Total Score: 48/60

Prob 1: Score: 3/5

The criminal complaint for Concubinage against Delfin will not prosper
There are only three acts punished as concubinage to wit: (1) a man married keeps
his mistress in the conjugal dwelling; (2) he has sexual intercourse with a woman
not his wife under scandalous circumstance; (3) he cohabits with his concubine in
any other place. Another essential element here is the knowledge of the woman
that the man is married . For the third act punishable, the cohabitation should refer
to the dwelling together of the married man and the woman as if they are actual
husband and wife for some period of time. This should be distinguished from the
mere occasional, transient interviews of the offenders for an unlawful intercourse.
Thus, in the case at bar, the act of Delfin and Delilah in regularly meeting for twice a
week and for only 2 hours does not constitute cohabitation. Neither is their act
falling under the first and second punishable acts as concubinage. Therefore, the
criminal complaint for concubinage will not prosper.

Problem 2: Score: 3/5

Simulation of birth was the crime committed in the case at bar.
The essence of this crime is the creation of a false civil status of a child. Thus, the
act of causing the names of Elmer and Esperanza to be entered in the birth
certificate of the child as the latters parents constitutes the simulation of birth and
the creation of a false civil status of the child which is punishable under the RPC.

Problem 3: Score : 0/5

Problem 4: Score: 4/5

No, Guillermos contention is not tenable.
The crimes in which certain persons may be exempt from criminal liability are
limited to theft, swindling(estafa), and malicious mischief. Under these crimes, if the
offender is the spouse, ascendant or descendant or a widowed spouse with respect
to the property of the deceased spouse before the ownership of the property was
transferred, or brothers, sisters, brothers in law or sisters in law, if living together ,
then he is exempt from criminal liability.

In the case at bar, the crime committed by Guillermo was robbery. Despite the fact
that he is the brother of Gerardo and he lives with him in one house, Guillermo
cannot avail of this absolutory cause because the crime involved does not fall within
the scope of the rule.

Problem 5: Score: 4/5

The crime committed by Hernando and Honesto is murder qualified by evident
premeditation.
There is murder when a person kills another under the following attending
circumstances: treachery,abuse of superior strength,by a band,evident
premeditation,in consideration of a price or reward, cruelty, by fire, poison or
explosion and such other circumstance mentioned in the Revised Penal Code.
Thus, the killing of Herminio attended by evident premeditation as evidenced by the
act of surveillance for more than a month constitutes murder. As regards the taking
through threat and intimidation of the victim and the fact that he was kept for 3
days , although appearing to constitute as kidnapping and serious illegal detention,
cannot alone consummate such crime. The gravamen of the crime of kidnapping is
the actual confinement of the victim or the intent to deprive him of liberty. Where
there is no appreciable time between the taking and the killing of the victim, the
intent to deprive the latter of liberty cannot be presumed. In the case at bar, the
lapse of time is considered necessary for the offenders to transfer Herminio from
Baguio to La Union.
Problem 6: Score: 4/5
If I were the Judge, I will convict Ismael for Rape.
Jurisprudentially, the Supreme Court has decided that in cases of incestuous rape
whereby the accused is related to the victim as the latters ascendant, the element
of force is substituted by moral ascendancy. Thus, the force required when accused
is a stranger is not of such mature in case of incestuous rape.
There being moral ascendancy from the fact that Ismael was the father of the raped
victim, his contention that force as an element is wanting is untenable. Ismael
should be convicted for the crime of rape.

Problem 7: Score: 3/5

Jomar committed the crime of grave threats with respect to Jaime and the crime of
usurpation of Real Property as regards Joselito.

Grave threat is committed by any person who shall threaten to inflict upon the
person, honor, or property of another or his family of a wrong amounting to a crime
and shall impose a condition. Jomar threatened to commit homicide against Jaime
subject to the condition that he must leave the parcel of land. The crime of Grave
threats is therefore committed.
On the other hand, usurpation of real property takes place when a person takes the
real property of another without the consent of the owner. In the instant case, Jomar
occupied the land owned by Joselito without the latters consent thereby making
him guilty of usurpation or occupation of real property.

Problem 8: Score: 4/5

Kenneth committed the crime of parricide with unintentional abortion.
Parricide is committed when a person kills another who is his father, mother, or
child whether legitimate or illegitimate, or spouse, ascendant or descendant. In
boxing his wife resulting to the latters death, Kenneth committed parricide , the
relationship being the essential element of the crime.
Unintentional abortion is also committed when Kenneth employed violence on his
pregnant wife , without any intention for an abortion resulting to the death of the
fetus in the maternal womb or upon expulsion therefrom.
These two crimes are complexed because the single act of the accused resulted to
two grave or less grave felonies. In the instant case, the single act of inflicting
physical violence upon the wife , Kenneth committed Parricide and unintentional
abortion.

Problem 9: Score: 3/5

Leandro and Lolita committed the crime of Concubinage, provided Lolita has
knowledge that Leandro is a married man before the celebration of their marriage in
Las Vegas, Nevada.
The act of cohabiting as husband and wife by a married man and a woman not his
wife in any place is punished as concubinage. Therefore, Leandro and Lolita, living
together as husband and wife, in the Philippines are guilty or liable thereof. Also ,
under the Family Code, a divorce secured abroad by a Filipino abroad is likewise null
and void. Therefore, the marriage contracted by Leonardo with Lolita after the
divorce is likewise null and void. Such marriage therefore, does not satisfy the
element of a valid marriage to be prosecuted for bigamy.

Problem 10: Score: 3/10

The contention of Mayor Mariano is meritorious.
The usurpation of legislative powers under Article 239 of RPC is committed by an
Executive or Judicial officer encroaches upon the power of the legislative branch by
making rules and regulations or by attempting to repeal a law or suspended the
implementation thereof. However, the legislative branch being referred to in law is
the Congress. The Sanguniang Bayan, the legislative body of the municipality ,
therefore is not what is being contemplated under Art. 239. Mayor Mariano , thus,
cannot be held criminally liable for usurping legislative powers.

Problem 11: Score: 5/5

The crime committed by Governor Numeriano Is Technical Malversation or Illegal
use of Public Funds or Property
This crime Is committed by any public officer who uses public funds or property
under his administration for public use other than that for which such public fund or
property is appropriated by law or ordinance.
In the instant case, the fund of P3M is allotted as calamity funds. Therefore, the use
thereof as cash gift for hardworking employees is tantamount to the
misappropriation of the public fund. Such is punished as technical malversation and
the Governor is therefore liable.

Problem 12(A) Differences between B.P 22 and estafa under the RPC in connection
with the issuance of checks
Problem 12(B) Differences between slight, less serious and serious physical injuries.