1.

) Pedro, a police officer on AWOL (absent without leave), was threatened by Juan,
a defeated presidential candidate in the national elections, that Pedro’s live-in
partner would be killed if he does not kill two men on board any motor vehicle
with “DUH-30” sticker on its wind shield. Soon thereafter, while scouring the city
streets on board a motorcycle for five consecutive nights, Pedro finally saw one
which he had tailed. When the target car stopped on a red signal at an
intersection, Pedro got off from his motorbike, approached the car and with an
automatic pistol, peppered the same with bullets. As a result, sisters Petra and
Pedrita, and their four-year old niece Jane were killed.

Prosecuted for three (3) counts of Murder, Pedro was convicted thereof whereby
the following qualifying/aggravating circumstances alleged in the Information
where appreciated against him, namely: (a) abuse of superior strength, (b)
treachery, (c) evident premeditation, (d) by means of motor vehicle, (e) disregard
of sex, (f) nighttime, and (g) abuse of public position.

Which of the following qualifying/aggravating circumstance(s) was/were

erroneously appreciated?

Answer:

Abuse of Superior Strength and Nighttime were was erroneously appreciated

because treachery attended the killing of the victims.

It is well-settled rule in criminal law that treachery absorbs abuse of superior

strength and nighttime.

Here, there is a treachery because Pedro employed means of killing Petra,

Pedrita, and Jane that gave the three no opportunity to defend themselves or to
retaliate against Pedro’s act.

The aggravating circumstance of evident premeditation was erroneously

appreciated

The Supreme Court has held that evident premeditation shall not be appreciated
as an aggravating circumstance when the victim killed is not the object of the
premeditation of the offender.

Here, Petra, Pedrita, and Jane were not the object of premeditation of Pedro. In
fact, Pedro premeditated to kill two male on board any motor vehicle with DUH-
30 sticker on its wind shield.
 The aggravating circumstance of disregard of sex was also erroneously
appreciated

The Supreme Court has held that to appreciate disregard of sex as aggravating
circumstance, the offender must deliberately intend to insult or offend the sex of
the victim.

Here, there is no showing that Pedro deliberately intended to offend the sex of
Petra, Pedrita, and Jane. In fact, the intended victims of Pedro were two males.

The aggravating circumstance of abuse of public position was erroneously

appreciated.

The Supreme Court has held that to appreciate abuse of public position as
aggravating circumstance, the offender must deliberately take advantage of his
official position in the commission of the crime.

Here, Pedro did not deliberately take advantage of his official position as a police
officer since at the time of the killing of Petra, Pedrita, and Jane, he was on
AWOL or absent without leave.

Thus, the aggravating circumstances of abuse of superior strength, nighttime,

evident premeditation, disregard of sex, and abuse of public position were
erroneously appreciated.

2.) Pedro is married to Tessie. Juan is the first cousin of Tessie. While in the market,
Pedro saw a man stabbing Juan. Seeing the attack on Juan, Pedro picked up a
spade nearby and hit the attacker on his head which caused the latter's death.

Can Pedro be absolved of the killing on the ground that it is in defense of a

relative? Explain. (5%) (Bar 2016)

Answer:

No, Pedro cannot be absolved of the killing of the man on the ground of defense
of relative.

Under the Revised Penal Code, the justifying circumstance of defense of relative
cannot be appreciated when the unlawful aggression is not committed against
the offender’s relatives by affinity within the same degree.

Here, Juan, who is first cousin of Tessie, is not Pedro’s relative by affinity within
the same degree.
 Thus, Pedro cannot be absolved of the killing of the man.

3.) Ms. E was charged with the complex crime of Estafa through Falsification of
Public Documents before the trial court. Prior to her arraignment, Ms. E moved
for the dismissal of the criminal case against her, pointing out that the private
offended party is her biological father, and that such relationship is an absolutory
cause under Article 332 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC).
(a) Explain the concept of complex crimes under the RPC. (2%)
(b) Is Ms. E's contention correct? Explain. (3%) (Bar 2019)

Answer:

a) Under Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code, there is a complex crime when a
single act constitutes two or more grave or less grave felonies or an offense is
committed as a necessary means of committing another offense. In such a
case, the penalty shall be corresponding to the prescribed penalty of the most
serious offense and applied in its maximum period.

b) No, Ms. E’s contention that relationship is an absolutory cause under Article
332 of the Revised Penal Code is not correct.

