1

2018 CRIMINAL LAW ANSWERS occurs because extraneous circumstances

unknown to the actor or beyond his control,
I. Roberto and Ricardo have had a long-standing rendered the intended crime impossible of
dispute regarding conflicting claims over the accomplishment, the offense committed is an
ownership of a parcel of land. One night, impossible crime (Art. 4, Par. 2, RPC); the
Roberto was so enraged that he decided to kill factual situation that made impossible the
Ricardo. Roberto asked his best friend, Rafael, accomplishment of the crime intended when
to lend him a gun and drive him to Ricardo’s they prepared Ricardo’s room with bullets, was
house. Rafael knew about Roberto’s plan to kill the physical absence of the intended victim of
Ricardo, but agreed to lend him a gun the room.
nevertheless. Rafael also drove Roberto to the
street corner nearest the house of Ricardo. If a crime was committed, what is the degree of
Rafael waited for him there, until the task had participation of Roberto, Rafael, and Ruel?
been accomplished, so that he could drive (2.5%)
Roberto to the next town to evade arrest. SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Roberto also asked another friend, Ruel, to
stand guard outside Ricardo’s house, for the All the perpetrators (Roberto, Ricardo and
purpose of warning him in case there was any Rafael) are criminally liable as principals since
danger or possible witnesses, and to keep other the conspiracy among them was clearly
persons away from the vicinity. All three – established by their participation.
Roberto, Rafael and Ruel – agreed to the plan
and their respective roles. Roberto is principal by direct participation as he
took a direct part in the execution of the plan
On the agreed date, Rafael drove Roberto and to kill Ricardo by firing his gun at the room of
Ruel to the nearest corner near Ricardo’s house. the intended victim. Rafael is principal by
Roberto and Ruel walked about 50 meters indispensable cooperation not only because he
where Ruel took his post as guard, and lent his gun to Roberto fully knowing the
Roberto walked about five (5) meters more, unlawful intent of the latter, but also drove him
aimed the gun at Ricardo’s bedroom, and to the place of the commission of crime and to
peppered it with bullets. When he thought that a place where he could escape.
he had accomplished his plan, Roberto ran
away, followed by Ruel, and together they rode Ruel being involved in the criminal plan to kill
in Rafael’s car where they drove to the next Ricardo acted in conspiracy with the two (2)
town to spend the night there. It turned out other perpetrators staying in the place from the
that Ricardo was out of town when the incident time they planned the crime up to its
happened, and no one was in his room at the finalization. They were together in the car
time it was peppered with bullets. Thus, no one driven by Rafael going to the next town in
was killed or injured during the incident. escaping from the scene of the crime.

Was a crime committed? If yes, what is/are the II. Rico, a hit man, positioned himself at the
crime/s committed (2.5%) rooftop of a nearby building of a bank, to serve
as a lookout for Red and Rod while the two
were robbing the bank, as the three of them
SUGGESTED ANSWER: had previously planned. Ramiro, a policeman,
responded to the reported robbery. Rico saw
Yes. In the case of Intod v. Court of Appeals Ramiro and, to eliminate the danger of Red and
(G.R. No. 103119, Oct. 21, 1992), the Supreme Rod being caught, pulled the trigger of his rifle,
Court ruled that when factual impossibility intending to kill Ramiro. He missed as Ramiro
 2

slipped and fell down to the ground. Instead, a whom was Ric, and (iii) five (5) neophytes, one
woman depositor who was coming out of the (1) of whom was Ronald. Absent were: (i)
bank was fatally shot. After their apprehension, Rollie, the fraternity’s Vice Chancellor and who
Rico, Red, and Rod were charged with the actually planned the initiation; and (ii) Ronnie,
special complex crime of robbery with the owner of the house where the initiation was
homicide. Rico’s defense was that he never conducted.
intended to shoot and kill the woman, only
Ramiro. Red and Rod’s defense was that they Due to the severe beating suffered by Ronald on
were not responsible for the death of the that occasion, he lost consciousness and was
woman as they had no participation therein. brought to the nearest hospital by Redmont and
Ric. However, Ronald was declared dead on
Is Rico’s defense meritorious? (2.5%) arrival at the hospital.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
During the investigation of the case, it was
Rico’s defense is not meritorious, because the found out that, although Ronald really wanted
homicide was committed on the occasion of to join the fraternity because his father is also a
robbery; thus, the crime committed is robbery member of the same fraternity, it was his best
with homicide as long as the killing occurred friend Ric who ultimately convinced him to join
on the occasion of the robbery whoever be the the fraternity and, as a prerequisite thereto,
victim, whether intended or not. undergo initiation. It was also shown that
Redmont and Ric did not actually participate in
Is Red and Rod’s defense meritorious? (2.5%) the beating of the neophytes (hazing). The two
SUGGESTED ANSWER: (2) either merely watched the hazing or helped
in preparing food.
No, the defense of Red and Rod’s is also not
meritorious. The concerted manner in which And, lastly, two (2) days prior thereto, Ronnie
the three (Rico, Red and Rod) perpetrated the texted Rollie that the fraternity may use his
crime showed clearly the presence of house as the venue for the planned initiation.
conspiracy. When a homicide takes place by
reason or on the occasion of robbery, all those Aside from those who actually participated in
who took part shall be guilty of the special the hazing, Redmont, Rollie, Ric, and Ronnie
complex crime of robbery with homicide, were criminally charged for the hazing of
whether or not they actually participated in Ronald that resulted in the latter’s death.
the killing.
Are the four criminally liable? (2.5%)
Regardless of the fact that the killing of the
woman depositor was individually performed by SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Rico, the basic principal in conspiracy is that the Yes. Redmont’s presence during the hazing is
“act of one is the act of all”, the criminal liability prima facie evidence of participation therein as
of Rod and Red is one and the same with that principal, unless he prevented the commission
of Rico (P. v. Hinlo (G.R. No. 212151, Feb. 18, of the hazing that caused physical harm to
2015). Ronald.
Ric is also liable criminally, because as member
III. On February 5, 2017, Rho Rio Fraternity held of the Fraternity who knowingly cooperated in
initiation rites. Present were: carrying out the initiation by inducing the victim
to be present thereat is liable as principal. He is
Redmont, the Lord Chancellor and head of the penalized, not because of any participation in
fraternity; (ii) ten ( 10) members, one (1) of the infliction of harm to the victim but due to
 3

