1

FINAL EXAMINATION IN CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW

February 3, 2019

INSTRUCTION: This is a take home exam where you can

avail of your internet research tools. This is to test your skill in
research and organization of ideas, responsiveness to the question,
and your logical explanation. Take your time, do not hurry. Do not copy
from your classmate. Use your own legal talent. Submit your answer
via email, [email protected]. Deadline is January 5,
2021. Enjoy answering the examination. God bless you.

PROBLEM No. 1.
At about 2:00 o’clock in the afternoon of June 7, 1999, private
complainant Nelia R. Silvestre (Nelia), together with Maria Viovicente
(Maria) and Veronica Amar (Veronica), boarded a tricycle on their way
to Pembo, Makati City. Upon reaching Ambel Street, Rey Ornopia and
his brother Edwin blocked the tricycle and under their threats, the
driver alighted and left. Rey Ornopia and Edwin at once shouted
invectives at Nelia, saying "Putang ina mong matanda ka, walanghiya
ka, kapal ng mukha mo, papatayin ka namin." Edwin Ornopia added
"Putang ina kang matanda ka, wala kang kadala dala, sinabihan na
kita na kahit saan kita matiempuhan, papatayin kita."
Edwin Ornopia thereafter grabbed Nelia’s 18K gold necklace
with a crucifix pendant which, according to an "alajera" in the
province, was of 18k gold, and which was worth ₱3,500, kicked the
tricycle and left saying "Putang ina kang matanda ka! Kayo mga
nurses lang, anong ipinagmamalaki niyo, mga nurses lang kayo.
Kami, marami kaming mga abogado. Hindi niyo kami maipapakulong
kahit kailan!".
Given the set of facts, granting that you are the prosecutor, what
crime will you charge against Rey and Edwin? Explain your answer.

I will charge Rey and Edwin with the crime of Grave Coercion. Under
the Revised Penal Code, Grave Coercion is committed by any person who,
without authority of law, shall, by means of violence, threats or intimidation,
prevent another from doing something not prohibited by law or compel him
to do something against his will, whether it be right or wrong. The facts
attendant in the present case, which is the taking of Nelia’s necklace, does
 2

not indicate the presence of intent to gain. The employment of threats,

intimidation and violence consisting of uttering of invectives, driving away of
of the tricycle driver and kicking of the tricycle, prevented Nelia from
proceeding to her destination. Absent of intent to gain, robbery does not lie
against Rey and Edwin. They can only be charged with grave coercion.

PROBLEM NO. 2.
Seneneng narrated that at around 8:30 a.m. of June 29, 2010, she
was using her cellphone while walking along Jolo
Street, Barangay Barreto, Olongapo City when a motorcycle with two
male persons on board stopped beside her.  The backrider then
suddenly grabbed her three necklaces:  one big necklace worth
₱43,800.00 and two other necklaces each with pendants worth
₱13,500.00 and ₱12,800.00, respectively, the prices of which were
evidenced by the receipts issued by Eleanor Pawnshop and Jewelry
Store where she bought them.  Seneneng further recounted that after
grabbing her necklaces, the two male persons moved a short
distance and then looked back at her to check if all her necklaces
were taken. Recovering from shock, Seneneng managed to shout and
ask for help. A tricycle passed by and so the male persons on board
the motorcycle immediately sped away.  Seneneng asked the tricycle
driver to run after the snatchers but he unfortunately missed
them.  Thus, Seneneng went to the Police Station to report the
incident. 
Question: If you were the police officer, what crime would you
charge for the snatchers of her bag? Explain.

The snatchers should be liable for theft. Under the Revised Penal
Code, theft is committed by any person who, with intent to gain but without
violence against or intimidation of persons nor force upon things, shall take
the personal property of another without the latter's consent. In this case,
Seneneng's testimony was bereft of any showing that snatchers used
violence or intimidation in taking her necklaces. She merely stated that the
perpetrators grabbed her necklaces without mentioning that the latter made
use of violence or intimidation in grabbing them. Further, she did not
sustain any kind of injury when the necklaces were snatched from her.
Hence, the snatchers should be liable for theft.

PROBLEM NO. 3
 3

The general rule is that criminal prosecution may not be restrained or

stayed by injunction, preliminary or final.  There are however exceptions. State at
least five exceptions.

The following are exceptions to the general rule that criminal prosecution may not
be restrained or stayed by injunction, preliminary of final: (1) when the injunction is
necessary to afford adequate protection to the constitutional rights of the accused; (2)
when it is necessary for the orderly administration of justice or to avoid oppression or
multiplicity of actions; (3) when there is a prejudicial question that is sub judice; (4)
when the acts of the officer are without or in excess of authority; and (5) when the
prosecution is under an invalid law, ordinance or regulation.

PROBLEM NO. 4.
Every criminal conviction requires the prosecution to prove two things.
What are these two things?

In every criminal conviction, the prosecution is required to prove two things

beyond reasonable doubt: first, the fact of the commission of the crime charged, or the
presence of all the elements of the offense; and second, the fact that the accused was
the perpetrator of the crime.

PROBLEM NO. 5.
In the prosecution of cases involving falsification of daily time records, is it
imperative that there be proof of damage to the government? Explain your
answer.

Yes. There should be proof of damage to the government. This is because the
daily time record that a public official or employee must fill up is a public document
which has characteristics distinct from other public documents. This requirement is
necessary in order to show their attendance in office to work and to be paid accordingly.
Closely adhering to the policy of no work no pay, a daily time record is primarily, if not
solely, intended to prevent damage or loss to the government as would result in
instances where it pays an employee for no work done. The integrity of the daily time
record as an official document, however, remains untarnished if the damage sought to
be prevented has not been produced.

PROBLEM NO. 6.
Juan is the tenant of Pedro. As such he was allowed to plant camote and
harvest coconuts from the plantation of Pedro. In one harvest season, Juan
gathered coconuts from the coconut plantation. He processed it to copra and
sold the same to a copra buyer. The sale amounted to p10,000 but Juan did not
remit it to Pedro.
 4

Questions: (a)Pedro filed a case for qualified theft against Juan. Is the
charge correct? What do you think should be the proper charge? (b) Does the
Regional trial Court have jurisdiction over the offense? Explain.

