were the
prosec$tor" what wo$ld o$ char#e Tse +i Y$an forO 7o$ld o$r answer &e the
same had Tse +i Y$an &een a Chinese citiAenO
0=""E0TE3 /N0WE1
I will char#e Tse +i Y$an for the crime of treason. :ein# a resident of the
!hilippines" he owes temporar alle#iance to to the #o)ernment" notwithstandin#
his Taiwanese citiAenship. Considerin# that the !hilippines is at war with China"
& act$all assem&lin# his men (#atherin# them in a meetin#) for the p$rpose of
e%ec$tin# a treasona&le desi#n & force (disarmin# the 8ilipino forces and
cripplin# their reso$rces)" then he &reaches the temporar alle#iance he owes.
That is treason.
Yes" m answer wo$ld &e the same. .ad Tse +i Y$an &een a Chinese
national" he wo$ld ha)e had committed the same crime. : &ecomin# an enem"
he does not lose his temporar alle#iance to the !hilippines &eca$se *$st the
same" he resides here. The fact remains that all the elements of the crime are
present. .ence" treason is committed.
1-& C1OBLE?
N" a *o$rnalism st$dent" -nowin# that he wo$ld in anwa" &e allowed &
Y" his $ncle and inc$m&ent +ecretar of National Befense" entered the offices of
the latter witho$t prior a$thorit in order to o&tain maps showin# the secret
defense &ases and installations in the !hilippines and hidden arms and
amm$nitions a)aila&le in e)er &ase. This he wo$ld $se for his co$rse
re3$irement on the capa&ilit of the !hilippines to withstand a s$dden attac- &
enemies.
7hat crime if an did N commitO If Y act$all a$thoriAed him to enter and
o&tain information" what criminal lia&ilit will he inc$rO
0=""E0TE3 /N0WE1
N committed the crime of espiona#e which is p$nisha&le &oth $nder Art.
//5 of the R!C and CA 1/1. The R!C p$nishes the entr of a person witho$t
a$thorit" in a warship" fort" or militar or na)al esta&lishment to o&tain
confidential information relati)e to the defense of the !hilippines. This is not
o&)iated & the fact that the acc$sed -new that he wo$ld in anwa &e #i)en
a$thorit if as-ed or that he acted in #ood faith. 2ere entr witho$t a$thorit for
the p$rpose a&o)ementioned constit$tes the crime.
N also )iolated CA 1/1 for $nlawf$ll o&tainin# information affectin#
national defense.
Y will &e #$ilt of )iolatin# CA 1/1 for $nlawf$ll permittin# to &e o&tained"
information affectin# national defense. :$t he will not &e lia&le $nder Art. //5 of
the R!C. 8or him to &e lia&le" the permission to o&tain or the disclos$re m$st &e
to a representati)e of a forei#n nation. (Art. //D" R!C)
11& C1OBLE?
A has a da$#hter wor-in# in :ahrain as a domestic helper. 7hen :ahrain
declared war o)er the !hilippines" A immediatel sent a letter to his da$#hter
$sin# a secret code deciphera&le onl & him and his da$#hter" as-in# the latter
if she was o-a and s$##estin# her to immediatel #o home $ntil the war is o)er.
7hat crime if an" did A commitO .ad not the da$#hter acceded to A;s s$##estion
A himself flew to :ahrain to con)ince her da$#hter to #o home" will A inc$r an
criminal lia&ilitO

0=""E0TE3 /N0WE1
A committed the crime of correspondence with hostile co$ntr. All the
elements of the crime are present. A made a correspondence with the enem
co$ntr or territor occ$pied & enem troops & sendin# a letter0 it is made in
time of war in which the !hilippines is in)ol)ed0 and it is carried in ciphers or
con)entional si#ns. The fact that the correspondence contained innocent matters
is of no moment.
No" A will not inc$r an criminal lia&ilit. 8or one to &e lia&le for fli#ht to
enem;s co$ntr" it is necessar that s$ch fli#ht is prohi&ited & the competent
a$thorit. It is not the fli#ht itself &$t the )iolation of the prohi&ition that constit$tes
the crime. (Art. /(/" R!C)
1,& C1OBLE?
F,ictoria"G a car#o )essel loaded with steel rods" was cr$isin# alon# the
!asi# ri)er when s$ddenl" two men" &oth armed with .4> cali&er #$ns" &oarded
the )essel and seiAed control of it. At #$npoint" the instr$cted the crew to
transfer the steel rods from F,ictoriaG to their own )essel. After which the
immo&iliAed the crew with handc$ffs and loc-ed them at the master;s ca&in. The
then" implanted a time &om& at the rear end of F,ictoriaG and fled. Two ho$rs
later" the two armed men were arrested and char#ed with 3$alified pirac. Is the
char#e properO 7ill o$r answer &e the same if ri#ht after the transfer of the steel
rods" the two armed men immediatel fled witho$t harmin# an of the crewO
0=""E0TE3 /N0WE1
Yes" the two armed men ma &e char#ed for 3$alified pirac $nder Art.
/(6 of the R!C. The two armed men" &ein# stran#ers to the )essel" seiAed the
)essel and its car#o while it is on !hilippine waters. And said pirac is 3$alified
when" inter alia" the offenders a&andoned their )ictims witho$t means of sa)in#
themsel)es. Certainl" when the two armed men immo&iliAed the crew and
implanted a time &om& on the )essel" the )ictims were left witho$t an resort to
sa)e their li)es. In d$e time" the &om& will e%plode.
A&sent s$ch circ$mstance of" m answer will still &e the same. Lea)in#
the )ictims witho$t means of sa)in# themsel)es is onl one mode of 3$alifin#
the offense. : the mere fact that the offenders seiAed the )essel & &oardin#
$pon the same" the offense is alread 3$alified. (Art /(( I /(6" R!C)
16& C1OBLE?
F2ar- TwainG a l$%$r )essel" was cr$isin# off the coast of !alawan when
s$ddenl" Ahmed .amiri" a passen#er of said )essel" slipped a #$n from his
poc-et and declared a hold$p. 9nder fear & the passen#ers of &ein# shot to
death" .amiri di)ested the passen#ers of their mone and other )al$a&les.
.amiri was char#ed with pirac. Is the char#e properO
0=""E0TE3 /N0WE1
It depends. If the char#e of pirac is &ased on the R!C" then the char#e is
improper &eca$se $nder the R!C" pirac ma &e committed onl & a stran#er to
the )essel. It e%cl$des offenders who are either passen#ers or complements of
the )essel. :$t if the char#e of pirac is &ased on !B >6( (Anti?!irac and Anti?
.i#hwa Ro&&er Law of /5D4)" then the char#e is proper &eca$se $nder said
special law" pirac ma &e committed either & a stran#er" complement" or
passen#er of a )essel. (Art. /((" R!C I !.B. >6()
18& C1OBLE?
Catha !acific 8li#ht C! D6=" from :ei*in#" was clearin# the )isi&ilit of the
NAIA (Nino A3$ino International Airport) in preparation for its landin#. :$t &efore
it co$ld e)en to$ch down" A&d$l 8ahAiA Qamlon mana#ed to slip wa to the
coc-pit and loc-ed the door. At #$npoint" he ordered the pilot to land in East
Timor" Indonesia. 7hat crime if an" did Qamlon commitO +$pposin# the aircraft
has alread landed at the NAIA and it was onl after all its e%ternal doors were
alread opened for disem&ar-ation that Qamlon at #$npoint ordered to reclose
the same doors and head for East Timor" wo$ld o$r answer &e the sameO
0=""E0TE3 /N0WE1
Qamlon committed the crime of hi?*ac-in# $nder RA 1(6>. +aid law
p$nishes the act of $s$rpin# or seiAin# the control of an aircraft of forei#n re#istr
while it is within !hilippine territor. Thereafter" it is immaterial whether or not the
pilot was compelled to land in !hilippine territor. Crime sets in $pon s$ch
$s$rpation or seiA$re while it is in !hilippine territor. Certainl" while the aircraft
is clearin# the )isi&ilit in preparation for the landin#" it is alread within !hilippine
territor" notwithstandin# act$al to$chin# down for landin#.
In case the $s$rpation or seiA$re happened onl after all the aircraft;s
e%ternal doors were opened for disem&ar-ation" m answer will &e the same.
There is still hi?*ac-in#. The fact remains that there is $s$rpation while the forei#n
aircraft is in !hilippine territor. 9nli-e in aircraft;s of !hilippine re#istr" it is not
re3$ired that the aircraft is in fli#ht.
1.& C1OBLE?
That ni#ht" +!'( ,aldeA and +!'/ Ca&a$atan" were stationed at the
&aran#a o$tpost of +$mmer)ille .omes. 8rom a near& ho$se" the heard lo$d
)oices of a man and a woman 3$arrelin#. +$ddenl" the heard the woman
lo$dl &e# F.$waaa#RG After which" a #$nshot was heard. Then complete silence
followed. The police officers r$shed to the scene &$t on their wa" the met a
man holdin# a #$n and r$shin# o$t of the ho$se. Th$s" +!'( ,aldeA
apprehended" &ro$#ht" and confined the man at the police head3$arters $ntil
f$rther in)esti#ation has &een made.
+!'( ,aldeA was then char#ed and con)icted of ar&itrar detention" as
the arrest" accordin# to the trial co$rt" was made witho$t le#al #ro$nd C the man"
not et &ein# pro)en to &e the real c$lprit at the time of the arrest.
If o$ were the appellate *$d#e" will o$ affirm or re)erse the trial co$rt
r$lin#O
0=""E0TE3 /N0WE1
I will re)erse the trial co$rt;s r$lin#. In ar&itrar detention" the le#alit of the
detention does not depend $pon the *$ridical and m$ch less the *$dicial fact of a
crime (the elements of the felon are present and the were so fo$nd & the
co$rt" which at the time of the commission" is not and cannot definitel &e
determined for lac- of necessar data and of *$risdiction" &$t $pon the nat$re of
the deed. It is s$fficient that the p$&lic officer or emploee ma-in# the arrest has
s$fficient #ro$nds to &elie)e the e%istence of an act ha)in# the characteristics of
a crime and that the same #ro$nds e%ist for him to &elie)e that the person so$#ht
to &e detained participated therein. The o&li#ation to ma-e an arrest & reason of
crime" does not pres$ppose as a necessar re3$isite for the f$lfillment thereof"
the ind$&ita&le e%istence of a crime. (!eople )s. Ancheta" 1= !hil 4/>)
15& C1OBLE?
'ne ni#ht" the L$%$ria .omes was awa-ened as fire of $n-nown ori#in
&ro-e o$t and #$tted the whole ho$se of R$d Tesoro. 7hen police officers
arri)ed at the scene" the were informed & a ra#in# Tesoro that it was Beo
2ortel who set it on fire as it was onl he who has a lon# standin# #r$d#e on the
former. The police officers immediatel proceeded to the ho$se of 2ortel which
was onl ( &loc-s awa" and arrested him. The &ro$#ht him to the police station
and detained him there for three das $ntil the police filed the necessar char#e
a#ainst him.
Are the police officers lia&le for ar&itrar detentionO 7ill o$r answer &e
the same had the char#e &een dela in the deli)er of persons to the proper
*$dicial a$thoritiesO
0=""E0TE3 /N0WE1
Yes" the police officers are lia&le for ar&itrar detention. 7hile it is tr$e that
the le#alit of detention is not dependent $pon the *$ridical or of the *$dicial fact
of a crime (the elements of the felon are present and the were so fo$nd & the
co$rt)" it is necessar in case of warrantless arrest" that the arrestin# officer has
personal -nowled#e of facts indicatin# that the person to &e arrested has
committed the offense. It cannot &e fo$nded merel on &aseless acc$sation &
another as in the a&o)e sit$ation. There is no reasona&le #ro$nd to &elie)e that
the person to &e arrested has committed the offense. The arrest &ein#
#ro$ndless" the police officers are lia&le for ar&itrar detention.
.ad the char#e &een dela in the deli)er of detained persons to the
proper *$dicial a$thorities" m answer wo$ld &e different. The police officers
cannot &e made lia&le for said crime &eca$se for said crime to &e committed" it is
necessar that in the firs place" the detention was le#al. (!eople )s. Ancheta" 1=
!hil 4/> and Art. /(4" R!C)
19& C1OBLE?
At a&o$t = H;cloc- in the e)enin#" armed with a warrant of arrest" police
officers proceeded to the dormitor of Edwin" a colle#e st$dent who is char#ed
with haAin#. +eein# that the door of Edwin;s dormitor is half openPhalf close" the
two police officers entered the dormitor and $pon seein# Edwin comin# o$t of
the &athroom" anno$nced their a$thorit and intention to arrest Edwin. Edwin
demanded that the lea)e the dormitor &$t the police officers ref$sed.
The police officers are now facin# char#es for )iolation of domicile &
ref$sin# to lea)e the premises after ha)in# s$rreptitio$sl entered the same. Is
the char#e properO If not" what sho$ld ha)e &een the char#e" if anO
0=""E0TE3 /N0WE1
No the char#e is not proper. There is no s$rreptitio$s entr in this case.
The entr is not shown to &e stealth nor made in secret. It is made thro$#h the
door and the police officers did not ha)e the intention to conceal s$ch entr.
The proper char#e sho$ld ha)e &een 3$alified )iolation of domicile in the
/
st
form" i.e." & enterin# the dwellin# a#ainst the will of the owner thereof. The
offenders are p$&lic officers and their &ein# armed with a warrant of arrest does
not warrant their immediate entr into the dormitor to e%ec$te the warrant and
s$ch entr is a#ainst the will of the owner.
Altho$#h the Code spea-s of the owner of the premises" it wo$ld &e
s$fficient if the inha&itant is the lawf$l occ$pant $sin# the premises as his
dwellin#" altho$#h he is not the proprietar owner thereof. .ence" the dormitor
is a dwellin# of Edwin.
7hen the door of a dwellin# is half closePhalf open" entr thro$#h which is
still considered to &e a#ainst the will of the owner altho$#h implied. The openin#
at s$ch e%tent does not #i)e anone the a$thorit to enter the dwellin#.
8$rther" the offense is 3$alified &eca$se it is committed at ni#httime. (Art.
/(=" R!C and +ir Am$rao)
1(& C1OBLE?
:eca$se Roel" a police officer" has a lon# standin# #r$d#e o)er Allan" the
former e%ec$ted a false police report which he $sed to proc$re a search warrant
a#ainst the latter. Later" he was char#ed with malicio$s o&tainin# of search
warrant comple%ed with per*$r. Is the char#e properO
0=""E0TE3 /N0WE1
No" the char#e is not proper. If the search warrant is sec$red thro$#h a
false affida)it" the crime p$nished & this article cannot & comple%ed &$t will &e a
separate crime from per*$r since the penalt herein pro)ided shall &e Fin
addition toG the penalt of per*$r. (Art. /(5" R!C)
1'& C1OBLE?
7hile the Yo$th and +ports de)elopment Committee of the m$nicipalit of
Calata#an is disc$ssin# the $pcomin# s$mmer &as-et&all to$rnament" .on.
Ro#hel +$$" the committee chairman" decided to disperse the people in the
meetin# &ased on r$mors of s$rprise attac- & N!A re&els.
'n the &elief that the dispersal was &aseless and improper" the committee
chairman was char#ed with dissol$tion of peacef$l meetin#s. If o$ were the
*$d#e" will o$ render the committee chairman #$iltO .ad the char#e &een
$nder Art. /46 (Acts tendin# to pre)ent the meetin# of the Assem&l and similar
&odies)" will o$r answer &e the sameO
0=""E0TE3 /N0WE1
I will not render the chairman #$ilt of dissol$tion of peacef$l meetin#s. It
is an element of the crime that the offender &e a stran#er to the meetin#.
.ad the char#e &een $nder Art. /46" m answer wo$ld &e the same. The
chairman wo$ld &e ac3$itted. 7hile it is not a re3$isite $nder Art. /46 that the
offender &e a stran#er to the meetin#" it is necessar that the pre)ention was
made & force or fra$d. (Art. /6/ and /46" R!C)
,-& C1OBLE?
As part of the traditional :loc- Rosar" the ima#e of the ,ir#in 2ar" is
&ein# paraded in a procession while de)otees pra the rosar. It was at that point
when Ban" a :$ddhist displaed from his window an e%act replica of the ,ir#in
2ar &$t is totall na-ed. .ence" the praers and procession were interr$pted.
7ill a char#e for interr$ption of reli#io$s worship prosperO .ow a&o$t a char#e
for offendin# the reli#io$s feelin#s $nder Art. /66O
0=""E0TE3 /N0WE1
The char#e for interr$ption of reli#io$s worship will not prosper &eca$se
Ban is not shown to &e a p$&lic officer or emploee. +aid crime ma &e
committed onl & a p$&lic officer or emploee.
:$t a char#e for offendin# the reli#io$s feelin#s will prosper &eca$se the
act complained of was made d$rin# the cele&ration of a reli#io$s ceremon and
the act is notorio$sl offensi)e to the feelin#s of the faithf$l. (Art. /6( and /66"
R!C)
,1& C1OBLE?
,lad is a farmer who li)es in the mo$ntains of <am&ales to ta-e care of his
land planted with corn. E)er now and then" N!A mem&ers come and )isit his
ho$se to as- for food" drin-s and sometimes e)en sleep there in the ni#ht. ,lad
ne)er &othered reportin# the same to a$thorities. 7hat crime if an" did ,lad
commitO
0=""E0TE3 /N0WE1
,lad did not commit an crime. .e is not lia&le for re&ellion &eca$se the
#i)in# of aid and comfort is not p$nisha&le in re&ellion $nli-e in treason. Neither
is mere silence re#ardin# the presence of re&els despite -nowled#e of a re&ellion
p$nisha&le. There is no crime of misprision of re&ellion. (Art. /64" R!C)
,,& C1OBLE?
Tired of the rotten political sstem in the !hilippines" 8red" a mem&er of
the /D
th
Infrantr :atallion" >
th
Infantr Bi)ision of the !hilippine Arm decide to
$nderta-e a )iolent s$rprise attac- a#ainst the LRT sstem and paralAe it in
order to show his sincere ad)ocac for a chan#e of administration. Blan" a rich
doctor and lon#?time friend of 8red" promised the latter to finance his plan.
Qnowin# that he needed manpower to e%ec$te this" he proposed his plan to
Chris" a co?mem&er of the same &attalion who consented to the same and
to#ether the decided to e%ec$te the ori#inal plan. .ence" in the middle of
No)em&er" se)eral mem&ers of the aforesaid &attalion" armed with rifles and
other amm$nitions" seiAed control of the LRT operation. If o$ were the fiscal"
what wo$ld o$ char#e 8red forO .ow a&o$t BlanO .ow a&o$t Chris and the
other soldiers who act$all e%ec$ted the attac-O
0=""E0TE3 /N0WE1
All of them are lia&le for the crime of co$p d;etat. The offenders are
mem&ers of the militar and the attac- is swift and accompanied & )iolence and
that the attac- is directed a#ainst a p$&lic $tilit and the p$rpose of which is to
seiAe or diminish state power.
There is no crime of proposal to commit co$p d;etat nor of conspirac to
commit the same" s$pposedl & 8red" Chris" and the other soldiers when the
plan is act$all committed. 9nder Art. /6> of the R!C" an s$ch mem&er of the
militar who promotes or participates in the $nderta-in# is lia&le for co$p d;etat.
8$rther" Blan is also lia&le for co$p d;etat &eca$se &ased on the same
article" an person" whether in the #o)ernment ser)ice or not" who finances the
co$p d;etat is himself" lia&le for said crime. (Art. /64?A and /6>" R!C)
,6& C1OBLE?
2r. Co*$an#co owns .acienda L$isita" a )ast tract of land de)oted to
plantin# and millin# of s$#arcane. 2indf$l of &ein# the co$ntr;s leadin# prod$cer
of s$#ar" 2r. Co*$an#co commands a hi#h price for its prod$ct &$t does not
share the additional earnin#s with his wor-ers. Tired and an#ered & this set?$p"
Baniel" a s$#arcane farmer" decided to )iolentl destro" to#ether with other
wor-ers" the standin# crops in the hacienda. .e th$s proposed the plan to
Geor#e. 7hat crime if an" did Baniel commitO +$pposin# Geor#e acceded to
the plan" what crime" if an" did Geor#e commitO +$pposin# no&od acceded to
Baniel;s plan so" he alone e%ec$ted the act" what crime if an" did he commitO
0=""E0TE3 /N0WE1
Baniel did not commit an crime & s$ch proposal &eca$se there is no
crime of proposal to commit sedition. :$t s$pposin#" Geor#e acceded to the
plan" Geor#e" to#ether with Baniel" wo$ld &e lia&le for conspirac to commit
sedition.
In the last case" if Baniel alone committed the offense" he wo$ld &e lia&le
for direct assa$lt in the first form. Birect assa$lt in the first form is committed
when witho$t p$&lic $prisin#" the offender emplos force or intimidation for the
attainment of an of the p$rposes en$merated in definin# the crime of sedition" in
this case the commission of an act of hate or re)en#e a#ainst pri)ate persons
for an political or social end. (Art. /65" /4/" and /4= of the R!C)
,8& C1OBLE?
