1. What must an accused establish when he pleads self-defense? In self-defense the burden of proof rests upon the accused.

His duty is to establish by sufficient, satisfactory and convincing evidence the following requisites: (a) unlawful aggression on the part of the victim (b) reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it and, (c) lac! of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself. 2. A person merely served as a lookout in the commission of a crime, what is his liability? He is a principal. "ince one who participates in the material e#ecution of the crime by standing guard or lending moral support to the actual perpetrator is criminally responsible to the same 3. s direct proof necessary to prove conspiracy? $o. %irect proof is not essential to establish conspiracy as this may be inferred from the acts of the accused before, during and after the commission of the crime which indubitably, point to and are indicative of a &oint purpose, concert of action and community of interest. !. When is it proper to award e"emplary dama#es in a crime of rape? 'he relationship of stepfather or stepmother and stepson or stepdaughter is included by analogy as similar to that of ascendant and descendant, and where appreciated as an aggravating circumstance in rape, the award of e#emplary damages, in addition to moral damages, is proper. $. %oes an une"pected and sudden attack constitute treachery? (es. )n une#pected and sudden attac! under circumstances which render the victim unable and unprepared to defend himself by reason of the suddenness and severity of the attac! constitutes alevosia, and the fact that the act was frontal does not preclude the presence of treachery. &. s there treachery when the victim is attacked while defenseless and dyin#? (es. 'here is treachery where the victim, soa!ed in his own blood, defenseless, and calling for help, wea!ened and dying, was still attac!ed, thus employed means to insure or afford impunity. '. What are the re(uisites of treachery? *or treachery to be present, two conditions must concur, namely, (a) the employment of means of e#ecution that gives the person attac!ed no opportunity to defend himself or retaliate, and (b) the means of e#ecution was deliberately or consciously adopted. ). When is the a##ravatin# circumstance of ni#httime absorbed in treachery?

$ighttime or nocturnity is absorbed in treachery when it is an integral part of pecuIiar treacherous means and manner adopted to ensure the e#ecution of the crimes or that it facilitated the treacherous character of the attac!. *. What are the elements of the crime penali+ed under ,.-. 22 or the ,ouncin# .hecks /aw? 'he elements of the offense penali+ed under ,.-. ,lg. .. are: (/) ma!ing, drawing, and issuance of any chec! to apply to account or for value (.) !nowledge of the ma!er, drawer, or issuer that at the time of issue he does not have sufficient funds in or credit with the drawee ban! for the payment of the chec! in full upon its presentment and (0) subsequent dishonor of the chec! by the drawee ban! for insufficiency of funds or credit, or dishonor of the chec! for the same reason had not the drawer, without any valid cause, ordered the ban! to stop payment. 10. What is due process in a criminal case? In a criminal case, due process requires that, among others, /. the accusation be in due form, and

.. that notice thereof and an opportunity to answer the charge be given the accused hence, the constitutional and reglementary guarantees as to accused1s right 2to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him.2 )n accused should be given the necessary data as to why he is being proceeded against and not be left in the unenviable state of speculating why he is made the ob&ect of a prosecution, it being the fact that, in criminal cases, the liberty, even the life, of the accused is at sta!e. It is always wise and proper that the accused be fully apprised of the charge against him in order to avoid any possible surprise that may lead to in&ustice. 11. s treachery present when a person is killed while asleep or 1ust awakened? It has been repeatedly held by this 3ourt that there e#ists the qualifying circumstance of treachery when one ta!es the life of a person who is asleep. )s for a victim who had &ust awa!ened when attac!ed, there was also treachery 2because the victim, who may still be da+ed and unprepared for the attac!, would not be in a position to offer any ris! or danger of retaliation to the attac!er. 12. f nothin# is concealed or needed to be discovered, when does the prescriptive period commence to run in estafa cases? 'he period of prescription commences to run from the date of the commission of the crime if it is !nown at the time of its commission. 'hus, if there is nothing that was concealed or needed to be discovered, because the entire series of transactions was by public instruments, duly recorded, the crime of estafa committed in connection with said transaction was !nown to the offended party when it was committed and the period of prescription commenced to run from the date of its commission. 13. 2ow is the a##ravatin# circumstance of premeditation appreciated?