his indispensable cooperation in the crime by the defense that she could not be guilty as
successfully inducing or convincing the victim to charged because she was the owner of the
undergo the hazing. necklace and that the element of intent to gain
was lacking.
Rollie as Vice Chancellor of Rho Rio Fraternity,
who actually planned the initiation though not What should be the verdict if:
present when the acts of hazing were (a) The necklace is proven to be owned by
committed, is liable as principal. Rica? (2.5%)

Ronnie the owner of the place where hazing SUGGESTED ANSWER:

was conducted is liable as accomplice, because Under Art. 308 of the RPC, theft is committed by
he has actual knowledge of the hazing any person who, with intent to gain but without
conducted therein and failed to take any action violence, against, or intimidation of persons nor
to prevent occurrence of the same [Sec. 45 of force upon things, shall take personal property
R.A. 8049 the Anti Hazing Law; Dungo & Sibal, of another without the latter’s consent. While
Jr., G.R. No. 20964 (July 1, 2015)]. the CCTV captured Rica surreptitiously taking
the necklace from a jewelry store without the
Can all those criminally charged be exonerated knowledge and consent of the store owner, she
upon proof that Ronald, knowing the risks, cannot be charged with theft, because the
voluntarily submitted himself to the initiation? taking was made under a claim of ownership.
Will the absence of proof that the accused The fact of ownership negates any intention to
intended to kill the victim affect their liability? gain, as Rica cannot steal the necklace which
(2.5%) she claims to own.

SUGGESTED ANSWER: (b) It is proven that the store acquired the

The defense of consent will not apply, because necklace from another person who was the real
the very act of inflicting physical pain or owner of the necklace? (2.5%)
psychological suffering is, by itself punishable;
that it resulted in the neophytes death or SUGGESTED ANSWER:
physical injuries merely aggravates the act Even if it was proven that the necklace was
resulting in the imposition of higher penalty. bought by the store from another person who
was the real owner of the necklace, Rica still
R.A. 8049, the Anti-Hazing Law, is also malum cannot be held liable for theft absent a
prohibtum, thus then existence criminal intent felonious intent. “Actus non facit reum, nisi
is immaterial. mens sit rea”. A crime is not committed if the
mind of the person performing the act
IV. On the way home from work, Rica lost her complained of is innocent.
necklace to a snatcher. A week later, she saw
what looked like her necklace on display in a The ruling in U.S. v. Vera, 1 Phil 485, May 31,
jewelry store in Raon. Believing that the 1974 is emphatic; i.e. if a person takes personal
necklace on display was the same necklace property of another believing it to be his own,
snatched from her the week before, she the presumption of intent to gain is rebutted
surreptitiously took the necklace without the and therefore he is not guilty of theft.
knowledge and consent of the store owner.
Later, the loss of the necklace was discovered, V. With a promise of reward, Robert asked
and Rica was shown on the CCTV camera of the Romy to bring him a young girl that he (Robert)
store as the culprit. Accordingly, Rica was can have carnal knowledge with. Romy agreed,
charged with theft of the necklace. Rica raised seized an eight-year old girl and brought her to
 4