PROBLEM NO. 7
Culled from the testimonies of prosecution witnesses Ernesto Dangal
(Dangal), private complainant Engr. Alejandro Avanzado (Alejandro), and SPO1
Florentino Pahayahay (SPO1 Pahayahay), it appears that at around 11:00 o’clock
in the morning of February 1, 2002, Dangal, the overseer of a one-hectare
unregistered parcel of land located in Candelaria, Quezon, and co-owned by
Alejandro, saw the four accused, along with seven others, cutting down the
coconut trees on the said property. Later, the men turned the felled trees into
coco lumber. Dangal did not attempt to stop the men from cutting down the
coconut trees because he was outnumbered. Instead, Dangal left the site and
proceeded to San Pablo City to inform Alejandro about the incident.
On February 3, 2002, Alejandro and Dangal reported the incident to the
police. Thereafter, the two, accompanied by SPO1 Pahayahay, went to the
coconut plantation only to discover that about thirty-three (33) coconut trees
(subject trees) had been cut down. The coco lumber was no longer in the area.
They took photographs of the stumps left by the men.
The defense, on the other hand, presented Durano Avanzado (Durano),
accused Colmenares, petitioner Sumbilon, Barangay Captain Pedro Dagumo
(Brgy. Captain Dagumo) and accused Zanoria, to substantiate its claim of
innocence for all the accused.
Durano testified that he authorized his brothers-in-law, Alumbro and
Sumbilon, to cut down the coconut trees within the boundary of his property,
which was adjacent to the land co-owned by Alejandro. Durano admitted that he
had never set foot on his property for about 20 years already and that he was not
present when the cutting incident happened.
Defense witness Brgy. Captain Dagumo testified that on January 28, 2002,
Sumbilon, Alumbro, Colmenares, and Zanoria came to his office seeking
permission to cut down the coconut trees planted on the land of Durano.
All the accused vehemently denied the charges against them. Colmenares
and Sumbilon claimed that only the coconut trees which stood within the land
owned by Durano, a relative of the private complainant, were cut down on that
morning of February 1, 2002. Colmenares added that he was a coco lumber trader
and that Durano offered to sell the coconut trees planted on his lot. Sumbilon
claimed that he took no part in the felling of the coconut trees but merely
supervised the same. He claimed that he did not receive any remuneration for the
service he rendered or a share from the proceeds of the coco lumbers sale.
Zanoria likewise denied participation in the cutting down of the coconut trees but
confirmed the presence of Sumbilon and Alumbro at the site to supervise the
accomplishment of the work being done thereat. Zanoria corroborated the
narration of Sumbilon and Colmenares that all the felled trees were planted inside
the lot owned by Durano. Zanoria intimated that Alejandro included him in the
 5

complaint for theft due to his refusal to accede to latter’s request for him to
testify against his co-accused in relation to the present criminal charge.
Questions: (a) what crime, if any, is committed by the persons who felled or
cut the coconut trees? (b) The prosecution in the case at bar, charged the
accused of Theft of Damage Property—what are the elements of this charge? (c)
If you wre the judge would you convict the accused based on the above set of
facts? (d) “Actus non facit reum, nisi mens sit rea” as a principle of criminal law
was used in this case. Explain its relevance and its meaning. (e) Both the RTC
and the CA chose to brush aside the foregoing unrebutted testimony of Durano
for being unreliable and considered him a biased witness simply because he is
related by affinity to Sumbilon and Alumbro. Is this ruling correct?

A.
There is no crime committed in this case. no concrete and competent evidence
was adduced to substantiate the claims of both parties. The Court cannot determine
with certainty the owner of the 33 felled coconut trees. The uncertainty of the exact
location of the coconut trees negates the presence of the criminal intent to gain. Even
arguing that the said coconut trees were within Alejandro’s land, no malice or criminal
intent could be rightfully attributed to those accused. 

B.

The crime of theft of damaged property is committed by Any person who, after
having maliciously damaged the property of another, shall remove or make use of the
fruits or object of the damage caused by him. To warrant a conviction under theft of
damaged property, the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable that the accused
maliciously damaged the property belonging to another and, thereafter, removed or
used the fruits or object thereof, with intent to gain. Evidently, theft of damaged property
is an intentional felony for which criminal liability attaches only when it is shown that the
malefactor acted with criminal intent or malice. Criminal intent must be clearly
established with the other elements of the crime; otherwise, no crime is committed.

C.

I would not convict the accused based on the stated facts. There is no concrete
proof that there was any criminal intent to gain in cutting down the trees due to the
uncertainty as to the exact location of the trees. Absence of any criminal intent does not
warrant a conviction.

D.

Actus non facit reum, nisi mens sit rea means that there can be no crime when
the criminal mind is wanting. As a general rule, ignorance or mistake as to particular
facts, honest and real, will exempt the doer from felonious responsibility. The exception
of course is neglect in the discharge of duty or indifference to consequences, which is
 6

equivalent to criminal intent, for in this instance, the element of malicious intent is
supplied by the element of negligence and imprudence.

E.

No, it is not correct. Family relationship, does not by itself render a witness’
testimony inadmissible or devoid of evidentiary weight. To warrant rejection of the
testimony of a relative or friend, it must be clearly shown that, independently of the
relationship, the testimony was inherently improbable or defective, or that improper or
evil motives had moved the witness to incriminate the accused falsely.

The relationship of Durano to the accused, per se, does not impair his credibility.
It bears stressing that while Sumbilon and Alumbro are Durano’s brothers-in-law,
Alejandro is his cousin. Considering that both the accused and the accuser are
Durano’s relatives, and purportedly both have bearing with regard to his decision, why
would then Durano support one over the other? The logical explanation could only be
that Durano had indeed ordered Sumbilon and Alumbro to cut the trees on his land. The
Court is convinced that Durano was telling the truth.

PROBLEM NO. 8.

According to the accused Maria Suco who is serving as domestic help of

Jackie, she received a phone call from the condominium unit's landline at 1:00
p.m. on May 22, 2012 from a certain Nancy, who introduced herself as Jackie's
assistant and informed her that Jackie had met an accident. Afterwards, she
claimed that Jackie herself talked to her and instructed her to get something from
a drawer (i.e. the antique Rolex wristwatch at ₱400,000.00, the foreign currencies
at ₱86,308.00, and cash at ₱50,000.00) in the master's bedroom and to use a
screwdriver to destroy its lock because the other driver in the accident had a 50-
50 chance of survival. She further narrated that when the lobby guard did not
allow her to leave after she had gathered and packed the contents of the drawer,
Jackie called her and told her to return to the unit and to ask the driver to take her
to Virra Mall. From there, she took a cab going to Baclaran Church, where she
met an unknown woman. Before handing the bag to the unidentified lady, she
claimed that she was able to talk again over the phone to Jackie, who told her to
give the bag to the woman and return to the unit. She only had second thoughts
about what had happened when after arriving at the condominium, Torres stated
that she might have been tricked. She also contended that she had never heard of
the dugo-dugo gang. 
Questions:
(a)Given the set of facts, and the case that you read on the matter, what
crime if any is committed by the said domestic help?
 7

The crime committed is qualified theft. For qualified theft to be committed, the
following elements must concur:
1. Taking of personal property; 2. That the said property belongs to another; 3.
That the said taking be done with intent to gain; 4. That it be done without the owner's
consent; 5. That it be accomplished without the use of violence or intimidation against
persons, nor of force upon things; 6. That it be done with grave abuse of confidence.