7hile the Con#ress is in session" police officers" & )irt$e of a warrant"
arrested Con#ressman :ala for the m$rder of a former all who t$rned his &ac-
a#ainst him d$rin# the last election. 7hat crime if an" did the police officers
commitO

0=""E0TE3 /N0WE1
The police officers did not commit an crime. The cannot &e made lia&le
for )iolation of parliamentar imm$nit in the second form. 7hile it is tr$e that the
police officers arrested Con#resman :ala while the Con#ress is in session" the
arrest is *$stified &eca$se the commission of a crime p$nisha&le & a penalt
hi#her than prision maor is e%cl$ded from the imm$nit. 9nder the Code"
m$rder is p$nisha&le & recl$sion perpet$a to death.
,.& C1OBLE?
Irma" a law st$dent" is alwas #ettin# a failin# mar- in her recitations in
Criminal Law &eca$se Att. Bi&di&an" her professor" is fond of throwin# diffic$lt
3$estions to her s$ch that she won;t for s$re" &e a&le to answer. An#ered & this
seemin#l $nfair treatment" Irma waited for Att. Bi&di&an at the par-in# lot and
seein# her approach her car" Irma s$ddenl hit Att. Bi&di&an;s head with a
Criminal law &oo-. 7hat crime" if an" did Irma commitO 7hat if as a res$lt of
s$ch attac-" Att. Bi&di&an fell on the #ro$nd and $nderwent medical attendance
for three das" will a char#e for direct assa$lt comple%ed with phsical in*$ries
prosperO 7ill o$r answer &e the same had Att. Bi&di&an &een confined in the
hospital for /( das &eca$se of said attac-O
0=""E0TE3 /N0WE1
Irma committed 3$alified direct assa$lt & attac-in# a person in a$thorit
& reason of the past performance of her official d$ties. Accordin# to Art. />( of
the R!C" a professor is considered a person in a$thorit in applin# the
pro)isions of Art. /4= and />/ of the R!C. And the offense is 3$alified when the
offender las hands $pon the person in a$thorit.
The crime of direct assa$lt comple%ed with sli#ht phsical in*$ries will not
prosper. In the crime of direct assa$lt" sli#ht phsical in*$ries committed on the
occasion of s$ch assa$lt is a&sor&ed.
:$t the case wo$ld &e different if Att. Bi&di&an was confined for /( das
&eca$se s$ch wo$ld 3$alif not onl as sli#ht phsical in*$ries &$t less serio$s
phsical in*$ries. In which case" the phsical in*$ries is not a&sor&ed &$t rather
comple%ed. (Art. /4= and />(" R!C)
,5& C1OBLE?
7hile a )ariet show is ta-in# place at :a$an town plaAa d$rin# the
cele&ration of the town fiesta" 2anolo was wanderin# ine&riated aro$nd the
)en$e. +$ddenl" he h$rled a hand #renade at the sta#e. As a res$lt of which"
the performance was interr$pted and the people were dispersed. 7ill a char#e
for alarms and scandals prosperO (Art. />>" R!C)
0=""E0TE3 /N0WE1
No" the char#e will not prosper. 8or a char#e for said crime to prosper" it is
necessar that the act is not within the am&it of Art. />6 on T$m$lts and other
Bist$r&ances of !$&lic 'rder. In the a&o)e case" the act is p$nisha&le $nder Art.
/>6 &eca$se the offender interr$pted and dist$r&ed a p$&lic performance.(Art.
/>6 and/>>" R!C)
,9& C1OBLE?
2i-e was detained at the police station for alle#ed ro&&er. As part of a
scheme for the escape of 2i-e" Rainier -ept on incitin# the #$ard to an ar#$ment
with him" trin# to di)ert his attention on 2i-e. As a res$lt" 2i-e mana#ed to
escape from confinement. 7hat crime" if an" did Rainier commitO 7ill o$r
answer &e the same if it were the *ail #$ard himself who secretl handed a
d$plicate -e to 2i-e and facilitate his escapeO
0=""E0TE3 /N0WE1
Rainier committed the crime of deli)erin# prisoners from *ail. +$ch crime
ma &e committee e)en tho$#h the person confined is onl a detention prisoner
and has not et &een con)icted & final *$d#ment.
2 answer wo$ld &e different if the *ail #$ard himself facilitated the escape
of 2i-e &eca$se in s$ch case" the #$ard wo$ld &e lia&le for infidelit in the
c$stod of a prisoner. (Art./>1" R!C)
,(& C1OBLE?
As a res$lt of the con)iction of @ohn for estafa" he was sentenced" inter
alia" to pa a fine amo$ntin# to !/.( 2illion. @ohn howe)er" ref$sed to pa said
amo$nt. 7ill a char#e a#ainst @ohn for e)asion of ser)ice of sentence prosperO

0=""E0TE3 /N0WE1
No" the char#e will not prosper. 8or one to &e lia&le for e)asion" it is
necessar that the sentence e)aded consists of depri)ation of li&ert. In this case
the sentence e)aded is the pament of fine. (Art. />D" R!C)
,'& C1OBLE?
@oel is confined in the police head3$arters pendin# in)esti#ation for his
in)ol)ement in child prostit$tion. That da" the head3$arters was #$tted & fire
which ori#inated forma near& #asoline station. 2indf$l of the dan#er" @oel
escaped from the head3$arters and went hidin# from a$thorities. 7hat crime" if
an" did @oel commitO

0=""E0TE3 /N0WE1
@oel did not commit an crime. The crime of e)asion of sentence on the
occasion of disorders" confla#rations" earth3$a-es" or other calamities ma &e
committed onl when the prisoner who escaped is a con)ict & final *$d#ment
and not when he is merel a detention prisoner. (Art. />=" R!C).
K=E0TION NO& 1
EE was acc$sed of estafa. 9na&le to post a &ail &ond for his pro)isional
li&ert pendin# trial of his case" he was detained in the cit *ail. 'n the date of the
hearin# of the estafa case" BB" a police officer detailed in the in cit *ail" escorted
EE to the cit hall for the trial. BB remo)ed the handc$ffs of EE and allowed him
to sit on one of the chairs inside the co$rtroom. As BB was was tal-in# to a
lawer inside the co$rtroom" EE" with the help of a ci#arette )endor" 22" who
$sed his ci#arette container as co)er" s$rreptitio$sl mo)ed o$t of the room and
escaped.
7hat crime or crimes were committed & EE" BB" and 22O (/5=5 :ar
E%amination)
Answer:
/. BB" the police officer" committed the crime of E,A+I'N T.R9
NEGLIGENCE" one of the forms of Infidelit in the c$stod of !risoner
(Art. ((4)" the essential elements of which offense are:
a. That the offender is a p$&lic officer.
&. That he has in his c$stod or char#e a prisoner" either detention
prisoner or prisoner & final *$d#ment.
c. That s$ch prisoner escaped from his c$stod thr$ his
ne#li#ence.
All of these elements are present" BB" a police officer detailed in the
cit *ail" is a p$&lic officer. As the escort for EE in the latter;s trial" he
had c$stod of char#e of a detention prisoner. EE;s escape was thr$
his ne#li#ence &eca$se after remo)in# EE;s handc$ffs and allowin#
him to sit in one of the chairs inside the co$rtroom" he sho$ld ha)e
ta-en the necessar preca$tions to pre)ent EE;s escape & -eepin# an
ee on him. Instead" he pro)ided the opport$nit for the escape &
tal-in# with a lawer and not -eepin# watch o)er his prisoner.
(. 22" not &ein# a p$&lic officer" is #$ilt of the crime of BELI,ERING
!RI+'NER+ 8R'2 @AIL+ (Art. />1)" which is committed & an
person who either remo)es from an *ail or penal esta&lishment an
person confined therein" or who helps the escape of s$ch person &
means of )iolence" intimidation" &ri&er of 'T.ER 2EAN+. The act of
22 in #i)in# to EE his ci#arette container is helpin# in the latter;s
escape & 'T.ER 2EAN+.
6. EE" the is not criminall lia&le for an offense. The detention prisoner
who escapes from detention does not commit an crime. If he were a
con)ict & final *$d#ment who is ser)in# a sentence which consists of
depri)ation of li&ert and he escapes d$rin# term of his sentence" he
wo$ld &e lia&le for E,A+I'N '8 +ER,ICE '8 +ENTENCE (Art. />D)
K=E0TION NO ,
AA is the corporate treas$rer of 2$ltimillion Ins$rance Compan. As
corporate treas$rer" he wo$ld ha)e in his possession an a)era#e of ! >" HHH"HHH
at an #i)en time. In /5=4" when the mone mar-et rate of interest ran#ed from
6>S to >HS" AA place ! /"HHH"HHH of the corporate f$nds in the mone mar-et in
his name witho$t the -nowled#e of an other corporate official of the compan.
9pon mat$rit of the mone mar-et placement" AA ret$rned the amo$nt of ! /"
HHH"HHH to the corporation" &$t -ept himself the interest income of ! (>H" HHH. At
the end of /5=4" when a$dit e%aminations of his acco$nts were $nderta-en" the
a$ditors fo$nd no shorta#e in his acco$nta&ilities.
Bid AA commit an crimeO (/5=5 :ar E%amination)
Answer:
Yes" AA committed the crime of estafa thr$ a&$se of confidence" e)en if he
had no intention to permanentl misappropriate the corporate f$nds for
himself. The law on estafa is clear and does not ma-e an distinctions
&etween permanent and temporar misappropriations" for as lon# as
dama#e is s$ffered & the offended part. Bama#e was s$ffered & the
corporation in this case &eca$se if the ! /"HHH"HHH had not &een
withdrawn from the corporate coffer it wo$ld ha)e earned interest for the
&enefit of the compan.
Estafa" and not 3$alified theft" is committed &eca$se as corporate
treas$rer" AA has *$ridical possession of the ! >"HHH"HHH in his c$stod.
This was in the nat$re of a tr$st f$nd entr$sted to him for corporate
p$rposes. 7hile it is a #eneral principle that misappropriation of tr$st
f$nds for short periods does not alwas amo$nt to estafa" it has held that
this principle cannot e%tend to cases where officers of corporations
con)erted corporate f$nds to their own $se" (9+ )s. +e)illa" 46 !hil. /5H).
8ra$d$lent intent is not e)en necessar in s$ch cases &eca$se the &reach
of confidence in)ol)ed in the misappropriation or con)ersion of tr$st f$nds
ta-es the place of fra$d$lent intent and is in itself s$fficient.
K=E0TION NO& 6
(a) A p$&lic official char#ed with p$rchasin# rice stoc-s $nder
#o)ernment s$&sid falsel reported that his stoc-s of rice worth !/D million on
&oard two &ar#es san- off a nei#h&orin# island on their wa to their destination
and were completel lost. 2eanwhile" the rice was s$rreptitio$sl sold to rice
wareho$ses in the pro)inces.
7hat is the criminal lia&ilit of this #o)ernment officialO E%plain.
(&) A cit official ordered one million pesos (!/2) worth of T?shirts at
p$&lic e%pense for the $nderpri)ile#ed residents of his cit. After f$ll pament
with cit f$nds was made" it was disco)ered that onl a fo$rth of the T?shirts had
&een deli)ered and that the rest of the deli)eries were so?called F#host
deli)eries.G
(/5== :ar E%amination)
Answer:
(a) The #o)ernment official &ein# an acco$nta&le officer can &e
char#ed with mal)ersation thr$ falsification of official doc$ments.
(&) (/) The cit official is lia&le for )iolation of Article (/6 of the
Re)ised !enal Code which pro)ides that:
Article (/6. 8ra$ds a#ainst the p$&lic treas$r and similar offenses. ?
The penalt of prision correccional in its medi$m period to prision
maor in its minim$m period" or a fine ran#in# from !(HH to !/H"HHH
shall &e imposed $pon an p$&lic officer who:
/. In his official capacit" in dealin# with an person with re#ard to
f$rnishin# s$pplies" the ma-in# of contracts" or the ad*$stment or
settlement of acco$nts relatin# to p$&lic propert of f$nds" shall enter
into an a#reement with an interested part or spec$lator or ma-e $se
of an other scheme" to defra$d the #o)ernment0
(. :ein# entr$sted with the collection of ta%es" licenses" fees and
other impost" shall &e #$ilt of an of the followin# acts or
omissions:
(a) Bemandin#" directl or indirectl" the pament of s$ms different
from or lar#er than those a$thoriAed & law.
(&) 8ailin# )ol$ntaril to iss$e a receipt" as pro)ided & law" for an
s$m of mone collected & him officiall.
(c) Collectin# or recei)in#" directl or indirectl" & wa of pament or
otherwise" thin#s or o&*ects of a different nat$re from that pro)ided
& law.
7hen the c$lprit is an officer or emploee of the :$rea$ of Internal
Re)en$e or the :$rea$ of C$stoms" the pro)isions of the
Administrati)e Code shall &e applied0 and )iolation of:
(&) (() Act 6H/5 sec. 6 (#) which pro)ides that:
Corr$pt practices of p$&lic officers FIN ABBITI'NG to acts or omissions
of p$&lic officers alread penaliAed & e%istin# law" the followin# shall
constit$te corr$pt practices of an p$&lic officer and are here&
declared to &e $nlawf$l.G
K=E0TION NO& 8
(a) Andrea si#ned her deceased h$s&and;s name in endorsin# his
three treas$r warrants which were deli)ered to her directl & the district
s$per)isor who -new that here h$s&and had alread died" and she $sed the
proceeds to pa for the e%penses of her h$s&and;s last illness and his &$rial.
+he -new that her h$s&and had acc$m$lated )acation and sic- lea)es the
mone )al$e of which e%ceeded that )al$e of the three treas$r warrants" so that
the #o)ernment s$ffered no dama#e. Andrea;s appeal is &ased on her claim of
a&sence of criminal intent and of #ood faith.
+ho$ld she &e fo$nd #$ilt of falsificationO Bisc$ss &riefl. (/5== :ar
E%amination)
(&) Ra$l Boria #a)e in tr$st two acrlic paintin#s to A2ar +olo to &e sol
on commission &asis for !(H"HHH.HH. 8ailin# to sell them to Geor#e T" Amar
consi#ned the paintin#s to Alcanto Galler. In the same month" Amar retrie)ed
one paintin# and tried to ret$rn in to Ra$l who ref$sed to recei)e it witho$t the
other paintin#. The other paintin# was &o$#ht & 2r. Lomot whose chec-" which
Amar #a)e to Ra$l" &o$nced" so that Amar paid Ra$l his own chec- of !1">HH.HH
promisin# in writin# to pa the !6">HH.HH &alanceless his commission.
Is Amar lia&le for estafaO 7hO
.ow a&o$t 2r. Lomot" what crime" if an did he commitO
Answer:
(a) Andrea sho$ld &e held #$ilt of falsification of p$&lic doc$ments.
.er claim of a&sence of criminal intent and of #ood faith cannot &e
considered &eca$se she is pres$med to -now that her h$s&and is
dead. The element of dama#e re3$ired in falsification does no refer to
pec$niar dama#e &$t dama#e to p$&lic interest.
E%ec$ti)e clemenc can howe)er &e so$#ht for & Andrea.
(c) Amar is not lia&le for estafa &$t is lia&le for )iolation of :! ((.
There is onl ci)il lia&ilit &eca$se as lon# as no case has &een
filed in co$rt" an o&li#ation can still &e no)ated. In this case there
was no)ation.
2r. Lomot is lia&le for )iolation of :! ((.
K=E0TION NO .
@@ p$rchased roofin# materials worth !(H"HHH from !Y and +ons
Constr$ction Compan owned & !! and paid the latter a chec- in the said
amo$nt. The followin# da" !! deposited the chec-" &$t it was ret$rned
dishonored &eca$se it was drawn a#ainst a closed acco$nt. Notwithstandin#
written demands" @@ failed to ma-e #ood said chec-. Co$nsel for !! filed two
complaints a#ainst @@ with the !$&lic !rosec$tor0 one for estafa $nder Article 6/>
of the Re)ised !enal Code and another for )iolation of :atas !am&ansa :l#. ((.
Co$nsel for @@ claimed that if his client was at all lia&le" he co$ld onl &e lia&le for
:.!. :l# (( and not for estafa $nder Article 6/> of the Re)ised !enal Code
&eca$se one precl$des the other and &eca$se :.!. :l# (( is more fa)ora&le to
the acc$sed as it carries a li#hter penalt. The prosec$tor" on his resol$tion"
stated that onl one crime was committed" namel" the comple% crime of estafa
$nder Article 6/> of the R!C and )iolation of :.!. :l#. (( &eca$se the sin#le act
of iss$in# the &o$ncin# chec-s constit$tes two offenses. ( /5=D :ar E%am)
Is the resol$tion correctO
Answer:
The resol$tion of the in)esti#atin# prosec$tor is erroneo$s. There is no
comple% crime of estafa $nder the R!C and ,iolation of :.!. :l#. ((. A comple%
crime refers onl to felonies which are p$nished in the Re)ised !enal Code. :.!.
:l#. (( which p$nishes the offense of iss$in# a worthless chec- is a special law.
The contention of @@ that he is onl lia&le for :.!. :l#. (( &eca$se one precl$des
the other and &eca$se :.!. :l#. (( is more fa)ora&le to the acc$sed as it carries
a li#hter penalt cannot also &e s$stained. :.!. :l#. (( specificall pro)ides that
lia&ilit $nder said act is witho$t pre*$dice to an lia&ilit for estafa $nder the
Re)ised !enal Code. The chec- iss$ed & @@ in pament of roofin# materials
from !Y and +ons was worthless. +aid &o$ncin# chec- ha)in# &een iss$ed in
pament of a sim$ltaneo$s o&li#ation constit$tes estafa $nder the R!C and also
the offense p$nished $nder :.!. :l#. ((. There is no identit of offenses.
Bama#e is not an element of the offense p$nished in :.!. :l# (( whereas in
estafa dama#e is an element. Estafa is an act mala in se in which re3$ires intent
as an element while the offense while the offense p$nished in :. !. :l#. (( is an
act mala prohi&ita where intent is not an element.
K=E0TION NO 5
7hat is the effect when the doc$ment falsified is (a) a pri)ate
doc$ment and (&) a p$&lic doc$mentO
Answer:
7here the doc$ment falsified is pri)ate doc$ment and is $sed to
commit swindlin# or estafa" e)en if it were the means to commit the estafa" there
is no comple% crime of estafa with falsification &eca$se deceit is the common
element of &oth. 'ne and the same deceit or dama#e cannot #i)e rise to more
than one crime. It is either estafa or falsification.
If p$&lic or official or commercial doc$ment was falsified to commit
estafa" and falsification is the means to commit estafa" a comple% crime is
committed" &eca$se in falsification of p$&lic" official" or commercial doc$ment"
dama#e to the offended is not material. It is not the intent to commit dama#e that
is penaliAed &$t the erosion of the faith on these doc$ments and their p$rpose
will not &e s$& ser)ed. (:oado Re)iewer)
K=E0TION NO& 9
In falsification of pri)ate doc$ment" what will determine whether the
crime committed is estafa or falsificationO
Answer:
The criteria to determine whether the crime is estafa onl or
falsification onl is that: if the falsification of the pri)ate doc$ment was essential
in the commission of estafa &eca$se witho$t the falsification" estafa cannot &e
committed" the crime is falsification0 estafa &ecomes the conse3$ence of the
crime. If the estafa can &e committed e)en witho$t resortin# to falsification" the
latter &ein# resorted onl to facilitate estafa" the main crime is estafa0 falsification
is merel incidental" since e)en witho$t falsification" estafa can &e committed.
If the crime was $se of falsified doc$ment" the nat$re of the doc$ment
is not controllin#. In this crime" the p$rpose for -nowin# the $se of falsified
doc$ment is essential. :$t if the doc$ment is presented in co$rt" e)en if re*ected"
the mere offer thereof is criminal. ( :oado Re)iewer)
K=E0TION NO& (
The people plain# cara cr$A" &efore the throw the coin in the air
wo$ld r$& the mone to the sidewal- there& diminishin# the intrinsic )al$e of the
coin. Is the crime of m$tilation committedO ('rte#a Notes)
Answer:
2$tilation $nder the Re)ised !enal Code is not committed &eca$se
the do not collect the precio$s metal content that is &ein# scrapped from the
coin. .owe)er this will amo$nt to )iolation of !residential Becree No. (4D. +aid
!.B. pro)ides that it shall &e $nlawf$l for an person to willf$ll deface" m$tilate"
tear" &$rn" or destro in an manner whatsoe)er" c$rrenc notes and coins
iss$ed & the Central :an-.
K=E0TION NO& '
In a &$?&$st operation" a police officer acted as pose$r?&$er of sha&$
from @@" a s$spected dr$# p$sher. 9pon the receipt of the pac- of sha&$" the
police officer #a)e the si#nal to his fellow police officers" who immediatel ca$sed
the arrest of @@. .e was char#ed for )iolation of the Ban#ero$s Br$#s Act of (HH(
for the sale of dan#ero$s dr$#s. @@ ar#$ed that he can not &e char#ed for the
cons$mmated crime of ille#al sellin# of dan#ero$s dr$#s &eca$se there was no
e%chan#e of mone" hence there was no cons$mmation of sale.
