BAR (Title VIII - X)

Question 1

Sixteen year old Aliswan prodded Ametyst, his girlfriend, to remove her clothing while they were secretly together in her bedroom late one evening. Failing to get a positive response from her, he forcibly undressed her. Apprehensive about rousing the attention of the household who did not know of his presence inside her room, she resisted him with minimal strength, but she was really sobbing in a muffled manner. He then undressed himself while blocking the door. Yet, the image of a hapless and sobbing Amethyst soon brought him to his senses, and impelled him to leave her room naked. He did not notice in his hurry that Amante, the father of Amethyst, who was then sitting alone on a sofa in the sala, saw him leave his daughter’s room naked.

Outside the house, the now-clothed Aliswan spotted Allesso, Amethyst’s former suitor. Knowing how Allesso had aggressively pursued Amethyst, Aliswan fatally stabbed Allesso. Aliswan immediately went into hiding afterwards.

Upon learning from Amethyst about what Aliswan had done to her, an enraged Amante wanted to teach Aliswan a lesson he would never forget. Amante (father) set out the next day to look for Aliswan in his school. There, Amante found a young man who looked very much like Aliswan. Amante immediately rushed and knocked the young man unconscious on the pavement, and then draped his body with a prepared tarpaulin reading RAPIST AKO HUWAG TULARAN. Everyone else in the school was shocked upon witnessing what had just transpired, unable to believe that the timid and quiet Alisto, Aliswan’s identical twin brother, had committed rape. (2017 Bar Question)

A) A criminal complaint for attempted rape with homicide was brought against Aliswan in the Prosecutor’s Office. However, after preliminary investigation, the Investigating Prosecutor recommended the filing of two separate informations – one for attempted rape and the other for homicide. Do you agree with the recommendation? Explain your answer.

B) Before the trial court, Aliswan(bf) moved that the cases should be dismissed because he was entitled to the exempting circumstance of minority. Is his motion correct? Explain your answer.

C) After receiving medical attendance for 10 days, Alisto(brother) consulted you about filing the proper criminal complaint against Amante. What crimes, if any, will you charge Amante with? Explain your answer.

D) Answering the criminal complaint filed by Alisto, Amante contended that he had incurred no criminal liability for lack of criminal intent on his part, his intended victim being Aliswan, not Alisto. What is this defense of Amante, and explain if the same will prosper?

Answer 1

Yes, I agree with the separate charges. Art 48 on complex crimes covers a single act that resulted in two felonies (grave or less grave) or 2 crimes where the first crime is a necessary crime to commit the other. In this case, it is appropriate that the charges were separate as they were distinct insofar as the victims are concerned

[B]
No. His age of 16 does not exonerate him from criminal liability however is a mitigating circumstance as he is below 18 years of age

[C]
Less serious physical injuries as he received medical attendance for 10 days.
Abuse of Superior Strength as aggravating circumstance

[D]
His defense is error in personae however it will not prosper. The crime of less serious physical injuries is a mala prohibita so intent is irrelevant.

=================================
(A)
I disagree with the charge of attempted rape, while I agree on the separate crime of homicide.

I do not agree with the charge of attempted rape because of the failure to show that Aliswan had done acts to have sex with Amethyst. Undressing the victim with lewd design merely constitutes acts of lasciviousness [People v. Sanico, (G.R. No. 208469, Aug. 13, 2014)].

I agree with the separate charge of homicide because the homicide is not even connected with the acts of lasciviousness. Homicide was committed motivated by a personal grudge of Aliswan against Alesso, which has no link to the crime of acts of lasciviousness against Amethyst.

(B)
Since Aliswan’s age is above 15 but below 18, the exempting circumstance of minority shall be appreciated in his favor unless it is shown that he acted with discernment. (RA9344)

(C)
Amante shall be charged with Less Serious Physical Injuries under Art. 265 of the Revised Penal Code because he needed medical attendance for a period of ten (10) days only.

However, the circumstance of adding IGNOMINY to the offense shall be appreciated because the injuries were inflicted [to insult or offend] the offended party.

(D)
The defense raised by Amante is error in personae. This defense is not proper because of [Article 4] of the Revised Penal Code, which provides that a person committing a felony is liable criminally although the wrongful act done be different from unlawful intent.

Thus, under this provision, Amante is liable for the wrongful act done, and that is child abuse against Alisto, although it differs from the wrongful act intended, and that is abusing Aliswan.

Question 2

If the slightest penetration of the female genitalia consummates Rape by Carnal Knowledge, how does the accused commit Attempted Rape by Carnal Knowledge? (2017 Bar Question)

Answer 2

A person is liable for attempted rape by carnal knowledge if he strokes his erected penis on the labia of the victim’s sexual organ but is short of slight penetration.

[suggested answer]
To be held liable for attempted rape by carnal knowledge the acts must be committed with clear intention to have sexual intercourse, [but the penis of the accused must NOT touch the labia (of) the pudendum of the victim.

Intent is present when the [erectile] penis of the accused is in the position to penetrate

OR

intent is present when the accused actually commenced to [force his penis into] the victim’s sexual organ.

Question 3

Why is there no crime of frustrated serious physical injuries? (2017 Bar Question)

Answer 3

The crime of Serious Physical Injuries is a formal crime consummated by a single act. Once the injuries are inflicted, the offense is consummated.

Question 4

Jojo and Felipa are husband and wife. Believing that his work as a lawyer is sufficient to provide for the needs of their family, Jojo convinced Felipa to be a stay- at-home mom and care for their children. One day, Jojo arrived home earlier than usual and caught Felipa in the act of having sexual intercourse with their [female] nanny, Alma, in their matrimonial bed. In a fit of rage, Jojo retrieved his revolver from inside the bedroom cabinet and shot Alma, immediately killing her. (2016 Bar Question)

A) Is Art. 247 (death or physical injuries inflicted under exceptional circumstances) of the Revised Penal Code applicable in this case given that the paramour was of the same gender as the erring spouse?