This Court has been consistent in holding that "intent to gain or animus
lucrandi is an internal act that is presumed from the unlawful taking by the offender of
the thing subject of asportation. Thus, actual gain is irrelevant as the important
consideration is the intent to gain." In this case, it is clear from the established facts that
it was accused-appellant who opened the drawer in the masters' bedroom and took
away the cash and valuables it contained. Therefore, the burden is on the defense to
prove that intent to gain was absent despite accused-appellant's actual taking of her
employer's valuables. It is precisely this burden that the defense failed to discharge.
This Court has explained that while grave abuse of trust and confidence per se does not
produce the felony as an effect, it is a "circumstance which aggravates and qualifies the
commission of the crime of theft"; hence, the imposition of a higher penalty is
necessary. It is not difficult to understand why the character of accused-appellant's work
as a domestic helper qualifies the offense she committed.
PROBLEM NO. 9.

Sometime in 2002, private complainant Joan Partosa E.

Pureza (Pureza) engaged in a business venture with petitioner Shirley C. Marakoy
and her daughters - petitioners Josephine G. Tomales (Tomales) and accused
Marissa Marakoy Pureza would buy any foreclosed pieces of jewelry from M.
Lhuillier Pawnshop whenever informed by Tomales who was then the manager of
the said pawnshop located at Basa St., San Pablo City, Laguna. The pieces of
jewelry would then be sold for profit by Shirley Marakoy to her co-employees at
the Social Security System (SSS) in San Pablo City. The proceeds of the sale
would then be divided among them in the following manner: fifty percent (50%)
would go to Pureza, while the other fifty percent (50%) would be divided among
Tomales, Shirley Marakoy and Marissa Marakoy. As security for the pieces of
jewelry which were placed in the possession of Shirley Marakoy and her daughter
Marissa Marakoy, the two would issue several checks drawn from their joint bank
account in favor of Pureza reflecting the appraised amount of the pieces of
jewelry.
The business venture was initially successful. However, when Pureza
discovered that Shirley Marakoy, together with her daughters Marissa Marakoy
and Tomales, also engaged in a similar business with other suppliers of pieces of
jewelry, she decided to terminate the business. To wind up the business, it was
agreed that Shirley Marakoy and Marissa Marakoy would just dispose or sell the
remaining pieces of jewelry in their possession. But when Pureza tried to encash
the checks which were issued to her by Marissa Marakoy, the same were
dishonored because the account of the Marakoys had been closed. Pureza then
 8

confronted petitioner Shirley Marakoy about the dishonored checks, and the
latter confessed that she did not have enough money to cover the amount of the
checks. Pureza also learned that the pieces of jewelry were pawned to several
pawnshops and private individuals contrary to what they had agreed upon.
Petitioner Shirley Marakoy furnished Pureza with a list of the pawnshops, such
that, the latter was compelled to redeem the pieces of jewelry with her own
money. It appeared in the pawnshop tickets that it was the nephew of Shirley
Marakoy named Frederick San Diego who pledged the pieces of jewelry.
To settle the matter, Pureza asked Shirley Marakoy to return the remaining
pieces of jewelry in her possession but the latter failed to do so, and instead,
offered her house and lot as payment for the pieces of jewelry. Pureza, however,
did not accept the said offer.
A demand letter was then sent by Pureza to Tomales, Shirley Marakoy and
Marissa Marakoy, dated February 16, 2004, asking for the return of the amount of
₱2,292,519.00 as payment for all the pieces of jewelry which were not returned to
her, including the cash given by Pureza for the rediscounting business. The
demand letter was left unanswered.
For her part, Shirley Marakoy, averred that she had no involvement in the
jewelry business of her daughters. Tomales likewise denied having any business
dealings with her sister Marissa Marakoy and with Pureza. While admitting that
there were pieces of jewelry pledged by her cousin, Frederick San Diego, in the
pawnshop where she was the manager, Tomales denied that she knew where
those pieces of jewelry came from.
Question: What crime is committed, if any, by Tomales, Shirley Marakoy
and Marissa Marakoy? Given the set of facts, how did the Supreme Court rule on
the matter? Explain.

PROBLEM NO. 10.

If an accused is sentenced to “reclusion perpetua” what is the duration (in
years) of said sentence? In one, case the court sentenced the accused to serve
20 years of reclusion perpetua—is the sentence correct? Is it also correct to say
that the duration of reclusion perpetua is 30 years of imprisonment? Explain your
answer.

Although Section 17 of R.A. No. 7659 has fixed the duration of reclusion
perpetua from twenty (20) years and one (1) day to forty (40) years, there was no clear
legislative intent to alter its original classification as an indivisible penalty.

It may, however, be pointed out that although the Revised Penal Code did not
specify the maximum of reclusion perpetua , It is apparent that the maximum period for
the service of this penalty shall not exceed forty (40) years.  The sentence to serve 20
years is correct. There is legal basis, both in law and logic, for Presidential Decree No.
818 to declare that any penalty exceeding twenty (20) years, or the maximum duration
of reclusion temporal, is within the range of reclusion perpetua.
 9

The imputed duration of thirty (30) years for reclusion perpetua, therefore, is only
to serve as the basis for determining the convict's eligibility for pardon or for the
application of the three-fold rule in the service of multiple penalties. Since, however, in
all the graduated scales of penalties in the Code, as set out in Article 25, 70 and
71, reclusion perpetua is the penalty immediately next higher to reclusion temporal, it
follows by necessary implication that the minimum of reclusion perpetua is twenty (20)
years and one (1) day with duration thereafter to last for the rest of the convict's natural
life although, pursuant to Article 70, it appears that the maximum period for the service
of penalties shall not exceed forty (40) years.

PROBLEM NO. 11.

Petitioner Erma Honey D. Salvanera was a senior student of the University
of the Philippines-Cebu. A student of a state university is known as a government
scholar. She was appointed by then President Gloria Arroyo on December 21,
1999 as a student regent of UP, to serve a one-year term starting January 1, 2000
and ending on December 31, 2000.
In the early part of 2000, petitioner discussed with President Arroyo the
renovation of Harisons Hall Annex in UP Diliman. 2 On September 4, 2000,
petitioner, with her siblings and relatives, registered with the Securities and
Exchange Commission the Office of the Student Regent Foundation, Inc.
(OSRFI).3
One of the projects of the OSRFI was the renovation of the Harisons Hall
Annex.4 President Arroyo gave Fifteen Million Pesos (P15,000,000.00) to the
OSRFI as financial assistance for the proposed renovation. The source of the
funds, according to the information, was the Office of the President.
The renovation of Harisons Hall Annex failed to materialize. 5 The
succeeding student regent, Kristine Clare Bocayong, and Christine Jill De Rios,
Secretary General of the KASAMA sa U.P., a system-wide alliance of student
councils within the state university, consequently filed a complaint for
Malversation of Public Funds and Property with the Office of the Ombudsman. 6
On July 3, 2003, the Ombudsman, after due investigation, found probable
cause to indict petitioner and her brother Jade Ian D. Salvanera for estafa,
docketed as Criminal Case No. 27819 of the Sandiganbayan. 7 The Information
reads:
The undersigned Special Prosecution Officer III, Office of the Special
Prosecutor, hereby accuses ERMA HONEY D. SALVANERA and JADE IAN D.
SALVANERA of the crime of Estafa, defined and penalized under Paragraph 2(a),
Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended committed as follows:
That on October, 24, 2000, or sometime prior or subsequent
thereto, in Quezon City, Metro Manila, Philippines, and within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, above-named accused, ERMA
HONEY D. SALVANERA, a high-ranking public officer, being then the
Student Regent of the University of the Philippines, Diliman, Quezon
City, while in the performance of her official functions, committing the
offense in relation to her office and taking advantage of her position,
with intent to gain, conspiring with her brother, JADE IAN D.
 10