Is @@ correctO
Answer:
The cons$mmation of the crime of ille#al sale of dr$#s ma &e s$fficientl
esta&lished e)en in the a&sence of an e%chan#e of mone. The crime of ille#al
sale of dr$#s is committed as soon as the sale transaction is cons$mmated. The
pament co$ld precede or follow deli)er of the dr$# sold. In a T&$?&$stT
operation" what is important is the fact that the pose$r?&$er recei)ed the sha&$
from the offender and that the same was presented as e)idence in Co$rt. In
short" proof of the transaction s$ffices. +ettled is the r$le that as lon# as the
police officer went thro$#h the operation as a &$er and his offer was accepted
& the offender and the dan#ero$s dr$#s deli)ered to the former" the crime is
considered cons$mmated & the deli)er of the #oods. (!E'!LE )s. YANG"
G.R. No. /4=HDD" 8e&r$ar /1" (HH4)
K=E0TION NO& 1-
In a &$?&$st operation" a police officer acted as pose$r?&$er of sha&$
from @@" a s$spected dr$# p$sher. 7hen @@ showed the pose$r?&$er a
transparent plastic tea &a# which contained white crstalline s$&stances" the said
pose$r?&$er in t$rn handed o)er an en)elope containin# the mar-ed !/"HHH.HH
&ills and the &oodle mone to @@. The pose$r &$er then immediatel identified
himself as a police officer and arrested @@.
7hen tried for )iolation of the Ban#ero$s Br$#s Act of (HH(" @@ contends
that he cannot &e con)icted of the cons$mmated crime of sellin# sha&$ for he
was arrested &efore he co$ld hand o)er the plastic tea &a# to the pose$r?&$er
and that he was not aware that the en)elope handed to him contained the
mar-ed mone nor was there meetin# of the minds &etween him and the pose$r?
&$er to transfer ownership in e%chan#e for the price. .e insists that the
prosec$tion was not a&le to pro)e the that a sale of (HH #rams of sha&$ too-
place &etween him and the pose$r?&$er for Rep$&lic Act No. 5/1> defines the
sale of illicit dr$#s as Tthe act of #i)in# a dan#ero$s dr$#" whether for mone or
an material consideration.T
2a @@ &e con)icted of the cons$mmated crime of sellin# sha&$ when he was
arrested e)en &efore he co$ld hand o)er the plastic tea &a# containin# sha&$O
Answer:
7itho$t e)idence that the acc$sed handed o)er the sha&$ to the pose$r
&$er" he ma not &e con)icted of cons$mmated sale of sha&$. .owe)er" where
the acc$sed intended to sell sha&$ and commenced & o)ert acts the
commission of the intended crime & showin# the s$&stance to the pose$r?&$er"
he will &e #$ilt of the crime of attempted sale of sha&$. (!E'!LE )s. ABA2"
G.R. No. /46=4(" 'cto&er /6" (HH6)
K=E0TION NO& 11
An e%amination of the cash and acco$nts of N was cond$cted in her
a&sence. The a$ditors opened her safe in the presence of ( witnesses and" on
the &asis of the a$dit cond$cted" the Assistant !ro)incial A$ditor prepared a
report of Cash E%amination" showin# a shorta#e of !/1>"D((. N was re3$ired to
restit$te the amo$nt of the shorta#e and to s$&mit a written e%planation for the
shorta#e" &$t she ne)er did. Thereafter" N was char#ed and con)icted & the
+andi#an&aan of mal)ersation of p$&lic f$nds despite her o&*ections to the
irre#$larit of the a$dit cond$cted. The +andi#an&aan &ased the con)iction of
N on the prima facie pres$mption of mal)ersation for her fail$re to acco$nt the
p$&lic f$nd with which she is char#ea&le" $pon demand & an a$thoriAed officer.
7as the con)iction of N correctO
Answer:
N'. The prima facie pres$mption arises onl if there is no iss$e as to the
acc$rac" correctness and re#$larit of the a$dit findin#s. +$ch incomplete a$dit"
which res$lted in an alle#ed shorta#e that was attri&$ted solel to N;s
acco$nta&ilit" is s$scepti&le to errors and inacc$racies. In this case" the
shorta#e of f$nds which was attri&$ted to N was no ind$&ita&l esta&lished
considerin# that the a$dit cond$cted was incomplete" irre#$lar and inacc$rate
and did not follow standard a$ditin# proced$res & e%cl$din# from the
e%amination the other acco$nta&le p$&lic officers in the office and failin# to open
the other safe $sed in the office. .ence" the pres$mption $nder Art. (/D of the
R!C" which was made the &asis of N;s con)iction & the +andi#an&aan" is no
applica&le. (M9ERI@ER' )s. !E'!LE and +ANBIGAN:AYAN" 8e&r$ar /4"
(HH6).
K=E0TION NO& 1,
Bistin#$ish for#er from falsification. ( :'AB' Re)iewer)
Answer:
8irst" there are fi)e (>) was of committin# for#er (Art. /15) while there
are ei#ht (=) was of committin# falsification (Art. /D/). +econd" for#er applies
to treas$r or &an- notes or similar instr$ments while falsification applies to
p$&lic" commercial" or pri)ate doc$ments.
M9E+TI'N N'. /6
ACC" a Chinese national filed a certified petition for nat$raliAation &$t later
withdraw it. ACC was char#ed of !er*$r $nder Article /=6 of the Re)ised !enal
Code for ha)in# lied in his petition for nat$raliAation with re#ard to the residence
of his wife and children" as well as his #ood moral character considerin# his illicit
relation with a woman not his wife and &e#ettin# ( children with her.
2a ACC still &e prosec$ted for per*$r e)en if his petition for
nat$raliAation" where the false statements are contained" was withdrawnO
Answer:
YE+. At the time he filed his petition for nat$raliAation" he had alread
committed per*$r. +$ch withdrawal of the petition onl terminated the
proceedin#s for nat$raliAation" it did not e%tin#$ish his c$lpa&ilit for per*$r
which he alread committed. Indeed" the fact of withdrawal alone cannot &ar the
+tate from prosec$tin# petitioner" an alien who made a moc-er not onl of the
!hilppine nat$raliAation law &$t the *$dicial proceedin#s as well. (C.'A )s.
!E'!LE" 2arch /4" (HH6)
K=E0TION NO 18
Is a sales in)oice a commercialPp$&lic doc$mentO
Answer:
A sales in)oice is a p$&lic andPor a commercial doc$ment within the
meanin# of FfalsificationG as defined $nder the Re)ised !enal Code. A pri)ate
doc$ment ac3$ires the character of a p$&lic doc$ment when it &ecomes part of
an official record and is certified & a p$&lic officer d$l a$thoriAed & law. Th$s"
altho$#h it was a pri)ate doc$ment at the time of falsification" it is re#arded as
falsification of p$&lic or official doc$ment. (2'NTE,ERBE )s. !E'!LE" A$#$st
/(" (HH()
K=E0TION NO& 1.
<L was con)icted & the metropolitan Trial Co$rt of the crime of Gra)e
Threats. <L appealed his con)iction to the Re#ional Trial Co$rt which rendered
*$d#ment findin# acc$sed <L #$ilt onl of 'ther Li#ht Threats $nder Article (1>
of the Re)ised !enal Code. Thereafter !ri)ate Complainant ++ filed a compliant
char#in# the @$d#e of the RTC for -nowin#l renderin# an $n*$st *$d#ment
p$rs$ant to Article (H4 of the Re)ised !enal Code and for )iolation of +ection 6
(e) of Rep$&lic Act No. 6H/5" as amended" otherwise -nown as the Anti?Graft
and Corr$pt !ractices Act.
7hether the char#e co$ld &e s$stainedO
Answer:
A char#e of -nowin#l renderin# an $n*$st *$d#ment constit$tes a criminal
offense. The -eword in said offense is F-nowin#lG. Th$s" the complainant m$st
not onl pro)e &eond reasona&le do$&t that the *$d#ment is patentl contrar to
law or not s$pported & the e)idence &$t that it was also made with deli&erate
intent to perpetrate an in*$stice4. A *$d#e;s mere error in the interpretation or
application of the law per se will not warrant the imposition of an administrati)e
sanction a#ainst him for no one is infalli&le. Good faith and a&sence of malice"
corr$pt moti)es or improper consideration are s$fficient defenses that will protect
a *$dicial officer from the char#e of renderin# an $n*$st decision. (+AC2AR )s.
@9BGE REYE+?CAR!I'" 2arch (=" (HH6)
K=E0TION NO& 15
If the char#e is for intentional mal)ersation &$t what was pro)ed was
c$lpa&le mal)ersation" can the offender &e con)icted $nder that informationO
Answer:
2al)ersation is committed either intentionall or & ne#li#ence. The dolo
or the c$lpa present in the offense is onl a modalit in the perpetration of the
felon. E)en if the mode char#ed differs from the mode pro)ed" the same offense
of mal)ersation is in)ol)ed and con)iction thereof is proper.
9nli-e other felonies in the Re)ised !enal Code" wherein lower penalt is
imposed when the offense is committed thro$#h ne#li#ence" either &eca$se it is
so specified in the partic$lar pro)ision definin# and p$nishin# that felon or &
force of Article 61> of the Code" in the crime of mal)ersation" the penalt is the
same whether the mode of commission is with intent or & ne#li#ence. (!E'!LE
)s. !E!IT'" 8e&r$ar /55D0 CA:ELL' )s. +ANBIGAN:AYAN" 2a /4" /55/)
K=E0TION NO 19
Is Attempted or 8r$strated )iolation of Rep$&lic Act No. 6H/5 or the Anti?
Graft and Corr$pt !ractices Act" p$nisha&leO
Answer:
The attempted and fr$strated state of the offense defined in +ec 6 of the
Anti?Graft and Corr$pt !ractices Act is not p$nisha&le. (!EC.' )s.
+ANBIGAN:AYAN" >1 +CAB)
K=E0TION NO& 1(
.ow is mal)ersation distin#$ished from estafaO (/555 :ar e%amination)
Answer:
2al)ersation differs from estaf in that mal)ersation is committed & an
acco$nta&le p$&lic officer in)ol)in# p$&lic f$nds or propert $nder his his c$stod
and acco$nta&ilit0 while estafa is committed & non?acco$nta&le p$&lic officer or
pri)ate indi)id$al in)ol)in# f$nds or propert for which he is not acco$nta&le to
the #o)ernment.
K=E0TION NO& 1'
A 2$nicipal Treas$rer" acco$nta&le for p$&lic f$nds or propert" encashed
with p$&lic f$nds" pri)ate chec-s drawn in fa)or of his wife. The chec-s &o$nced"
the drawer not ha)in# eno$#h cash in the drawee &an-. The 2$nicipal Treas$rer"
in encashin# pri)ate chec-s from p$&lic f$nds" )iolated re#$lations of his office.
Notwithstandin# restit$tion of the amo$nt of the chec-s" can the 2$nicipal
treas$rer ne)ertheless &e criminall lia&leO 7hat crime did he commitO (/555
:ar E%amination)
Answer:
Yes" notwithstandin# the restit$tion of the amo$nt of the chec-" the
2$nicipal Treas$rer will &e criminall lia&le as restit$tion does not ne#ate
criminal lia&ilit altho$#h it ma &e considered as a miti#atin# circ$mstance
similar or analo#o$s to )ol$ntar s$rrender. (!eople )s. ,elas3$eA" D6 !hil 5=)
.e will &e criminall lia&le for mal)ersation. .owe)er" if the restit$tion was made
immediatel" $nder )ehement protest a#ainst an imp$tation of mal)ersation and
witho$t lea)in# the office" he ma not &e criminall lia&le.
K=E0TION NO& ,-
.ow are Ffor#in#G and FfalsificationG committedO
Answer:
8or#in# or for#er is committed & #i)in# to a treas$r or &an- note or an
instr$ment paa&le to &earer or to order the appearance of a tr$e and #en$ine
doc$ment0 or & erasin#" s$&stit$tin#" co$nterfeitin#" or alterin# & an means
the fi#$res" letters" words or si#ns contained therein.
8alsification" on the other hand" is committed &:
/. Co$nterfeitin# or imitation an handwritin#" si#nat$re or r$&ric0
(. Ca$sin# it to appear that persons ha)e participated in an act or
proceedin# when the did not in fact so participate0
6. Attri&$tin# to persons who ha)e participated in an act or proceedin#
statements other than those in fact made & him0
4. 2a-in# $ntr$thf$l statements in a narration of facts0
>. Alterin# tr$e dates0
1. 2a-in# an alteration or intercalation in a #en$ine doc$ment which
chan#es its meanin#0
D. Iss$in# in an a$thenticated form a doc$ment p$rportin# to &e a cop of
an ori#inal doc$ment when no s$ch ori#inal e%ists" or incl$din# in s$ch
cop a statement contrar to" or different from" that of the #en$ine
ori#inal0 or
=. Intercalatin# an instr$ment or note relati)e to the iss$ance thereof in a
protocol" re#istr" or official &oo-.
K=E0TION NO& ,1
Is mere possession of false mone &ills p$nisha&le $nder Article /1= of
the Re)ised !enal CodeO (/555 :ar E%amination)
Answer:
No. !ossession of false treas$r or &an- note alone witho$t intent to $se
it" is not p$nisha&le. :$t the circ$mstances of s$ch possession ma indicate
intent to $tter" s$fficient to cons$mmate the crime of ille#al possession of false
notes.
K=E0TION NO& ,,
B$rin# a town fiesta" AA" the chief of police" permitted ::" a detention
prisoner and his compadre" to lea)e the m$nicipal *ail and entertain )isitors in his
ho$se from /H:HH a.m. to =:HH p.m. :: ret$rned to the m$nicipal *ail at =:6H p.m.
(/55D :ar E%amination)
7as there an crime committed & AO
Answer:
Yes" AA committed the crime of infidelit in the c$stod of a prisoner. +ince
:: is a detention prisoner" As Chief of !olice" AA has c$stod o)er ::. E)en if
:: ret$rned to the m$nicipal *ail" AA as c$stodian of the prisoner" has malicio$sl
failed to perform the d$ties of his office" and when he permits said prisoner to
o&tain a rela%ation of his imprisonment" he consents to the prisoner escapin# the
p$nishment of &ein# depri)ed of his li&ert which can &e considered real and
act$al e)asion of ser)ice $nder Article ((6 of the Re)ised !enal Code (!eople
)s. Leon :andino" (5 !hil. 4>5).
Alternati)e Answer:
No crime was committed & the Chief of !olice. It was onl an act of
lenienc or la%it in the performance of his d$t and not in e%cess of his d$t
(!eople )s. E)an#elista (CA) 6= '.G. />=).
K=E0TION NO& ,6
RR" an N:I a#ent" was iss$ed & the N:I an armalite rifle (2/1) and a
+mith and 7esson Re)ol)er" Cal. 6=. After a ear" the N:I Birector made an
inspection of all the firearms iss$ed. RR" who reported for wor- that morin#" did
not show $p d$rin# the inspection. .e went on a&sence witho$t lea)e (A7'L).
After two ears" he s$rrendered to the N:I the two firearms iss$ed to him. .e
was char#ed with mal)ersation of #o)ernment propert &efore the
+andi#an&aan.
RR p$t $p the defense that he did not appropriate the armalite rifle and the
re)ol)er for his own $se0 that the dela in acco$ntin# for them does not constit$te
con)ersion and that act$all the firearms were stolen & his friend.
Becide the case. (/554 :ar E%amination)
Answer:
RR is #$ilt as char#ed $nder Article (/D 'f the Re)ised !enal code. .e
is acco$nta&le for the firearms the iss$ed to him in his official capacit. The
fail$re of RR to s$&mit the firearms $pon demand created the pres$mption that
he con)erted them for his own $se. E)en if there is no direct e)idence of
misappropriation" his fail$re to acco$nt for the #o)ernment propert is eno$#h
fact$al &asis for a findin# of mal)ersation. Indeed" e)en his e%planation that the
#$ns were stolen is incredi&le. 8ir if the firearms were act$all stolen" he sho$ld
ha)e reported the matter immediatel to the a$thorities. (!eople )s. :a3$iran" (H
+CRA 4>6)0 8elicida )s. Grospe" @$l 6" /55().
K=E0TION NO ,8
Is direct e)idence re3$ired in mal)ersationO (:oado Re)iewer)
Answer:
No. Birect e)idence is not necessar to esta&lish the pres$mption &$t
$nless the a$dit is complete" thoro$#h and relia&le" the fo$ndation for the
pres$mption will not &e esta&lished. 'therwise" direst e)idence of
misappropriation is necessar. (M$iAo )s. +andi#an&aan" /45 +CRA)
K=E0TION NO& ,.
7hat is the effect of the restit$tion of the amo$nt mal)ersedO (:oado
Re)iewer)
Answer:
Restit$tion of the amo$nt or propert where mal)ersation is alread
committed does not affect his criminal lia&ilit. 'nl the ci)il lia&ilit is erased.
Restit$tion is in fact an implied admission of #$ilt. .owe)er" & analo# to
)ol$ntar plea of #$ilt" restit$tion ma &e considered as miti#atin# circ$mstance.
K=E0TION NO& ,5
7hat is the effect of a positi)e findin# for the $se of dan#ero$s dr$# in the
commission of a crime & an offenderO
Answer:
Notwithstandin# the pro)isions of an law to the contrar" a positi)e findin#
for the $se of dan#ero$s dr$#s shall &e a 3$alifin# a##ra)atin# circ$mstance in
the commission of a crime & an offender" and the application of the penalt
pro)ided for in the Re)ised !enal Code shall &e applica&le. (+ec (>" Rep$&lic
Act 5/1>" Ban#ero$s Br$#s Act of (HH()
K=E0TION NO& ,9
7hether a person char#ed $nder the R.A. No. 5/1> can a)ail the
pro)ision on plea?&ar#ainin#O
Answer:
An person char#ed $nder an pro)ision of this Act re#ardless of the
imposa&le penalt shall not &e allowed to a)ail of the pro)ision on plea?
&ar#ainin#. (+ec (6" Rep$&lic Act 5/1>" Ban#ero$s Br$#s Act of (HH()
K=E0TION NO& ,(
7hether a person char#ed $nder the R.A. No. 5/1> can a)ail the pri)ile#e
#ranted & the !ro&ation Law or !residential Becree No. 51=O
Answer:
An person convicted for drug trafficking or pushing $nder this Act"
re#ardless of the penalt imposed & the Co$rt" cannot a)ail of the pri)ile#e
#ranted & the !ro&ation Law or !residential Becree No. 51=" as amended. (+ec
(4" Rep$&lic Act 5/1>" Ban#ero$s Br$#s Act of (HH()
C/11ICI3E
/. Kuestion2
In the co$rse of a heated ar#$ment &etween spo$ses . and 7" . drew
his #$n and pointed it towards 7. 7ile #rapplin# for the possession of the #$n"
. s3$eeAed the tri##er and shot 7 on the left hip" ca$sin# her death. Char#ed
with parricide" . in)o-es the e%emptin# circ$mstance of accident $nder Art. /("
par. 4 of the R!C. . f$rther contends that intent to -ill was not present in the
case at &ar since his wife was shot in a non?)ital part of her &od. Is . correctO

/nser2
NO. . ma not in)o-e the e%emptin# circ$mstance of accident. Accident
to &e e%emptin# pres$pposes that the act done is lawf$l. .ere" the act of N of
drawin# his #$n in the co$rse of the 3$arrel" the same not &ein# in self?defense"
is $nlawf$l C it at least constit$tes the crime of li#ht threats.
8$rthermore" the fact that the wife was not shot in a )ital part of her &od
does not ne#ate intent to -ill on the part of h$s&and N. The e%tent of the in*$ries
s$stained & the wife manifests the intention to e%tin#$ish her life. (People vs.
Nepomuceno, G.R. No. !"##, November $$#%
(. Kuestion2
C" the ille#itimate son of :" attac-ed and -illed A" the le#itimate father of
:. Is C #$ilt of parricideO
/nser2
NO& 9nder Art. (41 of the R!C" in case of other ascendants li-e
#randparents" #reat?#randparents" etc." the relationship with the -iller m$st &e
le#itimate. The same is tr$e with other descendants li-e #randchildren" #reat
#randchildren" etc. +ince C is an ille#itimate child of :" he cannot &e held #$ilt
of parricide for -illin# :;s father (C;s #randfather).
?=13E1
6. Kuestion2
@$an was con)icted of m$rder and was sentenced to ser)e the penalt of
reclusion perpetua" alon# with fo$r others" for -illin# !edro & hac-in# and
sta&&in# him with a sam$rai on the front and &ac- portions of his &od. The
records show that @$an s$ddenl attac-ed !edro from &ehind with a sam$rai"
ca$sin# the !edro to fall on his hands while @$an;s companions hac-ed the
)ictim with their &olos. 7as treacher present to warrant the con)iction of
m$rderO
/nser2
;E0& A s$dden and $ne%pected attac- $nder circ$mstances which render
the )ictim $na&le to defend himself & reason of the s$ddenness and se)erit of
the attac- constit$tes ale)osia. In the instant case" the attac- on the )ictim was
deli&erate" s$dden and $ne%pected. The )ictim was totall $naware of the
impendin# attac-" s$stainin# wo$nds on his &ac-. All these indicate that the
acc$sed emploed means and methods which tended directl and speciall to
ins$re the e%ec$tion of the offense witho$t ris- to the offenders arisin# from the
defense which the offended part mi#ht ha)e made (People of the Philippines
vs. &ionisio 'antos, G.R. No. !"($!, ) *anuary !++(%.
4. Kuestion2
A was scoldin# :. Annoed & A;s scoldin#" : pic-ed $p a &ase&all &at
and hit A;s head from &ehind which immediatel ca$sed A;s death. Thereafter" :
c$t A;s corpse into D pieces. : was fo$nd #$ilt of m$rder. 'n appeal" :
contends that there was no treacher and that a&sent an eewitness to show the
manner in which the crime was committed" he cannot &e held lia&le for m$rder.