B) Is Felipa liable for adultery for having sexual relations with Alma?

Answer 4

[A]
Yes, what is provided is that the spouse will have sexual intercourse with another person and makes no distinction whether it is a male or female.

[B]
No, Felipa is not liable for adultery as adultery defined is a spouse having sexual intercourse with anyone of the opposite gender.

[suggested answers]
(A)
No, Article. 247 of the Revised Penal Code is not applicable because the offender must catch his or her spouse in the act of committing sexual intercourse with another person.

Sexual intercourse presupposes the penetration of the man’s sexual organ into that of a woman’s. In this case, the [paramour was of the same gender] as the erring spouse. As such, there is legally, no sexual intercourse to speak of, hence, Art. 247 is not applicable

(B)
No. Under Article 333 of the Revised Penal Code, adultery is committed by any married woman who shall have sexual intercourse with a “man” NOT her husband.

Thus, Felipa, in having homosexual intercourse with Alma, a “woman”, is NOT committing adultery.

Question 5

Lina worked as a housemaid and yaya of the [one-week old son] of the spouses John and Joana. When Lina learned that her 70-year old mother was seriously ill, she asked John for a cash advance of P20,000.00, but the latter refused. In anger, Lina gagged the mouth of the child with stockings, placed him in a box, sealed it with masking tape, and placed the box in the attic. Lina then left the house and asked her friend Fely to demand a P20,000.00 ransom for the release of the spouses’ child to be paid within twenty-four hours. The spouses did not pay the ransom. After a couple of days, John discovered the box in the attic with his child already dead. According to the autopsy report, the child died of asphyxiation barely minutes after the box was sealed.

What crime or crimes, if any, did Lina and Fely commit? Explain. (2016 Bar Question)

Answer 5

murder, qualified illegal detention

Lina committed the crime of murder and not infanticide. Infanticide is the unlawful killing of a child not more than three days of age by the parents, grandparents, or stranger. In this case, the child was already 7 days of age thereby making the crime murder; the attendant circumstance is treachery

Lina also committed illegal detention evidenced when the child was deprived of his liberty in spite being but a child which is further evidenced with the demand for ransom.

Insofar as Fely is concerned, she incurs no criminal liability. However, had she known and agree to the plans of Lina, she would have been liable as principal.

[suggested answer]
Lina is liable for murder committed by killing the child qualified by the circumstance of treachery. She took advantage of the child’s tender age.

• Killing a child of tender age is held to be attended by treachery.

Fely is not liable for any crime. Fely did not participate in the actual killing of the child, and it was not shown that there is conspiracy nor community of design to commit murder since her criminal intention pertains to kidnapping for ransom. Moreover, her participation of demanding ransom for the release of the child is not connected to murder. Mens rea without actus reus is not a crime.

note
Lina is NOT guilty of kidnapping with murder because the child was not deprived of liberty. The child was essentially not deprived of liberty. The demand for ransom did not convert the offense into kidnapping. The demand for ransom is only a part of the diabolic scheme of the defendant to murder the child, to conceal his body and then demand money before the discovery of the cadaver.

Question 6

The Regional Trial Court (RTC) found Tiburcio guilty of [frustrated homicide] and sentenced him to an indeterminate penalty of four years and one day of prision correccional as minimum, to eight years of prision mayor as maximum, and ordered him to pay actual damages in the amount of P25,000.00.

Tiburcio appealed to the Court of Appeals which sustained his conviction as well as the penalty imposed by the court a quo. After sixty days, the Court of Appeals issued an Entry of Judgment and remanded the records of the case to the RTC.

Three days thereafter, Tiburcio died of heart attack. Atty. Abdul, Tiburcio’s counsel, filed before the RTC a Manifestation with Motion to Dismiss, informing the court that Tiburcio died already, and claiming that his criminal liability had been extinguished by his demise. (2015 Bar Question)

A) Should the RTC grant the Motion to Dismiss the case? Explain.

B) Assuming that Tiburcio’s death occurred before the Court of Appeals rendered its decision, will you give a different answer? Explain.

Answer 6

[A]
Yes the RTC may grant the motion to dismiss the case. In the event that the accused dies on judgment pending appeal, he no longer has criminal liability simply because of the reason that he has ceased. However, a separate civil action for recovery of damages can be demanded on the heirs of the accused.

[B]
Yes, my answer will be the same.

[suggested answer]
(A)
The [RTC] may NOT grant the motion to dismiss because the CA already issued an [Entry of Judgment and the decision has become final and executory].

However, the pecuniary penalty, such as the civil liability arising from the crime consisting of actual damages of P25,000, survives the death of Tiburcio.

(B)
Yes. The RTC decision must be set aside and the case against Tiburcio must consequently be dismissed. The demise of Tiburcio which occurred [before] the Court of Appeals rendered its decision causes his criminal liability, as well as his civil liability ex delicto, to be TOTALLY extinguished inasmuch as there is no longer a defendant to stand as the accused, the civil action is instituted therein for recovery of civil liability ex delicto is ipso facto (by the fact itself) extinguished, grounded/provided as it is on the criminal case.

Question 7

there are so many questions in the pdf file that i think it’s best that I should read over all of them so i can have exposure to them and have the mastery later if I have the time.

Answer 7

thankfully, i need not to go back to my cards for review.

Question 8

A, B and C are members of SFC Fraternity. While eating in a seaside restaurant, they were
attacked by X, Y and Z, members of a rival fraternity. A rumble ensued in which the abovenamed
members of the two fraternities assaulted each other in a confused and tumultuous manner
resulting in the death of A. As it cannot be ascertained who actually killed A, the members of the
two fraternities who took part in the rumble were charged for death caused in a tumultuous affray.
Will the charge prosper? Explain.