SALVANERA, a private individual, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully

and feloniously defraud the government by falsely and fraudulently
representing to former President Gloria Arroyo that the renovation of
the Harisons Hall of the University of the Philippines will be renovated
and renamed as "President Gloria Arroyo Student Hall," and for which
purpose accused ERMA HONEY D. SALVANERA requested the amount
of FIFTEEN MILLION PESOS (P15,000,000.00), Philippine
Currency, from the Office of the President, and the latter relying and
believing on said false pretenses and misrepresentation gave and
delivered to said accused Land Bank Check No. 91353 dated October
24, 2000 in the amount of FIFTEEN MILLION PESOS (P15,000,000.00),
which check was subsequently encashed by accused Jade Ian D.
Salvanera on October 25, 2000 and misappropriated for their personal
use and benefit, and despite repeated demands made upon the
accused for them to return aforesaid amount, the said accused failed
and refused to do so to the damage and prejudice of the government in
the aforesaid amount.
CONTRARY TO LAW.

(1) Petitioner moved to quash the information. She claimed that the
Sandiganbayan does not have any jurisdiction over the offense
charged or over her person, in her capacity as UP student regent.

(2) Petitioner claimed that Republic Act (R.A.) No. 3019, as amended by
R.A. No. 8249, enumerates the crimes or offenses over which the
Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction. It has no jurisdiction over the crime
of estafa. It only has jurisdiction over crimes covered by Title VII,
Chapter II, Section 2 (Crimes Committed by Public Officers), Book II of
the Revised Penal Code (RPC). Estafa falling under Title X, Chapter VI
(Crimes Against Property), Book II of the RPC is not within the
Sandiganbayan’s jurisdiction.

(3) She also argued that it was President Arroyo, not the government, that
was duped. Even assuming that she received the P15,000,000.00, that
amount came from Arroyo, not from the coffers of the government.

(4) Petitioner likewise posited that the Sandiganbayan had no jurisdiction

over her person. As a student regent, she was not a public officer since she
merely represented her peers, in contrast to the other regents who held their
positions in an ex officio capacity. She added that she was a simple student and
did not receive any salary as a student regent.

(4) She further contended that she had no power or authority to receive
monies or funds. Such power was vested with the Board of Regents
 11

(BOR) as a whole. Since it was not alleged in the information that it was
among her functions or duties to receive funds, or that the crime was
committed in connection with her official functions, the same is
beyond the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan citing the case of Soller
v. Sandiganbayan.

Question: (a)How did the Supreme Court rule on the above 5 contentions of
Salvanera? (b) Give the jurisprudence laid in Soller v. Sandiganbayan.

A.
1.
The contention of Salvanera is incorrect. The law provides that the
Sandiganbayan shall exercise exclusive original jurisdiction in cases
involving, among others, Presidents, directors or trustees, or managers of
government-owned or controlled corporations, state universities or
educational institutions or foundations. As she is student regent of UP, which
is an institution maintained by the government and performs a legitimate
governmental function, Sandiganbayan has the jurisdiction over the offense
charged or over her person.

2.
Petitioner’s contention shall fail. Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over other
felonies committed by public officials in relation to their office. Estafa is one
of those other felonies. The jurisdiction is simply subject to the twin
requirements that (a) the offense is committed by public officials and
employees mentioned in Section 4(A) of P.D. No. 1606, as amended, and
that (b) the offense is committed in relation to their office.
3.

The information alleges that the funds came from the Office of the
President and not its then occupant, President Arroyo. Under the information, it is
averred that "petitioner requested the amount of Fifteen Million Pesos
(P15,000,000.00), Philippine Currency, from the Office of the President, and the latter
relying and believing on said false pretenses and misrepresentation gave and
delivered to said accused Land Bank Check No. 91353 dated October 24, 2000 in
the amount of Fifteen Million Pesos (P15,000,000.00)." Again, the Court sustains
the Sandiganbayan observation that the source of the P15,000,000 is a matter of
defense that should be ventilated during the trial on the merits of the instant
case.

4.

Petitioner’s contention is incorrect. n Laurel v. Desierto, the Court stated that “A

public office is the right, authority and duty, created and conferred by law, by which, for
a given period, either fixed by law or enduring at the pleasure of the creating power, an
 12

individual is invested with some portion of the sovereign functions of the government, to
be exercised by him for the benefit of the public. The individual so invested is a public
officer."

5.

It is axiomatic that jurisdiction is determined by the averments in the information.

More than that, jurisdiction is not affected by the pleas or the theories set up by
defendant or respondent in an answer, a motion to dismiss, or a motion to quash.
Otherwise, jurisdiction would become dependent almost entirely upon the whims of
defendant or respondent.

B.

The rule is that in order to ascertain whether a court has jurisdiction or not, the
provisions of the law should be inquired into. Furthermore, the jurisdiction of the court
must appear clearly from the statute law or it will not be held to exist. It cannot be
presumed or implied. For this purpose in criminal cases, the jurisdiction of the court is
determined by the law at the time of the commencement of the action. The bone of
contention here is whether the offenses charged may be considered as committed "in
relation to their office" as this phrase is employed in the above-quoted Section 4. what is
controlling is not whether the phrase "committed in violation to public office" appears in
the information; what determines the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan is the specific
factual allegation in the information that would indicate close intimacy between the
discharge of the accused's official duties and the commission of the offense charged in
order to qualify the crime as having been committed in relation to public office.

PROBLEM NO. 12.

