BAR Frequently Asked in Criminal Law Part 1

Philippine Bar Exams

(1) Distinguish motive from intent. (1996; 1999)

ANSWER:

Motive is the reason that impels one to commit an act for a definite result, while
intent is the purpose to use a particular means to effect such a result. The intent is
an element of the crime (except in unintentional felonies), whereas the motive is
not.

(2) What do you understand by aberratio ictus, error inpersonae and praeter
intentionem ? Do they alter the criminal liability of the accused? (1989; 1993;
1994; 1999)

ANSWER:

Aberratio ictus or mistake in the blow occurs when the offender delivered the blow
at his intended victim but missed, and instead such blow lands on an unintended
victim. The situation generally brings about complex crimes where from a single
act, two or more grave or less grave felonies resulted, namely the attempt against
the intended victim and the consequences on the unintended victim. As complex
crimes, the penalty for the more serious crime shall be the one imposed and in the
maximum period. It is only when the resulting felonies are only light that complex
crimes do not result and the penalties are to be imposed distinctly for each
resulting crime.
Error in personae or mistake in identity occurs when the offender actually hit the
person to whom the blow was directed but turned out to be different from and
not the victim intended. The criminal liability of the offender is not affected, unless
the mistake in identity resulted in a crime different from what the offender
intended to commit, in which case the lesser penalty between the crime intended
and the crime committed shall be imposed but in the maximum period (Art. 49,
RPC).
Praeter intentionem or where the consequence went beyond that intended or
expected. This is a mitigating circumstance (Art. 13, par. 3, RPC) when there is a
notorious disparity between the act or means employed by the offender and the
resulting felony, i.e., the resulting felony could not be reasonably anticipated or
foreseen by the offender from the act or means employed by him.
(3) Distinguish mala in se from mala prohibita. (1988; 1997; 1998; 2001; 2003)

ANSWER:

Mala in se is wrong from its very nature, as most of those punished in the RPC.
Hence, in its commission, the intent is an element and good faith is a defense. The
test to determine whether an offense is a mala in se is not the law punishing it but
the very nature of the act itself.
On the other hand, an act mala prohibita i s wrong because it is prohibited by law.
Without the law punishing the act, it cannot be considered wrong. Hence, the
mere commission of that act is what constitutes the offense punished and criminal
intent will be immaterial for the reason of public policy.

(4) What are heinous crimes? Name ten specific heinous crimes. (1994; 1995;
1997)

ANSWER:

Heinous crimes are those grievous, odious, and hateful offenses which by reason
of their inherent or manifest wickedness, viciousness, atrocity, and perversity, are
repugnant and outrageous to the common standards and norms of decency and
morality in a just, civilized, and ordered society. They are punishable by reclusion
perpetua to death. (WHEREAS CLAUSE, R.A. 7659)

The ten specific heinous crimes are:

1. Treason
2. Qualified Piracy
3. Qualified Bribery
4. Parricide
5. Murder
6. Kidnapping and Serious Illegal Detention
7. Robbery with Homicide
8. Destructive Arson
9. Rape committed by two or more persons, or with a deadly weapon or with
homicide
 10.Plunder

(5) What are the instances when the death penalty could not be imposed,
although it should otherwise be meted out? (1997; 1998)

ANSWER:

Under Art. 47 of the RPC, the death penalty shall not be imposed when:

1. The guilty person is below 18 years of age at the time of the commission of the
crime, or

2. Is more than 70 years of age, or

3. When upon appeal of the case by the SC, the required majority vote is not
obtained for the imposition of the death penalty.

(6) When is the benefit of the Indeterminate Sentence Law not applicable? (1999;
2003)

ANSWER:

The Indeterminate Sentence Law does not apply to:

1. Persons convicted of offenses punishable with the death penalty or life
imprisonment;

2. Those convicted of treason, conspiracy, or proposal to commit treason;

3. Those convicted of misprision of treason, rebellion, sedition, or espionage;
4. Those convicted of piracy;
5. Those who are habitual delinquents;
6. Those who shall have escaped from confinement or evaded sentence;
7. Those who violated the terms of conditional pardon granted to them by the
Chief Executive;
8. Those whose maximum term of imprisonment does not exceed one year;
9. Those who, upon the approval of the law (December 5, 1933), had been
sentenced by final judgment; 10. Those sentenced to the penalty of destierro or
suspension.
(7) What is an impossible crime? (1993; 2003)

ANSWER:

It is an act that would be an offense against persons or property, were it not for
the inherent impossibility of its accomplishment, or on account of the employment
of inadequate or ineffectual means. (Art. 4, par. 2)
But where the acts performed which would have resulted in an impossible crime
also 1) constitute an offense under the RPC, or

(2) would subject the accused to criminal liability although of a different category,
the penalty to be imposed should be that for the latter and not that for an
impossible crime.

(8) Distinguish instigation from entrapment. (1990; 1995; 2003)

ANSWER:

Instigation takes place when a peace officer induces a person to commit a crime.
Without the inducement, the crime would not be committed. Hence, it is
exempting by reason of public policy. Otherwise, the peace officer would be a co-
principal.
On the other hand, entrapment signifies the ways and means devised by a peace
officer to entrap or apprehend a person who has committed a crime. With or
without the entrapment, the crime has been committed already. Hence,
entrapment is not mitigating.