Answer 8

No, the charge of death caused in a tumultuous affray will not prosper because the persons involved in this
case composed groups organized for the common purpose of assaulting and attacking each other
reciprocally.

The killer of A, a member of SFC Fraternity could not be any other but member of the rival fraternity.
Conspiracy is therefore present among the attackers form the rival fraternity and thus rules out the idea of an affray. The liability of the attackers should be collective for the crime of [homicide or murder] as the case may be.

Question 9

A) TCharlie hated his classmate, Brad, because the latter was assiduously courting Lily, Charlie’s girlfriend. Charlie went to a veterinarian and asked for some poison on the pretext that it would be used to kill a very sick, old dog. Actually, Charlie intended to use the poison on Brad. The veterinarian mistakenly gave Charlie a non-toxic powder which, when mixed with Brad’s food, did not kill Brad. Would your answer be the same if Brad proved to be allergic to the powder, and after ingesting it with his food, fell ill and was hospitalized for ten (10) days?

Answer 9

No, the answer would not be the same. Charlie would be criminally liable for less serious physical injuries because his act of mixing the powder with Brad’s food was done with felonious intent and was the proximate cause of Brad’s illness for 10 days.

Question 10

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

if any, did Wenceslao commit? Explain.

Answer 10

false keys
SCC rape with homicide
theft

[suggested answer]

(1) the special complex crime of rape with homicide because his act of having carnal knowledge of Loretta
against her will and with the use of force and violence constituted rape, and death of Loreta was by
reason or on the occasion of the rape;

(2) theft because the taking of jewelry is a mere afterthought; and

(3) unlawful possession of picklocks and similar tools under Art. 304 of the Revised Penal Code, because
of his possession and use of the picklock <without lawful cause.=

Question 11

> Would your answer to [a] [above] be the same if, despite the serious stab wounds she sustained, Loretta survived? Explain. (2009 Bar Question)

Answer 11

(1) rape;
(2) frustrated homicide or murder;
(3) theft; and
(4) unlawful possession and use of picklocks under Art. 304 of the Revised Penal Code.

The special complex crime of rape with homicide is constituted only when both of them are consummated

Question 12

SCC in the RPC (some)

Answer 12

(1) robbery with homicide,
(2) robbery with rape,
(3) kidnapping with serious physical injuries,
(4) kidnapping with murder or homicide, and
(5) rape with homicide.

Question 13

Roger, the leader of a crime syndicate in Malate, Manila, demanded the payment by Antonio, the owner of a motel in that area, of P10,000 a month as “protection money”. With the monthly payment, Roger assured, the syndicate would provide protection to Antonio, his business, and his employees. Should Antonio refuse, Roger warned, the motel owner would either be killed or his establishment destroyed. Antonio refused to pay the protection money. Days later, at round 3:00 in the morning, Mauro, a member of the criminal syndicate, arrived at Antonio’s home and hurled a grenade into an open window of the bedroom where Antonio, his wife and their 3-year-old daughter were sleeping. All three of them were killed instantly when the grenade exploded. State, with reason, the crime or crimes that had been committed as well as the aggravating circumstances, if any, attendant thereto. (2008 Bar Question)

Answer 13

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Roger and Mauro conspired to commit the crime of murder qualified by treachery, with the use of means involving great waste and ruin. In this case, Mauro is liable as a principal by [direct participation] by using a grenade and hurled into an open window of the victim’s bedroom.

Killing the victims while they were sleeping and in no position to defend themselves, is a treacherous act (People v. Aguilar, 88 Phil 693, 1951).

The following are the aggravating circumstances:

(1) Treachery (Art. 14 of the Revised Penal Code)
(2) Special Aggravating Circumstances: (a)Sec. 3, R.A. 8294 – when a person commits any of the crime under the RPC or special laws with the use of explosive, etc. and alike incendiary devices which resulted in the death of any person. (b) Art. 23, R.A. 7659 – organized/syndicated crime group.

Question 14

Eddie brought his son Randy to a local faith healer known as “Mother Himala.” He was diagnosed by the faith healer as being possessed by an evil spirit. Eddie thereupon authorized the conduct of a “treatment” calculated to drive the spirit from the boy’s body. Unfortunately, the procedure conducted resulted in the boy’s death.
The faith healer and tree others who were part of the healing ritual were charged with murder and convicted by the lower court. If you are appellate court Justice, would you sustain the conviction upon appeal? Explain your answer. (2007 Bar Question)

Answer 14

SUGGESTED ANSWER: No, the conviction of murder should not be sustained because there was no intent kill. The intent of the accused, on the contrary is to treat Randy of his illness. However, considering that proximate cause of Randy’s death is the ritual, accused may be held criminally liable for Reckless Imprudence Resulting in Homicide.

Question 15

During a concert of Gary V. and in order to prevent the crowd from rushing to the stage, Rafael Padilla (a security guard) pointed his gun at the onrush of people. When the crowd still pushed forward, Rafael fired his gun into air to scare them off. However, the bullet hit one of the metal roof supports, ricocheted and then hit one of the stage crew members, causing injuries which resulted in the latter’s confinement in a hospital for twelve days. What crime/s did Rafael commit?

Explain your answer. (2007 Bar Question)

Answer 15

[suggested answer]
Rafael is guilty of Simple Negligence Resulting in Less Serious Physical Injuries because the physical injuries, which required only twelve (12) days of medical attention resulting therefrom, shows a lack of precaution in a situation where the danger to the discharge of the firearm is not clearly manifest.

Moreover, since the discharge of the firearm was to ward off the unruly crowd, and NOT to cause alarms or was not directed to a particular person, it is neither Alarms and Scandal under Art. 155 NOR Illegal Discharge of Firearms under Art. 254 of the Revised Penal Code.