Robert. After receiving his reward, Romy left they were carrying and destroyed the padlocks
while Robert proceeded to have carnal of the doors of the houses with the use of
knowledge with the girl. crowbars and hammers. They claimed that they
would occupy the houses and live therein
For what felony may Robert and Romy be because the houses were idle and they were
charged? (2.5%) entitled to free housing from the government.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
For the reason that the houses were already
Robert may be charged with the crime of Child awarded to military personnel who have been
Prostitution or other sexual abuse under found to have fully complied with the
Section 5(b) of R.A. No. 7610 (the Special requirements for the award thereof, NHA
Protection of Children Against Child Abuse, demanded the group to vacate within ten (10)
Exploitation and Discrimination Act) by having days from notice the houses they occupied and
sexual intercourse with a child exploited in were still occupying. Despite the lapse of the
prostitution. Because the victim was under 12 deadline, the group refused to vacate the
years of age, (in this case, 8 years), Robert shall houses in question.
be prosecuted under Article 266-A and 266-B
of the Revised Penal Code. Romy, on the other What is the criminal liability of the members of
hand, may be charged with the crime of Child the group, if any, for their actions? (5%)
Prostitution or other sexual abuse under Section
5(a) of R.A. No. 7610 by acting as procurer of a SUGGESTED ANSWER:
child prostitute.
The members of the group who, by means of
Will your answer in (a) be the same if the victim violence against or intimidation, shall take
is a 15-year old lass who was enticed, through possession of any real property or shall usurp
cunning and deceit of Romy, to voluntarily go any real rights in property belonging to another,
to the house of Robert where the latter is criminally liable under Art. 312 of the RPC or
subsequently had carnal knowledge with her? Occupation of real property or usurpation of
(2.5%) real rights in property. In addition, they may
also be charged with other crimes resulting
SUGGESTED ANSWER: from their acts of violence.
Yes. R.A. No. 7610 covers sexual abuse
committed against a child or children below VII. Robbie and Rannie are both inmates of the
eighteen (18) years of age. Children, who for National Penitentiary, serving the maximum
money, profit or any other consideration due to penalty for robbery which they committed
the coercion or influence of any adult, syndicate some years before and for which they have
or group, indulge in sexual intercourse or been sentenced by final judgment. One day,
lascivious conduct, are deemed to be children Robbie tried to collect money owed by Rannie.
exploited in prostitution and other sexual Rannie insisted that he did not owe Robbie
abuse. Robert and Romy may be prosecuted anything, and after a shouting episode, Rannie
under the said law. kicked Robbie in the stomach. Robbie fell to the
ground in pain, and Rannie left him to go to the
VI. A group of homeless and destitute persons toilet to relieve himself. As Rannie was opening
invaded and occupied the houses built by the the door to the toilet and with his back turned
National Housing Authority (NHA) for certain against Robbie, Robbie stabbed him in the back
military personnel. To gain entry to the houses, with a bladed weapon that he had concealed in
the group intimidated the security guards his waist. Hurt, Rannie ran to the nearest
posted at the entrance gate with the firearms “kubol” where he fell. Robbie ran after him·
 5

and, while Rannie was lying on the ground, Randy, on the basis of the defense’s evidence,
Robbie continued to stab him, inflicting a total the mitigating circumstances of voluntary
of 15 stab wounds. He died on the spot. Robbie surrender, uncontrollable fear, and provocation.
immediately surrendered to the Chief Warden. Under Art. 342 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC),
When prosecuted for the murder of Rannie, the penalty for forcible abduction is reclusion
Robbie raised provocation and voluntary temporal.
surrender as mitigating circumstances. The
prosecution, on the other hand, claimed that Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, what
there was treachery in the commission of the penalty should be imposed on Randy? (5%)
crime.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Is Robbie a recidivist, or a quasi-recidivist? Since he was found guilty of Forcible Abduction
(2.5%) with one aggravating circumstances of
recidivism, this aggravating circumstance is off-
SUGGESTED ANSWER: set by one of the three mitigating
Robbie is considered a quasi-recidivist circumstances; so the penalty to be imposed is
pursuant to Article 160 of the RPC. At the time still Reclusion Temporal (Art. 342, RPC) but
he stabbed Rannie which resulted in the latter’s because there are two (2) more mitigating
death, he had been convicted by final judgment circumstances left and the penalty is divisible, in
and had been serving sentence at the National determining the maximum term, we have to
Penitentiary. In quasi-recidivism, the first and reduce to Prision Mayor and because there is
second offenses need not be embraced in the no more mitigating and aggravating
same title of the RPC. A recidivist, on the other circumstances to be considered, the maximum
hand, requires that the crimes committed must term shall be prision mayor in its medium
be embraced in the same title of the RPC. period that is eight (8) years and one (1) day to
Because the killing of Rannie and the robbery, in ten (10) years. The minimum, term shall be any
which Robbie was previously convicted by final range within, that is from six (6) years and one
judgment, were not under the same title, (1) day to six (8) years.
Robbie cannot be considered a recidivist.
Thus Randy will suffer as Minimum term any
Can the mitigating circumstances raised by penalty ranging from six months and one (1)
Robbie, if proven, lower the penalty for the day, and the maximum term will be, any range
crime commited? (2.5%) from eight (8) years and one (1) day to ten (10)
years of Prision Mayor.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No. If proven, the presence of the mitigating IX. Rashid asked Rene to lend him PhP50,000,
circumstances of lack of sufficient provocation payable in six (6) months and, as payment for
and voluntary surrender would be of no the loan, Rashid issued a postdated check for
consequence as quasi-recidivism cannot be the said amount plus the agreed interest.
offset by any ordinary mitigating circumstance Rashid assured Rene that the account would
(People v. Macariola, GR No. L-40757, 24 have sufficient funds on maturity date. On that
January 1983). date, Rene presented the check to the drawee
bank for payment but it was dishonored for the
VIII. Randy was prosecuted for forcible reason that it was drawn against insufficient
abduction attended by the aggravating funds (DAIF).
circumstance of recidivism. After trial, the court
held that the prosecutor was able to prove the Rene sent Rashid a timely notice of dishonor of
charge. Nonetheless, it appreciated in favor of the check and demanded the latter to make
 6