Are :;s contentions correctO
/nser2
NO& The crime committed is m$rder. 9nder Art. (4= (1) of the Re)ised
!enal Code" Fo$tra#in# or scoffin# at the corpseG is a 3$alifin# circ$mstance.
Bismem&erment of a dead &od is one manner of o$tra#in# or scoffin# at the
corpse of the )ictim. In the instant case" the corpse of the )ictim was
dismem&ered & appellant who sawed off the head" lim&s" and torso (People of
the Philippines ,s. -ric Guillermo, G.R. No. (""#), !+ *anuary !++(%.
>. Kuestion2
2s. L #a##ed :im&o" a 6?ear old &o" and st$ffed him inside a &o% and
co)ered it with sac-s. 2s. L then placed the &o% containin# the poor little &o
inside the ceilin# of the ho$se and left him there. 2s. L then demanded mone
from :im&o;s parents as ransom for the release of their child. After recei)in# the
ransom mone" 2s. L told the parents that she left :im&o in the ceilin# of the
ho$se" where the disco)ered that :im&o was alread dead. 7hat crime did 2s.
L commitO
/nser2
2s. L committed the crime of m$rder 3$alified & treacher. The #a##in#
of :im&o and placin# him inside a &o% were the methods of 2s. L to commit
m$rder. There is treacher &eca$se the )ictim is onl a 6?ear old child. The
demand for ransom did not con)ert the offense into -idnappin# with m$rder. 2s.
L was well aware that the child wo$ld &e s$ffocated to death in a few moments
after she left. The demand for ransom is onl a part of a dia&olical scheme of
2s. L to m$rder :im&o" to conceal his &od and then demand mone &efore the
disco)er of the cada)er.
8$rthermore the crime committed is a##ra)ated & the circ$mstances of
lac- of respect d$e to a#e and cr$elt. The a##ra)atin# circ$mstance of lac- of
respect d$e to a#e applies in cases where the )ictim is of tender a#e as well as
of old a#e. The #a##in# of the mo$th of a three?ear?old child with stoc-in#s"
d$mpin# him into a &o%" and co)erin# the &o% with sac-s" there& ca$sin# slow
s$ffocation" is cr$elt (People vs. .ora, G.R. No. .-($(/+, /+ 0arch $#!%.
1. Kuestion2
7hile !edro was so$nd asleep on a &am&oo &ench near a &illiard hall" @$an
shot him on the head $sin# an $nlicensed hand#$n handed to him & his co?
acc$sed Nestor. +aid #$nshot wo$nd directl ca$sed the instantaneo$s
death of !edro. Ri#ht after the shootin#" @$an escaped and went into hidin#.
A wee- later" howe)er" @$an s$rrendered. @$an was fo$nd #$ilt of m$rder.
'n appeal" @$an asserted that he acted in self?defense" hence" he m$st &e
ac3$itted. Is @$an;s ac3$ittal warrantedO
/nser2
NO& +elf?defense" as espo$sed & @$an" can &e so readil claimed & an
acc$sed e)en if false. It is normall asserted with promptness if tr$e so that the
fail$re to do so $pon s$rrenderin# to the police is inconsistent with the claim of
self?defense. @$an;s act of fleein# from the scene of the crime instead of
reportin# the incident to the police a$thorities is contrar to his proclaimed
innocence. +elf?defense is not credi&le in the face of the fli#ht of acc$sed from
the crime scene and his fail$re to inform the a$thorities a&o$t the incident.
2oreo)er" the facts constit$tin# treacher are irreconcila&le with the claim
of self?defense. The records show that !edro was asleep lin# on a &ench when
shot. .is lim&s and hands were stretched showin# he died in his sleep and
accordin# to the doctor" there was no e)idence that the )ictim str$##led &efore
din#. The )ictim had no chance to defend himself or repel the assa$lt a#ainst
him. .e had not awa-en from his sleep. (Nestor 'ullon vs. People of the
Philippines, G.R. No. /$/)$, !" *une !++1%

D. Kuestion2
Armed with a .4> cali&er pistol" A s$ddenl approached : who was seated at
the dri)er;s seat of an 8N ta%i and shot him on the forehead. Thereafter" A
mo)ed &ac- while C shot : a#ain. Then A and C fled to#ether from the
scene. 2a A and C &e con)icted of m$rder 3$alified & treacher for
conspirin# to -ill :O
/nser2
;E0. Altho$#h the attac- was frontal and in &road dali#ht" it was s$dden
and $ne%pected" there& #i)in# : no opport$nit to repel the same or offer an
defense on his person (People vs. 2lla3an, G.R. No. ($##", / 4ebruary
!++(%.
=. Kuestion2
As @ose was clim&in# the stairs to his ho$se" he heard a #$nshot comin#
from the direction of the ho$se of his $ncle !edro. .e r$shed to the scene and
there he saw !edro lin# prostrate near&. @ose as-ed !edro who shot him.
:arel &reathin#" !edro answered that it was LaAo who shot him. As he was
facin# towards the #ro$nd" the left side of his face tilted towards his left sho$lder"
he saw LaAo" who was armed with a lon# firearm. !edro then e%pired. LaAo was
char#ed with m$rder. .owe)er" e)en &efore the co$rt co$ld render *$d#ment"
prosec$tion witness +omera admitted that he shot the )ictim and then pleaded
#$ilt to the lesser offense of homicide. After trial" LaAo was con)icted as an
accomplice of the crime of m$rder while +omera was con)icted as a principal of
homicide.
'n appeal" LaAo ar#$es that it was illo#ical for the trial co$rt to con)ict him
of m$rder while his co?acc$sed +omera was con)icted of homicide onl. LaAo
f$rther asserts that there is no e)idence that he conspired with +omera in -illin#
!edro and that his mere presence at the scene of the -illin# does not render him
criminall lia&le for m$rder. 2a LaAo &e con)icted of m$rder while his co?
acc$sed merel of homicideO
/nser2
;E0& The mere fact that +omera pleaded #$ilt to the crime of homicide
is not a &ar to LaAo &ein# fo$nd #$ilt of m$rder as a principal. E)en if the
prosec$tion a#reed to +omeraEs plea" the +tate is not &arred from prosec$tin#
LaAo for m$rder on the &asis of its e)idence" independentl of +omeraEs plea of
#$ilt.
Considerin# that treacher is present in the -illin# of !edro" the nat$re of
the crime committed is cate#oriAed as m$rder. The crime" as char#ed" remains
notwithstandin# +omera;s plea of #$ilt to a lesser offense. That is" Twhere the
acc$sed is allowed to plead #$ilt to a lesser offense" re#ardless of whether the
same is or is not necessaril incl$ded in the crime char#ed" no amendment of the
complaint or information is necessar.T This is so &eca$se TA con)iction $nder
this plea shall &e e3$i)alent to a con)iction of the offense char#ed for p$rposes
of do$&le *eopard.T (People of the Philippines vs. cesario 0onta5e6, et al.,
G.R. No. (#!1", " 0arch !++(%
GO?ICI3E
5. Kuestion2
N sta&&ed Y with an icepic-" inflictin# $pon the latter a fatal wo$nd on the
chest" which in*$r ca$sed his death. Y was a&le to tell his wife that it was N who
sta&&ed him. .owe)er" Y;s wife as prosec$tion witnesses did not see the act$al
sta&&in#. N denied ha)in# &een in)ol)ed in the incident as he claims to ha)e
&een in 2anila when it happened. 2a N &e con)icted of m$rderO
/nser2
NO& The 3$alifin# circ$mstance of treacher was not s$fficientl
esta&lished & the prosec$tion. The essence of treacher is the s$dden and
$ne%pected attac- & an a##ressor on an $ns$spectin# )ictim" depri)in# the
latter of an real chance to defend himself" there& ens$rin# its commission
witho$t ris- to the a##ressor" witho$t the sli#htest pro)ocation on the part of the
)ictim. Treacher cannot &e appreciated when there is no wa of determinin#
how the attac- was initiated.
The prosec$tion witness did not see the act$al sta&&in# of the )ictim.
Therefore" there is no wa of determinin# on how the attac- was initiated. In the
same wa that no testimon wo$ld pro)e that the appellant contemplated $pon
the mode to ins$re the -illin#. .ence" the crime committed is onl homicide
(People of the Philippines vs. Roger &ela 7ru6, G.R. No. 1!"), 8ctober
!++/%.
/H. Kuestion2
'ne earl mornin#" 2i#$el went to his farm to clear his land preparator to
plowin# and plantin#. 7hile he was c$ttin# weeds in the farm" he saw
Ro&erto and his #ro$p arri)ed at the farm. 8rom a distance of a&o$t /H
meters" 2i#$el also noticed that Ricardo and his #ro$p were all armed with
either a lon# &olo or slin#shot or shot#$n. As Ricardo approached 2i#$el" he
drew his shot#$n" aimed it at 2i#$el and fired hittin# the latter on the chest.
Immediatel after firin# his shot#$n directed at 2i#$el" Ricardo and his #ro$p
ran awa. Thereafter" 2i#$el" who was then s$fferin# from #$nshot wo$nds
on his chest and arm" went directl to the police station to report the incident.
Ricardo was then tried and con)icted of fr$strated homicide. 'n appeal"
the Ricardo contends that the prosec$tion failed to pro)e that he intended to -ill
the )ictim. Th$s" he is #$ilt onl of sli#ht or less serio$s phsical in*$ries. Is
Ricardo #$ilt of fr$strated homicideO
/nser2
;E0& Ricardo is #$ilt of fr$strated homicide &eca$se he acted with intent
to -ill in firin# the #$n at 2i#$el. 9s$all" the intent to -ill is shown & the -ind of
weapon $sed & the offender and the parts of the )ictim;s &od at which the
weapon was aimed" as shown & the wo$nds inflicted. Corollaril" con)iction for a
fr$strated felon re3$ires that the offender m$st ha)e performed all the acts of
e%ec$tion which wo$ld prod$ce the felon as a res$lt &$t ne)ertheless did not
prod$ce it d$e to a ca$se independent of the offender;s will.
In the case at &ar" it is $ndisp$ted that Ricardo fired his #$n point?&lan- at
2i#$el" hittin# and wo$ndin# the latter at his &reast and $m&ilico$s re#ion. If
anthin# else" the nat$re of the weapon $sed and the location of the wo$nds
spea- for themsel)es of Ricardo;s intent to finish off 2i#$el who" & now" m$st
ha)e &een dead if no timel medical attendance was #i)en him. Tr$e it is" that
no &leedin# was fo$nd inside the &od" &$t had there &een no in*ection of the
anti?tetan$s and anti?&iotic in*ection" the patient co$ld ha)e s$ffered infection or
&leedin# which co$ld ca$se death (Roberto Gorospe vs. People of the
Philippines, G.R. No. ("$"(, !$ *anuary !++(%.
CG;0IC/L INB=1IE0
//. Kuestion2
In order to stop !a&lo from c$ttin# the acacia tree" Castor went near him
and #ra&&ed the a% from him. Not wantin# to let #o of the a%" !a&lo held on to it
and the two then str$##led for its possession. 7ith &oth of their hands on the
handle" the a% went swain# and swin#in#" which accidentall hit Castor. The
nat$re of the in*$r s$stained & Castor confirms that it was not inflicted
intentionall for if it were so" he wo$ld not ha)e s$r)i)ed at all. Thereafter" !a&lo
was char#ed with 8r$strated 2$rder. .owe)er" !a&lo was later on fo$nd #$ilt of
less serio$s phsical in*$ries onl. 7as the con)iction for the lesser offense of
less serio$s phsical in*$ries proper notwithstandin# the fact that the Information
char#ed the acc$sed with 8r$strated 2$rderO
/nser2
;E0& Altho$#h the Information char#ed !a&lo with 8r$strated 2$rder" a
findin# of #$ilt for the lesser offense of less serio$s phsical in*$ries ma &e
made considerin# that the latter offense is necessaril incl$ded in the former
since the essential in#redients of phsical in*$ries constit$te and form part of
those constit$tin# the offense of m$rder. +imilarl" an acc$sed ma &e con)icted
of sli#ht" less serio$s or serio$s phsical in*$ries in a prosec$tion for homicide or
m$rder" inasm$ch as the infliction of phsical in*$ries co$ld lead to an of the
latter offenses when carried to its $tmost de#ree despite the fact that an essential
re3$isite of the crime of homicide or m$rder ? intent to -ill ? is not re3$ired in a
prosec$tion for phsical in*$ries. A&sent competent proof" !a&lo sho$ld &e held
lia&le onl for less serio$s phsical in*$ries $nder Article (1> of the R!C" as
amended" as the wo$nds s$stained & Castor re3$ired medical attendance of
fo$rteen das (2donis 2radillos vs. 7ourt of 2ppeals, G.R. No. /1)$, 1
*anuary !++(%.
1/CE
/(. Kuestion2
0antia4o, the )iolo4ical father of the 19A7earAold minor Bose%hine,
as char4ed and found 4uilt7 of to counts of ra%e *ualified )7 the said
minor<s a4e and her relationshi% ith the former and as sentenced to
suffer the %enalt7 of death& The medical e$amination shoed that the
Bose%hine as alle4edl7 ra%ed as indicated )7 the h7menal laceration of
her %ri#ate or4an& On a%%eal, 0antia4o ar4ues that since the #ictim as an
unchaste oman, she could not )e a %ro%er #ictim of ra%e& 0antia4o %ra7s
that he )e held lia)le onl7 of sim%le ra%e& (a) ?a7 an unchaste oman )e a
#ictim of ra%e! ()) 3oes *ualified ra%e e$ist in the case at )ar!
Answer:
(a) YE+. /n unchaste oman ho ha)ituall7 4oes out ith different
men ma7 )e a #ictim of ra%e& The #ictim<s moral character is not amon4 the
elements of the crime of ra%e& It does not ne4ate the e$istence of ra%e& The
#ictimLs moral character is immaterial there )ein4 a)solutel7 no ne$us
)eteen it and the odious deed committed& E#en a %rostitute or a oman
of loose morals can )e the #ictim of ra%e, for she can still refuse a manLs
lustful ad#ances&
(&) ;E0& 9nder Article (11 (as amended & RA D1>5)" the amendator law
classifies rape as either simple or 3$alified. It is 3$alified when an of the
3$alifin#Pa##ra)atin# circ$mstances attended the commission of the crime U as
when the )ictim is &elow /= ears of a#e and the offender is a parent" ascendant"
step?parent" #$ardian" relati)e & consan#$init or affinit within the third ci)il
de#ree. A findin# of 3$alified rape raises the penalt to death. In the case at &ar"
the )ictim was /D ears as shown & her &irth certificate when her own father
raped her (People of the Philippines vs. 'antiago 2gsaoay, *r.,G.R. Nos.
/!!1-!), / *une !++(%.
/6. Kuestion2
Romeo was fo$nd #$ilt of two co$nts of 3$alified rape & means of force
and intimidation $pon his own da$#hter and was sentenced to s$ffer the penalt
of death for each co$nt. 'n appeal" Romeo ar#$es that the trial co$rt erred in
imposin# the death penalt since the prosec$tion failed to alle#e the a#e of the
)ictim and her relationship with him. .e also points o$t that the he has not
emploed force $pon his da$#hter in order to ha)e se% with him. (a) 2a rape
&e committed e)en if complainant merel made s$&tle resistance to se%$al
a##ression or e)en none at allO (&) 7as the co$rt correct in imposin# the death
penaltO
/nsers2
(a) ;E0& The force or )iolence necessar in rape is a relati)e term that
depends not onl on the a#e" siAe" and stren#th of the persons in)ol)ed &$t also
on their relationship to each other. In a rape committed & a father a#ainst his
own da$#hter" the formerEs parental a$thorit and moral ascendanc s$&stit$tes
for )iolence or intimidation o)er the latter who" e%pectedl" wo$ld *$st cower in
fear and resi#n to the fatherEs wic-ed deeds. It wo$ld &e plain fallac to sa that
the fail$re to sho$t or to offer tenacio$s resistance ma-es )ol$ntar the )ictimEs
s$&mission to the criminal act of the offender. Intimidation m$st &e )iewed in the
li#ht of the perception of the )ictim at the time of the commission of the crime" not
& an hard and fast r$le0 it is therefore eno$#h that it prod$ced fear U fear that
if she did not ield to the &estial demands of her ra)isher" some e)il co$ld
happen to her at that moment or e)en thereafter.
The fact that complainant &ore no phsical e)idence of an force $sed
a#ainst her person is of no moment. The a&sence of an e%ternal si#n of in*$r
does not necessaril ne#ate the occ$rrence of rape" proof of in*$r not &ein# an
essential element of the crime. 7hat is important is that &eca$se of force and
intimidation" the )ictim was made to s$&mit to the will of appellant. As stated in
People (s. Ma2lente" the test is whether the treat or intimidation prod$ces fear in
the mind of a reasona&le person U that if one resists or does not ield to the
desires of the acc$sed" the threat wo$ld &e carried o$t.
(&) NO& E%istin# *$rispr$dence instr$cts that the death penalt ma &e
imposed onl if the complaint or information has alle#ed and the e)idence has
pro)en &oth the minorit of the )ictim and her relationship to the offender & the
3$ant$m of proof re3$ired for con)iction. In the present case" not onl were the
minorit of the complainant and her relationship with acc$sed not alle#ed in the
two information filed a#ainst appellant" &$t" also" the a##ra)atin#P3$alifin#
circ$mstance that the second rape was committed in f$ll )iew of his da$#hter.
Conse3$entl" acc$sed ma &e con)icted onl of simple rape0 hence" the trial
co$rt erred in imposin# death penalt in &oth cases. The appropriate penalt
which co$ld &e imposed on the appellant is recl$sion perpet$a in each co$nt
(People of the Philippines vs. Romeo .ambid, G.R. Nos. //+))-)",
8ctober !++/9 'ee similar ruling in the case of People vs. Rico :lancaflor,
GR No. /+1#), !$ *anuary !++(9 People vs. Rafael 7ea, GR No. ()()!-)/,
( *anuary !++(9 People vs. *ose de 7astro, GR. Nos. (#+1)-), #
8ctober !++/%.
/4. Kuestion2
Renato was char#ed with two co$nts of rape committed a#ainst Isa&el" an
ei#ht?ear?old child who was fo$nd & the medico?le#al to ha)e &een se%$all
a&$sed and afflicted with #onorrhea. Renato was con)icted and was sentenced
to s$ffer the penalt of death. 'n a$tomatic re)iew" acc$sed Renato contends
that the trial co$rt erred in imposin# the death penalt &eca$se there was no
3$alifin# circ$mstance to *$stif the same. Is the contention of Renato correctO
/nser2
;E0& The trial co$rt has decreed the penalt of death on acco$nt of
circ$mstance $nder Article (11?A" i.e." that when Tthe offender -nows that he is
afflicted with .$man Imm$no?Beficienc ,ir$s (.I,)" Ac3$ired Imm$ne
Beficienc +ndrome (AIB+) or an other se%$all transmissi&le disease and the
)ir$s or disease is transmitted to the )ictim"T the imposition of the e%treme
penalt of death wo$ld &e warranted. 7hile it is esta&lished that Isa&el has
indeed contracted a se%$all transmitted disease from Renato" no e)idence"
howe)er" has &een add$ced to show the latterEs &ein# aware of his own affliction
with s$ch a disease.
Accordin#l" the penalt imposed $pon Renato for the offense of stat$tor
rape" a&sent an a##ra)atin# circ$mstance that co$ld &e considered" m$st &e
red$ced to recl$sion perpet$a (People of the Philippines vs. *aime 8laybar,
G.R. Nos. 1+)/+-/, 8ctober !++/%.
/>. Kuestion2
Rodri#o was con)icted of rape committed a#ainst his thirteen?ear?old
stepda$#hter @ac-ie and was sentenced to s$ffer the penalt of recl$sion
perpet$a. At the trial" @ac-ie testified that thro$#h force and intimidation" Rodri#o
pinned her hands at her &ac-" co)ered her mo$th and s$cceeded in a&$sin# her.
'n appeal" Rodri#o ar#$es that the co$rt erred in con)ictin# him of the
crime char#ed despite the fact that the )ictim;s medical e%amination showed that
her e%ternal #enitalia and hmens were normal. 8$rthermore" there was no
e)idence of spermatoAoa nor were there an e%ternal si#ns of phsical in*$ries.
In effect" Rodri#o is alle#in# that presentation of medical certificate
pro)in# laceration and r$pt$red hmen is indispensa&le for the con)iction of rape
and that the a&sence of e%ternal si#ns of phsical in*$ries ne#ate rape. Is
Rodri#o correctO
/nser2
NO& The fact that no laceration and no r$pt$red hmen were fo$nd in this
case" does not necessaril ne#ate rape. The fact that the hmen was intact $pon
e%amination does not" li-ewise" &elie rape" for a &ro-en hmen is not an essential
element of rape" nor does the fact that the )ictim remained a )ir#in e%cl$de the
crime. In a prosec$tion for rape" the material fact or circ$mstance to &e
considered is the occ$rrence of the rape" which the prosec$tion in this case was
a&le to pro)e &eond reasona&le do$&t. In an e)ent" a medical e%amination is
not essential in the prosec$tion of a rape case. A medical e%amination and a
medical certificate are merel corro&orati)e in character. The are not
indispensa&le re3$irements for con)iction" for what matters #reatl is the clear"
$ne3$i)ocal and credi&le testimon of the )ictim. +imilarl" it m$st &e stressed
that the a&sence of spermatoAoa in the )ictimEs se% or#an does not dispro)e
rape. It co$ld &e that the )ictim washed or $rinated prior to her e%amination"
which ma well e%plain the a&sence of spermatoAoa.