Page 2 of 8

-remeditation cannot be appreciated if the evidence does not show when the plan to !ill was hatched, or how much time had elapsed before it was carried out. 'here must be a basis for determining whether the accused had sufficient time between the inception of the plan and its fulfillment to dispassionately consider and accept its consequences. 1!. When is there treachery in the commission of a crime? 'here is treachery when the means, manner or method of attac! employed by the offender offered no ris! to himself from any defensive or retaliatory act which the victim might have ta!en. 1$. n the crime of robbery with homicide, where conspiracy is present, what are the liabilities of those who took part in its commission? In a prosecution for robbery with homicide, where conspiracy is present, it does not matter that the prosecution had failed to show who as between the two (.) accused actually stabbed the victim. ,oth accused are liable as co-conspirators since the act of a co-conspirator is the act of the other regardless of the precise degree of participation in the act. 4hen the conspiracy to commit the crime of robbery is conclusively shown by the concerted acts of the accused, and homicide is committed as a consequence thereof, all those who too! part as principals in the robbery would also be held liable as principals in the comple# crime of robbery with homicide although they did not ta!e part in the homicide unless it appears that they attempted to prevent the !illing. 1&. n a conspiracy, is it necessary that each accused commits each and every act constitutin# the offense? *or a conspiracy to be established, it is not necessary that all of the accused commit each and every act constitutive of the offense. 'here is conspiracy where several accused, by their acts, aimed at the same ob&ect, one performing one part and another performing another part so as to complete it with a view to the attainment of the same ob&ect, and their acts, though apparently independent, are in fact concerted and cooperative, indicating closeness of personal association, concerted action and concurrence of sentiments. 1'. n misappropriation of funds, can a conviction be based on a prima facie presumption? )rticle ./5 of the 6evised -enal 3ode ma!es clear that 2failure of a public officer to have duly forthcoming any public funds or property with which he is chargeable, upon demand by any duly authori+ed officer,2 merely gives rise to a prima facie presumption 2that he has put such missing finds or property to personal use.2 ) conviction may be founded on the presumption notwithstanding that there is no direct evidence of misappropriation, if the public officer fails to satisfactorily e#plain the shortage in his accounts. ,ut the presumption, being merely prima facie, may be rebutted and destroyed by competent proof that the accountable officer has not in truth put the funds or property in question to personal use. 1). .an estafa be committed throu#h falsification of documents? 'he falsification of a public document may be a means of committing estafa because before the falsified document is actually utili+ed to defraud another, the crime of falsification has already been consummated, damage or intent to cause damage not being an element of the crime of falsification of public, official or commercial documents. 'he damage to another is caused by the commission of estafa, not by the falsification of the document, hence, the falsification of the public, official or commercial document is only a necessary means to commit the estafa. 1*. 2ow is the crime of attempted estafa committed?