good the same within five (5) days from notice. Yes. The presentation of the check beyond the
After the lapse of the five (5)-day notice, Rene 90-day period would be of no consequence per
redeposited the check with the drawee bank Section 2 of B.P. Blg. 22. The 90-day period is
but it was again dishonored for the same not an element of the offense but merely a
reason, i.e., DAIF. Rene thereafter filed two (2) condition for the prima facie presumption of
separate criminal actions against Rashid: (1) knowledge of the insufficiency of funds. That
Estafa under Art. 315(2)(d) of the RPC, as the check must be deposited within ninety (90)
amended by R.A. No. 4885, i.e, estafa days is simply one of the conditions for the
committed by postdating a check, or issuing a prima facie presumption of knowledge of lack of
check in payment of an obligation without funds to arise. It does not discharge Rashid from
sufficient funds in the bank; and (2) Violation of his duty to maintain sufficient funds in the
B.P. 22 or the Bouncing Checks Law. account.

Can he be held liable under both actions? (2.5%) X. Rafa caught his wife, Rachel, in the act of
having sexual intercourse with Rocco in the
SUGGESTED ANSWER: maid’s room of their own house. Rafa shot both
Yes. Rashid can be liable for estafa and also for lovers in the chest, but they survived. Rafa
violation of B.P. Bldg. 22. While the two criminal charged Rachel and Rocco with adultery, while
actions of estafa under Art. 315(2)(d) of the RPC Rachel and Rocco charged Rafa with frustrated
and violation of Batas Pambansa (BP) Bilang 22 parricide and frustrated homicide.
may refer to identical acts committed by Rashid,
the prosecution thereof cannot be limited to In the adultery case, Rachel and Rocco raised
one offense, because a single criminal act may the defense that Rafa and Rachel, prior to the
give rise to a multiplicity of offenses and where incident in question, executed a notarized
there is variance or differences between the document whereby they agreed to live
elements of an offense in one law and another separately and allowed each of them to get a
law, as in this case, there will be no double new partner and live with anyone of their
jeopardy, because what the rule on double choice as husband and wife. This document was
jeopardy prohibits refers to identity of elements executed after Rachel discovered that Rafa was
in the two (2) offenses. Otherwise stated, cohabiting with another woman. Thus, they also
prosecution for the same act is not prohibited. raised the defense of in pari delicto. In the
What is forbidden is prosecution for the same frustrated parricide and frustrated homicide
offense. Essentially, while a BP 22 case and an cases, Rafa raised the defense that, having
estafa case may be rooted from an identical set caught them in flagrante delicto, he has no
of facts, they nevertheless present different criminal liability.
causes of action, which, under the law, are
considered “separate, distinct, and Assuming that all defenses have been proven:
independent” from each other. Both cases,
therefore, can proceed to their final Will the action for adultery prosper? (2.5%)
adjudication– both as to their criminal and civil
aspects (Rimando v. Spouses Aldaba and SUGGESTED ANSWER:
People, G.R. No. 203583, 13 October 2014). While the defense of pari delicto is not
available in criminal cases, but when the facts
If the check is presented for payment after four stated in the notarized agreement between
(4) months, but before it becomes stale, can Rafa and Rachel constitute consent on the part
the two actions still proceed? (2.5%) of both of them, it is submitted that the action
for adultery will not prosper otherwise it
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
 7