Question 16

Angelino, a Filipino, is a transgender who underwent gender reassignment and had implants in different parts of her body. She changed her name to Angelina and 
was a finalist in the Miss Gay International. She came back to the Philippines and while she was walking outside her home, she was abducted by Max and Razzy who took her to a house in the province. She was then placed in a room and Razzy forced her to have sex with him at knife’s point. After the act, it dawned upon Razzy that Angelina is actually a male. Incensed, Razzy called Max to help him beat Angelina. The beatings that Angelina received eventually caused her death. What crime or crimes, if any, were committed? Explain. (2016 Bar Question)

Answer 16

Razzy is liable for kidnapping with homicide. [Since Angelino was killed in the course of the detention], the crime constitutes kidnapping with homicide under Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code.

The abduction of Angelino could NOT be forcible abduction since the victim must be a woman.
Similarly, there is no rape through sexual intercourse since Angelino remains to be male.

There is also NO rape through sexual assault because Razzy neither inserted his penis into the anal orifice or mouth of Angelino nor another instrument or object into anal orifice or genital orifice.

The act constitutes acts of lasciviousness under Article 336 which was committed by reason or occasion of kidnapping. Thus, it will be integrated into one and indivisible felony of kidnapping with homicide

Max is liable for kidnapping with homicide as an accomplice since he concurred in the criminal design of Razzy in depriving Angelino his liberty and supplied the former material aid in an efficacious way by helping him beat the latter

Question 17

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

What crime/s did A, B, and C commit, and what modifying circumstances attended the commission of the crime/s

Answer 17

A, B, and C, in conspiracy, committed the crime of robbery with homicide under Article 294 of the Revised Penal Code because the criminal design was to rob Mr. D, and was attended by a [killing on the occasion of the robbery].

Even if said death is accidental, the crime is still robbery with homicide because the killing took place on occasion of the robbery.

The aggravating circumstance of dwelling is present because the crime was committed inside the dwelling of the offended party who has not given the any provocation.

Question 18

Mildred was seized at gun point by Felipe and taken on board a tricycle to a house some distance away.

Felipe was with Julio, Roldan, and Lucio, who drove the tricycle.

At the house, Felipe, Julio, and Roldan succeeded in having sexual intercourse with Mildred against her will and under the threat of Felipe’s gun. Lucio was not around when the sexual assaults took place as he left after bringing his colleagues and Mildred to their destination, but he returned every day to bring food and the news in town about Mildred’s disappearance. For five days, Felipe, Julio and Roldan kept Mildred in the house and took turns in sexually assaulting her. On the 6th day, Mildred managed to escape; she proceeded immediately to the nearest police station and narrated her ordeal.

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

Answer 18

forcible abduction with rape (felipe)
qualified simple rape (julio & roldan)
principal by indispensable cooperation of forcible abduction with rape (lucio)

[suggested answer]
Felipe, Julio, Roldan and Lucio are ALL liable for the SCC of Kidnapping and Serious Illegal Detention with Rape.

In a special complex crime of Kidnapping with Rape, the resultant crime is only one kidnapping and serious illegal detention with rape regardless of the number of rapes committed.

As to the degree of their participation, Felipe, Julio, Roldan and Lucio are all liable as principals. There was implied conspiracy as they acted toward a single criminal design or purpose.

Although Lucio was not around when the sexual assaults took place, there is complicity on his part as he was the one who drove the tricycle at the time the victim was seized and he returned every day to bring food and news to his conspirators.

Question 19

A widower of ten years, septuagenarian Canuto felt that he had license to engage in voyeurism. If not peeping into his neighbors’ rooms through his powerful single-cylinder telescope, he would trail young, shapely damsels along the hallways of shopping malls. While going up the escalator, he stayed a step behind a mini-skirted one, and in a moment of excitement, put his hand on her left hip and massaged it. The damsel screamed and hollered for help. Canuto was apprehended and brought up on inquest. What charge/s, if any, may he be held responsible for? Explain

Answer 19

Canuto may be held liable only for the milder crime of <unjust vexation= which is a form of light coercion
under Art. 287 of the Revised Penal Code.

Holding the hip of a person is not per se lascivious but undoubtedly annoys, irritates, and vexed the young
offended party.

Question 20

Virgilio, armed with a gun, stopped a van along a major thoroughfare in Manila, pointed the gun at the driver and shouted: “Tigil! Kidnap ito!” Terrified, the driver, Juanito, stopped the van and allowed Virgilio to board. Inside the van were Jeremias, a 6-year-old child, son of a multi-millionaire, and Daday, the child’s nanny. Virgilio told Juanito to drive to a deserted place, and there, ordered the driver to alight. Before Juanito was allowed to go, Virgilio instructed him to tell Jeremias’ parents that unless they give a ransom of P10-million within two (2) days, Jeremias would be beheaded. Daday was told to remain in the van and take care of Jeremias until the ransom is paid. Virgilio then drove the van to his safehouse. What crime or crimes, if any, did Virgilio commit? Explain. (2009 Bar Question)

Answer 20

The crime committed against Jeremias, the 6-year-old child, is Kidnapping [with] Serious Illegal Detention under Art. 267(4) of the Revised Penal Code. The criminal intent of Virgilio is to deprive Jeremias his liberty to demand ransom. Whether or not the ransom was eventually obtained will not affect the crime committed because the demand for ransom is not an element of the crime; it only qualifies the penalty to death but the imposition of the penalty is now prohibited by Rep. Act. No. 9346.

As to Daday, the nanny of the child who was told to remain in the van and take care of the child until the ransom is paid, the crime committed by Virgilio is Serious Illegal Detention because the offended party deprived of liberty is a female (Art. 267, par.4, RPC).

Virgilio committed Grave Coercion (Art. 286, RPC) for seriously intimidating the driver with a gun pointed at him to drive to a deserted place.

Question 21

What crime is committed by a capataz who enrolls two fictitious names in the payroll and collects their supposed daily wages every payday?