(9) What is the purpose of the Probation Law? (1986; 1989)

ANSWER:

The purposes of the Probation Law are:

• To promote the correction and rehabilitation of an offender by providing

him with individualized treatment;
• To provide an opportunity for the reformation of a penitent offender which
might be less probable if he were to serve a prison sentence; and
• To prevent the commission of offenses.
(10) What is the doctrine of implied conspiracy? (1998; 2003)

ANSWER:

The doctrine of implied conspiracy holds two or more persons participating in the
commission of a crime collectively responsible and liable as co-conspirators
although absent any agreement to that effect, when they act in concert,
demonstrating the unity of criminal intent and a common purpose or objective.
The existence of a conspiracy shall be inferred or deduced from their criminal
participation in pursuing the crime and thus the act of one shall be the act of all.
BAR Frequently Asked in Criminal Law Part 2

QUESTION: What is the doctrine of implied conspiracy? (1998; 2003)

ANSWER: The doctrine of implied conspiracy holds two or more persons

participating in the commission of a crime collectively responsible and liable as co-
conspirators although absent any agreement to that effect, when they act in
concert, demonstrating unity of criminal intent and a common purpose or
objective. The existence of a conspiracy shall be inferred or deduced from their
criminal participation in pursuing the crime and thus the act of one shall be the act
of all.

QUESTION: Are reclusion perpetua and life imprisonment the same? Can they be
imposed interchangeably? (1991; 1994; 2001)

ANSWER: NO. Reclusion perpetua is a penalty prescribed by the RPC, with a fixed
duration of imprisonment from 20 years and 1 day to 40 years, and carries with it
accessory penalties.
Life imprisonment, on the other hand, is a penalty prescribed by special laws, with
no fixed duration of imprisonment and without any accessory penalty.

QUESTION: What is a memorandum check? Is a person who issues a memorandum

check without sufficient funds guilty of violating B.P Blg. 22? (1994;1995)

ANSWER: A memorandum check is an ordinary check with the word

“Memorandum,” “Memo,” or “Mem” written across the check, signifying that the
maker or drawer engages to pay its holder absolutely, thus partaking the nature of
a promissory note. It is drawn on a bank and is a bill of exchange within the
purview of Sec. 185 of the Negotiable Instruments Law.

A person who issued a memorandum check without sufficient funds is guilty of

violating B.P. Blg. 22 as said law covers all checks whether it is evidence of
indebtedness, or in payment of a pre-existing obligation, or as a deposit or
guarantee.

QUESTION: Distinguish clearly but briefly between rebellion and coup d’etat based
on their constitutive elements as criminal offenses.
ANSWER: Rebellion is committed by a public uprising and taking arms against the
government while coup d’ etat is committed by means of swift attack accompanied
by violence, intimidation, threat, strategy, and stealth.

The purpose of rebellion is either to remove from the allegiance to the Philippine
Government or its laws the territory of the Philippines or any part thereof or any
body of land, naval, or other armed forces; or to deprive the Chief Executive or
Congress wholly or partially of any of their powers or prerogatives.

On the other hand, the purpose of a coup d’ etat is to seize or diminish state
power from the duly constituted authorities of the government or any military
camp or the installation of communication networks, public utilities, and other
facilities needed for the exercise of continued possession of powers.

Rebellion may be committed by any group of persons while coup d ‘etat is

committed by a person or persons belonging to the military or police, or holding
any public office or employment. Rebellion is committed by more than 1 person as
it involves a public uprising, while a coup d ‘etat may be committed by only one
person.

QUESTION: Distinguish clearly but briefly between compound and complex crimes
as concepts in the Penal Code.

ANSWER: Compound crime is when a single act constitutes two or more grave or
less grave felonies while a complex crime is when an offense is a necessary means
for committing the other.

QUESTION: Distinguish clearly but briefly between justifying and exempting

circumstances in criminal law.

ANSWER: Justifying circumstances are those when the act of a person is said to be
in accordance with the law so that such person is deemed not to have transgressed
the law and is free from both criminal and civil liability.

On the other hand, exempting circumstances are those grounds for exemption
from punishment because there is wanting in the agent of the crime any of the
conditions which make the act voluntary or negligent.
QUESTION: Distinguish clearly but briefly between intent and motive in the
commission of an offense.

ANSWER: Intent is the purpose to use a particular means to effect a definite result
while motive is the moving power that impels one to action for such a result.

QUESTION: Distinguish clearly but briefly between oral defamation and criminal
conversation.

ANSWER: Oral defamation, known as slander, is a malicious imputation of any act,

omission, or circumstance against a person, done orally in public, tending to cause
dishonor, discredit, contempt, embarrassment, or ridicule to the latter. This is a
crime against honor penalized in Art. 358 of the Revised Penal Code.

Criminal conversation is a term used in making a polite reference to sexual

intercourse as in certain crimes, like rape, seduction, and adultery. It has no
definite concept as a crime.