cannot affect the private criminal action for (b) the property thus taken belongs to another;
adultery. (c) the taking is characterized by intent to gain
or animus lucrandi; and
Will the actions for frustrated parricide and (d) on the occasion, the crime of homicide,
frustrated homicide prosper? (2.5%) which is therein used in a generic sense, was
committed.
SUGGESTED ANSWER: The indictment for illegal possession of firearm
Yes. The actions for frustrated parricide and is wrong. In the case of People v. Gaborne, G.R.
frustrated homicide will prosper, and Rafa will No. 210710, July 27, 2016, the Supreme Court
be found guilty of these crimes. The penalty, clarified the issue, to wit:
however, that the Trial Court can impose is only
destierro not penalties for frustrated parricide In view of the amendments introduced by R.A.
and frustrated homicide, being the spouse of No. 8294 and R.A. No. 10591, to Presidential
Rachel (Art. 246, RPC). Decree No. 1866, separate prosecutions for
homicide and illegal possession are no longer in
XI. Wielding loose firearms, Rene and Roan held order. Instead, illegal possession of firearm is
up a bank. After taking the bank’s money, the merely to be taken as an aggravating
robbers ran towards their getaway car, pursued circumstance in the crime of murder. It is clear
by the bank security guards. As the security from the foregoing that where murder results
guards were closing in on the robbers, the two from the use of an unlicensed firearm, the
fired their firearms at the pursuing security crime is not qualified illegal possession but,
guards. As a result, one of the security guards murder. In such a case, the use of the
was hit on the head causing his immediate unlicensed firearm is not considered as a
death. separate crime but shall be appreciated as a
mere aggravating circumstance. Thus, where
For the taking of the bank’s money and killing of murder was committed, the penalty for illegal
the security guard with the use of loose possession of firearms is no longer imposable
firearms, the robbers were charged in court in since it becomes merely a special aggravating
two separate informations, one for robbery circumstance. The intent of Congress is to treat
with homicide attended by the aggravating the offense of illegal possession of firearm and
circumstance of use of loose firearms, and the the commission of homicide or murder with the
other for illegal possession of firearms. use of unlicensed firearm as a single offense.

(a) Are the indictments correct? (5%) XII. Orphaned when still an infant, Rocky lived
under the care of his grandmother Rosario. Now
SUGGESTED ANSWER: 18, Rocky entered Rosario’s bedroom who was
The indictment for Robbery with homicide is then outside doing her daily marketing. He
correct. Robbery with homicide, a special ransacked the bedroom and took Rosario’s
complex crime, is primarily a crime against money and valuables amounting to PhP100,000.
property and not against persons, homicide
being a mere incident of the robbery with the When Rosario came home, she found her room
latter being the main purpose of the criminal. in disarray, and her money and valuables gone.
The elements of robbery with homicide are: She confronted Rocky, who confessed to taking
(a) the taking of personal property with the the money and valuables in order to pay his
use of violence or intimidation against a debts.
person;
What crime, if any, did Rocky commit? (2.5%)
 8

SUGGESTED ANSWER: them in their armed struggle against the

Rocky committed the crime of theft by taking Philippine government. Before Ricalde and
his grandmother’s money and valuables. He Riboli could complete their fund-raising
committed theft under Art. 308 which says: activities for the brothers, the AFP was able to
theft is committed by any person who, with reclaim- the island and defeat the Ratute-led
intent to gain but without violence against or uprising.
intimidation of person or force upon things shall
take the personal property of another. Ricalde and Riboli were charged with conspiracy
Does he incur criminal and/or civil liability? to commit treason. During the hearing of the
(2.5%) two cases, the government only presented as
witness, General Riturban, who testified on the
SUGGESTED ANSWER: activities of the Ratute brothers, Ricalde, and
Rocky could incur civil liability only, not criminal Riboli.
liability, as Art. 332 (RPC) provides that no
criminal but only civil shall result from the Can Ricalde and Riboli be convicted of the crime
commission of the crime of theft, swindling or of conspiracy to commit treason? (2.5%)
malicious mischief committed caused mutually
by the following persons: SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Ricalde and Riboli cannot be convicted of the
1. Spouses, Ascendants and descendants crime of conspiracy to commit treason, because
or relatives by affinity in the same line; there was no war existing when they committed
2. The widowed spouse with respect to the acts. Jurisprudence considers treason as a
the property which belonged to the crime committed in times only of an
deceased spouse before the same shall international armed conflict. The same is true
have passed into another; and with the felony of conspiracy to commit
3. Brothers and sisters; brothers-in-law treason.
and sisters-in-law if living together
Moreover, the crimes were committed outside
XIII. The brothers Roberto and Ricardo Ratute, the jurisdiction of Philippine Court.
both Filipino citizens, led a group of armed men
in seizing a southern island in the Philippines, Will the testimony of General Riturban,
and declaring war against the duly constituted assuming he can testify on acts within his
government of the country. The Armed Forces personal knowledge, be sufficient to convict the
of the Philippines (AFP), led by its Chief of Staff, Ratute brothers, Ricalde, and Riboli? (2.5%)
General Riturban, responded and a full scale
war ensued between the AFP and the armed SUGGESTED ANSWER:
men led by the brothers. The armed conflict Yes, assuming Gen. Riturban can testify on acts
raged for months. within his personal knowledge, as to the offense
When the brothers-led armed men were of seizing a Southern Island in the Philippines
running out of supplies, Ricalde, also a Filipino, which raged for months in the country. This is
and a good friend and supporter of the Ratute sufficient to convict the Ratute brothers and
brothers, was tasked to leave for abroad in Riboli but the crime could be Rebellion, and
order to solicit arms and funding for the cash- the two-witness rule is not required in the case
strapped brothers. He was able to travel to of Rebellion.
Rwanda, and there he met with Riboli, a citizen
and resident of Rwanda, who agreed to help the (Art. 114. Treason – Any Filipino citizen who
brothers by raising funds internationally, and to levies war against the Philippines or adheres to
send them to the Ratute brothers in order to aid her enemies,, giving them aid or comfort
 9