On February 28, 2000, at around 5:30 in the afternoon, Alfredo Abag (Abag),
a resident of Sitio Kabanatian, Bgy. Tumanding, was on his way home bringing
some "Taiwan" fish to sell when he met the Jose Tagorokoy at a shortcut road
passable only to people and animals. He noticed that Jose Tagorokoy had
scratches on his face and his hand was holding a lagaraw (bolo) with blood on it.
Jose Tagorokoy asked for the price of the fish but he did not buy and just left.
From what he had observed, Jose Tagorokoy was restless and uneasy.
Meanwhile, AAA’s father, BBB, reported to the barangay authorities that his
daughter was missing. In the morning of February 29, 2000, he, together with
Abag and two barangay officials, began to search for AAA. They found her
already dead, lying on a grassy area near a farm hut owned by Jennifer Q.
Gumantiao. AAA’s body bore several hack wounds, blood oozed from her mouth,
her one hand and one finger were cut off. He knows Jose Tagorokoy because
they are neighbors. Their families had a rift because Jose Tagorokoy’s father was
killed by his son-in-law, Lito Miguel.
 13

Dr. Johnny T. Mata, Jr., Municipal Health Officer of Marilao, conducted a

post-mortem examination of the cadaver of AAA. He submitted a Post-Mortem
Report with the following findings:
Multiple hacked wounds:
Left face mandibular area, partial transaction
Left neck area lateral and anterior area, partial transaction extending into
the vertebra
Left hand completely transected at the midpalmar area
Right thumb completely transected
Right hand partially transected at the palmer area, medial
Right wrist, partially transected anterior
Perineal and internal examination:
Blood stained white underwear
Lacerated hymen at 3, 9 and 11 o’clock position
Whitish discharge sent to Marilao, Valley District Hospital Antipas,
Cotabato for sperm analysis
CAUSE OF DEATH:
Cardio-Respiratory Arrest secondary to hemorrhage secondary to multiple
hacked wounds
According to Dr. Mata, the probable cause of death was loss of blood due
to the hack wounds. He also opined that the genital injury could have been
caused by a penetrating penis or any blunt object.
Question: Based on said facts, what crime is committed by Jose
Tagorokoy? Is it a complex crime or a special complex crime? What is the
difference between a complex crime and a special complex crime?

The crime committed by Jose Tagorokoy is crime with homicide. he felony of

rape with homicide is a special complex crime that is, two or more crimes that the law
treats as a single indivisible and unique offense for being the product of a single criminal
impulse. In rape with homicide, the following elements must concur: (1) the appellant
had carnal knowledge of a woman; (2) carnal knowledge of a woman was achieved by
means of force, threat or intimidation; and (3) by reason or on occasion of such carnal
knowledge by means of force, threat or intimidation, the appellant killed a woman. In
this case, nobody witnessed the actual rape and killing of AAA. Appellant, however may
still be proven as the culprit despite the absence of eyewitnesses. For in the absence of
direct evidence, the prosecution may resort to adducing circumstantial evidence to
discharge its burden. Circumstantial evidence consists of proof of collateral facts and
circumstances from which the existence of the main fact may be inferred according to
reason and common experience. Considering all the circumstances mentioned and in
light of previous rulings, we are satisfied that the evidence adduced against appellant
constitutes an unbroken chain leading to the one fair and reasonable conclusion that
appellant was the perpetrator of the crime.

A complex crime is when a single act produces two or more grave or less grave
felonies or when an offense is necessary means for committing the other. Special
 14

complex crime is made up of more than one crime but which in the eyes of the law is
only a single indivisible offense.

PROBLEM NO. 13.

In People v. Francisco, the accused, who was then a sanitary inspector in
the Philippine Health Service, discovered during an inspection of the
merchandise in Sy Ham’s store that the lard was unfit for consumption. He then
demanded from Sy Ham the payment of ₱2.00 with threats of prosecution and
arrest. For fear of being arrested, prosecuted, and convicted, Sy Ham immediately
paid the amount demanded.
In United States v. Sanchez, two police officers demanded from a Chinese,
who allegedly violated the Opium Law, ₱500.00, accompanied by threats to take
him before the proper authorities and have him prosecuted. For fear of being sent
to prison for a long term, the Chinese paid a negotiated amount of ₱150.00
In Fortuna v. People and Pablo v. People, three policemen frisked Diosdada
and Mario Montecillo, and accused the latter of illegal possession of a deadly
weapon. The policemen threatened Mario that he would be brought to the police
station where he would be interrogated by the police, mauled by other prisoners
and heckled by the press. The apprehending policemen took from Mario
₱1,000.00. They likewise rummaged Diosdada’s bag where they found and
eventually pocketed ₱5,000.00. They further demanded from Diosdada any piece
of jewelry that could be pawned. Thereafter, the two were released by the
policemen.
Question: In the above enumerated cases, what crime is committed and
why?
The crime committed is robbery.

PROBLEM NO. 14.

The prosecution alleged that on July 2, 2001, the first day of his term as
councilor of the City of Malabon, Sevilla made a false narration in his Personal
Data Sheet (PDS). That in answer to the question of whether there is a pending
criminal case against him, Sevilla marked the box corresponding to the “no”
answer despite the pendency of a criminal case against him for assault upon an
agent of a person in authority before the Metropolitan Trial Court of Malabon City,
Branch 55.
Based on the same set of facts, an administrative complaint, docketed as OMB-
ADM-0-01-1520, was likewise filed against Sevilla.  In its Decision dated March 26,
2002, the Office of the Ombudsman found Sevilla administratively liable for
dishonesty and falsification of official document and dismissed him from the
service.  In Sevilla v. Gervacio, the Court, in the Resolution dated June 23, 2003,
affirmed the findings of the Office of the Ombudsman as regards Sevilla’s
administrative liability. On the other hand, Sevilla admitted that he indeed marked
the box corresponding to the “no” answer vis-à-vis the question on whether he
has any pending criminal case.  However, he averred that he did not intend to
 15

falsify his PDS.  He claimed that it was Editha Mendoza (Mendoza), a member of
his staff, who actually prepared his PDS. According to Sevilla, on July 2, 2001,
since he did not have an office yet, he just stayed in his house.  At around two
o’clock in the afternoon, he was informed by Mendoza that he needs to
accomplish his PDS and submit the same to the personnel office of the City of
Malabon before five o’clock that afternoon.  He then instructed Mendoza to copy
the entries in the previous copy of his PDS which he filed with the personnel
office.  After the PDS was filled up and delivered to him by Mendoza, Sevilla
claims that he just signed the same without checking the veracity of the entries
therein. That he failed to notice that, in answer to the question of whether he has
any pending criminal case, Mendoza checked the box corresponding to the “no”
answer.
The defense likewise presented the testimony of Edilberto G. Torres
(Torres), a former City Councilor.  Torres testified that Sevilla was not yet given
an office space in the Malabon City Hall on July 2, 2001; that when the members
of Sevilla’s staff would then need to use the typewriter, they would just use the
typewriter inside Torres’ office.  Torres further claimed that he saw Mendoza
preparing the PDS of Sevilla, the latter having used the typewriter in his office.
QUESTION: With what she did is Sevilla criminally liable? What crime did
she commit if any?