Page 3 of 8

If an offender has commenced the commission of the crime of estafa but he failed to perform all the acts of e#ecution which would produce the crime, not by reason of his own spontaneous desistance but because of his apprehension by the authorities before he could obtain the amount, he is guilty of attempted estafa. 20. What is deceit in estafa cases? ,asically, the two essential requisites of fraud or deceit and damage or in&ury must be established by sufficient and competent evidence in order that the crime of estafa may be established. %eceit is the false representation of a matter of fact (whether by words or conduct, by false or misleading allegations, or by concealment of that which should have been disclosed) which deceives or is intended to deceive another so that he shall act upon it to his legal in&ury. 21. What is the ob1ective of probation? -robation is not a right of an accused but a mere privilege, an act of grace and clemency or immunity conferred by the state, which may be granted to a seemingly deserving defendant who thereby escapes the e#treme rigors of the penalty imposed by law for the offense for which he was convicted. The primary objective in granting probation is the reformation of the probationer. 3ourts must be meticulous enough to ensure that the ends of &ustice and the best interest of the public as well as the accused be served by the grant of probation. 22. What should a court consider before #rantin# probation? -robation is a &ust privilege the grant of which is discretionary upon the court. ,efore granting probation, the court must consider the potentiality of the offender to reform, together with the demands of &ustice and public interest, along with other relevant circumstances. 'he courts are not to limit the basis of their decision to the report or recommendation of the probation officer, which is at best only persuasive. 23. What is the liability of those who participate in the crime of robbery with homicide? 4hen the conspiracy to commit the crime of robbery was conclusively shown by the concerted acts of the accused and homicide was committed as a consequence thereof, all those who participated are liable as principals in the robbery with homicide, although they did not actually ta!e part in the homicide, unless it appears that they attempted to prevent the !illing. 'he question as to who actually robbed or who actually !illed is of no moment since all of them would be held accountable for the crime of robbery with homicide. 2!. 2ow is the testimony of a rape victim, as to who abused her, treated by a court? 'he testimony of the complainant on how she was forcibly ta!en from her home and brought to a deserted hut, about half a !ilometer away, and then raped twice, is credible and there is nothing unusual or improbable in it. 'he "upreme 3ourt has consistently held that the testimony of a rape victim as to who abused her is credible where she had no motive to testify falsely against the accused. 'he rule is that no *ilipino girl would publicly admit that she had been ravished unless this is the truth for her natural instinct is to protect her honor and future. 2$. s the credibility of a rape victim affected by the inconsistencies in her testimony? 'he "upreme 3ourt has ruled that 2it is an accepted rule that the credibility of a rape victim is not destroyed by some inconsistencies in her testimony more especially if she is testifying on minor matters. In fact, such inconsistencies are to be e#pected if a witness is unrehearsed and testifies spontaneously. In the case of -eople vs. 7o+um (/08 "36) .98), it was held that minor
Page 4 of 8

inconsistencies in the testimony of a complainant, a /:-year old girl not accustomed to a public trial, do not affect her credibility. 2&. 2ow must the crime of rape be proved to overcome presumption of innocence? 6ape is an accusation easy to ma!e, hard to prove but harder to defend by the accused, though innocent. 'he evidence for the prosecution must be clear and convincing to overcome the constitutional presumption of innocence. 6ape is an offense to which, as is often the case, only two people can testify, thus requiring the most conscientious effort on the part of the arbiter to weigh and appraise the conflicting testimonies. If a reasonable doubt e#ists, the verdict must be one of acquittal. 2'. 3o prove the crime of rape, is it necessary to prove that the force and intimidation employed in accomplishin# it be so #reat or of such character as could not be resisted? It has been held in one case that for rape to e#ist, it is not necessary that the force and intimidation employed in accomplishing it be so great or of such character as could not be resisted. It is only necessary that the force or intimidation be sufficient to consummate the purpose which the accused had in mind. 'he intimidation must be &udged in the light of the victim;s perception and &udgment at the time of the commission of the crime, and not by any hard and fast rule. 2). .an denial prevail over positive identification? ) defense of mere denial, can not prevail over positive identification. 'he credibility of witnesses is left to the sound discretion of the &udge and in accepting one testimony and re&ecting another, he can not be overturned by the appellate tribunal unless he has seriously abused his discretion. 2*. s there any criminal liability when dru# pushin# is committed by the accused in a public place? %rug-pushing when done on a small level belongs to that class of crimes that may be committed at anytime and at any place. )fter the offer to buy is accepted and the e#change is made, the illegal transaction is completed in a few minutes. 'he fact that the parties are in a public place and in the presence of other people may not always discourage them from pursuing their illegal trade as these factors may even serve to camouflage the same. Hence, the 3ourt has sustained the conviction of drug pushers caught selling illegal drugs in a billiard hall (-eople v. 6ubio, 7.6. $o. ::<58, =une /9, /9<:, />. "36) 0.9 in front of a store along a street at /:>8 p.m. (-eople v. 'oledo, 7.6. $o. :5:?9, $ovember .., /9<8), and in front of a house (-eople v. -olicarpio, 7.6. $o. :9<>>, *ebruary .0, /9<<). 30. s the use of force or violence essential to convict the accused in a rape case? It need not be over-emphasi+ed that force or violence required in rape cases is relative. 4hen applied, it need not be too overpowering or irresistible. 4hat is essential is that the force used is sufficient to consummate the purpose for which the offender had in mind or to bring about the desired result. In fact, even the absence of e#ternal signs of physical in&uries does not negate the commission of the crime of rape. 31. What kind of evidence is needed in order to sustain a conviction for the crime of robbery with homicide? It is settled that in order to sustain a conviction for the crime of robbery with homicide, it is imperative that the robbery itself be proven as conclusively as any other essential element of a
Page 5 of 8