Answer 21

The crime committed is Estafa through Falsification of Public Documents. A capataz is a foreman for the government and since the falsification of the public document is committed as a means to commit estafa, the proper charge is estafa through falsification of public documents.

Question 22

Val, a Nigerian, set up a perfume business in the Philippines. The investors would buy the raw materials at a low price from Val. The raw materials consisted of powders, which the investors would mix with water and let stand until a gel was formed. Val made a written commitment to the investors that he would buy back the gel at a higher price, thus assuring the investors of a neat profit. When the amounts
to be paid by Val to the investors reached millions of pesos, he sold all the equipment of his perfume business, absconded with the money, and is nowhere to be found. 
What crime or crimes were committed, if any? Explain. (2016 Bar Question)

Answer 22

The crime committed is estafa through false pretenses (Art. 315 par. 2(a)) was committed.

Val defrauded the investors by falsely pretending to possess business or imaginary transactions. The fact that he sold all the equipment of his perfume business and absconded with the money when the amounts to be paid by him to the investors reached millions of pesos shows that his business or the transactions are imaginary, and he defrauded the victims.

Question 23

Domingo is the caretaker of two (2) cows and two (2) horses owned by Hannibal. Hannibal told Domingo to lend the cows to Tristan on the condition that
the latter(T) will give a goat to the former(H) when the cows are returned.

Instead, Tristan sold the cows and pocketed the money.

Due to the neglect of Domingo, one of the horses was stolen. Knowing that he will be blamed for the loss, Domingo slaughtered
the other horse, got the meat, and sold it to Pastor. He later reported to Hannibal that
the two horses were stolen.
(2016 Bar Question)

A) What crime or crimes, if any, did Tristan commit? Explain.

B) What crime or crimes, if any, were committed by Domingo? Explain.

Answer 23

Tristan – estafa with abuse of confidence (mgop by virtue of an obligation to return the same)
Domingo – qualified theft (intent to gain qualified by the horses lost

[suggested answer]
Tristan is liable for Estafa through Misappropriation under Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code. He received the cows under obligation to return the same thing, and acquired legal or juridical possession in so doing, being a commodatum (gratuitous loan of movable property to be used and returned), and when he sold the cows as if he owned it, constitutes misappropriation or conversion.

[Domingo]
Although Tristan received the horse with the consent of the owner Hannibal, his possession is merely physical or de facto. Slaughtering the horse, and selling its meat to Pastor shall be considered as taking without consent of the owner with intent to gain. Since the horse is accessible to him, the theft is qualified by the circumstance of abuse of confidence.

cattle - which includes cows and horses,

Question 24

ora gave Elen several pieces of jewelry for sale on commission basis. They agreed that Elen would remit the proceeds of the sale and return the unsold items to Dora within sixty days. The period expired without Elen remitting the proceeds of the sale or returning the pieces of jewelry. Dora [demanded by phone] that Elen turn over the proceeds of the sale and return the unsold pieces of jewelry. Elen promised to do so the following day.

Elen still failed to make good on her promise but instead issued post-dated checks.

Thereafter, Dora made several more demands, the [last of which was in writing], but they were all unheeded.

When the checks were deposited in Dora’s bank account, the checks were returned unpaid for insufficient funds. Elen was charged with estafa and violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22. Will the charges against Elen prosper? Explain.

Answer 24

Yes, the charges will prosper. Elen committed Estafa through Misappropriation punished under Art. 315, par. 1(b) of the Revised Penal Code because
- she received the pieces of jewelry on [commission], for the purpose of selling, and remitting to Dora the proceeds thereof, and failed to return or remit the same lapse of the period agreed upon.

Elen’s failure to return within within such period agreed upon is a presumption of [misappropriation] of the jewelry. Thus, there would be no more need to present any act of misappropriation.

In issuing the unfunded checks, Elen is also liable for several counts of violation of Batas Pambansa Blg.
22 or the Bouncing Checks Law

Question 25

Dela convinced Nita to work in Taiwan, promising Nita that she would take care of the processing of the necessary documents. Dela collected P120,000.00 from Nita purportedly for the processing of her papers. Upon receipt of the money, Nita was made to accomplish certain forms and was told that she would be deployed to Taiwan within one month. After one month, Nita followed up on her application. Dela made some excuses and told Nita that the deployment would be delayed. Another month passed and Dela made other excuses which made Nita suspicious. Nita later discovered that Dela was not licensed to recruit. Nita confronted Dela and demanded the return of her money. Dela promised to return the same in a week’s time. (2015 Bar Question

A) A week later, Dela was nowhere to be found. What crime(s) did Dela commit? Explain.
B) Will your answer still be the same, assuming that the promise to deploy for employment abroad was made by Dela to Celia, Digna and Emma, in addition to Nita, and from whom Dela also collected the same amount of processing fee? Explain.

Answer 25

estafa through false pretenses

A) The separate crimes of estafa through falsification of public documents and illegal recruitment were committed by Dela. In this case, Dela defrauded Nita by leading her to believe that she has the capacity to send her to Taiwan for work, even though she does not have a license or authority for the purpose. Such misrepresentation came before Nita gave Dela P120,000.00 for the processing of her papers. Clearly, Nita would not have parted with her money were it not for such enticement by Dela. As a consequence of Dela’s false pretenses, Nita suffered damages as the promised employment abroad never materialized and the money she paid was never recovered.

B) Yes, Dela shall be liable for both Estafa under Par 2(a) of Art. 315 of the RPC and Illegal Recruitment, but in large-scale. Illegal recruitment is deemed committed in large scale if committed against 3 or more persons individually or as a group. In this case there are at least 3 victims, Cela, Digna, Emma, and Nita.

Question 26

Bruno, a taxi driver, had an indebtedness in the sum of Pl0,000.00 which would become due in one week. He was starting to worry because he still had not raised the amount to pay for his debt. Every day, he had prayed for divine intervention. One night, while returning the taxi to the garage, he found a wallet on the back seat. Inspecting it, he learned that it contained exactly Pl0,000.00 cash, the amount of his obligation, and IDs. Thinking it was divine intervention, and that his prayers were answered, he took the money and used it to pay his debt. (2015 Bar Question)

A) What crime, if any, did Bruno commit? Explain.