within the Philippines or elsewhere,, shall be Messenger (PM) only for their close friends, but
punished by reclusion perpetua to death and Roccino, the older brother of one of their best
shall pay a fine not to exceed P4M. friends, was able to get hold of his younger
No person shall be convicted of treason unless brother’s password, and without authority from
on the testimony of two witnesses at least to his brother, accessed his PM and shared Robin
the same overt act or on confession of the and Rowell’s Amsterdam photos on Facebook.
accused in open court.
Likewise, a alien residing in the Philippines, Can Robin and Rowell be prosecuted for use of
who commits acts of treason as defined in dangerous drugs for their one-night use of
paragraph 1 of this article shall be punished by these products in Amsterdam? (2.5%)
reclusion temporal to death and shall pay a
fine not to exceed P4M.) SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Robin and Rowell cannot be prosecuted by
Philippine courts, because
XIV. Robin and Rowell are best friends and have they did not use the dangerous drug within its
been classmates since grade school. When the territory, under the principle of territoriality.
boys graduated from high school, their parents Can they be prosecuted for importation of
gifted them with a trip to Amsterdam, all dangerous drugs? (2.5%)
expenses paid. At age 16, this was their first
European trip. Thrilled with a sense of freedom, SUGGESTED ANSWER:
they decided to try what Amsterdam was They can be prosecuted for importation of
known for. One night, they scampered out of dangerous drugs under RA 9165, which
their hotel room, went to the De Wallen, better provides:
known as the Red-light District of Amsterdam.
There, they went to a “coffee shop” which sells “Section 4. Importation of Dangerous Drugs
only drinks and various items made from opium and/or Controlled Precursors and Essential
poppy, cannabis, and marijuana, all of which are Chemicals.- .The penalty of life imprisonment to
legal in Amsterdam. They represented death and a ranging from Five hundred
themselves to be of age, and were served, and thousand pesos (P500,000.00) to Ten million
took shots of, cannabis and marijuana products. pesos (P10,000,000.00) shall be imposed upon
They indulged in these products the whole any person, who, unless authorized by law, shall
night, even if it was their first time to try them. import or bring into the Philippines any
dangerous drug, regardless of the quantity and
Before returning to Manila, they bought a purity involved, including any and all species of
dozen lollipops laced with cannabis, as souvenir opium poppy or any part thereof or substances
and “pasalubong” for their friends. They were derived therefrom even for floral, decorative
accosted at the Manila International Airport and and culinary purposes”.
were charged with importation of dangerous If found liable under either (a) or (b) above,
drugs under the Comprehensive Dangerous what is the penalty that may be imposed on
Drugs Act of 2002. They were also charged with them? (2.5%)
use of dangerous drugs after pictures of them in
the “coffee shop” in Amsterdam were posted SUGGESTED ANSWER:
on Facebook, showing them smoking and taking If found guilty, they will be exempt from
shots of a whole menu of cannabis and criminal liability, because they are minors (16
marijuana products. Their own captions on their years old), as provided in Chapter 2, section 6
Facebook posts clearly admitted that they were of
using the dangerous products. The pictures RA 9344 (“Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of
were posted by them through Private 2006”), to wit:
 10