crime. In the absence of such proof, that !illing of the victim would only be simple homicide or murder, depending on the absence or presence of qualifying circumstances.

32. .an alibi and denial overcome positive identification? In the face of the clear and positive testimony of the prosecution witness regarding the participation of the accused in the crime, the accused1s alibi dwindles into nothingness. 'he positive identification of the accused by the witness as the perpetrator of the crime cannot be overcome by the mere denial of the accused. "uch positive identification of the accused that he !illed the victim establishes the guilt of the accused beyond moral certainty. 33. What is the nature and the re(uisites of a valid self-defense? 'he validity of self-defense is premised on the impossibility on the part of the "tate to at all times prevent aggression upon its people. *ounded in the human instinct to protect, repel and save one1s person from impending danger or peril, the right of self-defense &ustifies measures ta!en by one who is attac!ed and placed in a situation where he either has to forfeit his life or has to ta!e the life of his assailant. $evertheless, the application of this &ustifying circumstance, in this conte#t, requires a clear showing /) that the victim has committed unlawful aggression amounting to actual or imminent threat to the life and limb of the person claiming self defense .) that there be reasonable necessity in the means employed to prevent or repel the unlawful aggression and 0) that there be lac! of sufficient provocation on the part of the person claiming self-defense or, at least, that any provocation e#ecuted by the person claiming self-defense be not the pro#imate and immediate cause of the victim1s aggression. 3!. What are the essential re(uisites of Article ! of the 4evised -enal .ode? @nder )rticle > of the 6evised -enal 3ode, criminal liability shall be incurred 2by any person committing a felony (delito) although the wrongful act done be different from that which he intended.2 ,ased on the doctrine that 2el que es causa de la causa es causa del mal causado2 (he who is the cause of the cause is the cause of the evil caused), the essential requisites of )rticle > are: (a) that an intentional felony has been committed, and (b) that the wrong done to the aggrieved party be the direct, natural and logical consequence of the felony committed by the offender. 3$. What is pro"imate le#al cause? -ro#imate legal cause is defined as 2that acting first and producing the in&ury, either immediately or by setting other events in motion, all constituting a natural and continuous chain of events, each having a close causal connection with its immediate predecessor, the final event in the chain immediately effecting the in&ury as a natural and probable result of the cause which first acted, under such circumstances that the person responsible for the first event should, as an ordinarily prudent and intelligent person, have reasonable ground to e#pect at the moment of his act or default that an in&ury to some person might probably result therefrom. 3&. What are the re(uisites needed to appreciate evident premeditation as an a##ravatin# circumstance? 'he requisites necessary to appreciate evident premeditation are: (a) the time when the accused determined to commit the crime (b) an act manifestly indicating that the accused had clung to their determination to commit the crime and (c) the lapse of sufficient length of time between the determination and e#ecution to allow him to reflect upon the consequences of his act.