2oreo)er" Rodri#oEs alle#ation that there was no force or intimidation
&eca$se @ac-ie did not s$ffer in*$ries and her clothes were not torn is not well
ta-en. The testimon of @ac-ie esta&lished the fact that" thro$#h force and
intimidation" Rodri#o pinned her hands at her &ac-" co)ered her mo$th and
s$cceeded in a&$sin# her. The a&sence of e%ternal si#ns of phsical in*$ries
does not pro)e that rape was not committed" for proof thereof is not an essential
element of the crime of rape.
+ettled is the r$le that the force emploed in rape need not &e irresisti&le so lon#
as it is present and &rin#s the desired res$lt. All that is necessar is that the force
&e s$fficient to f$lfill its e)il end" or that it &e s$ccessf$ll $sed0 it need not &e so
#reat or &e of s$ch a character that it co$ld not &e repelled. Indeed" the de#ree of
force or intimidation re3$ired for the act to constit$te rape is relati)e" and m$st &e
)iewed in the li#ht of the complainantEs perception and *$d#ment at the time of
the commission of the offense (People of the Philippines vs. Rodrigo
:alleno, G.R. No. ($+"1, " 2ugust !++/. People vs. Romeo ,alde6, GR No.
//$(-$1, !$ *anuary !++(%.
/1. Kuestion2
Bomen# and Ed$ardo were char#ed with and con)icted of rape. B$rin#
trial" the )ictim" Isa&el" narrated that she )ol$ntaril accompanied the acc$sed in
their )ehicle to point o$t directions. That as Ed$ardo co)ered her mo$th and held
her hands" Bomen# remo)ed her pants and $nderwear a#ainst her will.
Thereafter" Bomen# remo)ed his clothes and attempted to insert his penis into
her )a#ina. .owe)er" Isa&el was a&le to escape and to as- for help when
Bomen# decided to transfer to the &ac-seat.
Bomen# assailed his con)iction contendin# that he failed to ha)e se%$al
interco$rse with the )ictim &eca$se his penis was flaccid the whole time d$e to
fati#$e and not to mention the fact that the cramped space in the )ehicle made it
diffic$lt to accomplish the same. .e f$rther posits that the alle#ed act of rape
was consens$al since Isa&el )ol$ntaril went with them" whose compan she
co$ld ha)e easil left had she wanted to. Bid Bomen# cons$mmate the crime of
rapeO
/nser2
;E0& E)en the sli#htest contact of the penis with the la&ia $nder the
circ$mstances en$merated $nder Art. (11?A of the R!C constit$tes rape. A
flaccid penis can do as m$ch dama#e as an erect one U at least insofar as the
crime of rape is concerned. And that it ma &e $ncomforta&le and diffic$lt to
commit rape inside a )ehicle does not render the commission thereof
impro&a&le.
There is no s$ch crime as fr$strated rape. Clearl" in the crime of rape"
from the moment the offender has carnal -nowled#e of his )ictim" he act$all
attains his p$rpose and from that moment also all the essential elements of the
offense ha)e &een accomplished. Nothin# more is left to &e done & the
offender" &eca$se he has performed the last act necessar to prod$ce the crime.
Th$s" the felon is cons$mmated. The $niform r$le is that for the cons$mmation
of rape" perfect penetration is not essential. An penetration of the female or#an
& the male or#an is s$fficient. Entr of the la&ia or the lips of the female or#an"
witho$t r$pt$re of the hmen or laceration of the )a#ina is s$fficient to warrant
con)iction (People vs. ;ui5anola, G.R. No. !)(#, 1 0ay $$$%.
That rape was consens$al was not manifested in this case. That force
attended the coit$s is #athered from Ed$ardoEs co)erin# of the )ictim;s mo$th
and his holdin# her ti#htl to restrain her from resistin#. It is doctrinall settled
that the force necessar in rape is relati)e" dependin# on the a#e" siAe and
stren#th of the parties. 7hen applied" it need not &e o)erpowerin# or irresisti&le.
7hat is essential is that it is s$fficient to cons$mmate the p$rpose which the
offender had in mind" or to &rin# a&o$t the res$lt. That the )ictim co$ld not offer a
more tenacio$s fi#ht co$ld &e e%plained & appellantsE concerted effort. .er
resistance" howe)er" clearl ne#ates consent. The ar#$ment of appellants that
the )ictim m$st ha)e consented to the se%$al act" if indeed there was" &eca$se
she ac3$iesced to #o with them and had the opport$nit to lea)e their compan
at an time she wished" is a non se3$it$r. 8reel #oin# with a #ro$p for a ride
aro$nd is one thin#0 freel ha)in# se% with one of the mem&ers thereof is
another. The defenseEs attempt to depict the )ictim as a woman of loose morals
deser)es scant consideration. The )ictimEs character or rep$tation is immaterial
in rape" there &ein# a&sol$tel no ne%$s &etween it and the odio$s deed
committed. A woman of loose morals co$ld still &e the )ictim of rape" the
essence thereof &ein# carnal -nowled#e of a woman witho$t her consent
(People of the Philippines vs. *ason Navarro, et al., G.R. No. /"1$".
8ctober !(, !++/9 'ee similar ruling in the case of People vs. 2ntonio
0endo6a, GR Nos. 1!1#$ < 1!"1#, 8ctober !(, !++/9 People vs.
Rodaniel ,illafuerte, GR No. 1/1/, 0ay $, !++(9 People vs. Ryan =orres,
GR No. ($11", 0arch ), !++(9 People vs. Geronimo :oromeo, GR No.
1+1+, *une /, !++(9 and People vs. 2rnulfo 8rande, GR Nos. ("!(-!",
November !, !++/%.
/D. Kuestion2
Edwin was char#ed with rape & his sister 2aria. B$rin# trial" 2aria
testified that Edwin forcef$ll inserted his penis inside her )a#ina and that Edwin
e*ac$lated thrice d$rin# the se%$al interco$rse that lasted for a&o$t thirt
min$tes" after which L$cas withdrew his penis and left. The trial co$rt con)icted
Edwin of two co$nts of 3$alified rape and sentenced him to s$ffer the penalt of
death on &oth co$nts" the rape &ein# 3$alified & the circ$mstance of relationship
$nder Art. /> of the R!C. (a) Is the trial co$rt correct in con)ictin# Edwin of two
co$nts of rapeO (&) Boes the alternati)e circ$mstance of relationship warrant the
imposition of the death penaltO
/nsers2
(a) NO& L$cas committed onl one act of rape altho$#h he e*ac$lated
thrice d$rin# the se%$al act. Edwin did not withdraw his penis to insert it a#ain
into the )a#ina or to Tto$chT the la&ia ma*ora or the la&ia minora when he
e*ac$lated the second and third time. It is not the n$m&er of times that the
offender e*ac$lates rather it is the penetration or Tto$chin#T that determines the
cons$mmation of the se%$al act. 7hen Edwin;s penis penetrated 2aria;s
#enitalia" Edwin had alread cons$mmated the rape. The mere introd$ction of
the penis into the la&ia ma*ora of the )ictimEs #enitalia en#enders the crime of
rape. .ence" it is the Tto$chin#T or TentrT of the penis into the la&ia ma*ora or
the la&ia minora of the p$dend$m of the )ictimEs #enitalia that cons$mmates
rape.
(&) NO& The R!C is silent as to when the alternati)e circ$mstance of
relationship is miti#atin# and when it is a##ra)atin#. @$rispr$dence considers
relationship as an a##ra)atin# circ$mstance in crimes a#ainst chastit. .owe)er"
rape is no lon#er a crime a#ainst chastit for it is now classified as a crime
a#ainst persons. 2oreo)er" the a##ra)atin# circ$mstance s$fficient to *$stif the
imposition of the death penalt m$st not onl &e d$l alle#ed and pro)en" it m$st
&e one of those en$merated in Article /4 of the R!C or that specified & law s$ch
as $nder +ection // of Rep$&lic Act No. D1>5" amendin# Article 66> of the R!C"
wherein it is pro)ided that the death penalt is to &e imposed in rape cases
Twhen the )ictim is $nder ei#hteen (/=) ears of a#e and the offender is a parent"
ascendant" step?parent" #$ardian" relati)e & consan#$init or affinit within the
third ci)il de#ree" or the common?law spo$se of the parent of the )ictim.T The
Co$rt has since held that the circ$mstances en$merated & the amendator law
are to &e re#arded as special 3$alifin# (a##ra)atin#) circ$mstances.
7hen the penalt to &e imposed is a ran#e of penalties where the
ma%im$m penalt is death and the appreciation of an a##ra)atin# circ$mstance
wo$ld call for the imposition of the ma%im$m penalt" which is death" the term
Ta##ra)atin# circ$mstanceT m$st &e strictl constr$ed. The law m$st declare
$ne3$i)ocall an attendant circ$mstance as 3$alifin# to warrant the imposition
of the death penalt. The Constit$tion e%pressl pro)ides that the death penalt
ma onl &e imposed for crimes defined as heino$s & Con#ress. An attendant
circ$mstance that 3$alifies a crime as heino$s m$st &e e%pressl so prescri&ed
& Con#ress.
.owe)er" resort m$st &e made to the strict interpretation of the term
Ta##ra)atin# circ$mstanceT onl for the p$rpose of imposin# the death penalt. In
all other cases where the ma%im$m penalt is not death" the term Ta##ra)atin#
circ$mstanceT m$st &e interpreted in its &road or #eneric sense so as to incl$de
the alternati)e circ$mstances $nder Article /> of the R!C (People vs. 8rilla,
G.R. Nos. (#$/$-(+, / 4ebruary !++(%.
/=. Kuestion2
In the Information char#in# Ramon with rape" it was alle#ed that Ramon is
the stepfather of the minor )ictim. B$rin# the trial of the case" it was pro)ed that
Ramon was *$st a li)e?in partner of the )ictim;s mother when the alle#ed rape
was committed. The trial co$rt con)icted Ramon of the offense char#ed and
imposed $pon him the penalt of death. Is the trial co$rt correct in imposin# the
death penaltO 7hO
/nser2
NO. 9nder +ection // of Rep$&lic Act No. D1>5" the death penalt is
imposed in rape cases where :the (ictim is un;er ei2hteen +1), 7ears o< a2e an;
the o<<en;er is . . . the common6la= spouse o< the parent o< the (ictim.: :ein# in
the nat$re of special 3$alifin# circ$mstances" the minorit of the )ictim and her
relationship to the offender m$st &e &oth alle#ed and pro)ed with certaint.
In the case at &ar" altho$#h the Information a#ainst Ramon alle#ed that he
is the stepfather of the )ictim" the e)idence shows that complainantEs mother"
was not married to Ramon and that he was in fact merel the common?law
spo$se of the )ictim;s mother. The death penalt co$ld not &e imposed since
there is a disparit in the alle#ation made in the Information and proof offered in
the co$rse of the trial" as acc$sed was not in fact the )ictim;s stepfather. Indeed"
a stepfather has &een defined as the h$s&and of oneEs mother & )irt$e of a
marria#e s$&se3$ent to that of which the person spo-en of is the offsprin#. 8or
the fore#oin# reason" the death penalt cannot &e imposed on Ramon" sho$ld he
&e con)icted" he shall &e p$nished with reclusion perpetua (People vs.
Gon6ales, G.R. Nos. /$((1-(), *une !+, !++%.
/5. Kuestion2
Leo was char#ed with ha)in# raped 2arian who is a mental retardate.
The Information therefor alle#ed that Leo" & means of force" )iolence" threats
and intimidation" did then and there willf$ll" $nlawf$ll and felonio$sl ha)e
carnal -nowled#e of 2arian" a#ainst her will. At the trial of the case" 2arian
testified that Leo -issed her and then p$lled her pants down to her -nees. .e
then mo$nted her and inserted his penis into her )a#ina. Thereafter" he p$t his
clothes &ac- on and left. The trail co$rt fo$nd Leo #$ilt of the crime char#ed.
'n appeal" Leo contends that he was char#ed of rape $nder para#raph /"
Article 66> of the R!C" as amended" in the Information &$t the prosec$tion failed
to pro)e that he forced" threatened or intimidated the )ictim into ha)in# se%$al
interco$rse with him. The prosec$tor merel pro)ed that the )ictim was a mental
retardate and that he had se%$al interco$rse with her. Th$s" he ar#$es that he
cannot &e con)icted of rape $nder para#raph (" Article 66> of the R!C0
otherwise" he wo$ld &e depri)ed of his ri#ht to &e informed of the nat$re of the
crime char#ed a#ainst him. 2a the Leo &e con)icted of rape thro$#h force or
intimidationO
/nser2
;E0. It &ears stressin# that force or intimidation ma &e act$al or
constr$cti)e. In this case" the )ictim is a mental retardate. Leo too- ad)anta#e of
her condition and s$cceeded in ha)in# se%$al interco$rse with her. .ence" he is
#$ilt of forci&le rape.
Carnal -nowled#e of an insane woman" -nowin# her to &e insane" is rape.
There is a lac- of capacit to consent" and it is pres$med that the act was done
witho$t her consent" hence it is a#ainst the female;s will0 the force re3$ired ma
&e in the wron#f$l act itself. It follows that s$ch act is done Vforci&l and a#ainst
her will.; In an indictment" the office of the words Va#ainst her will; is merel to
ne#ati)e consent (People vs. :alata6o, G.R. No. #+!", !$ *anuary !++(%.

(H. Kuestion2
+po$ses Rand and +$san LaAo were char#ed with rape. +$san LaAo
was acc$sed as a co?principal for indispensa&le cooperation in the commission
of the crime of rape & threatenin# the si%teen?ear?old )ictim @ane with a &laded
weapon if e)er said minor sho$ld ref$se to s$&mit to perform a se%$al act with
Rand LaAo.
The spo$ses ar#$e that it is $nnat$ral for a wife li-e +$san to intensel
desire that her h$s&and ha)e se% with their maid and that there is no e)idence of
anthin# wron# or $n$s$al a&o$t their marria#e or their se%$al ha&its that wo$ld
s$pport the complainant;s stor. 2a a woman li-e +$san &e con)icted of rapeO
/nser2
;E0& 9nder the R!C" an acc$sed ma &e considered a principal & direct
participation" & ind$cement" or & indispensa&le cooperation. This is tr$e in a
char#e of rape a#ainst a woman" pro)ided of co$rse a man is char#ed to#ether
with her.
In People (. Villamala" the Co$rt fo$nd the h$s&and and wife #$ilt for
rapin# their nei#h&or and F-$mareG in this fact$al settin#" )iA: the wife )isited the
)ictim at her home on the prete%t of in3$irin# as to the wherea&o$ts of her
h$s&and. 'nce inside" she whistled for her h$s&and and he immediatel
appeared at the doorstep. The wife then s$ddenl pinned her F-$mareG to the
floor. The h$s&and forcef$ll remo)ed the )ictim;s s-irt and panties" remo)ed his
shorts" placed himself on top of the )ictim and cons$mmated the rape.
In the more recent case of People (s. Saba" the acc$sed married co$ple
)ictimiAed a fo$rteen?ear?old epileptic who staed at their home for treatment &
the wife who was a rep$ted healer. 'n the prete%t of cond$ctin# a healin#
session" the wife ordered the )ictim to lie down on the floor then pinned the
)ictim;s hands to the floor and co)ered her mo$th while her h$s&and remo)ed his
pants and &riefs and the )ictim;s panties and raped the o$n# #irl. These two
cases show not onl the possi&ilit &$t the realit of rape committed & a woman
to#ether with a man.
The acc$sed ar#$e that the prosec$tion failed to present an e)idence of
a&errant se%$al &eha)ior on their part that wo$ld *$stif the trial co$rt;s
concl$sion that the rape occ$rred as descri&ed & the complainant. This
ar#$ment m$st fail since the se%$al ha&its of the acc$sed spo$ses do not
constit$te an essential element of the offense of rape. The prosec$tion onl has
to pro)e that there was carnal -nowled#e of the complainant and that it was done
a#ainst her will. The trial co$rt;s e)al$ation of the e)idence res$lted in the
appellants; con)iction and a close scr$tin of its *$d#ment leads $s to affirm it.
(People vs. &e .a =orre and &e .a =orre, G.R. Nos. !!/ < !!)-!/, /
*anuary !++(%
(/. Kuestion2
L$is was char#ed and con)icted of rape. At the trial of the case" it was
pro)ed" amon# others" that the fo$rteen?ear?old )ictim was sleepin# with her
fo$r si&lin#s when the acc$sed" armed with a fan -nife" held her & her wrists
and forcef$ll had se%$al interco$rse with her. Thereafter" L$is threatened her
that he wo$ld -ill her and her famil sho$ld she tell the incident to anone.
'n appeal" L$is points o$t that the complainant herself testified that she did
not sho$t despite the fact that her mo$th was $nco)ered. +he did not wa-e
$p her si&lin#s" who were sleepin# )er near her" nor did she show an si#ns
of resistance" and instead remained passi)e. Th$s consent ma &e implied.
Is the lac- of o)ert resistance to the se%$al assa$lt detrimental to the ca$se of
the )ictim in a rape caseO
/nser2
NO& The a&sence of resistance does not mean consent. The complainant
was onl /4 ears old when the rape too- place. At her a#e" it co$ld easil &e
concei)ed that she feared the appellant and &elie)ed his threats" that he wo$ld
-ill her and her famil if she reported the incident to anone. The appellantEs
threats were so en#rained in her mind that she did not tell anone of the incident.
This Co$rt is mindf$l that intimidation m$st &e )iewed in li#ht of the )ictimEs
perception and *$d#ment at the time of rape" and not & an hard and fast r$le. It
is eno$#h that it prod$ces fear U fear that if the )ictim does not ield to the
&estial demands of the acc$sed" somethin# wo$ld happen to her at the moment
or thereafter" as when she is threatened with death if she reports the incident.
The test is whether the threat or intimidation prod$ces a reasona&le fear in the
mind of the )ictim that if she resists or does not ield to the desires of the
acc$sed" the threat wo$ld &e carried o$t. 7here resistance wo$ld &e f$tile"
offerin# none at all does not amo$nt to consent to the se%$al assa$lt. It is not
necessar that the )ictim sho$ld ha)e resisted $nto death or s$stained phsical
in*$ries in the hands of the rapist. It is eno$#h if the interco$rse ta-es place
a#ainst her will or if she ields &eca$se of #en$ine apprehension of harm to her if
she did not do so. Indeed" the law does not impose $pon a rape )ictim the
&$rden of pro)in# resistance.
This Co$rt does not prescri&e a $niform manner of &eha)ior d$rin# or after
a rape incident. It has &een cate#orical in declarin# that the wor-in#s of a h$man
mind placed $nder emotional stress are $npredicta&le and people react
differentl U some ma sho$t" some ma faint" and some ma &e shoc-ed into
sensi&ilit while others ma openl welcome the intr$sion. Yet" it can ne)er &e
ar#$ed that the ones who apparentl welcome it are se%$al )ictims an less than
the others (People of the Philippines vs. 7harlie -spinosa, G.R. No. /#"(!,
1 *une !++(9 'ee similar ruling in the cases of People vs. -lpidio =orres,
GR No. /(")), ) *anuary !++(9 People vs. *aime 2ntonio, GR No.
1"!)$, / *une !++(9 People vs. -miliano 7apareda, GR No. !#/)/, !"
0ay !++(9 People vs. -duardo 4abian, GR Nos. (#/)#-"+, # *uly !++/9
People vs. -rnesto Ramire6, GR No. ($1/, !! *uly !++/9 People vs. &anil
2ndrade, GR No. (#$+!, !$ 'eptember !++/9 People vs. Roger 4ederico,
GR No. ()$1), !1 *uly !++/9 People vs. Rodolfo Pepito, GR Nos. (")1+-
1!, ) 8ctober !++/9 People vs. &ar3in &avid, GR Nos. !"/-//, !
November !++/%.
((. Kuestion2
Ro&erto was con)icted of nine co$nts of rape 3$alified committed a#ainst
his /H?ear?old #odchild @ane" who had &een stain# with his famil since she
was 6 ears old. The trial co$rt imposed $pon him the death penalt for each
co$nt of rape. 'n appeal" Ro&erto asserts that the trial co$rt erred in imposin#
the death penalt" as the )ario$s Information filed a#ainst him did not alle#e an
special 3$alifin# circ$mstance that wo$ld *$stif the imposition of the death
penalt. Is Ro&erto correctO 7hO
/nser2
;E0& It is alwas held that the circ$mstances which raise the penalt in
rape cases to death are in the nat$re of 3$alifin# circ$mstances which need to
&e alle#ed in the information and pro)ed with certaint0 otherwise" the acc$sed
cannot &e con)icted of 3$alified rape and sentenced to death penalt. As pointed
o$t" the information did not specif a 3$alifin# circ$mstance to warrant the
imposition of death penalt. Article 66> of the Re)ised !enal Code" as amended
& R.A. No. D1>5" imposes the death penalt >=hen the (ictim is un;er ei2hteen
+1), 7ears o< a2e an; the o<<en;er is a parent, ascen;ant, step6parent, 2uar;ian,
relati(e b7 consan2uinit7 or a<<init7 =ithin the thir; ci(il ;e2ree, or the common6
la= spouse o< the parent o< the (ictim.? Tr$e" the minorit of @ane was clearl
pleaded in the information and s$pported & her &irth certificate. .owe)er" the
relationship of acc$sed to complainant was merel a)erred as the #odfather in
whose care and c$stod @ane was entr$sted. This relationship is not one of
those relationships mentioned in the law0 neither wo$ld it constit$te the 3$alifin#
circ$mstance of #$ardian?ward relationship. The acc$sed is" therefore" #$ilt of
nine co$nts of simple rape onl" and the penalt for each co$nt is recl$sion
perpet$a" not death (People vs. 4austo 4ucio, G.R. Nos. 1#)-$1, /
4ebruary !++(%.