Sevilla is criminally liable for the crime of reckless imprudence resulting to

falsification of public documents. Under the RPC, in negligence or imprudence, what is
principally penalized is the mental attitude or condition behind the act, the dangerous
recklessness, lack of care or foresight, the imprudencia punible. What is penalized is
the mental attitude or condition behind the acts of dangerous recklessness and lack of
care or foresight although such mental attitude might have produced several effects or
consequences. This Court is persuaded that accused did not act with malicious intent to
falsify the document in question but merely failed to ascertain for himself the veracity of
narrations in his PDS before affixing his signature thereon. The reckless signing of the
PDS without verifying the data therein makes him criminally liable for his act.

PROBLEM NO. 15.

The accused is a businessman and a member of the Philippine Bar which
actuation requires of him to act and behave at all times within the decorum
befitting of a lawyer. The offended party was a pregnant woman and on account
of her physical condition and sex she was totally taken advantage of by the
accused. The accused deliberately committed the act of slapping complained of,
to dishonor and discredit the offended party. There was no provocation
whatsoever on the part of the offended party that could have triggered the
slapping incident, nor has she nor her father ever called the accused a "falsifier."
Question: On the above-mentioned facts, what crime was committed by the
accused? Explain.

The crime committed by the accused is grave slander by deed. Grave slander by
deed is committed by performing any act, which casts dishonor, discredit, or contempt
 16

upon another person. The elements are (1) that the offender performs any act not
included in any other crime against honor, (2) that such act is performed in the presence
of other person or persons, and (3) that such act casts dishonor, discredit or contempt
upon the offended party. Whether a certain slanderous act constitutes slander by deed
of a serious nature or not, depends on the social standing of the offended party, the
circumstances under which the act was committed, the occasion, etc. Based on the
foregoing facts, all the elements of the crime are present in this case. The slapping
which is an act to discredit and dishonor the pregnant woman and which was done in
the presence of other persons.

PROBLEM NO. 16.

Dalila and private complainant Gemma B. Marisola (Gemma), were public
school teachers at the Bolok Elementary School, in Bolok, Maribago, Cebu. 
Dalila's son, Danilo, was a student of Gemma at the time material to this case.
On July 17, 1981, at around 10:00 o'clock in the morning, Dalila confronted
Gemma after learning from Danilo that Gemma called him a "sissy" while in class.
Dalila slapped Gemma in the cheek and pushed her, thereby causing her to fall
and hit a wall divider. As a result of Dalila's violent assault, Gemma suffered a
contusion in her "maxillary area", as shown by a medical certificate issued by a
doctor in the Maribago General Hospital.  However, Gemma continued to
experience abdominal pains and started bleeding two days after the incident.  On
August 28, 1981, she was admitted in the Southern Islands Hospital and was
diagnosed, to her surprise, to have suffered incomplete abortion. Accordingly, a
medical certificate was issued to prove the said abortion which was attributed to
Dalila.
Question: Given the set of facts, what crime if any was committed by
Dalila? Explain.

The crime committed by Dalila is direct assault. Under the Revised Penal Code,
Direct Assault is committed by any person or persons who, without a public uprising,
shall attack, employ force, or seriously intimidate or resist any person in authority or any
of his agents, while engaged in the performance of official duties, or on occasion of
such performance. The elements of such common form of assault are the following

1. That the offender (a) makes an attack, (b) employs force, (c) makes a serious
intimidation, or (d) makes a serious resistance.

2. That the person assaulted is a person in authority or his agent.

3. That at the time of the assault the person in authority or his agent (a) is
engaged in the actual performance of official duties, or [b] that he is assaulted by
reason of the past performance of official duties.

4. That the offender knows that the one he is assaulting is a person in authority
or his agent in the exercise of his duties.
 17

5. That there is no public uprising.

On the day of the commission of the assault, Gemma was engaged in the
performance of her official duties. Gemma being a public-school teacher, belongs to the
class of persons in authority expressly mentioned in Article 152 of the Revised Penal
Code, which states that teachers, professors, and persons charged with the supervision
of public or duly recognized private schools, colleges and universities, and lawyers in
the actual performance of their professional duties or on the occasion of such
performance shall be deemed persons in authority. Undoubtedly, there is concrete and
clear evidence based on the facts to establish beyond reasonable doubt the
commission of the crime of direct assault.

PROBLEM NO. 17.

Atty. Oscar Tabirak and his eight-year-old daughter, Girlie, were shot and
killed at around 5:15 p.m. of August 15, 2003 in Manila. The police had no leads
on the perpetrators of the crime until a certain Reynaldo Geron surfaced and
executed an affidavit dated September 12, 2003. He stated that a certain Lucio
Columnas told him during a drinking spree that Atty. Tabirak was ordered killed
by respondent Lloyd Manorda and that he (Columnas) was one of those who
killed Atty. Tabirak. He added that he told the Tabirak family what he knew and
that the sketch of the suspect closely resembled Columnas. After conducting a
preliminary investigation and on the strength of Geron's affidavit, the
investigating prosecutor issued a resolution dated December 5, 2003 finding
probable cause against Columnas and three John Does. On February 2, 2004, the
corresponding Informations for murder were filed against them in the Regional
Trial Court (RTC) of Manila, one assigned to Branch 27 for the death of Atty.
Franklin Tabirak, and the other to Branch 29 for the death of the minor
Girlie. Columnas was arrested in the province of Cagayan on February 17, 2004
and brought to Manila for detention and trial. On March 8, 2004, Columnas
executed an affidavit wherein he admitted his participation as "look out" during
the shooting and implicated respondent Romano Tawing (alias "Mumoy") as the
gunman and one Richard Mecate. He also tagged as masterminds respondent
Licerio Manorda, Jr. and his son, respondent Lloyd Manorda.The former was the
ex-mayor and the latter the mayor of Buguey, Cagayan at that time. When the
killing took place, Licerio Manorda was in detention for a kidnapping case in
which Atty. Tabirak was acting as private prosecutor. Pursuant to this affidavit,
petitioner Harold V. Tabirak (brother of Atty. Tabirak) filed a complaint against
those implicated by Columnas in the Office of the City Prosecutor of Manila. On
April 19, 2004, Columnas affirmed his affidavit before the investigating prosecutor
who subjected him to clarificatory questions. Respondents denied any
 18