The Supreme Court has held that Article 332 of the Revised Penal code
which exempts the offender from criminal liability to estafa is not applicable
when the estafa is complexed with another crime, such as estafa through
falsification.

Here, the crime charged with Ms. E is a complex crime of estafa through
falsification of documents.

Thus, Ms. E’s contention is not correct.

4.) Arlene is engaged in the buy and sell of used garments, more popularly known
as "ukay-ukay." Among the items found by the police in a raid of her store in
Baguio City were brand-new Louie Feraud blazers.
Arlene was charged with "fencing." Will the charge prosper? Why or why not?
(5%) (Bar 2010)

Answer:
No, the charge of fencing against Arlene will not prosper.
 Under the Anti-Fencing Law, person shall not be held liable for fencing if he, with
intent to gain for himself, buys and sells an article, item, object, or anything of
value which has not been derived from the proceeds of robbery or theft.

Here, there is no showing that the used garments were derived from the
proceeds of robbery or theft.

Thus, the charge of fencing against Arlene will not prosper.

5.) Ofelia, engaged in the purchase and sale of jewelry, was charged with violation
of PD 1612, otherwise known as the Anti-Fencing Law, for having been found in
possession of recently stolen jewelry valued at Pl 00,000.00 at her jewelry shop.
Her defense is that she merely bought the same from Antonia and produced a
receipt covering the sale. She presented other receipts given to her by Antonia
representing previous transactions. Convicted of the charge, Ofelia appealed,
arguing that her acquisition of the jewelries resulted from a legal transaction and
that the prosecution failed to prove that she knew or should have known that the
pieces of jewelry which she bought from Antonia were proceeds of the crime of
theft.
[a] What is a "fence" under PD 1612? (2.5%)
[b] Is Ofelia liable under the Anti-Fencing Law? Explain. (2.5%) (Bar 2016)

Answer:

(a) Under PD 1612 or Anti-Fencing Law, fence is the act of buying, acquiring,
receiving, keeping, storing, concealing, possessing, or disposing of any
article, item, object, or anything of value which has been derived from the
proceeds of the robbery or theft.

(b) Yes, Ofelia is liable under the Anti-Fencing Law.

Ofelia’s contention that she should not be liable for fencing because she
acquired the subject jewelries from a legal transaction is without merit.

The Supreme Court has held that fencing punishable under Anti-Fencing Law
is a malum prohibitum, where good faith or lack of criminal intent is not a valid
defense.

Here, Ofelia’s good faith that the subject jewelries were acquired from a legal
transaction is not a valid defense in Anti-Fencing Law.
 Ofelia’s contention that the prosecution failed to prove that she knew or
should have known that the subject jewelries were derived from the proceeds
of theft is without merit.

Under Anti-Fencing Law, mere possession of the person of the stolen article,
item, object, or anything of value gives rise to a presumption that he knows or
should have known that said article, item, object, or anything of value were
derived from the proceeds of the theft.

Here, Ofelia has been found in possession of the stolen subject jewelries at
her jewelry store.

Thus, Ofelia is liable under Anti-Fencing Law.

6.) While his wife was on a 2-year scholarship abroad, Romeo was having an affair
with his maid Dulcinea. Realizing that the affair was going nowhere, Dulcinea told
Romeo that she was going back to the province to marry her childhood
sweetheart. Clouded by anger and jealousy, Romeo strangled Dulcinea to death
while she was sleeping in the maid’s quarters.

The following day, Romeo was found catatonic inside the maid’s quarters. He
was brought to the National Center for Mental Health (NCMH) where he was
diagnosed to be mentally unstable.
Charged with murder, Romeo pleaded insanity as a defense.
a. Will Romeo’s defense prosper? Explain. (2%)
b. What is the effect of the diagnosis of the NCMH on the case? (2%) (Bar 2010)

Answer:

a. Romeo’s defense of insanity will not prosper.