B) Assuming that instead of using the money, Bruno turned over the wallet and its contents to the nearby police station, and it was the chief of police of that station who appropriated the money for his own benefit, what crime was committed by the chief of police? Explain.

Answer 26

elements of theft (unlawful taking of another’s property with intent to gain without violation or intimidation or force upon thigngs

B) The chief of police is liable for theft. Although he is not the one who found the property, he is considered as [finder] in law since the property was surrendered to him by the actual finder

Question 27

Madam X, a bank teller, received from depositor Madam Y a check payable to cash in the amount of P1 million, to be deposited to the account of Madam Y. Because the check was not a crossed check, Madam X credited the amount to the account of her good friend, Madam W, by accomplishing a deposit slip. Seven (7) days after, Madam X contacted her good friend, Madam W and told her that the amount of P1 million was wrongfully credited to Madam W, thus, Madam X urged Madam W to withdraw the amount of P1 million from her account and to turn over the same to Madam X. As a dutiful friend, Madam W readily acceded. She was gifted by Madam X with an expensive Hermes bag after the withdrawal of the amount. What crime/s, if any, did Madam X and Madam W commit? Explain. (2014 Bar Question)

Answer 27

Madam X shall be liable as principal in the crime of qualified theft committed with grave abuse of confidence defined and punishable under Article 310 of the Revised Penal Code. Being a bank teller, she had only the physical possession, not juridical possession of the money received by her. Consequently, her subsequent misappropriation of the same shall constitute the crime of theft, qualified with grave abuse of confidence.

Receiving an expensive Hermes bag from Madam X will NOT make Madam W liable as an accessory since
the latter has no actual knowledge of the commission of the crime of theft by the former and the bag
cannot be considered as the effects of the crime since there is no showing that the money withdrawn was used in buying it.

Question 28

Malo, a clerk of court of a trial court, promised the accused in a drug case pending before the court, that he would convince the judge to acquit him for a consideration of P5 million. The accused agreed and delivered the money, through his lawyer, to the clerk of court. The judge, not knowing of the deal, proceeded to rule on the evidence and convicted the accused.

B) Malo was charged with estafa under Article 315 because he misrepresented that he had influence, when he actually had none. Is the charge correct?

Answer 28

Yes, the charge is correct. Estafa is committed by any person who shall ask money from another for the alleged purpose of bribing a government employee when in truth the offender intended to convert the money for his own personal use and benefit.

Question 29

Mr. Ed, purchased several plumbing materials in the total amount of P5 million. Mr. Benjie readily accepted Mr. Ed’s payment of three (3) postdated checks in the amount of P1 million Pesos each. Mr. Benjie, as a consequence, immediately delivered the materials to the house of Mr. Ed.

The following day, Mr. Ed went back to Mr. Benjie to tender another two (2) postdated checks in the amount of P1 million each to complete the payment, with the same assurance that the checks will be honored upon presentment for payment.

When the checks were presented for payment, all were dishonored for insufficiency of funds and corresponding notices of dishonor were sent and received by Mr. Ed. One month after receipt of the notices of dishonor, Mr. Ed failed to make good the checks.

Discuss the criminal liability, if any, of Mr. Ed

Answer 29

Mr. Ed is liable of one (1) count of Estafa under Article 315(2)(d) for the issuance of the first 3 checks because he issued them simultaneously with the transaction in order to defraud another. The 2 other checks were issued in payment of a pre-existing obligation, and therefore, estafa is not committed.

Mr. Ed is also liable of (5) counts of violation of BP Blg. 22 for the issuance of the 5 checks which were dishonored for insufficiency of funds. The gravamen of BP 22 is the issuance of a worthless or bum check; deceit/fraud is not an element.

Question 30

Mr. Gray opened a savings account with Bank A with an initial deposit of P50,000.00. A few days later, he deposited a check for P200,000.00 drawn from Bank B and endorsed by Mr. White. Ten days later, Mr. Gray withdrew the P200,000.00 from his account. Mr. White later complained to Bank B when the amount of P200,000.00 was later debited from his account, as he did not issue the check and his signature thereon was forged. Mr. Gray subsequently deposited another check signed by Mr. White for P200,000.00, which amount he later withdrew. Upon receiving the amount, Mr. Gray was arrested by agents of the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI). Mr. Gray was convicted of estafa and attempted estafa, both through the use of commercial documents. (2014 Bar Question)

A) Mr. Gray claims as defense that, except for Mr. White’s claim of forgery, there was no evidence showing that he was the author of the forgery and Mr. White did not suffer any injuries as to the second check (attempted estafa). Rule on the defense of Mr. Gray.

B) Mr. Gray claims that he was entrapped illegally because there was no showing that the second check was a forgery and, therefore, his withdrawal based on the second check was a legal act. Is Mr. Gray correct?

Answer 30

[A]
The first defense of Mr. Gray has no merit. The law presumes that the possessor and user of a falsified document is the falsifier or forger thereof. Likewise, his second defense that Mr. White did not suffer any injuries as to the second check has no merit. Damage or intent to cause damage is not considered in [(attempted) estafa].

[B]
Mr. Gray is not correct. The fact that the first check is forged justifies the entrapment of Mr. Gray since there is already probable cause that the second check is also a forgery. Further, granting that the entrapment was illegal, his criminal liability in forging the second check is not affected by the alleged illegality of the entrapment procedure.