Page 6 of 8

3'. What is conspiracy and what are its elements? 'he second paragraph of )rticle < of the 6evised -enal 3ode defines conspiracy, as follows: A) conspiracy e#ists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it.B 'he elements of conspiracy are the following: (/) two or more persons came to an agreement, (.) the agreement concerned the commission of a felony, and (0) the e#ecution of the felony was decided upon. 3). What are the re(uisites of and what is the burden of the accused in provin# self defense? 'o prove self-defense, the accused must show with clear and convincing evidence, that: C/D he is not the unlawful aggressor C.D there was lac! of sufficient provocation on his part and C0D he employed reasonable means to prevent or repel the aggression. It is well-settled in this &urisdiction that once an accused had admitted that he inflicted the fatal in&uries on the deceased, it was incumbent upon him, in order to avoid criminal liability, to prove the &ustifying circumstance claimed by him with clear, satisfactory and convincing evidence. He cannot rely on the wea!ness of the prosecution but on the strength of his own evidence, Afor even if the evidence of the prosecution were wea!, it could not be disbelieved after the accused himself had admitted the !illing.B 3*. What is the difference between entrapment and insti#ation? In instigation, the instigator practically induces the will be accused into the commission of the offense and himself becomes a co-principal, while entrapment is defined as the employment of means and ways for the purpose of trapping and capturing the law brea!er. It is sanctioned and permissible. @nder the first instance, no crime has been committed, and to induce one to commit it ma!es of the instigator a co-criminal. @nder the last instance, the crime has already been committed and all that is done is to entrap and capture the law brea!er. !0. s a sudden attack on the victim considered treachery? ) sudden attac! by the assailant constitutes treachery only if such mode of attac! was deliberately adopted by him with the purpose of depriving the victim of a chance to either fight or retreat. ,ut suddenness of an attac! does not by itself prove the e#istence of treachery. 'here must also be proof that the accused consciously adopted the mode of attac! to facilitate the perpetration of the !illing without ris! to himself. !1. s an accused entitled to be represented by counsel durin# identification in a police line-up? 'he right to be assisted by counsel attaches only during custodial investigation and cannot be claimed by the accused during identification in a police line-up because it is not part of the

Page 7 of 8

custodial investigation process. 'his is because during a police line-up, the process has not yet shifted from the investigatory to the accusatory and it is usually the witness or the complainant who is interrogated and who gives a statement in the course of the line-up. (-eople vs. )mestu+o, et.al, 7.6. $o. /?>0<0, =uly /., .??/) !2. s the credibility of a rape victim affected by her inability and delay in reportin# the crime? $o. 'he "upreme 3ourt has reiterated in a long line of cases that the long silence and delay in reporting the crime of rape are not always an indication of false accusation. ) considerable lapse of time before a private complainant reports the se#ual abuses should not detract from the fact that the se#ual abuses were indeed perpetrated by an accused. 'hreats and intimidation, coupled with the natural reluctance of *ilipina women to report se#ual attac!s due to shame and fear of the stigma these would carry, can effectively stymie the tongue of a rape victim for a considerable time, especially one of tender years. !3. What is (uasi-recidivism? Euasi-recidivism is a special aggravating circumstance which imposes the ma#imum of the penalty for the new offense. It ma!es no difference, for the purpose of the effect of quasirecidivism under )rticle /:? of the 6evised -enal 3ode, whether the crime for which an accused is serving sentence at the time of the commission of the offense charged, falls under the said 3ode or under special law. Euasi-recidivism is punished with more severity than recidivism proper because the aggravating circumstance of recidivism, as any other aggravating circumstance, may be offset by a mitigating circumstance present in the commission of the crime, whereas, in a case of quasi-recidivism the ma#imum degree of the penalty prescribed by law for the crime committed should always be imposed irrespective of the presence of any mitigating circumstance. !!. What is the %octrine of 5air .omment? 'he doctrine of fair comment means that while in general every discreditable imputation publicly made is deemed false, because every man is presumed innocent until his guilt is &udicially proved, and every false imputation is deemed malicious, nevertheless, when the discreditable imputation is directed against a public person in his public capacity, it is not necessarily actionable. In order that such discreditable imputation to a public official may be actionable, it must either be a false allegation of fact or a comment based on a false supposition. If the comment is an e#pression of opinion, based on established facts, then it is immaterial that the opinion happens to be mista!en, as long as it might be reasonably inferred from the facts.

Page 8 of 8