In a number of cases decided by the Supreme Court, it has been held that to
appreciate insanity as an exempting circumstance, the offender must prove
that his insanity was occurred immediately before or at the time of the
commission of the crime.

Here, there is no showing that Romeo has been suffering from insanity
immediately before or at the time he killed Dulcinea.

Thus, Romeo’s defense of insanity will not prosper.

b. The effect of diagnosis of NCMH where Romeo was diagnosed to be mentally

unstable has no effect.
 The Supreme Court has been held that exempting circumstance of insanity
cannot be invoked if such condition has been occurred after the commission
of the crime.

Here, Romeo was diagnosed to be mentally unstable after he killed Dulcinea.

Thus, the effect of diagnosis of NCMH has no effect.

7.) Porthos made a sudden turn on a dark street, and his Rolls-Royce SUV bumped
the rear of a parked Cadillac Sedan inside which Aramis was then taking a nap.
Angered by the violent Impact, Aramis alighted and confronted Porthos who had
also alighted. Aramis angrily and repeatedly shouted at Porthos: Putang Ina mo!
Porthos, displaying fearlessness, aggressively shouted back at Aramis: Wag
kang magtapang-tapangan dyan, papatayin kita! Without saying anything more,
Aramis drew his gun from his waist and shot Porthos in the leg. Porthos' wound
was not life threatening.

(a) What are the kinds of unlawful aggression, and which kind was displayed in
this case? Explain your answer. (3%)

(b) Standing trial for frustrated murder, Aramis pleaded self-defense. The
Prosecution's contention was that the plea of self-defense applied only to
consummated killings. Rule, with explanations, on the tenability of Aramis' claim
of self-defense, and on the Prosecution's contention. (3%)

(c) Porthos insisted that the element of treachery was present. To rule out
treachery, Aramis asserted that both he and Porthos were then facing and
confronting each other when he fired the shot. Rule, with reasons, on the
respective contentions. (3%) (Bar 2017)

Answer:

(a) There are two kinds of unlawful aggression, (1) actual unlawful aggression,
and (2) imminent unlawful aggression.

The Supreme Court has held that there are two kinds of unlawful aggression,
namely, actual unlawful aggression and imminent unlawful aggression. The
former occurs when the offender uses actual physical force or attack with a
weapon. While the latter occurs when there is a real danger to the life or
physical safety of the offender.
 Here, there is an actual unlawful aggression because Aramis caused injury to
Porthos using his gun.

(b) Aramis’ claim of self-defense is untenable.

Under the Revised Penal Code, offender cannot invoke self-defense as

justifying circumstance when there is no unlawful aggression. The Supreme
Court has held that there is no unlawful aggression when there is no showing
of a real or imminent danger to the life or personal safety of the offender, and
it is merely an intimidating or threatening attitude.

Here, there is no showing that Aramis’ life or personal safety was in a real or
imminent danger and the sentence “Wag kang magtapang-tapangan dyan,
papatayin kita!” uttered by Porthos was merely an intimidating or threating
attitude of Porthos.

Thus, Aramis’ claim of self-defense is untenable.

With regard to Prosecution’s contention that self-defense applied only to

consummated killings is also untenable.

The Supreme Court has held that self-defense is applicable regardless of the
stages of the felony committed by the offender so long as there exists an
unlawful aggression, reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent
or repel it, and lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the offender.

Thus, Prosecution’s contention is untenable.

(c) Porthos’ contention that element of treachery was present is without merit.

It is well-settled rule in criminal law that there is no treachery when offended

party and offender had heated argument immediately before the commission
of the crime.

Here, before the shooting of Aramis to Porthos’ leg, the two had a heated
argument arising from bumping of Porthos’ car to Aramis’ car.

Thus, Porthos’ contention that element of treachery was present is without

merit.

However, Aramis’ contention that no treachery exists because both he and

porthos were then facing and confronting each other when he fired the shot is
meritorious.
 In a number of cases, the Supreme Court has been consistently held that
there is no treachery when offended party and offender had heated argument
immediately before the commission of the crime.

8.) a) How are felonies committed? Explain each. (3%)

b) What is aberratio ictus? (2%) (Bar 2015)

Answer:

a) Article 3 of the Revised Penal Code provides that felonies are committed by
dolo or culpa.