“A child above fifteen (15) years but below that the marital privilege rule does not apply
eighteen (18) years of age shall likewise be where a spouse committed the crime against
exempt from criminal liability and be subjected the other.
to an intervention program, unless he/she has
acted with discernment, in which case, such As the CA decision became final and executory,
child shall be subjected to the appropriate the criminal case before the RTC was
proceedings in accordance with this Act”. calendared for trial. At the scheduled trial, the
prosecution called Reichter to the witness stand
Can Roccino be prosecuted for the act of in order to testify on the same matter it earlier
accessing and sharing on Facebook the private announced. The defense objected on the
pictures sent by PM to his brother? If yes, for ground that the CA erred in its disposition of the
what crime? (2.5%) certiorari case. Judge Rossano sustained the
SUGGESTED ANSWER: objection and again disallowed Reichter from
Roccino, who accessed the private messages of testifying in the criminal case. Repeated pleas
his brother and shared in Facebook pictures of from the prosecution for Judge Rossano to
other people without their consent, can be reconsider his ruling and to allow Reichter to
charged with violation of RA 10173 (Data testify fell on deaf ears.
Privacy Act of 2012) in relation to Chapter II, May Judge Rossano be convicted of a crime? If
section 6 of RA 10175 (“Cybercrime Prevention yes, what crime did he commit? (5%)
Act of 2012″: All crimes defined and penalized
by the Revised Penal Code, as amended, and SUGGESTED ANSWER:
special laws, if committed by, through and with
the use of information and communications Yes. Judge Rossano may be convicted of the
technologies). Roccino committed crime of open disobedience (Art. 231, RPC)
unauthorized access and disclosure of personal which provides that any judicial or executive
data (Sections 29 and 32 of RA 10173). officer who shall openly refuse to execute the
judgment, decision or order of any suspension
XV. During the presentation of the prosecution’s authority made within the scope of the
evidence, Reichter was called to the witness jurisdiction of the latter and issued with all the
stand with the stated purpose that he would legal formalities shall suffer the penalties of
testify that his wife Rima had shot him in the Arresto Mayor in its medium period to prision
stomach with a .38 caliber pistol, resulting in correctional, special disqualification and fine.
near fatal injuries. Upon objection of the
defense on the ground of the marital The ruling was issued by the Court of Appeals, it
disqualification rule, the presiding judge (Judge was already final and executory; the act of
Rossano) disallowed Reichter from testifying in Judge disallowing Reichter from testifying is
the case. Its motion for reconsideration having open disobedience under the law.
been denied, the People of the Philippines went
up on certiorari to the Court of Appeals (CA) XVI. For the past five years, Ruben and Rorie
questioning Judge Rossano’s ruling. had been living together as husband and wife
without the benefit of marriage. Initially, they
After due proceedings, the CA rendered had a happy relationship which was blessed
judgment declaring Judge Rossano’s ruling void with a daughter, Rona, who was born on March
ab initio for having been made with grave abuse 1, 2014. However, the partners’ relationship
of discretion amounting to lack or excess of became sour when Ruben began indulging in
jurisdiction, and directing Judge Rossano to vices, such as women and alcohol, causing
allow Reichter to testify in the criminal case for frequent arguments between them. Their
the stated purpose. This is based on the fact relationship got worse when, even for slight
 11

mistakes, Ruben would lay his hands on Rorie. Withdrawal of financial support or preventing
One day, a tipsy Ruben barged into their house the victim from engaging in any legitimate
and, for no reason, repeatedly punched Rorie in profession, occupation, business or activity,
the stomach. To avoid further harm, Rorie ran except in cases wherein the other
out of the house. But Ruben pursued her and spouse/partner objects on valid, serious and
stripped her naked in full view of their moral grounds as defined in Article 73 of the
neighbors; and then he vanished. Family Code;

Ten days later, Ruben came back to Rorie and XVII. Robina bought from Ramsey a seaside
pleaded for forgiveness. However, Rorie property located in Romblon. At that time, she
expressed her wish to live separately from was in the process of returning to the
Ruben and asked him to continue providing Philippines as a returning resident, after retiring
financial support for their daughter Rona. At from her work in Russia, and was planning to
that time, Ruben was earning enough to set up a diving school in the area. In a non-
support a family. He threatened to withdraw notarized “Kasunduan ng Pagbibili,” Ramsey
the support he was giving to Rona unless Rorie represented the property as alienable and
would agree to live with him again. But Rorie disposable, and that he had a valid title to the
was steadfast in refusing to live with Ruben property. When the sale was completed, and as
again, and insisted on her demand for support she was applying for permits and licenses for
for Rona. As the ex-lovers could not reach an her school, she found out that the property was
agreement, no further support was given by a public non-alienable and non-disposable land
Ruben. which Ramsey had bought from someone who
only had a foreshore lease over the same. As
What crimes did Ruben commit: she was bent on setting up the diving school in
the area, having made all the preparations and
For beating and humiliating Rorie? (2.5%) having already bought all the equipment, she
filed a Miscellaneous Lease Application (MLA)
SUGGESTED ANSWER: with the Department of Environment and
For beating and humiliating Rorie, such acts Natural Resources (DENR) at the Community
violate RA 9262, known as the “Anti-Violence Environment and Natural Resources Office in
Against Women and Their Children Act of Romblon. In her application, she stated that she
2004,” particularly section 3 (a) thereof under was a Filipino citizen, although she was still a
“Physical Violence” referring to acts that include naturalized Russian citizen at that time. It was
bodily or physical harm against a woman with only six months after she filed the MLA that she
whom the person has or had a sexual or dating filed her petition for dual citizenship under R.A.
relationship. No. 9225. When DENR discovered that, at the
time of filing the MLA, she was still a Russian
For withdrawing support for Rona? (2.5%) citizen, her application was denied and she was
charged with falsification of a public document
SUGGESTED ANSWER: for misrepresenting herself as a Filipino citizen.
For withdrawing support for Rona, such act is a Infuriated, Robina also filed charges against
violation of RA 9262, section 3 (d), which reads: Ramsey for falsification of a private document
“Economic abuse” refers to acts that make or for stating in their “Kasunduan” that the
attempt to make a woman financially property was alienable and disposable.
dependent which includes, but is not limited to
the following: In the case for falsification of a public
document, Robina’s defense was that, at the
time she filed the MLA, she had every intention
 12