involvement in the killings. They alleged that Licerio was a candidate for mayor in
Buguey, Cagayan during the May 2004 elections and that the case was instituted
by his political opponents in order to derail his candidacy. The Manordas
admitted that Atty. Tabirak was their political rival for the mayoralty post of
Buguey. Atty. Tabirak had been defeated twice by Lloyd and once by Licerio.
Before the killing, Atty. Tabirak filed an election case against Lloyd and a
kidnapping case in the Sandiganbayan against Licerio. However, they claimed
that both cases were dismissed as Lloyd emerged as the winner in the elections
and Licerio was acquitted by the Sandiganbayan. During the preliminary
investigation, respondent Licerio presented Columnas' unsolicited handwritten
letter dated May 3, 2004 to respondent Lloyd, sent from Columnas' jail cell in
Manila. In the letter, Columnas disowned the contents of his March 8, 2004
affidavit and narrated how he had been tortured until he signed the extrajudicial
confession. He stated that those he implicated had no participation in the
killings. Respondent Licerio also submitted an affidavit of Columnas dated May
25, 2004 wherein the latter essentially repeated the statements in his handwritten
letter. Due to the submission of Columnas' letter and affidavit, the investigating
prosecutor set a clarificatory hearing, to enable Columnas to clarify his
contradictory affidavits and his unsolicited letter. During the hearing held on
October 22, 2004, Columnas categorically admitted the authorship and
voluntariness of the unsolicited letter. He affirmed the May 25, 2004 affidavit and
denied that any violence had been employed to obtain or extract the
affidavit from him. Thus, on November 10, 2004, the investigating prosecutor
recommended the dismissal of the charges. This was approved by the city
prosecutor.
Question: As the investigating prosecutor, in issuing the Resolution
recommending the dismissal, what grounds or principles would you state in
order to justify your recommendation for dismissal of the case? Granting that the
recommendation was denied by the City prosecutor and that Information for
murder was filed in Court, as Judge, how would you resolve the issue of probable
cause for you to issue or not the warrant of arrest?

PROBLEM NO. 18
The petitioner herein, Jimmy Angara, was a former civilian employee
of the Navy Exchange, Sangley Point, Cavite City, whose services were
terminated on May 6, 1961.  In the afternoon of June 6, 1961, be led a group
of about 20 to 30 persons in a demonstration staged in front of the main
gate of the United States Naval Station at Sangley Point.  They carried
placards bearing statements such as, "Romy, mamatay ka;" "To, alla boss
con Nolan;" "Frank do not be a common funk;" "Romy, mamamatay ka rin;"
"Romy, Nolan for you;" "Romy, alla bos con Nolan;"
"Romy, dillega el dia di guide rin bo chiquiting;" and others.  The base
commander, Capt. McAllister, called up Col. Patricia Zuno, who as
Philippine Military Liason Officer at Sangley Point was in charge of
 19

preserving harmonious relations between the personnel of the naval

station and the civilian population of Cavite City.  Capt. McAllister
requested Col. Zuno to join him at the main gate of the base to meet the
demonstrators.  Col. Zuno went to the place and talked to Jimmy Angara
and one Luis Buenaventura.  Upon learning that the demonstration was not
directed against the naval station but against Romy Kalaw and a certain
Frank Nolan for their having allegedly caused the dismissal
of Jimmy Angara from the Navy Exchange, Col. Zuno suggested to them to
demonstrate in front of Kalaw's residence, but they told him that they
would like the people in the station to know how they felt about Kalaw and
Nolan.  They assured him, however, that they did not intend to use
violence, as "they just wanted to blow off steam."
At that time Romy Kalaw was in his office inside the naval
station.  When he learned about the demonstration he became
apprehensive about his safety, so he sought Col. Zuno's protection.  The
colonel thereupon escorted Kalaw, his brother, and another person in
going out of the station, using his (Konzon's) car for the purpose.  Once
outside, Col. Zuno purposely slowed down to accommodate the request of
Angara.  He told Kalaw to take a good look at the demonstrators and at the
placards they were carrying.  When the demonstrators saw Kalaw they
shouted, "Mabuhay si Romy." Then they boarded their jeeps and followed
the car.  One jeep overtook and passed the car while the other two trailed
behind.  After Kalaw and his companions had alighted in front of his
residence at 967 Burgos St., Cavite City, Col. Zuno sped away.
The three jeeps carrying the demonstrator’s parked in front
of Kalaw’s residence after being gone by it twice.  Jimmy Angara got off his
jeep and posted himself at the gate, and with his right hand inside his
pocket and his left holding the gate-door, he shouted
repeatedly.  "Romy, putang ina mo.  Romy, mawawala ka.  Romy lumabas k
a, papatayin kita." Thereafter, he boarded his jeep and the motorcade left
the premises.  Meanwhile, Kalaw, frightened by the demeanor of Angara
and the other demonstrators, stayed inside the house.
On the basis of the foregoing events Jimmy Angara was charged on
July 24 and 25, 1961 with grave threats and grave oral defamation,
respectively (Criminal Cases Nos. 2594 and 2595, Municipal Court
of Cavite City).
Question: If you were the judge, after hearing the evidence, and
summing up the facts, will you convict the accuse or acquit him? If you
convict him, what crime or crimes?

I will acquit the accused. Under the Revised Penal Code, the crime of grave
threats is committed (1) that the offender threatened another person with the infliction
upon his person of a wrong; (2) that such wrong amounted to a crime; and (3) that the
 20

threat was not subject to a condition. Hence, petitioner could have been convicted
thereunder. It is to be noted that under the aforementioned provision the particular
manner in which the threat is made not a qualifying ingredient of the offense, such that
the deletion of the word "orally" did not affect the nature and essence of the crime as
charged originally. Neither did it change the basic theory of the prosecution that the
accused threatened to kill Rosauro Reyes so as to require the petitioner to undergo any
material change or modification in his defense.

The charge of oral defamation stemmed from the utterance of the words,
"Agustin, putang ina mo". This is a common enough expression in the dialect that is
often employed, not really to slander but rather to express anger or displeasure. It is
seldom, if ever, taken in its literal sense by the hearer, that is, as a reflection on the
virtues of a mother. In the instant case, it should be viewed as part of the threats voiced
by appellant against Agustin Hallare, evidently to make the same more emphatic.

PROBLEM NO. 19
The damages on crimes to include civil indemnity, exemplary
damages, moral damages, and temperate damages are already fixed
in such a way that a judge need not even bother to compute the same.
Questions:
(1) What criminal case in particular can you cite as
jurisprudence? (2) Who is the ponente of the case?
(3) When was this case decided?
(4) As an example what damages will you award in
(a) homicide where no receipts for damages are presented
(b) rape with homicide
(c) murder where receipts of hospitalization amounting to
P100,000 was proved in court;
(e) robbery with Intentional Mutilation?
(f) reckless imprudence resulting to homicide?

1. The case of People of the Philippines vs. Ireneo Jugueta with GR No.
202124.

2. The ponente of the case is Justice Diosdado M. Peralta

3. The case was decided on April 5, 2016.

4.

A. the amount of P50,000 as temperate damages shall be awarded

since there are no receipts;
 21

B. Civil indemnity – ₱100,000.00; Moral damages – ₱100,000.00

Exemplary damages – ₱100,000.00

C. Actual Damages- P100,000; Civil indemnity – ₱100,000.00; Moral

damages – ₱100,000.00 Exemplary damages – ₱100,000.00

D. Civil indemnity – ₱100,000.00; Moral damages – ₱100,000.00

Exemplary damages – ₱100,000.00

E. Civil indemnity – ₱100,000.00; Moral damages – ₱100,000.00

Exemplary damages – ₱100,000.