There is dolo when the act or omission is committed with deliberate intent.

There is culpa when the wrongful act results from negligence, imprudence,
lack of foresight, or lack of skill.

b) The Supreme Court has held that aberration ictus occurs when the offender is
committing an intentional felony although the actual victim is different from his
intended victim because of mistake of blow.

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

a) May Talia invoke the defense of Battered Woman Syndrome to free herself
from criminal liability? Explain. (2.5%)

b) Will your answer be the same, assuming that Talia killed Dion after being
beaten up after a second time? Explain. (2.5%) (Bar 2015)

Answer:
 a) No, Talia may not invoke the defense of Battered Woman Syndrome to free
herself from criminal liability of parricide.

The Supreme Court has held that Battered Woman Syndrome cannot be
invoked as justifying circumstance when the infliction of physical abuse or
physical harm is not cumulative.

Here, there is no cumulative physical abuse because the Talia first suffered
verbal abuse and the second one is physical abuse.

Thus, Talia may not invoke the defense of Battered Woman Syndrome to free
herself from criminal liability.

b) No, my answer will not be the same assuming that Talia killed Dion after
being beaten up after a second time.

The Supreme Court has held that to appreciate Battered Woman Syndrome
as justifying circumstance, the offender must prove the following elements:

1. The battered husband inflicted physical harm to his battered wife;

2. The infliction of physical harm is cumulative;
3. The cumulative physical abuse results to physical, emotional, or
psychological distress to the battered wife.
Here, Dion inflicted cumulative physical abuse to his wife Talia which resulted
to psychological and emotional distress to the latter. Consequently, Talia
killed Dion after the second physical abuse.
Thus, my answer will not be the same assuming that Talia killed Dion after
being beaten up after a second time.

10.) In 2012, Juan, John, and Johnny were convicted of Attempted Theft and
sentenced to a prison term of 6 months. Three years later, the trio were accused
of Frustrated Homicide. Prosecuted therefor, all of them were found guilty as
charged and sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of 1 year of prision
correccional as minimum to 6 years and 1 day of prision mayor as maximum.

[a] In case Juan opts to apply for probation before the judgment attains finality,
may the same be validly granted?
[b] Will your answer be the same if Juan appeals the judgment whereby the
appellate court downgrades his conviction to Attempted Homicide and
consequently modifies the sentence to an indeterminate penalty of 4 months of
arresto mayor as minimum to 5 years and 11 months of prision correccional as
maximum?
[c] In connection with the next preceding question, should John and Johnny apply
for probation with the trial court, may their plea be granted?

Answer:
[a] No, in case Juan opts to apply for probation before the judgment attains
finality, the application may not be validly granted.

Under Probation Law, the offender who is sentenced to suffer imprisonment of

more than 6 years is disqualified to apply for probation.

Here, Juan was sentenced to suffer imprisonment of 6 years and 1 day.

Thus, in case Juan opts to apply for probation before the judgment attains
finality, the application may be validly granted.

[b] No, my answer will not be the same if Juan appeals the judgment whereby the
appellate court downgrades his sentence to an indeterminate penalty of 4
months of arresto mayor as minimum to 5 years and 11 months of prision
correccional as maximum.

Under Probation Law, an application for probation shall be entertained and

granted when the offender appeals his judgment of conviction and such judgment
has been modified by the appellate court from non-probationable penalty to
probationable penalty.

Here, Juan’s judgment of conviction has been modified from non-probationable

penalty of 6 years and 1 day to probationable penalty of 5 years and 11 months.

Thus, my answer will not be the same if Juan appeals the judgment whereby the
appellate court downgrades his sentence to an indeterminate penalty of 4
months of arresto mayor as minimum to 5 years and 11 months of prision
correccional as maximum.

[c] Yes, should John and Johnny apply for probation with the trial court, their plea
may be granted.

Under the Probation Law, in a case involving several accused and some of them
have taken further appeal of their judgment of conviction imposing non-
probationable penalty, and such judgment has been modified by the appellate
court imposing to probationable penalty, the other accused may apply for a
probable by submitting their application and attaching the certified true copy of
 the modified judgment before the court which rendered their judgment of
conviction.