to reacquire Philippine citizenship, as in fact she that the falsification was committed in a public,
filed for dual citizenship six months thereafter, official or commercial document.
and that she had no intent to gain or to injure Yes. Ramsey, as a private individual, committed
the Philippine government since she expected the act of making untruthful statements in a
that her application for dual citizenship would narration of facts on a commercial document
be approved before the MLA could be (unnotarized Kasunduan ng Pagbibili).
approved. On the other hand, she claimed in
the action against Ramsey that intent to gain XVIII. Mrs. Robinson is a teacher at an
was present since he received the purchase elementary school. In one of her classes, she
price as a result of his misrepresentation. found, to her consternation, that an 8-year old
Ramsey’s defense was that he had a valid Richard was always the cause of distraction, as
Transfer Certificate of Title in his name, and he he was fond of bullying classmates smaller in
had a right to rely on his title. size than him.

Will the case for falsification of public document One morning, Reymart, a 7-year old pupil, cried
filed against Robina prosper? (2.5%) loudly and complained to Mrs. Robinson that
Richard had boxed him on the ear. Confronted
SUGGESTED ANSWER: by Mrs. Robinson about Reymart’s accusation,
The elements of Falsification of public Richard sheepishly admitted the same. Because
documents under Article 171 of the RPC, are: of this, Mrs. Robinson ordered Richard to lie
face down on a desk during class. After Richard
That the offender is a public officer, employee, obliged, Mrs. Robinson hit him ten (10) times on
or notary public. the legs with a ruler and pinched his ears.
That he takes advantage of his official position. Richard ran home and reported to his mother
That he falsifies a document by causing it to what he had suffered at the hands of Mrs.
appear that persons have participated in any act Robinson. When Richard’s parents went to Mrs.
or proceeding. That such person or persons did Robinson to complain, she interposed the
not in fact so participate in the proceeding. defense that she merely performed her duty as
In this case, since Robina is not a public officer, a teacher to discipline erring pupils.
employee or notary public then she cannot be
validly charged with falsification of public Richard’s parents ask your advice on what
documents. actions can be instituted against Mrs. Robinson
for acts committed on their minor child.
Will the case for falsification of private
document filed against Ramsey prosper? (2.5%) May Mrs. Robinson be charged with child abuse
SUGGESTED: OR slight physical injuries? (2.5%)

The elements of falsification of private SUGGESTED ANSWER:

documents under paragraph 1, Article 172 of Yes, Mrs. Robinson can be charged with either
the RPC are: child abuse under R.A. 7610 R.A. 7610 or slight
physical injuries if the injuries inflicted
that the offender is a private individual or a constitute slight physical injuries.
public officer or employee who did not take
advantage of his official position; (Sec. 10 of R.A. 7610 provides:
that he committed any of the acts of Any person who shall commit any other acts of
falsification enumerated in Article 171 of the child abuse, cruelty or exploitation or be
RPC; and, responsible for other conditions prejudicial to
the child’s development including those
 13

covered by Art. 59 of P.D. 603 but not covered

by the Revised Penal Code shall suffer the
penalty of prision mayor”.

In other words, Richard’s parents may choose to

prosecute Mrs. Robinson under the Revised
Penal Code or R.A. 7610. I will advise them to
consider R.A. 7610 as there was no showing of
the extent of the physical injuries inflicted.

May Mrs. Robinson be charged with child abuse

AND slight physical injuries? (2.5%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, Mrs. Robinson cannot be charged with both
of child abuse and slight physical injuries,
because the latter is deemed absorbed in the
charge of child abuse.

XIX. Ricky was driving his car when he was

flagged down by a traffic enforcer for over
speeding. Realizing his undoing, but in a hurry
for a meeting, Ricky shoved a PhP500 bill in the
traffic enforcer’s pocket and whispered to the
latter to refrain from issuing him a traffic
violation receipt. The traffic enforcer still issued
him a ticket, and returned his money.

What crime, if any, was committed by Ricky?

(5%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Ricky in showing a P500 bill in the traffic
enforcer’s pocket, clearly committed the crime
of corruption of public officer under Art. 212 of
the RPC, which states that any person who shall
have made the offers or promises or given the
gifts or present to a public officer is guilty of
corruption of public officer. Even if the P500 bill
was returned it cannot erase the fact that gifts
or presents was given to the traffic enforcer.