(6. Kuestion2
@oel was char#ed with and fo$nd #$ilt of rape" and was sentenced to
recl$sion perpet$a. It was esta&lished that @oel pointed a #$n at the face of his
/5?ear?old )ictim" and & force" threats and intimidation" s$cceeded in ha)in#
se%$al interco$rse with her. 'n appeal" he ar#$es that his #$ilt was not
esta&lished &eond reasona&le do$&t0 that the testimonies of the )ictim are
inconsistent0 and he cate#oricall claims that he and the )ictim are sweethearts
and that what transpired &etween them was consens$al se%. 2a the Co$rt
admit the Fsweetheart defenseG to warrant the ac3$ittal of the acc$sedO
/nser2
NO& A Tsweetheart defense"T to &e credi&le" sho$ld &e s$&stantiated &
some doc$mentar or other e)idence of the relationship U li-e mementos" lo)e
letters" notes" pict$res and the li-e. .ere" no s$ch e)idence was e)er presented
& appellant. Ass$min# that appellant and the woman are sweethearts" it does
not mean that he co$ld not rape her. +$ch a relationship is not a #$arant that he
will not assa$lt and tarnish that which she holds so dearl and trample $pon her
honor and di#nit. Indeed" a sweetheart can &e forced to en#a#e in se%$al
interco$rse a#ainst her will (People of the Philippines vs. *oel 2yuda, G.R.
No. !###!, ! 8ctober !++/9 'ee similar ruling in People vs. -rnesto &i6on,
GR No. //!/", *uly !++/%.
(4. Kuestion2
The trial co$rt fo$nd 8redo #$ilt &eond reasona&le do$&t of rapin#
2arisa" a mental retardate. 'n appeal" 8redo asserts" amon# others" that his
con)iction is not warranted &eca$se no clinical e)idence was presented to pro)e
the )ictim;s mental retardation. .e f$rther claims that he and the )ictim were
sweethearts" hence" he cannot &e held lia&le for rape. 2a the Fsweetheart
theorG &e a )alid defense in rape cases where the )ictim is a mental retardateO
/nser2
NO& A defense &ased on Fsweetheart theorG in rape cases is not a
defense at all in rape where the )ictim is a mental retardate. It is settled that
se%$al interco$rse with a mental retardate constit$tes rape. An im&ecile as the
)ictim in this case" has an intellect$al f$nction e3$i)alent to that of an a)era#e
se)en? ear old child" who cannot" therefore #i)e le#al consent to se%$al
interco$rse (People of the Philippines vs. Godofredo 2cero, G.R. Nos.
())$+- $, " 0arch !++(%.
(>. Kuestion2
+$ddenl awa-ened & the lo$d &an#in# comin# from their dri)er;s room"
spo$ses 'no proceeded in haste thereto. The were s$rprised and dismaed &
what the saw therein" i.e." their na-ed dri)er was in the motion of p$mpin# his
seeds into the se%$al or#an of their fo$rteen?ear?old da$#hter Irene.
'no was char#ed with rape. Irene alle#es that she resisted the se%$al
molestation and claims that after the se%$al act" 'no threatened to -ill her
sho$ld she report the incident to anone. 'n the other hand" 'no contends
that what too- place on that fatef$l ni#ht was consens$al se% as he and the
alle#ed rape )ictim were sweethearts. .e f$rther claims that he was $narmed
at that time. It is si#nificant to note also that Irene remained inside 'no;s
room for a&o$t fo$r ho$rs. 2a the sweetheart theor &e considered as a
)alid defense in the case at &arO
/nser2
;E0& It was clear that no force or intimidation was emploed & the
appellant. No phsical force was $sed to 3$ell Irene;s alle#ed resistance. .er
mo$th was not co)ered nor st$ffed with an o&*ect. E%cept for the alle#ed
immo&ilit of her hands held a&o)e her sho$lders & the ri#ht hand of the
appellant when he was alread on top of her" she was not phsicall restrained of
her mo)ements. Neither was intimidation emploed a#ainst her. E)en if she was
p$lled down to the &ed" she was not threatened with &odil or phsical harm & a
-nife" &olo" or an o&*ect or instr$ment that the appellant co$ld ha)e emploed so
as to create a real apprehension of dan#ero$s conse3$ences or serio$s &odil
harm. 7ell?settled is the r$le that where the )ictim is threatened with &odil in*$r"
as when the rapist is armed with a deadl weapon" s$ch as a pistol" -nife" ice
pic- or &olo" s$ch constit$tes intimidation s$fficient to &rin# the )ictim to
s$&mission to the l$stf$l desires of the rapist.
Irene claimed that she resisted the se%$al molestation" &$t a caref$l
readin# of her testimon failed to re)eal the -ind of resistance she did $nder the
circ$mstances. 7hile it is tr$e that a rape )ictim is not e%pected to resist $ntil
death" it is contrar to h$man e%perience that Irene did not e)en ma-e an o$tcr
or $se her hands which m$st ha)e &een free most of the time to ward off the
l$stf$l ad)ances of appellant. 8$rther" the medical findin#s showed no si#n of
e%tra#enital in*$ries on her &od. Not a piece of Irene;s apparel was torn or
dama#ed as wo$ld e)ince a str$##le on her part. These circ$mstances
additionall &elie Irene;s claim that the appellant had se%$al interco$rse with her
witho$t her consent.
Irene alle#es that after the se%$al act she was threatened with death.
.owe)er this is of no moment. The threat came after the cons$mmation of the
se%$al act and" as we ha)e alread o&ser)ed" it was not accompanied & o)ert
acts s$ch as slaps" p$nches" -ic-s" and &eatin#s or the emploment of a -nife"
#$n" or an weapon. A&sent an lo#ical e%planation or *$stification" onl a willin#
)ictim wo$ld passi)el allow herself to &e ra)ished and her honor tarnished
simpl & reason of a )er&al threat of an $narmed rapist.
+i#nificantl" Irene remained inside appellant;s room for a&o$t fo$r ho$rs.
It is simpl incredi&le that the appellant wo$ld ta-e his sweet time in rapin# Irene"
-nowin# that her father was *$st few meters awa. Indeed" Irene;s demeanor was
simpl inconsistent with that of an ordinar 8ilipina whose instinct dictates that
she s$mmon e)er o$nce of her stren#th and co$ra#e to thwart an attempt to
&esmirch her honor and &lemish her p$rit. Tr$e" women react differentl in
similar sit$ations" &$t it is $nnat$ral for an intended rape )ictim" as in the case at
&ar" not to ma-e e)en a fee&le attempt to free herself despite a mriad of
opport$nities to do so. This constrained $s to entertain a reasona&le do$&t on the
#$ilt of the appellant. In fact" the testimon of Irene;s father that he s$rprised
Irene and appellant completel na-ed f$rther increases o$r s$spicion that what
too- place that fatef$l ni#ht" o)er and a&o)e the consternation of Irene;s o$tra#ed
and enra#ed parents" was consens$al se% (People of the Philippines vs. *ose
8ga, G.R. No. 1!/+!, # *une !++(%.
REB N'TE+
/. M: 'n 2a (D" /5D>" Lora was accepted as a ho$semaid in the
ho$sehold of spo$ses Yap. 'n the ne%t da" the maid and 'li)er" 6?ear?
and?fi)e?month old son of the spo$ses" were missin#. 'n the ne%t da"
Lora as-ed for ransom in e%chan#e of the child &$t when the ransom
mone was deli)ered" the child was ne)er ret$rned. 'n 2a 6H" (5D>"
$pon wa-in# $p at aro$nd 1 oEcloc- in his ho$se" 2r. Yap noticed that
&lood was drippin# from the ceilin#. .e went $pstairs" which was &ein#
$tiliAed as a &ode#a" to )erif" and fo$nd his son placed inside the carton
of 2arl&oro ci#arettes. The head of the child was inside the carton while
his feet protr$ded o$tside. .is mo$th was tied with stoc-in#s. The child
was alread dead. 7hat is the crime committedO
A: The crime committed is m$rder 3$alified with treacher. The demand
for ransom did not con)ert the offense into -idnappin# with m$rder. The
defendant was well aware that the child wo$ld &e s$ffocated to death in a
few moments after she left. The demand for ransom is onl a part of the
dia&olic scheme of the defendant to m$rder the child" to conceal his &od
and then demand mone &efore the disco)er of the cada)er. There is
treacher &eca$se the )ictim is onl a 6?ear old child. 7here there is no
showin# that the acc$sed intended to depri)e their )ictims of their li&ert
<or some time an; <or some purpose" and there &ein# no appreciable
inter(al bet=een their bein2 ta@en an; their bein2 shot from which
-idnappin# ma &e inferred" the crimes committed were m$rder and
fr$strated m$rder and not the comple% crimes of -idnappin# with m$rder
and -idnappin# with fr$strated m$rder. In the instant case" the #a##in# of
the child with stoc-in#s" placin# him in a &o% with head down and le#s
$pward and co)erin# the &o% with some sac-s and other &o%es were onl
the methods of the defendant to commit m$rder. The child instantl died of
s$ffocation. +People (s. Lora, March &0, 1*)',
(. M: 2a -idnappin# &e committed e)en if the )ictim ne)er resisted
nor complained to #o with the acc$sed at the inception of the crimeO
A: YE+. The essence of the crime of -idnappin# is the act$al depri)ation
of the )ictimEs li&ert $nder an of the circ$mstances mentioned in Article
(1D co$pled with ind$&ita&le proof of intent of the acc$sed to effect the
same. Altho$#h the )ictim ma ha)e incept$all consented to #o with the
offender to a place &$t the )ictim is thereafter pre)ented" with the $se of
force" from lea)in# the place where he was &ro$#ht to with his consent
and is detained a#ainst his will" the offender is #$ilt of -idnappin# and
serio$s ille#al detention. (People (s. Pic@rell, October '&, '00&
6. M: 2$st there &e act$al demand for ransomO
A: As lon# as the -idnappin# and detention was committed for the p$rpose
of e%tortin# ransom" act$al demand for ransom is not necessar. +Re7es,
pa2e /&5,
4. M: In the crime of -idnappin# and serio$s ille#al detention" is it
necessar that the )ictim sho$ld &e -ept within an enclos$re to restrict
freedom of mo)ementO
A: N'. 8or -idnappin# to ta-e place" it is not necessar that the )ictim &e
placed in an enclos$re0 neither is it necessar that the detention &e
prolon#ed. The essence of -idnappin# is the act$al depri)ation of the
)ictim;s li&ert co$pled with ind$&ita&le proof of the intent of the acc$sed
to effect s$ch depri)ation +People (s. Obeso, October '4, '00&,
>. M: Acc$sed 7" N" Y and < &oarded a ta%i dri)en & A. N demanded
from A" FTol" pera?pera lan# ito" dahil -ailan#an lan#.G A ref$sed and tried
to #et o$t of the ta%ica& &$t N p$lled him &ac- and sta&&ed him. 7" Y and
< too- t$rns in sta&&in# A with &laded weapons. Thereafter" A was a&le to
flee from the scene and later on was ta-en to a hospital where he e%pired.
7hat is the crime committedO
A: The crime committed is attempted ro&&er with homicide. 8or the
acc$sed to &e #$ilt of cons$mmated ro&&er there m$st &e
incontro)erti&le proof that propert was ta-en from the )ictim. .owe)er" A
was a&le to flee from the )ehicle witho$t anthin# &ein# ta-en from him.
The appellants and his confederates commenced & o)ert acts the
e%ec$tion of the ro&&er" &$t failed to perform all the acts of e%ec$tion &
reason of the )ictim;s resistance. +People (s. 9ocalan, September 4,
'00&,
1. M: A" : and C entered and ro&&ed Y;s +$permart & as-in# mone
from the cashier and the storeowner. 2eanwhile" N and Y" CI+ a#ents
disco)ered the occ$rrence of the crime &$t $nfort$natel -illed & A in
#$nfire. +ho$ld all the acc$sed &e held lia&le for special comple% crime of
ro&&er with homicideO
A: YE+. 7hen homicide ta-es place as a conse3$ence or on occasion of
a ro&&er" all those who too- part in the ro&&er are #$ilt as principal in
the special comple% crime of ro&&er with homicide" e)en if the did not
act$all too- part in the homicide. The onl e%ception is when it is clearl
shown that the acc$sed endea)ored to pre)ent the $nlawf$l -illin#.
+People (s. 9olin2et, .ecember 11, '00&,
D. M: Is there a crime of ro&&er with m$ltiple homicide $nder the Re)ised
!enal CodeO
A: There is none. The crime is ro&&er with homicide notwithstandin# the
n$m&er of homicides committed on the occasion of the ro&&er and e)en
if m$rder" phsical in*$ries and rape were also committed on the same
occasion. +People (s. 8iAa;a, March 11, '004,
=. M: 7hat are the elements of the special comple% crime of ro&&er with
homicideO
A: The elements of the special comple% crime of ro&&er with homicide
are:
a. ta-in# of personal propert with the $se of )iolence or
intimidation a#ainst person
&. propert ta-en &elon#s to another
c. ta-in# is characteriAed & intent to #ain or anim$s l$crandi
d. on occasion of or & reason of the ro&&er" the crime of
homicide" $sed in the #eneric sense" is committed. +People (s.
Sumalino2, 1r., 3ebruar7 /, '004,
5. M: 2a there &e a con)iction for ro&&er with homicide e)en if the
e%act amo$nt of mone is not esta&lished or presented in the trialO
A: YE+. Intent to ro& is an internal act &$t ma &e inferred from proof of
)iolent $nlawf$l ta-in# of personal propert. 7hen the fact of asportation
has &een esta&lished &eond reasona&le do$&t" con)iction of the acc$sed
is *$stified e)en if the propert s$&*ect of the ro&&er is not presented in
co$rt. After all" the propert stolen ma ha)e &een a&andoned or thrown
awa and destroed & the ro&&er or reco)ered & the owner. The
prosec$tion is not &$rdened to pro)e the act$al )al$e of the propert
stolen or amo$nt stolen from t he )ictim. 7hether the ro&&er -now the
act$al amo$nt in the possession of the )ictim is of no moment &eca$se
the moti)e for ro&&er can e%ist re#ardless of the e%act amo$nt or )al$e
in)ol)ed. +People (s. ;e 1esus, Ma7 '%, '004,
/H. M: 2a a person who is not the act$al ma-er of a chec- &e prosec$ted
for estafaO
A: YE+. An acc$sed who onl ne#otiated directl and personall the chec-
drawn & another is #$ilt of estafa &eca$se he had #$ilt -nowled#e that
at the time he ne#otiated the chec-" the drawer has no s$fficient f$nds.
(Garcia )s. !eople" +eptem&er //" (HH6)
//. M: A -new that : had fo$nd a rin# &elon#in# to C. A" witho$t the
-nowled#e and consent of :" too- it from the latter;s chest and #a)e it to
C" its owner. Is A lia&le $nder Art. 6/1" par. 6O
A: N'" : was not the lawf$l possessor of the rin#. The finder of lost
propert has no ri#ht to possess the same. It has no ri#ht to possess the
same" it &ein# his o&li#ation to #i)e it to its owner or to the a$thorities.
/(. M: Is the mere fail$re of acc$sed to t$rn o)er the thin# deli)ered to
him in tr$st despite demand and the d$t to do so" constit$te estafa $nder
Art. 6/>" par. / (&)O
A: N'. The essence of estafa $nder Art. 6/>" par. / (&) of the Re)ised
!enal Code is the appropriation or con)ersion of mone or propert
recei)ed" to the pre*$dice of the owner thereof" which ta-es place when a
person act$all appropriates the propert of another for his own &enefit"
$se and en*oment. The fail$re to acco$nt" $pon demand" for f$nds or
propert held in tr$st is a mere circ$mstantial e)idence of
misappropriation. Th$s if the acc$sed is a&le to satisfactoril e%plain his
fail$re to prod$ce the thin# deli)ered in tr$st" he ma not &e held lia&le for
estafa. +3ila;ams Pharma, -nc. (s. Court o< Appeals, March &0, '004,
/6. M: Boes a no)ation or compromise affect the criminal lia&ilit of a
person acc$sed of estafaO E%plain.
A: No)ation or compromise does not affect criminal lia&ilit of the offender
of the acc$sed. Th$s" partial pament or e%tension of time to pa the
amo$nt misappropriated or acceptance of a promissor note for pament
of the amo$nt in)ol)ed does not e%tin#$ish criminal lia&ilit" &eca$se a
criminal offense is committed a#ainst the people and the offended part
ma not wai)e or e%tin#$ish the criminal lia&ilit that the law imposes for
the commission of the offense.
In order that no)ation of contract ma relie)e the acc$sed of
criminal lia&ilit" the no)ation m$st ta-e place &efore the criminal lia&ilit is
inc$rred0 criminal lia&ilit for estafa is not affected & compromise or
no)ation of contract for it is a p$&lic offense which m$st &e prosec$ted
and p$nished & the state at its own )olition.
:$t if the compromise is e%ec$ted &efore a criminal action is
instit$ted or where the amo$nt misappropriated was con)erted into a
contract of loan and the acc$sed was made to ac-nowled#e the de&t"
there is no)ation of contract so as to e%tin#$ish an incipient criminal
lia&ilit of the acc$sed0 &$t the no)ation m$st &e e%press and m$st refer
onl to the incipient criminal lia&ilit. +People (s. 9uli6e, 1une 1%, '00&,
/4. M: Is notice of dishonor re3$ired &efore the prima facie pres$mption of
deceit and -nowled#e of ins$fficienc of f$nds $nder Art. 6/>" par. ( (d)
and +ec. ( of :! (( applO
A: YE+. Notice of dishonor is re3$ired $nder &oth par. ((d)" Art. 6/> of the
R!C and +ec. ( of :! ((. 7hile the R!C prescri&es that the drawer of the
chec- m$st deposit the amo$nt needed to co)er his chec- within three
das from receipt of notice of dishonor " :! ((" on the other hand"
re3$ires the ma-er or drawer to pa the amo$nt of the chec- within fi)e
das from receipt of notice of dishonor. 7itho$t notice of dishonor"
-nowled#e of ins$fficienc of f$nds cannot &e pres$med and no crime
whether estafa or )iolation of :! (( can &e deemed to e%ist. +People (s.
OAe;a, 1une &, '004,
/>. M: 9nder :! ((" is the notice of dishonor re3$ired to &e in writin#O
A: YE+" the notice of dishonor of a chec- to the ma-er m$st &e in writin#.
7hile" indeed" +ection ( of :! (( does not state that the notice of
dishonor &e in writin#" ta-en in con*$nction" howe)er" with +ection 6 of the
law" i. e." Fthat where there are no s$fficient f$nds in or credit with s$ch
drawee &an-" s$ch fact shall alwas &e e%plicitl stated in the notice of
dishonor or ref$sal"G a mere oral notice or demand to pa wo$ld appear to
&e ins$fficient for con)iction $nder the law. +Sia (s. People, April '), '004,
/1. M: 2a dishonor of a chec- on the #ro$nd that it was Fdrawn a#ainst
$ncollected depositG constit$te )iolation of :! ((O
A: YE+. The drawer thereof is still lia&le $nder :! (( &eca$se said drawer
has no s$fficient f$nds in his acco$nt to co)er the amo$nt of the chec- at
the time of its presentment. .owe)er" the &an- ma honor the chec- at its
discretion in fa)or of clients" in which case there wo$ld &e no )iolation of
:! ((. +AbarBueC (s. Court o< Appeals, Au2ust %, '00&,
/D. M: Is there a crime of Carnappin# with homicideO
A: There is no crime of carnappin# with homicide. The crime is carnappin#
as defined and penaliAed $nder RA 1>65" +ec. ( and /4 e)en if death
occ$rs. The -illin# merel 3$alifies the crime of carnappin# as the law
pro)ides that the penalt in case the owner" dri)er or occ$pant on the
carnapped motor )ehicle is -illed in the co$rse of the commission of the
carnappin# shall &e recl$sion perpet$a to death. +People (s. Sira;, 1ul7 /,
'000,
'n the otherhand" if attempted or fr$strated m$rder or homicide is
committed F:in the co$rse of the commission of the carnappin# or on the
occasion thereof"G then it m$st &e deemed to fall $nder the cla$se (of
+ection /4) Fwhen the carnappin# is committed & means of )iolence
a#ainst or intimidation of an person.G +People (s. MeAia, 1ul7 %, 1**%,
/=. M: Bistin#$ish ro&&er $nder the R!C from hi#hwa ro&&er $nder !B
>6(.