Here, Juan, John, and Johnny were sentenced to suffer imprisonment of 6 years
and 1 day, which is a non-probationable penalty. But only Juan has taken further
appeal of their judgment of conviction and such judgment has been modified by
the appellate court imposing to probationable penalty of 5 years and 11 months.

Thus, should John and Johnny apply for probation with the trial court, their plea
may be granted.

11.) Mrs. Robinson is a teacher at an elementary school. In one of her classes,

she found, to her consternation, that an 8-year old Richard was always the cause
of distraction, as he was fond of bullying classmates smaller in size than him.

One morning, Reymart, a 7-year old pupil, cried loudly and complained to Mrs.
Robinson that Richard had boxed him on the ear. Confronted by Mrs. Robinson
about Reymart's accusation, Richard sheepishly admitted the same. Because of
this, Mrs. Robinson ordered Richard to lie face down on a desk during class.
After Richard obliged, Mrs. Robinson hit him ten (10) times on the legs with a
ruler and pinched his ears. Richard ran home and reported to his mother what he
had suffered at the hands of Mrs. Robinson. When Richard's parents went to
Mrs. Robinson to complain, she interposed the defense that she merely
performed her duty as a teacher to discipline erring pupils.

Richard's parents ask your advice on what actions can be instituted against Mrs.
Robinson for acts committed on their minor child.

(a) May Mrs. Robinson be charged with child abuse OR slight physical injuries?
(2.5%)

(b) May Mrs. Robinson be charged with child abuse AND slight physical

injuries? (2.5%) (Bar 2018)

Answer:
(a) Yes, Mrs. Robinson may be charged with child abuse OR slight physical
injuries.

Mrs. Robinson’s defense that she merely performed her duty as a teacher to
discipline erring pupils is without merit.
 The Supreme Court has held that any person who inflicts corporal
punishment against a child is liable for child abuse or slight physical injuries,
as the case may be.

Here, Mrs. Robinson inflicted corporal punishment against Reymart who is

only 7 years old, by hitting him ten (10) times with a ruler and pinching his
hear.

Thus, Mrs. Robinson may be charged with child abuse or slight physical
injuries.

(b) No, Mrs. Robinson may not be charged with child abuse AND slight physical
injuries.

It is well-settled rule in criminal law that a crime punishable under special

penal law cannot be complexed with an offense punishable under Revised
Penal Code.

Here, child abuse is punishable under Republic Act No. 7610, which is a
special law, and slight physical injuries is punishable under Revised Penal
Code.

Thus, Mrs. Robinson may not be charged with child abuse AND slight
physical injuries.

12.) China invaded the Philippines. War began. X, Y, and Z, all Filipino
citizens, adhered to the enemy and gave them aid and comfort. M, another
Filipino citizen, knows the acts committed by X, Y, and Z but despite his
knowledge thereof M concealed and did not disclose such knowledge to the
governor or fiscal of the province or the mayor or fiscal of the city where he
resides. Is M liable for misprision of treason? Why?

Answer:
No, M is not liable for misprision of treason.
Under the Revised Penal Code, misprision of treason is committed by failure to
disclose to the proper authorities by a Filipino citizen who has knowledge of
conspiracy to commit treason, and not to treason which has already been
consummated.
 Here, X, Y, and Z were already committed a treason by adhering to the enemy
and giving them aid and comfort. Considering that treason has already been
consummated, M cannot be held liable for misprision of treason.
Thus, M is not liable for misprision of treason.

13.) Pikon, a law student of Lex Adonis Law School, was flunked in Taxation
by his professor, Atty. Petmalu. Infuriated by this, Pikon waited for Atty. Petmalu
in the law school parking lot and punched him on the face, inflicting upon Atty.
Petmalu physical injuries which required ten days of treatment. What crime or
crimes did Pikon commit?
Answer:
Pikon committed complex crime of direct assault with less serious physical injury.
Under the Revised Penal Code, there is a complex crime when a single act
constitutes two or more grave or less grave felonies.
To be held liable for complex crime of direct injury, the following elements must
be present:
1. That the offender attacks or employs violence against a person in
authority;
2. That he employed or attacked such person in authority by reason of
the latter’s past performance of his official duty;
3. That as a result of such attack, the person in authority suffered
physical injury which requires medical attention of 10 days but not
more than 30 days.
Here, Pikon punched his professor Atty. Petmalu, a person in authority, because
the latter flunked Pikon in Taxation. As a result of such single act of punching,
Atty. Petmalu suffered physical injury which requires medical attention of 10
days.
Thus, Pikon committed complex crime of direct assault with less serious physical
injury.