Question 31

William is the son-in-law of Mercedes who owns several pieces of real property. In 1994, William’s wife, Anita, died. In 1996, William caused the preparation of a Special Power of Attorney (SPA) giving him the authority to sell two (2) parcels of land registered in the name of Mercedes. The signature of Mercedes in the SPA was forged and, through this forged SPA and without the consent and knowledge of Mercedes, William succeeded in selling the two (2) parcels for Php 2,000,000. He pocketed the proceeds of the sale. Mercedes eventually discovered William’s misdeeds and filed a criminal complaint. William was subsequently charged with estafa through falsification of public document. Was the criminal charge proper?

Answer 31

The criminal charge of estafa through falsification is correct. William forged the signature of his motherin-law in the Special Power of Attorney, a public document, as a necessary means to sell her properties to third parties without delivering the proceeds thereof.

Question 32

Anthony drew a promissory note and asked his terminally-ill and dying business partner Ben to sign it. The promissory note bound Ben to pay Anthony One Million Pesos (P1,000,000) plus 12% interest, on or before June 30, 2011.

If Ben died before the promissory note’s due date and Anthony still collected P1,000,000 with interest from Ben’s estate, what crime/s did Anthony commit? (2013 Bar Question)

A) Falsification of a public document.
B) Falsification of a private document and estafa.
C) Estafa.
D) Estafa thru falsification of a private document.
E) None of the above.

Answer 32

C. Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code provides that swindling or estafa may be committed by inducing
another, by means of deceit, to sign any document.

Question 33

Is the crime of theft committed by a person who, with intent to gain, takes a worthless check belonging to another without the latter’s consent? (2012 Bar Question)

A) Yes. All the elements of the crime of theft are present: that there be taking of personal property; that the property belongs to another; and that the taking be done with intent to gain and without the consent of the owner.

B) No. The taking of the worthless check, which has no value, would not amount to the crime of theft because of the legal impossibility to commit the intended crime.

C) Yes. Theft is committed even if the worthless check would be subsequently dishonored because the taker had intent to gain from the check at the time of the taking.

D) Yes. Theft is committed because the factual impossibility to gain from the check was not known to the taker or beyond his control at the time of taking.

Answer 33

B. (People v. Jacinto

Question 34

At a wake, there were people watching a game of dice. With treachery and use of unlicensed firearms, AA fired successively several gunshots at their direction. During the shooting, four (4) persons were killed and fourteen (14) others were injured and brought to the hospital for the treatment of gunshot wounds. What should be the proper charge against AA? (2012 Bar Question)

the answer is “AA should be charged with four (4) counts of murder, fourteen (14) counts of serious physical
injuries and illegal possession of firearms. “ Explain

Answer 34

Art. 48 on Complex Crimes state that one act resulting to two or more grave or less grave felonies is committed so as AA who pulled the trigger and from that single act hurt several, will be liable for a complex crime of murder or physical injuries as the case may be

However, since he fired successively each pull of the trigger is a separate crime on part of AA

[suggested answer]
C. Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code refers to cases where <a single act constitutes two or more grave
felonies=. A complex (compound) crime refers to singularity of criminal act. When one fires his firearm in
succession, killing and wounding several persons, the different acts must be considered as distinct crimes.
When various victims expire from separate shots, such acts constitute separate and distinct crimes. He also
committed the crime of Illegal possession of firearms, which is a separate and distinct offense.

Question 35

With intent to cause damage, AAA deliberately set fire upon the two-storey residential house of
his employer, mostly made of wooden materials. The blaze spread and gutted down seven
neighboring houses. On the occasion of the fire, six (6) persons sustained burn injuries which
were the direct cause of their death. What crime was committed by AAA? (2012 Bar Question)

A) AAA committed the complex crime of arson with multiple homicide.
B) AAA committed arson and multiple homicide.
C) AAA committed simple arson.
D) AAA committed arson and multiple murder.

Answer 35

C. If the main objective of the offender is the burning of the building or office, but death results by reason
or on the occasion of arson, the crime is simply arson.
[[The resulting homicide is absorbed]]

Question 36

A postal van containing mail matters, including checks and treasury warrants, was hijacked
along a national highway by ten (10) men, two (2) of whom were armed. They used force, violence
and intimidation against three (3) postal employees who were occupants of the van, resulting in
the unlawful taking and transportation of the entire van and its contents.
If you were the defense counsel, what are the elements of the crime of highway robbery that the prosecution should prove to sustain a conviction? (2012 Bar Question)

Answer 36

highway robbery is defined as
- the seizure of any person for ransom, extortion or other unlawful purposes,
- or the taking away of the property of another by means of violence against or intimidation of person or force upon things or other unlawful means,
- committed by ANY person on any Philippine highway. Hence, the elements of highway robbery are;

a) Intent to gain;
b) Unlawful taking of property of another;
c) Violence against or intimidation of any person;
d) Committed on a Philippine highway;
e) Indiscriminate victim

Question 37

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

Answer 37

Theft when there is asportation which is consummated the moment the offender has possession over the thing even if he did not have the opportunity to dispose of it

Question 38

Christopher, John, Richard, and Luke are fraternity brothers. To protect themselves from rival fraternities, they all carry guns wherever they go. One night, after attending a party, they boarded a taxicab, held the driver at gunpoint and took the latter’s earnings.
[a] What crime, if any, did the four commit? Enumerate the elements of the crime
[b] Would your answer be the same if they killed the driver? Explain. (2010 Bar Question)

Answer 38

The crime committed is robbery by a band since there were four (4) offenders acting in concert in committing the robbery and all the four were armed. The elements of this crime are:

1) Unlawful taking of personal property belonging to another (the earnings of the taxi-driver);
2) Intent to gain in the taking (of the earnings which belong to the taxi-driver);
3) Violence against or intimidation of person or force upon things was employed in the taking; and
4) There were more than three armed malefactors taking part in the commission of the robbery

{B}
No, the crime becomes robbery with homicide and all the fraternity brothers are liable. The existence of a band shall be appreciated only as generic aggravating circumstance. Also, if the firearms used were unlicensed, they would be liable for illegal possession of loose firearms under Section

Question 39

Paul lives with his long-time girlfriend Joan in a condominium in Makati. For more than a year, he has been secretly saving money in an envelope under their bed to buy her an engagement ring. One day, while Joan was cleaning their room, she found the envelope, took the money, and left Paul. As prosecutor, what crime, if any, would you charge Joan? Explain

Answer 39

Joan may be charged of qualified theft because she took away personal property belonging to Paul without
the latter’s consent, with intent to gain, and with grave abuse of confidence.