PROBLEM NO. 20
The Acao family is composed of Acao San (father), Chua Ong Ping Sim
(mother), Robert and Raymond (children), Lenny (daughter-in-law, wife of Robert),
Matthew and Charlene (grandchildren), and Jona Lugatiman and Josephine Ortea
(housemaids). The Acao family owns and operates a poultry farm in Barangay
Santo Cristo, San Jose del Monte, Bulacan.On 16 July 1999, at about 11:00 p.m.,
the Acao family, on board a Mazda MVP van, arrived at their poultry farm in
Barangay Sto. Cristo, San Jose del Monte, Bulacan. Acao San alighted from the
van to open the gate of the farm. At this juncture, appellant Dalman and a certain
Juanito Caturayon (Caturayon) approached, poked their guns at Acao San, and
dragged him inside the van. Appellant Dalman and Caturayon also boarded the
van. Thereupon, appellants Romualdo and Abuhan, with two male companions,
all armed with guns, arrived and immediately boarded the van. Appellant Abuhan
took the driver's seat and drove the van. Appellants Dalman and Romualdo and
their cohorts then blindfolded each member of the Acao family inside the van
with packaging tape. After about 30 minutes of traveling on the road, the van
stopped. Per order of appellants and their cohorts, Chua Ong Ping Sim, Robert,
Raymond and Jona Lugatiman (Lugatiman) stepped out of the van with
appellants Dalman and Romualdo, Caturayon and one of their male companions.
Appellant Abuhan, with the other male companion, drove the van with the
remaining members of the Acao family inside the vehicle. Later, the van stopped
again. Appellant Abuhan and his male companion told Acao San to produce the
amount of five million pesos (P5,000,000.00) as ransom in exchange for the
release of Chua Ong Ping Sim, Robert, Raymond and Lugatiman. Thereafter,
appellant Abuhan and his male companion left the van and fled; while Acao San,
Lenny, Matthew, Charlene and Josephine remained inside the van. Upon sensing
that the kidnappers had already left, Acao San drove the van towards the poultry
farm and sought the help of relatives. Meanwhile, Chua Ong Ping Sim, Robert,
Raymond and Lugatiman were taken on foot by appellants Dalman and
Romualdo, Caturayon and one male companion to a safe-house situated in the
mountainous part of San Jose Del Monte, Bulacan where they spent the whole
 22

night. On the morning of the following day, at around 4:00 a.m., appellants and
their cohorts tried to contact Acao San regarding the ransom demanded, but the
latter could not be reached. Thus, appellants instructed Lugatiman to look for
Acao San in the poultry farm. Appellants Dalman and Romualdo and one male
companion escorted Lugatiman in proceeding to the poultry farm. Upon arriving
therein, Lugatiman searched for Acao San, but the latter could not be found.
Appellants Dalman and Romualdo told Lugatiman to remind Acao San about the
ransom demanded. Thereafter, appellants Dalman and Romualdo and their male
companion left Lugatiman in the poultry farm and went back to the safe-house. In
the safe-house, appellants told Robert that they would release him so he could
help Lugatiman in locating Acao San. Robert and appellants left the safe-house,
and after 30 minutes of trekking, appellants abandoned Robert. Robert then ran
towards the poultry farm. Upon arriving at the poultry farm, Robert found Acao
San and informed him about the ransom demanded by the appellants. Robert also
told Acao San that Chua Ong Ping Sim and Raymond were still held by appellants
and their cohorts. On 18 July 1999, appellants called Acao San through a cellular
phone and demanded the ransom of P5 million for Chua Ong Ping Sim and
Raymond. Acao San acceded to appellants' demand. Appellants allowed Acao
San to talk with Chua Ong Ping Sim. On the morning of 19 July 1999, appellants
again called Acao San via a cellular phone and threatened to kill Chua Ong Ping
Sim and Raymond because of newspaper and radio reports regarding the
incident. Acao San clarified to appellants that he did not report the incident to the
police and also pleaded with them to spare the life of Chua Ong Ping Sim and
Raymond. Appellants then instructed Acao San to appear and bring with him the
ransom of P5 million at 3:00 p.m. in the Usan dumpsite, Litex Road, Fairview,
Quezon City. Acao San arrived at the designated place of the pay-off at 4:00 p.m.,
but none of the appellants or their cohorts showed up. Acao San waited for
appellant's call, but none came. Thus, Acao San left. On 23 July 1999, the corpses
of Chua Ong Ping Sim and Raymond were found at the La Mesa Dam, Novaliches,
Quezon City. Both died of asphyxia by strangulation.
Question: On the basis of the above facts, if you were the prosecutor, what
crime would you charge to the suspects? What elements of the offense will you
prove in court?

The crime that the suspects committed is kidnapping for ransom with homicide.
Under Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code, the crime of kidnapping is committed with
the concurrence of the following elements: (1) the offender is a private individual; (2) he
kidnaps or detains another, or in any manner deprives the latter of his liberty; (3) the act
of detention or kidnapping is illegal; and (4) in the commission of the offense, any of the
following circumstances is present: (a) the kidnapping or detention lasts for more than
three days; (b) it is committed by simulating public authority; (c) serious physical injuries
are inflicted upon the person kidnapped or detained or threats to kill him are made; or
(d) the person kidnapped or detained is a minor, female, or a public officer. All of the
foregoing elements were duly establish by the testimonial and documentary evidences
for the prosecution in the case at bar. First, appellants and their cohorts are private
 23

individuals. Second, appellants and their cohorts kidnapped the Yao family by taking
control of their van and detaining them in a secluded place. Third, the Yao family was
taken against their will. And fourth, threats to kill were made and the kidnap victims
include females.

Republic Act No. 7659 provides that the death penalty shall be imposed if any of
the two qualifying circumstances is present in the commission of the kidnapping: (1) the
motive of the kidnappers is to extort ransom for the release of the kidnap victims,
although none of the circumstances mentioned under paragraph four of the elements of
kidnapping were present. Ransom means money, price or consideration paid or
demanded for the redemption of a captured person that would release him from
captivity. Whether or not the ransom is actually paid to or received by the perpetrators is
of no moment. It is sufficient that the kidnapping was committed for the purpose of
exacting ransom; and (2) the kidnap victims were killed or died as a consequence of the
kidnapping or was raped, or subjected to torture or dehumanizing acts. Both of these
qualifying circumstances are alleged in the information and proven during trial. The
death penalty cannot be imposed on the appellants in view of the passage of Republic
Act No. 9346 on 24 June 2006 prohibiting the imposition of death penalty in the
Philippines. In accordance with Sections 2 and 3 thereof, the penalty that should be
meted out to the appellants is reclusion perpetua without the possibility of parole.

END OF THE EXAMINATION