14.) Mario is a credit assistant of Magpapautang and Magpapabahay, Inc

(M&M). He collected amortization payments from Bros, an installment buyer of a
house and lot owned by M&M. The collection totalled P120,000.00. However, he
did not remit the same to the company. He went AWOL for two weeks. When
Bros inquired from him if he had remitted his payment to M&M, Mario told him
that his accountability was fully settled, but the receipt is yet to be issued to him
by the company. M&M directed Mario to report back for work but he did not
 comply. When it was discovered that he did not remit the payment, M&M and
Bros both filed their respective criminal complaints against him. He did not file
any counter-affidavit in the complaint for Qualified Theft which M&M filed and in
the complaint for Estafa which Bros filed. Which of the criminal complaints filed
by M&M and Bros will prosper?

Answer:

The complaint for Qualified Theft filed by M&M will prosper.

Under the Criminal Law, theft is distinguished from estafa, which in the former,
the offender acquires material or physical possession over the personal property,
while the latter, he acquires juridical possession over the same. Further, the
Supreme Court has held that an employee who receives personal property on
behalf of his employer, he only acquires material or physical possession.

Here, Mario is an employee of M&M with a position of credit assistant. As a credit

assistant, Mario collected amortization payments from Bros. By collecting such
amortization payments, Mario only acquired material or physical possession over
the said amortization payments.

Thus, complaint for Qualified Theft filed by M&M will prosper.

15.) Loreto was a commissioned salesman of the Hogwarts Publishing House.

He sold several books to the OLLS School in the amount of P20,000.00. He did
not disclose the sale to Hogwarts and so the company had no idea that he was
supposed to remit the amount of P20,000.00. However, the secret was soon
discovered and thus, he was compelled to remit the amount after the discovery of
the transaction. Is Loreto criminally liable for any crime? If so, what crime is he
liable for?

Answer:
Yes, Loreto is criminally liable for frustrated estafa.
Under the Revised Penal Code, estafa is committed by any person, with
unfaithfulness or grave abuse of confidence, who misappropriate the personal
property he received on commission under the obligation to deliver or return the
same to the prejudice of the owner.
Here, Loreto, a commissioned salesman, misappropriated the Php 20,000.00 he
received on commission from OLLS School by not remitting the said amount to
Hogwarts Publishing House.
 Hence, Loreto is criminally liable for frustrated estafa because he performed all
acts of execution which should produce estafa, but nevertheless, did not produce
it by causes independent of his will since he was compelled to remit Php 20,000
after discovery of the transaction, thereby causing no damage or prejudice to
Hogwarts Publishing House.

16.) Robert lent P1 million to Naty, repayable with interest, in consideration of

which Naty, simultaneous with the receipt of the money, issued to Robert six
personal postdated checks. When the checks fell due, Naty told Robert not to
deposit them because they were not funded and promised to replace them. Naty
got back the six original checks by replacing them with four postdated checks
(the replacement checks) which she handed to Robert. Later, the four
replacement checks were dishonored upon presentment for payment by Robert
for having been drawn against insufficient funds or against closed accounts. Naty
did not pay despite receiving notice of dishonor of the checks from Robert. Naty
was charged with the crime of estafa under Article 315(2)(d) of the Revised
Penal Code for the issuance of the four replacement checks. May Naty be
convicted of such crime?

Answer:

No, Naty may not be convicted of Article 315 (2)(d) of the Revised Penal code for
the issuance of the four replacement checks.

Under Article 315(2)(d) of the Revised Penal Code, the offender is not liable for
estafa by issuing postdated check when it is issued in payment of pre-existing
obligation.

Here, the four replacement checks were issued in payment of Naty’s pre-existing
obligation to Robert.