Question 40

The president, treasurer, and secretary of ABC Corporation were charged with syndicated estafa under the following Information:
defraud Virna, Lana, Deborah and several other persons, by falsely or fraudulently pretending or representing in a transaction or series of transactions, which they made with complainants and the public in general, to the effect that they were in a legitimate business of foreign exchange trading successively or simultaneously operating under the name and style of ABC Corporation and DEF Management Philippines, Incorporated, induced and succeeded in inducing complainants and several other persons to give and deliver to said accused the amount of at least P20,000,000.00

Will the case for syndicated estafa prosper? E

Answer 40

No, needs 5 peopple, there were only 3, but since it’s more than 100,000 it will still be punished byt the SPL for syndincate esetafa

Question 41

A person who, on the occasion of a robbery, kills a bystander by accident is liable for two separate crimes: robbery and reckless imprudence resulting in homicide.

T/F

Answer 41

False. The crime is robbery with homicide. the RPC punishes the crime as only one indivisible offense when a killing, whether intentional or [accident] was committed by reason or on the occasion of robbery.

Question 42

Angelo devised a Ponzi Scheme in which 500 persons were deceived into investing their money upon a promise of a capital return of 25%, computed monthly, and guaranteed by postdated checks. During the first two months following the investment, the investors received their profits, but thereafter, Angelo vanished. Angelo was charged with 500 counts of estafa and 2,000 counts of violation of Batas Pambansa (BP) 22. In his motion to quash, Angelo contends that he committed a continued crime, or delito continuado, hence, he committed only one count of estafa and one count of violation of BP 22. Is Angelo’s contention tenable? Explain.

Answer 42

No, Angelo’s contention is not tenable.

Angelo acted with separate fraudulent intent in each swindling and issuing each of check. It cannot be maintained that his acts are the product of one criminal resolution only. Moreover, his drawing of separate checks payable to each payee is a separate criminal resolution.

Thus, Angelo committed as many counts of estafa against the 500 victims and 2,000 counts of violation of BP 22, since each swindling is achieved through distinct fraudulent machinations contrived at different time or dates, and in different amounts.

Question 43

While Alfredo, Braulio, Ciriaco, and Domingo were robbing a bank, policemen arrived. A firefight ensued between the bank robbers and the responding policemen, and one of the
policemen was killed.

What crime or crimes, if any, had been committed

Answer 43

The crimes committed by ABCD were Robbery with Homicide (a single indivisible offense), AND Direct Assault with Multiple Attempted Homicide, a complex crime

Robbery with Homicide was committed because one of the responding policeman was killed by reason or on occasion of the robbery being committed. The complex crime of Direct Assault with Multiple Attempted Homicide was committed in respect to the offenders’ firing of guns at the responding policemen who are agents of person in authority who were performing their duty when the shots were fired.

Question 44

Suppose it was Alfredo who was killed by the responding policemen, what charges can be filed against Braulio, Ciriaco and Domingo? Explain.

Answer 44

Brulio, Ciriaco and Domingo can still be charged of the crime Robbery with Homicide (Art. 249[1], RPC), since the killing resulted by reason or on occasion of the robbery.

It is of no moment that the person killed is one of the robbers.

A killing by reason or on occasion of the robbery, whether deliberate of accidental, will be a component of the crime of Robbery with Homicide, a single indivisible offense, as long as it is immediately connected to the robbery.

Question 45

Suppose in the course of the robbery, before the policemen arrived, Braulio shot and killed Alfredo following a heated disagreement on who should carry the money bags, what would be the criminal liability of Braulio, Ciriaco and Domingo? Explain

Answer 45

Braulio is liable for Robbery with Homicide for killing Alfredo, since the killing was committed by reason of the robbery. (Art. 294[1], RPC)

Meanwhile, Ciriaco and Domingo conspired only in the commission of the robbery. Thus, they should only incur criminal liability for the crime robbery, [unless they were with Braulio during the killing and they could have prevented the same.]

Question 46

Lucas had been the stay-in houseboy of spouses Nestor and Julia for Five Years. One Night, while Nestor and Julia were out having dinner, Lucas and his friend Pedro gained entry into the masters’ bedroom with the used of a false key. They found Julia’s jewelry box in one of the cabinets which was unlocked. Lucas believed that Julia’s jewelry inside the box. Unknown to Lucas and Pedro, the box was empty. Pedro took the box and left the bedroom with Lucas. They were shock when they saw Nestor in the sala, pointing a gun at them. Nestor ordered them to stop and hand over the box. Pedro complied. It turned out that Nestor had just arrived in time to see Lucas and Pedro leaving the master’s bedroom with the box.

Answer 46

Lucas and Pedro committed Robbery in an Inhabited House (Art. 299) for gaining entry into the house by
means of a false key

Question 47

Fe is the manager of a rice mill in Bulacan. In order to support a gambling debt, Fe made it appear that the rice mill was earning less than it actually was by writing in a “talaan” or ledger a figure lower than what was collected and paid by their customers. Fe then pocketed the difference. What crime/s did Fe commit, If any? Explain your answer.

Answer 47

Fe committed the crimes of: (a) estafa through abuse of confidence or unfaithfulness; and (b) falsification of a private document.

In this case, two (2) separate crimes are committed; namely, estafa and falsification of the commercial document. The falsification should NOT be complexed with the estafa [since] it was NOT committed as a necessary means to commit the estafa.