A: !B >6( p$nishes as hi#hwa ro&&er or &ri#anda#e onl acts of
ro&&er perpetrated & o$tlaws indiscriminatel a#ainst an person or
persons on !hilippine hi#hwas as defined therein. If acts of ro&&er are
committed a#ainst onl a predetermined or partic$lar )ictim" the crime is
onl ro&&er" or ro&&er in &and if there are at least fo$r armed
participants. The mere fact that ro&&er was committed on a hi#hwa
does not in)ite the application of !B >6(. +People (s. Puno, 3ebruar7 1%,
1**&,
1*. DE Con(icte; b7 the trial court <or (iolation o< the Anti63encin2 La=, F
ar2ue; <or her acBuittal on appeal, conten;in2 that the prosecution <aile;
to pro(e that she @ne= or shoul; ha(e @no=n that the Ae=elr7 reco(ere;
<rom her =ere the procee;s o< the crime o< robber7 or the<t. -s the ;e<ense
(ali;G
AE N'. The defense is not )alid &eca$se mere possession of an article of
)al$e which has &een the s$&*ect of theft or ro&&er shall &e prima facie
e)idence of fencin#. The &$rden is $pon the acc$sed to pro)e that she
ac3$ired the *ewelr le#itimatel. +Pamintuan (s. People, 1ul7 11, 1**4,
(H. M: Is ro&&er with homicide committed e)en if the person is one of the
ro&&ersO
A: YE+" the law does not re3$ire that the person -illed is the owner of the
propert ta-en. Article (54 of the R!C pro)ides: FAn person #$ilt of
ro&&er with the $se of )iolence a#ainst %%% person.G !ara#raph / points
that when & reason or on the occasion of the ro&&er" the crime of
homicide shall ha)e &een committed" the -illin# of an person & reason
or on the occasion of the ro&&er sho$ld &e p$nished with the hi#hest
penalt re#ardless of the person -illed.
REB N'TE+ (TITLE // C /4)
(/) Is there a crime of attempted ad$lterO Is there fr$strated ad$lterO
Answer: !acheco &elie)es that there is no attempted ad$lter &eca$se the tenor
of the law refers to its cons$mmation onl. .owe)er" most +panish
commentators and the +$preme Co$rt of +pain hold that it is possi&le if the acts
of e%ec$tion ha)e &een commenced directl towards the commission of the
se%$al interco$rse.
There is howe)er no fr$strated ad$lter &eca$se of the nat$re of the
offense +!re2orio, 3un;amentals o< Criminal La= Re(ie=, 1**%,.
(() Befine the term Fcoha&itG as $sed in the crime of conc$&ina#e.
Answer: Coha&it m$st relate and &e confined to the s$&*ect matter of the law.
7hen $sed in that sense" it sho$ld &e constr$ed to mean Fto dwell or li)e
to#ether as h$s&and and wife altho$#h not le#all married. It ma also mean to
li)e to#ether in the same ho$se" claimin# to &e married +!re2orio, 3un;amentals
o< Criminal La= Re(ie=, 1**%,.
(6) Is there a crime of fr$strated acts of lasci)io$snessO
Answer: There is no fr$strated acts of lasci)io$sness &eca$se $nder the terms of
the law" s$ch fr$stration can ne)er ta-e place. In cases of acts of lasci)io$sness
li-e ad$lter and rape" from the moment the offender performs all the elements
necessar for the e%istence of the felon" he act$all attains his p$rpose" and
form that moment" all the essential elements of the offense ha)e also &een
accomplished. There can &e no fr$stration &eca$se the felon is necessaril
prod$ced as a conse3$ence thereof +!re2orio, 3un;amentals o< Criminal La=
Re(ie=, 1**%,.
(4) Befine )ir#init.
Answer: ,ir#init is not to &e $nderstood in its phsical sense. It refers to a
woman of chaste character. It incl$des a )irt$o$s woman of #ood rep$tation
+!re2orio, 3un;amentals o< Criminal La= Re(ie=, 1**%,.
(>) Befine FdomesticG as $sed in the crime of M$alified +ed$ction.
Answer: Bomestic is a person $s$all li)in# $nder the same roof" pertainin# to
the same ho$se and constit$tin# in this sense" a part thereof. It incl$des all those
persons residin# with the famil and who are mem&ers of the same ho$sehold"
re#ardless of the fact that their residence ma onl &e temporar or that the
ma &e pain# for their &oard and lod#in# +!re2orio, 3un;amentals o< Criminal
La= Re(ie=, 1**%,.
(1) .ow do o$ demonstrate the presence of lewd desi#ns in the crime of
forci&le a&d$ctionO In acts of lasci)io$snessO
Answer: In forci&le a&d$ction" illicit criminal relations need not &e shown. The
intent to sed$ce a #irl is s$fficient. The e)il p$rpose need not &e esta&lished &
positi)e e)idence &$t ma &e inferred from acts or cond$ct pro)ed.
In acts of lasci)io$sness" lechero$s acts m$st ha)e &een act$all
committed. Lewd desi#ns ma e%ist despite intention to marr where the latter is
a mere s$&terf$#e to en*o carnall a minor +!re2orio, 3un;amentals o< Criminal
La= Re(ie=, 1**%,.
(D) In the crime of a&d$ction" is it eno$#h that there is lewd desi#n in onl one
defendant to con)ict se)eral defendantsO
Answer: Yes. It is eno$#h that there is lewd desi#n & one of them" and the same
was -nown to the others who cooperated in the commission of the felon. Each
and e)er one of them e%ec$ted acts which constit$ted direct and necessar
cooperation for its commission. .ence" each one of them sho$ld &e considered
as principals. 'nce conspirac is esta&lished" the act of one is the act of all and"
therefore" the responsi&ilit of each and e)erone is the same +!re2orio,
3un;amentals o< Criminal La= Re(ie=, 1**%,.
(=) Is there a comple% crime of forci&le a&d$ction with rapeO
Answer: Yes. There is a comple% crime of forci&le a&d$ction with rape. If se)eral
persons forci&l a&d$cted the offended part and each of them raped her" the
sho$ld &e con)icted of the comple% crime of forci&le a&d$ction with rape and
three rapes &eca$se the latter were committed when the forci&le a&d$ction was
alread cons$mmated" and therefore cannot le#all &e considered as still
connected with the a&d$ction +!re2orio, 3un;amentals o< Criminal La= Re(ie=,
1**%,.
(5) N entices and pers$ades a /> ear old #irl to lea)e the )i#ilance and
protection of her parents. N -ept her in a place $n-nown to her parents
and had repeated se%$al interco$rse with her and staed with her $ntil he
was arrested & the police. 7hat crime is committedO
Answer: N committed the crime of consented a&d$ction &eca$se the
offended part is a )ir#in" o)er /( &$t $nder /= ears of a#e" was a&d$cted with
her consent" and committed with lewd desi#ns. 8$rther" N -new that he co$ld not
possi&l marr her &eca$se of lac- of marria#e license and parental consent
+People (s. -2nacio cite; in !re2orio, 3un;amentals o< Criminal La= Re(ie=,
1**%,.
(/H) In consented a&d$ction" is the a&d$ction re3$ired to &e permanentO
Answer: No. A&d$ction need not &e permanent. An apprecia&le period of
time is eno$#h. If the minor was sed$ced to lea)e her ho$se" was deflowered"
and immediatel ret$rned to her dwellin#" the acc$sed is #$ilt of consented
a&d$ction despite the fact that the minor left her domicile for a short period of
time &eca$se all the essential elements of the crime were alread present
+!re2orio, 3un;amentals o< Criminal La= Re(ie=, 1**%,.
(//) 2a the offended #irl who is a minor )alidl pardon the offender in a
crime of rapeO
Answer: Yes. The minor ma pardon the offender in a crime of rape when
it appears that she has no more parent who co$ld conc$r in the pardon" the
father &ein# the offender himself $nder whose parental a$thorit she li)es" her
mother ha)in# died lon# a#o +!re2orio, 3un;amentals o< Criminal La= Re(ie=,
1**%,.
(/() 7hat is the effect of an affida)it of desistance in crimes a#ainst
chastitO
Answer: +$ch affida)it $nder Article 644 & the complainant is considered
as pardon of the acc$sed which m$st &e made prior to the instit$tion of the
criminal action. If made while the case has &een filed alread" s$ch cannot *$stif
the dismissal of the complaint. It cannot also &e considered as a miti#atin#
circ$mstance &eca$se the same does not constit$te an admission of #$ilt & the
acc$sed which sho$ld manifest a disposition to s$&mit himself to the law
+!re2orio, 3un;amentals o< Criminal La= Re(ie=, 1**%,.
(/6) N was sentenced for the crime of sed$ction to pa the offended
part a certain s$m of mone for the monthl s$pport of the offsprin#. N
claims that the person who has the ri#ht to &e s$pported sho$ld li)e with
him in his own ho$se and there recei)e the s$pport which he is $nder
o&li#ation to pro)ide. Is the claim of N correctO
Answer: No. the claim of N is not correct. .e has no ri#ht to ref$se to
ma-e monthl paments for s$pport $nless the child sho$ld li)e with him in his
own ho$se +S (s. Al(ir H* Phil /%*I cite; in !re2orio, 3un;amentals o< Criminal
La= Re(ie=, 1**%,.
(/4) Is a *$dicial declaration necessar if the first marria#e is )oid a&
initioO
Answer: Yes. A *$dicial declaration of the n$llit of the first marria#e is
re3$ired &efore contractin# a second marria#e to a)oid committin# &i#am
+!re2orio, 3un;amentals o< Criminal La= Re(ie=, 1**%,.
(/>) Is a *$dicial declaration necessar if the first marria#e is )oid a&
initioO In pres$mption of deathO In a&senteesO
Answer: Yes. A *$dicial declaration of the n$llit of the first marria#e is
re3$ired &efore contractin# a second marria#e to a)oid committin# &i#am.
There m$st &e a *$dicial declaration of death of the first spo$se &efore
contractin# a second marria#e.
There m$st &e a *$dicial declaration declarin# the a&sent spo$se
pres$mpti)el death. 9nder the 8amil Code" the period &efore this can &e done
is 4 ears (!re2orio, 3un;amentals o< Criminal La= Re(ie=, 1**%,.
(/1) Is constr$cti)e criticism of a matter of p$&lic interest li&elo$sO
Answer: No. Constr$cti)e criticism of a matter of p$&lic interest is not
malicio$s. +$ch are accorded the mantle of 3$alified pri)ile#e of imm$nit. Ill?will
m$st &e personal to constit$te malice so that if the will is en#endered & one;s
sense of *$stice or & a le#itimate or pla$si&le moti)e" s$ch feelin#s ne#ati)e
act$al malice. 7hat constit$tes the crime is not onl the defamator matter &$t
the attit$de of the acc$sed. .ence" constr$cti)e criticism is not li&elo$s
+!re2orio, 3un;amentals o< Criminal La= Re(ie=, 1**%,.
(/D) N committed li&el on the same date and the same place &$t a#ainst
two different persons. .ow man co$nts of li&el are committedO
Answer: There are as man crimes of li&el as there are persons defamed.
If in a sin#le p$&lication there are persons defamed" each has a ri#ht to file
separate char#es of li&el to )indicate his honor and rep$tation. .ence" there are
two co$nts of li&el +!re2orio, 3un;amentals o< Criminal La= Re(ie=, 1**%,.
(/=) 7hat is an inn$endoO
Answer: An inn$endo is an a)erment in a defamator article e%planator of
a precedin# word or statement. It" therefore" defines the defamator meanin# of
the words in the article and how those relate to the person li&eled +!re2orio,
3un;amentals o< Criminal La= Re(ie=, 1**%,.
(/5) A tele#ram was sent & N to the B!7. #i)in# information that Y is
an $ndesira&le emploee as the former has reason to &elie)e that the
latter has enriched himself thro$#h corr$pt practices considerin# that he
has properties and spendin# a&o)e what his salar can afford with his wife
*o&less. An information for li&el was then filed. 2a a motion to 3$ash the
information prosperO
Answer: No. The 3$estion of whether or not a motion to 3$ash &ased on a
3$alified pri)ile#e sho$ld &e $pheld m$st &e decided ad)ersel a#ainst those
acc$sed of li&el. In this case" malice can &e shown. It simpl p$ts that the &$rden
of doin# so on the prosec$tion. The prosec$tion is entitled to #o to trial and
present the necessar e)idence to pro)e malice. .ence" the motion to 3$ash
ma not prosper +!re2orio, 3un;amentals o< Criminal La= Re(ie=, 1**%,.
((H) In a *$dicial proceedin#" a lawer Y was prompted to sa FI do$&t
how did o$ &ecome a doctorG when Br. N wo$ld not answer the 3$estion
as to who prepared the doc$ment presented to her" and when she e)aded
the 3$estion & sain# that she did not $nderstand the word Fmade"G an
information for $n*$st )e%ation was filed a#ainst lawer Y. Y filed a motion
to 3$ash alle#in# that his statement was alle#ed in a *$dicial proceedin#
and is a&sol$tel pri)ile#ed. 7ill the motion to 3$ash prosperO
Answer: Yes. As to the de#ree of rele)anc or pertinenc necessar to
ma-e the alle#ed defamator matter pri)ile#e" the co$rts are inclined to &e
li&eral. The matter to which the pri)ile#e does not e%tend m$st &e so palpa&l
wantin# in relation to the s$&*ect matter of the contro)ers that no reasona&le
man can do$&t its rele)ance and pertinenc. 8$rther" parties" co$nsels and
witnesses are e%empted from lia&ilit in li&el or slander cases for words
otherwise defamator" $ttered or p$&lished in the co$rse of *$dicial proceedin#s.
.ence" the motion to 3$ash will prosper +!re2orio, 3un;amentals o< Criminal
La= Re(ie=, 1**%,.
((/) N called NNN hpocritical" a dishonora&le client" $nfair" insincere
and dishonest. NNN str$c- &ac- at N with some dispara#in# and
intemperate lan#$a#e" and ins$lts where h$rled &ac- and forth and each
one &ent his spleen on the other. 2a N and NNN file a case of li&el
a#ainst each otherO
Answer: No. The act of one sho$ld n$llif the other. :ein# similarl sit$ate"
neither one sho$ld &e allowed to complain a#ainst the other. +tatements made in
self?defense or in m$t$al contro)ers are often pri)ile#ed. To &e pri)ile#ed" the
comm$nication m$st &e pertinent and material to the s$&*ect matter in which the
a$thor claims an interest to $phold. The protection of the pri)ile#e ma &e lost &
manner of e%ec$tion. It does not protect an $nnecessar defamation. .ence"
the cannot file li&el a#ainst each other +!re2orio, 3un;amentals o< Criminal La=
Re(ie=, 1**%,.
Li&el in answer to another li&el is not *$stified &$t if p$&lished in self?
defense in #ood faith" witho$t malice" and is not $nnecessaril defamator of his
assailant" it is pri)ile#ed. A person li&eled ma hit &ac- with another li&el" which if
ade3$ate" will &e *$stified" &$t if it is inade3$ate and $nnecessar sc$rrilo$s" it is
not *$stified +!re2orio, 3un;amentals o< Criminal La= Re(ie=, 1**%,.
((() 2a a p$&lisher or editor or d$l accredited reporter of an
newspaper" ma#aAine" periodical or #eneral circ$lation &e compelled to
re)eal the so$rce of an news report of an information appearin# in said
p$&lication which was related in confidence to the said personsO
Answer: No. The cannot &e compelled to re)eal the same $nless the
co$rt or a ho$se or committee of Con#ress finds that s$ch re)elation is
demanded & the sec$rit of the state +!re2orio, 3un;amentals o< Criminal La=
Re(ie=, 1**%,.
((6) Is slander as a defense *$stifiedO
Answer: Yes. +lander as a defense is *$stified if it is not $nnecessaril
sc$rrilo$s. The person slandered ma hit &ac- with another slander onl if his
repl is made in #ood faith witho$t malice and it is not $nnecessaril defamator
of his assailant. To repel an attac- on his rep$tation" defendant ma ma-e an
e%planation of the imp$tation" and it is onl where" if & e%plainin#" he m$st of
necessit ha)e to $se sc$rrilo$s and slandero$s remar-s" that he ma le#all &e
allowed to do so witho$t placin# himself $nder criminal prosec$tion +!re2orio,
3un;amentals o< Criminal La= Re(ie=, 1**%,.
((4) N was first e)icted witho$t reasona&le #ro$nd and while &ein#
s$pposedl in)esti#ated" mar-er mone was commin#led with the mone
ta-en from him. 7hat crime is committedO
Answer: The comple% crime of incriminator machination thro$#h $nlawf$l
arrest was committed. This is the onl article in the R!C which ma &e said to
refer to malicio$s prosec$tion +People (s. Ala2ao cite; in !re2orio,
3un;amentals o< Criminal La= Re(ie=, 1**%,.
((>) 7hat is the test of ne#li#ence in the crime of criminal ne#li#enceO
Answer: The test is whether or not the defendant in doin# the alle#ed
ne#li#ent act $sed that reasona&le care and ca$tion which an ordinar pr$dent
person wo$ld ha)e $sed in the same sit$ation. If not" then he is #$ilt of
n#eli#ence +!re2orio, 3un;amentals o< Criminal La= Re(ie=, 1**%,.
((1) A. 7hile the Commission on Appointments was considerin# the
nomination of A as Bepartment +ecretar" a #ro$p of concerned citiAens
ca$sed to &e p$&lished in the newspapers a f$ll?pa#e statement o&*ectin#
to A;s appointment. The alle#ed that A was a dr$# dependent" that he had
se)eral mistresses" and that he was corr$pt" and therefore he was $nfit for
the position to which he had &een nominated. As a res$lt of the
p$&lication" the nomination was not confirmed & the Commission on
Appointments. The official s$ed the concerned citiAens and the
newspapers for li&el and dama#es on acco$nt of his non?confirmation.
.ow will o$ decide the caseO
B. If defamator imp$tations are made not & p$&lication in the
newspapers &$t & &roadcast o)er the radio" do the constit$te li&elO
7hO
Answer: a. I will ac3$it the concerned citiAens and the
newspapers in)ol)ed" from the crime of li&el" &eca$se o&)io$sl the made the
den$nciation o$t of a moral or social d$t and th$s there is a&sence of malice.
+ince A was a candidate for a )er important p$&lic position of a Bepartment
+ecretar" his moral" mental and phsical fitness for the p$&lic tr$st in s$ch
position &ecomes a p$&lic concern as the interest of the p$&lic is at sta-e. It is
p$rs$ant to s$ch concern that the den$nciation was made0 hence" &ereft of
malice.
&. Yes" &eca$se li&el ma &e committed & radio &roadcast. Article
6>> of the Re)ised !enal Code p$nishes li&el committed & means" amon#
others" of radio &roadcast" inasm$ch as the &roadcast made & radio is p$&lic
and ma &e defamator.
((D) 7hat is an Attempt to Commit Child !rostit$tion $nder RA D1/HO
Answer: It is an offense committed & a person who" not &ein# a relati)e
of a child" is fo$nd alone with said child inside the room or c$&icle of a ho$se"
hotel" or other similar esta&lishments )essel" )ehicle or an other secl$ded area
$nder circ$mstances which wo$ld lead a reasona&le person to &elie)e that the
child is a&o$t to &e e%ploited in prostit$tion and other child a&$se.
It is also committed & one person who recei)es ser)ices from a child in a
sa$na parlor" massa#e clinic" or an other similar esta&lishments.
((=) 7hat is the r$le re#ardin# proof of tr$th in cases of li&elO
Answer: GENERAL R9LE: As a r$le" proof of tr$th of the defamation
a#ainst the )ictim is not a defense. Nonetheless" s$ch proof of the tr$th is
admissi&le if the act imp$ted constit$tes a crime" whether the )ictim is a pri)ate
indi)id$al or a p$&lic officer. In s$ch cases" proof of the tr$th pl$s #ood moti)es
and *$stifia&le ends will warrant the ac3$ittal of the acc$sed.
ENCE!TI'N+: In the imp$tation of a crime a#ainst p$&lic officers in
connection with the performance of p$&lic f$nctions" proof of tr$th is an a&sol$te
defense0 no need to esta&lish #ood moti)e.
If the defamator statement is made a#ainst a p$&lic official with respect
to the dischar#e of his official d$ties and f$nctions" and the tr$th of the
alle#ation is shown" the acc$sed will &e entitled to an ac3$ittal e)en tho$#h
he does not pro)e that the imp$tation was p$&lished with #ood moti)es and
for *$stifia&le ends.
In order to maintain a li&el s$it" it is essential that the )ictim &e identifia&le
altho$#h it is not necessar that he &e named. It is also not s$fficient that the
offended part reco#niAe himself as the person attac-ed or defamed" &$t it
m$st &e shown that at least a third person co$ld identif him as the o&*ect of
the li&elo$s p$&lication.
7hile" #enerall" malice can &e pres$med from defamator words" the
pri)ile#ed character of a comm$nication destros the pres$mption of malice.
((5) Is tr$th a defense in li&elO
Answer: Generall" tr$th is not a defense in li&el. .owe)er" if the acc$sed
can pro)e that it is tr$e" then it is defense if it refers to act$ations of p$&lic
officers in relation to the d$ties of his office.
(6H) 7hat crime is committed if a man em&races and -isses a womanO
Answer: It depends $pon the intent. The man committed the crime of Acts
of Lasci)io$sness if there is a lewd intention or desi#n. It is onl $n*$st )e%ation if
there is no lewd intention or desi#n &$t onl an intent to anno. If the intent is to
em&arrass a #irl" the crime is slander & deed &eca$se o$ p$t her to ridic$le or
o$ defame her.