Thus, Naty may not be convicted of Article 315 (2)(d) of the Revised Penal code
for the issuance of the four replacement checks.

17.) Rafa caught his wife, Rachel, in the act of having sexual intercourse with
Rocco in the maid's room of their own house. Rafa shot both lovers in the chest,
but they survived. Rafa charged Rachel and Rocco with adultery, while Rachel
and Rocco charged Rafa with frustrated parricide and frustrated homicide.

In the adultery case, Rachel and Rocco raised the defense that Rafa and Rachel,
prior to the incident in question, executed a notarized document whereby they
agreed to live separately and allowed each of them to get a new partner and live
with anyone of their choice as husband and wife. This document was executed
after Rachel discovered that Rafa was cohabiting with another woman. Thus,
they also raised the defense of in pari delicto. In the frustrated parricide and
frustrated homicide cases, Rafa raised the defense that, having caught them in
flagrante delicto, he has no criminal liability.

Assuming that all defenses have been proven:

(a) Will the action for adultery prosper? (2.5%)

(b) Will the actions for frustrated parricide and frustrated homicide prosper?
(2.5%) (Bar 2018)

Answer:

(a) Yes, the action for adultery against Rachel and Roco will prosper.

Rachel and Roco’s defense regarding the execution of Rachel and Roco of
the notarized document is without merit.

Under the Criminal Law, the action for adultery will prosper when the offender
does not expressly consent the commission of adultery.

Here, there is no showing that in notarized document Rafa gave his consent
to Rachel for the commission of adultery.

Rachel and Roco’s defense of in pari delicto is also without merit.

Under Criminal Law, the doctrine of in pari delicto does not apply in criminal
law cases.

Here, the action for adultery is a criminal law case.

Thus, the action for adultery against Rachel and Roco will prosper.

(b) No, the actions for frustrated parricide and frustrated homicide will not
prosper.

Rafa’s defense that he has no criminal liability because he caught Rachel and
Roco having sexual intercouse with one another is with merit.

Under Article 247 of the Revised Penal Code, the offender does not incur
criminal liability when the following elements are present:
 1. He surprises his wife in the act of sexual intercourse with another
person;
2. He kills any or both of them or inflicts serious injury upon any or both of
them in the act or immediately thereafter;
3. He does not consent the act of infidelity of his spouse.

Here, Rafa surprised his wife Rachel in the act of sexual intercourse with
Roco and immediately thereafter, he shot both of them. There is also no
showing that Roco consented the act of infidelity of his wife Rachel.

Thus, Rafa’s defense that he has no criminal liability because he caught

Rachel and Roco having sexual intercouse with one another is with merit.

18.) Wielding loose firearms, Rene and Roan held up a bank. After taking the
bank's money, the robbers ran towards their getaway car, pursued by the bank
security guards. As the security guards were closing in on the robbers, the two
fired their firearms at the pursuing security guards. As a result, one of the
security guards was hit on the head causing his immediate death.

For the taking of the bank's money and killing of the security guard with the use
of loose firearms, the robbers were charged in court in two separate informations,
one for robbery with homicide attended by the aggravating circumstance of use
of loose firearms, and the other for illegal possession of firearms.

Are the indictments correct? (5%)

Answer:

No, the indictments of two separate offense for Robbery with homicide attended
by aggravating circumstance of use of loose firearms and for illegal possession
of firearms are not correct.

Under Republic Act No. 10591, when loose of firearm is used in the commission
of a crime with grave penalty, the accused shall be prosecuted for the crime with
grave penalty and the use of loose firearm considered as aggravating
circumstance.

Here, Rene and Roan used loose firearms in the commission of Robbery with
Homicide. Robbery with homicide is punishable under the Revised Penal Code
for reclusion perpetua while loose of firearm is punishable under Republic Act
No. 10591 for prision mayor. Considering that Robbery with homicide is graver
than illegal possession of firearm, Rene and Roan shall be prosecuted only for
 Robbery with Homicide attended by aggravating circumstance of use of loose
firearms.

Thus, the indictments of two separate offense for Robbery with homicide
attended by aggravating circumstance of use of loose firearms and for illegal
possession of firearms are not correct.

19.) A is the driver of B's Mercedes Benz car. When B was on a trip to Paris, A
used the car for a joy ride with C whom he is courting. Unfortunately, A met an
accident. Upon his return, B came to know about the unauthorized use of the car
and sued A for qualified theft. B alleged that A took and used the car with intent
to gain as he derived some benefit or satisfaction from its use. On the other
hand, A argued that he has no intent of making himself the owner of the car as
he in fact returned it to the garage after the joy ride. What crime or crimes, if any,
were committed? Explain. (5%)
Answer:
The crime committed was Carnapping.
A’s argument that he has no intent of making himself the owner of the car as he
in fact returned it to the garage after the joy ride is without merit.
The Supreme Court has held that for the person be held liable for carnapping,
the following elements must be present:
1. That he takes a motor vehicle;
2. That the motor vehicle is belonging to another;
3. That the taking is with intent to gain;
4. That the taking is done without violence against, or intimidation of
person, or force upon things;
Here, A took the B’s Mercedez Benz car without the latter’s consent. The intent
to gain is clear when A used B’s car for joyride with C whom he is courting
because he derived some benefit or satisfaction from using it.
Thus, the crime committed was Carnapping.
20.) As part of the Operation Tokhang by the administration against drug
suspects, PO2 Silbato talked to Kwatog and told him that his name will be listed
in the police station as a drug pusher in spite of the absence of evidence showing
that he is one. Kwatog protested truthfully that he has never been involved in any
activities related to illegal drugs. PO2 Silbato told him that there might be a way
to have his name not listed as a pusher but it will involve a huge amount of
money. Because of this, Kwatog gave him P200,000.00. Later, PO2 Silbato was
charged of direct bribery because of the incident. Is the charge correct?
Answer:
Yes, the charge of direct bribery against PO2 Silbato is correct.
Under Revised Penal Code, direct bribery is committed by a public officer who
accepts gift, present, or offer, in consideration for the execution of an act which
does not constitute a crime, regardless whether it has been accomplished or not.
Here, PO2 kwato accept Php 200,000.00 from Kwatog in consideration for
removing his name listed as a drug pusher. The act of removing Kwatog’s name
in the list of drug pusher does not constitute a crime.
Thus, the charge of direct bribery against PO2 Silbato is correct.

21.) Pokwang and Ganda are friends residing in Pasay City. Pokwang lent
P500,000 to Ganda, evidenced by a promissory note. Ganda failed to pay the
note despite demand so Pokwang filed with the Regional Trial Court an action for
collection of P500,000 against Ganda. In her verified answer, Ganda claimed that
she never borrowed money from Pokwang which was a clear lie.

a) Is Ganda liable for perjury?

Pokwang was bumped by a car negligently driven by Guapo. Pokwang

sued Guapo before the Metropolitan Trial Court of Pasay City for P150,000
damages arising out of the incident. In his verified answer, Guapo claimed
that it was another person driving the car, which was a bare-faced lie.
b) Is Guapo liable for perjury?
Answer:

a) No, Ganda is not liable for perjury.

Under the Revised Penal Code, the following are the elements of perjury:

1.) The offender executed an affidavit upon material matter;

2.) Such affidavit was made before competent public officer authorized to
receive and administer oath;
3.) In such affidavit, the offender made a willful and deliberate assertion of
falsehood;
4.) Such affidavit containing falsity is required by law.
Here, Ganda executed a verified answer where she made a deliberate
assertion of falsehood that she never borrowed money from Pokwang.
However, such answer is not required not to be verified under the law.
Thus. Ganda is not liable for perjury.
b.) Yes, Guapo is liable for perjury.
Under the Revised Penal Code, in order for the accused be held liable for
perjury, it must be proved that the following elements are present:

1. The offender executed an affidavit upon material matter;

2. Such affidavit was made before competent public officer authorized to
receive and administer oath;
3. In such affidavit, the offender made a willful and deliberate assertion of
falsehood;
4. Such affidavit containing falsity is required by law.
Here, Guapo executed a verified answer where he made a deliberate
assertion of falsehood that it was another person who is driving the car at the
time of the incident. Such answer requires to be verified under the Rule on
Summary Procedure.
Thus, Guapo is liable for perjury.