(6/) Is #ood faith a defense in the crime of ad$lterO
Answer: Yes. Good faith is a defense in ad$lter &eca$se a man is lia&le
for ad$lter onl if he has -nowled#e that the woman was married. If the man did
not -now of the married stat$s of the woman" then he is not lia&le for the crime of
ad$lter. .owe)er" if the man is married" he is lia&le for the crime of
conc$&ina#e.
(6() 7hat are the important feat$res of RA 5(1(O
Answer:
/. The Re#ional Trial Co$rt desi#nated as a 8amil Co$rt shall ha)e ori#inal
and e%cl$si)e *$risdiction o)er cases of )iolence a#ainst women and their
children. In the a&sence of s$ch co$rt in the place where the offense was
committed" the case shall &e filed in the Re#ional Trial Co$rt where the
crime or an of its elements was committed at the option of the compliant.
(. A protection order is iss$ed for the p$rpose of pre)entin# f$rther acts of
)iolence a#ainst a woman or her child specified in +ection > of this Act
and #rantin# other necessar relief. The relief #ranted ser)es the p$rpose
of safe#$ardin# the )ictim from f$rther harm" minimiAin# an disr$ption in
the )ictimEs dail life" and facilitatin# the opport$nit and a&ilit of the
)ictim to independentl re#ain control o)er her life. The protection orders
that ma &e iss$ed $nder this Act are the &aran#a protection order
(:!')" temporar protection order (T!') and permanent protection order
(!!').
6. A petition for protection order ma &e filed & an of the followin#:
a) the offended part0
&) parents or #$ardians of the offended part0
c) ascendants" descendants or collateral relati)es within the fo$rth ci)il
de#ree of consan#$init or affinit0
d) officers or social wor-ers of the B+7B or social wor-ers of local
#o)ernment $nits (LG9s)0
e) police officers" prefera&l those in char#e of women and childrenEs des-s0
f) !$non# :aran#a or :aran#a Qa#awad0
#) lawer" co$nselor" therapist or healthcare pro)ider of the petitioner0
h) At least two (() concerned responsi&le citiAens of the cit or m$nicipalit
where the )iolence a#ainst women and their children occ$rred and who
has personal -nowled#e of the offense committed.
4. All T!'s and !!'s are enforcea&le anwhere in the !hilippines and a
)iolation thereof shall &e p$nisha&le with a fine andPor imprisonment.
>. In cases of le#al separation" where )iolence is alle#ed" Article >= of the
8amil Code shall not appl. The co$rt shall proceed on the main case
and other incidents of the case as soon as possi&le. The hearin# on an
application for a protection order filed & the petitioner m$st &e cond$cted
within the mandator period.
1. E% parte and ad)ersarial hearin#s to determine the &asis of applications
for a protection order $nder this Act shall ha)e priorit o)er all other
proceedin#s.
D. ,iolence a#ainst women and their children shall &e considered a p$&lic
offense which ma &e prosec$ted $pon the filin# of a complaint & an
citiAen ha)in# personal -nowled#e of the circ$mstances in)ol)in# the
commission of the crime.
=. ,ictim?s$r)i)ors who are fo$nd & the co$rts to &e s$fferin# from &attered
woman sndrome do not inc$r an criminal and ci)il lia&ilit
notwithstandin# the a&sence of an of the elements for *$stifin#
circ$mstances of self?defense $nder the Re)ised !enal Code.
5. The woman )ictim of )iolence shall &e entitled to the c$stod and s$pport
of her childPchildren. Children &elow se)en (D) ears old older &$t with
mental or phsical disa&ilities shall a$tomaticall &e #i)en to the mother"
with ri#ht to s$pport" $nless the co$rt finds compellin# reasons to order
otherwise.
/H. A )ictim who is s$fferin# from &attered woman sndrome shall not &e
dis3$alified from ha)in# c$stod of her children. In no case shall c$stod
of minor children &e #i)en to the perpetrator of a woman who is s$fferin#
from :attered woman sndrome.
//. All records pertainin# to cases of )iolence a#ainst women and their
children incl$din# those in the &aran#a shall &e confidential and all p$&lic
officers and emploees and p$&lic or pri)ate clinics to hospitals shall
respect the ri#ht to pri)ac of the )ictim. 7hoe)er p$&lishes or ca$ses to
&e p$&lished" in an format" the name" address" telephone n$m&er"
school" &$siness address" emploer" or other identifin# information of a
)ictim or an immediate famil mem&er" witho$t the latterEs consent" shall
&e lia&le to the contempt power of the co$rt.
+ANB',AL?G9TTIERE<
1.
Question: Ramon was drinking gin with some of his friends when Eric emerged from the
back of Ramon and stabbed him with a knife. He ceased stabbing only after he saw
Ramon dead. For his defense, Eric contended that there was no altercation between him
and Ramon and that he had no motive to kill Ramon, hence, he should be acquitted. Was
Erics contention correct!
Answer: "o. #roof of motive is not indis$ensable for a conviction. %n the crime of
murder, motive is not an element of the offense, it becomes material only when the
evidence is circumstantial or inconclusive and there is some doubt on whether the
accused had committed it. &#eo$le vs. 'elos (antos, )ay *, +,,-.
+.
Question: /immy was charged with murder for shooting and killing (erafin. He invoked
self0defense, alleging that (erafin kicked the tiller he was welding. When he confronted
the victim the latter bo1ed him on the chest causing him to fall down. (erafin then $ulled
out his gun. /immy stood u$ and gra$$led with (erafin for its $ossession until they both
fell and the gun e1$loded. 2he trial court ruled that in killing the victim, /immy did not
act in self0defense because there was no actual and material unlawful aggression. Was the
trial court correct!
Answer: 3es. Even assuming that (erafin had a gun and $ulled it, however, he did not
manifest any aggressive act which may have im$eriled the life and limb of /immy. %t is
a1iomatic that the mere thrusting of ones hand into his $ocket as if for the $ur$ose of
drawing a wea$on is not unlawful aggression. Even the cocking of a rifle without aiming
the firearm at any $articular target is not sufficient to conclude that ones life was in
imminent danger. Hence, a threat, even if made with a wea$on, or the belief that a $erson
was about to be attacked, is not sufficient. %2 is necessary that the intent be ostensibly
revealed by an act of aggression or by some e1ternal acts showing the commencement of
actual and material unlawful aggression. &#eo$le vs. Rubiso, )arch 14, +,,-.
-.
Question: While Feria was boarding a bus, Edwin, who was seated in the bus, stood u$
and stabbed Feria on the chest three times with a balisong which caused his death. Edwin
was thereafter charged with murder. 5s a defense, he contended that it was Feria who
a$$roached him and attem$ted to stab him. He evaded the thrust and gra$$led with Feria
for the $ossession of the knife, and after wrestling it from Feria, he stabbed him. Edwin
did not suffer any bruises or in6uries. Was Edwins contention that he acted in self0
defense tenable!
Answer: "o. 2here are certain badges of guilt that render Edwins claim of self0defense
im$robable. First, the $hysical evidence shows that Feria suffered three fatal stab wounds
on the chest. 2he nature, location, and number of the wounds inflicted on Feria belie and
negate the claim of self0defense. (econd, /immy did not sustain any in6ury des$ite his
assertions that Feria was the aggressor. Where self0defense is invoked, it is incumbent
u$on the accused to $rove by clear and convincing evidence that 718 he is not the
unlawful aggressor, 7+8 there was lack of sufficient $rovocation on his $art, and 7-8 he
em$loyed reasonable means to $revent and re$el an aggression. 5t the heart of these is
the $resence of unlawful aggression. Without it, self0defense will not have a leg to stand
on. &#eo$le vs. 5lcodia, )arch 9, +,,-.
:.
Question: Rico, who was into1icated, attem$ted to hack his uncle ;ernie but instead hit
the $ost of the latters house. 'elfin, with his fellow barangay tanod, rushed to the scene
and heard Rico shout at his uncle <% will kill you=> When Rico came out of ;ernies
house, there was blood oo?ing from his forehead. When 'elfin tried to assist Rico, they
shouted at each other for unknown reasons and gra$$led face to face. Rico $ulled out his
knife, stabbed 'elfin at the abdomen and ran away. @n trial for murder, Rico invoked
self0defense. 5ccording to him, it was 'elfin who went to his house, threatened to kill
him, hit him with an iron $i$e, and attacked him with a knife. 'elfin then accidentally
stabbed himself. Was his defense tenable!
Answer: "o. Where self0defense is invoked, it is incumbent u$on the accused to $rove
by clear and convincing evidence that 718 he is not the unlawful aggressor, 7+8 there was
lack of sufficient $rovocation on his $art, and 7-8 he em$loyed reasonable means to
$revent and re$el an aggression. His allegation that 'elfin accidentally stabbed himself
shows ambivalence. 5ccident $resu$$oses lack of intention to stab the victim, while self0
defense $resumes voluntariness, induced only by necessity. &#eo$le vs. 5bra?aldo,
February A, +,,-.
B.
Problem: 'istinguish life im$risonment from reclusion $er$etua.
Answer: 2he $enalty of life im$risonment is not the same as reclusion $er$etua.
2hey are distinct in nature, in duration and in accessory $enalties. First, life im$risonment
is im$osed for serious offenses, $enali?ed by s$ecial laws, while reclusion $er$etua is
$rescribed under the Revised #enal Code. (econd, life im$risonment does not carry with
it any accessory $enalty while reclusion $er$etua has accessory $enalties. 2hird, life
im$risonment does not a$$ear to have any definite e1tent or duration, while reclusion
$er$etua entails im$risonment for at least -, years which the convict becomes eligible for
$ardon, although the ma1imum $eriod thereof shall in no case e1ceed :, years.
9.
Problem: )ay criminal liability be e1tinguished by an affidavit of desistance!
Answer: "o. 5n affidavit of desistance by the victim or any of his heirs will not
e1tinguish the criminal liability of the accused. 'esistance is not one of the acce$ted
modes of e1tinguishing criminal liability. %f at all, such desistance will have the effect of
<voluntarily releasing> the accused from the civil liability arising therefrom.
A.
Problem: /ustin obtained a loan from /essie. 5s security , /ustin issued two
$ostdated checks. @n the maturity date of the checks, /essie de$osited the same at the
bank but the same were dishonored for the reason that /ustins account had already been
close. 5 letter was sent by /essies counsel demanding that /ustin settle his obligation. He,
however, insisted that he had already $aid /essie. %s /ustin guilty of violating the
;ouncing Checks Daw!
Answer: "o. 2o constitute a violation of ;# ++, there must be knowledge of
insufficiency of funds on the $art of the issuer. %n order to create the $resum$tion that the
issuer knew of the insufficiency of funds, it must be shown that he or she received a
notice of dishonor and, within B banking days thereafter, failed to satisfy the amount of
the check or make arrangement of its $ayment.
%n the $resent case, the fact of recei$t by the issuer of any notice of non0$ayment
is not indicated. 2here is thus no way of determining when the B0day $eriod $rescribed.
2hus, the essential element of knowledge of insufficiency of funds or credit on the $art of
the issuer is absent in the case at bar. /ustin, therefore, is not guilty of violating ;# ++.
4.
Question: 5rman, a 1-0year old boy, suffered a Enervous breakdown causing him to
act strangely. His father, 3brahim, brought him to a religious grou$ or cult for treatment
by a certain <)other #irena.> )other #irena claims that 5rman is being $ossessed by evil
s$irits and that she can $erform e1orcism rites on the $erson of 5rman to cure him.
5rmans $arents consented to the e1orcism rites on the $erson of 5rman to cure him.
'uring the said rites, 5rman became unruly and in an effort to restrain him, )other
#irena and her followers tied him to a wooden chair. 2he boys head was re$eatedly
soaked in water and was banged against the wooden chair. He was likewise hit on the
chest by )other #irena and her followers. 2he boy later on died due to multi$le head and
chest trauma.
%s )other #irena guilty of murder!
AnswerF "o. 2he facts of the case indubitably show the absence of intent to kill on
the $art of the accused. 'ue to such absence, treachery cannot be a$$reciated for there is
no treachery or the deliberate em$loyment of means, methods and manner of e1ecution to
ensure the safety of the accused from the defensive or retaliatory attacks coming from the
victim. Giewed in this light, the acts that are a$$arently manifestations of treachery in
fact relate to efforts by the accused to restrain 5rman so that she can effect cure on him.
Her liability, therefore, arises from her reckless im$rudence because she ought to have
known her actions would not bring about the cure. (People v. Carmen, March 26, 2001)
*.
Question: Where murderHhomicide is committed with the use of an unlicensed
firearm, can the offender be $rosecuted for illegal $ossession of firearms as a se$arate
offense!
Answer: "o. 5s the law stands today, there can no longer be a se$arate conviction
of the crime of illegal $ossession of firearms under #' 1499 in view of the amendments
introduced by R5 4+*:. %nstead, illegal $ossession of firearms is sim$ly taken as an
aggravating circumstance in murder or homicide $ursuant to (ec. 1 of R5 4+*:.
1,.
Question: Ievin and ;rian, who were walking down )endiola, were stoned by 'ion and
they went after the cul$rit in reaction to the incident. Finding the victim in a store, they
vent their ire on him, kicking and bo1ing the victim. Ievin hit 'ion in the head with a
stone and ;rian stabbed him in the back with a knife which caused the victims death.
Was there cons$iracy between Ievin and ;rian! What are their res$ective
liabilities!
Answer: "one. 2here was no cons$iracy between Ievin and ;rian to kill the
victim. "either 6oint nor simultaneous action is $er se sufficient $roof of cons$iracy.
Ievin and ;rians seemingly concerted and simultaneous acts were more of a
s$ontaneous reaction to a $erceived affront rather than the result of a common $lan to kill
the victim.
%n the absence of cons$iracy, the offenders liabilities are individual and not
collective. ;rian who inflicted the stab wound which caused the victims death is liable as
a $rinci$al by direct $artici$ation. Ievin, on the other hand, who likewise kicked and
bo1ed 'ion and hit the victim on the head with a $iece of stone is liable not for the
$hysical in6uries inflicted by him but as an accom$lice in the killing of the victim by
reason of his having coo$erated in the assault by simultaneous acts which although not
indis$ensable to the commission of the crime, contributed to its e1ecution. (People v.
Miana, August 9, 2001)
11.
Question: ;uddies 'avid and Jilbert were drinking and en6oying video0oke at the
latters house. When 'avid was refused the mic after 1, songs, the latter, incensed,
decided to go home. 2he moment he ste$$ed out of the house, he heard Jilbert sing his
all0time favorite song, <)y Way.> 2his angered him more and so he rolled his sleeves,
$icked a big stone, took a careful aim and hit Jilbert at the back of his head. Jilbert died
as a result
What offense did 'avid commit! )ay the aggravating circumstance of dwelling
be a$$reciated even if the accused $er$etrated the assault from the outside!
Answer: 'avid committed murder. 2he killing of Jilbert was attended by treachery
when 'avid deliberately hit him at the back thereby em$loying a means method, or form
in the e1ecution of the offense which tended directly and s$ecially to insure its e1ecution
without risk to himself arising from the defense which the offended $arty, Jilbert in this
case, might make. 2he attendance of treachery qualified the killing to murder.
'welling too can well be a$$reciated as an aggravating circumstance in
this case. 'welling aggravates a felony where the crime was committed in the dwelling
of the offended $arty if the latter has not given $rovocation or if the victim was killed
inside his house. For the circumstance of dwelling to be considered, it is not necessary
that the accused should have actually entered the dwelling of the victim to commit the
offenseK it is enough that the victim was attacked inside his own house, although the
assailant might have devised means to $er$etrate the assault from the outside. (People v.
Perreras, Jul !1, 2001)
1+.
Question: 5t around 4 $m, while working at the kitchen of the where /ane was
working as a stay0in housemaid, /ohn a$$eared therein. Holding a knife and a bolo, /ohn
dragged /ane outside and brought her towards a house under construction about +,,
meters away, where he se1ually abused her. /ohn was later charged with and convicted of
the crime of ra$e, with the aggravating circumstance of the crime being committed in the
house of the victim and was sentenced
Was the aggravating circumstance of dwelling $ro$erly a$$reciated!
Answer: 3es. %t a$$ears from the facts that the house from where the victim was
dragged is her <dwelling> albeit the same does not belong to her. 2he dwelling
contem$lated in 5rt. 1:7-8 of the Revised #enal Code does not necessarily mean that the
victim owns the $lace where he lives or dwells. ;e he a lessee, a boarder or a bed0s$acer,
the $lace is his home, the sanctity of which the law seeks to $rotect. 2he fact that the
crime was consummated in the nearby house is immaterial. 2he offender forcibly took
the victim from her dwelling house 7kitchen8 and then ra$ed her. 'welling is aggravating
if the victim was taken from his house although the offense was not com$leted therein.
(People v. Josue "e la #orre, Januar 1$, 2002)
1-.
Question: With a guitar in hand, Elvis was singing <Dove me 2ender> with his
friends while sitting in their favorite wooden bench in ;aywalk. 2he song reminded the
hila% na mangga&vendor, 5rthur who was nearby, of his unfaithful wife. 2his $rom$ted
him to a$$roach Elvis and re$eatedly stabbed the latter in the chest with his knife to make
him sto$ singing 7forever=!8. Elvis friends, caught off0guard by the suddenness of the
un$rovoked attack, remained seated and motionless due to shock. Elvis died as a result of
the stab wounds.
Was treachery attendant in this case!
Answer: 3es. 2here is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes
against $ersons, em$loying means, methods, or forms in the e1ecution thereof which tend
directly and s$ecially to insure its e1ecution, without risk to himself arising from the
defense which the offended $arty might make. 2he $resence of the Elvis friends when he
was stabbed does not negate treachery considering that it did not diminish the suddenness
of the a$$ellants aggression. From the facts, it can be adduced that the stabbing,
although frontal, was so une1$ected and sudden that it left Elvis and his friends with nary
an o$$ortunity to $ut u$ a defense. %ndeed, the essence of treachery is the swift and
une1$ected attack on an unarmed victim that insures its e1ecution without risk to the
assailant arising from the defense of his victim. (People v. Ca'o(uin, )ov. 1*, 2001)
1:.
Question: %n im$osing the $enalty of reclusion $er$etua, is the fi1ed duration in
years required to be s$ecified!
Answer: "o. Reclusion $er$etua remains to be an indivisible $enalty and, when it is
the $rescribed $enalty, should be im$osed in it entirety, i.e., reclusion $er$etua sans a
fi1ed $eriod for its duration, regardless of any mitigating or aggravating circumstances
that may have attended the commission of the crime. %n $rescribing the $enalty of
reclusion $er$etua, its duration in years, in fine, need not be s$ecified.
1B.
QuestionF %s full $enetration of the female organ required to sustain conviction of
ra$e!
Answer: "o. Full $enetration is not required to sustain the conviction of ra$e, and it
is not enough that there be entrance of the male organ with the labia of the $udendum of
the female organ. %n fact, $enetration of the $enis by the entry of the li$s of the female
organ even without ru$ture or laceration of the hymen suffices to warrant conviction for
ra$e. (People v. +ula,
19.
Question: Ieanna, a +10year old mental retardate, was summoned by her maternal
uncle, ;udoy, to his house. 2hereafter, he made her lie down, undressed her and
succeeded in having carnal knowledge with her without much of a struggle or resistance
on her $art. %s ;udoy guilty of ra$e!
Answer: 3es. Ieanna could not have consented to engage in se1ual intercourse
with ;udoy. Her condition falls under the definition of a $erson <de$rived of reason.>
2hese include those suffering from mental abnormality or deficiencyK or some form of
mental retardation. Where the ra$e victim is feeble0minded, even if there have been no
$hysical force em$loyed on her, there is authority to the effect that the force required by
law is the se1ual act itself. (People v. ,la'o, +ecem'er -, 2001)
1A.
Question: Can statutory ra$e be committed against an 110year old $rostitute!
Answer: 3es. %n statutory ra$e, mere se1ual congress with a woman below twelve
years of age consummates the crime of statutory ra$e regardless of her consent to the act
or the lack of it. 2he law $resumes that a woman of tender age does not $ossess
discernment and is inca$able of giving intelligent consent to the se1ual act. 2hus, it was
held that carnal knowledge of a child below twelve years old, even if she is engaged in
$rostitution is still considered statutory ra$e.
14.
Question: 'onald broke into the house of his cousin in0law, 'aisy, $oked a knife at
her, forced her to lie down and se1ually violated her. %n $enali?ing the offense, is it
$ro$er to consider the relationshi$ between the offender and the victim to im$ose the
$enalty of death!
Answer: "o. #er e1$ress $rovisions of R5 A9B*, the required degree of
relationshi$, whether by consanguinity or affinity, to 6ustify the conviction of ra$e in its
qualified form is u$ to the third civil degree only. Here, the degree of relationshi$
between a$$ellant and the com$lainant, being cousins0in0law, is already in the fourth
civil degree, a reason more than enough to bar its a$$reciation as a qualifying
circumstance for $ur$oses of im$osing the death $enalty under R5 A9B*. (People v.
#e.a"a, Jul 10, 2001)
1*.
Question: )ickey ra$ed his 1+0year old neighbor )innie. L$on conviction, )ickey
inter$osed on a$$eal that as he was $ardoned by )innie he should be acquitted as $ardon
by the offended $arty is one of the ways of barring criminal $rosecution. %s he right!
Answer: "o. %n cases where the offended $arty is a minor, the $ardon must be given
by both the $arents and the offended $arty. Here, while it a$$ears that the victim forgave
the offender, it is not clear that there was a similar act from her mother. 2hus, )ickeys
$lea that he was effectively $ardoned must fail.