Ponciano borrowed Rubens gun, saying that he would use it to kill Freddie.

Because
Ruben also resented Freddie, he readily lent his gun, but told Ponciano: "O, pagkabaril
mo kay Freddie, isauli mo kaagad, ha." Later, Ponciano killed Freddie, but used a knife
because he did not want Freddies neighbors to hear the gunshot.
What, if any, is the liability of Ruben? Explain.
Would your answer be the same if, instead of Freddie, it was Manuel, a relative of
Ruben, who was killed by Ponciano using Rubens gun? Explain
Answer:
A Rubens liability is that of an accomplice. As provided under Article 18 of the
RPC accomplices are those persons who, not being included in Art. 17,
cooperate in the execution of the offense by previous or simultaneous acts.
Rubens cooperation is not indispensable in that the crime would still be
accomplished even without using the gun. However, he concurs with
Poncianos intention to kill Freddie and cooperated by giving moral support
that escalates the formers determination to kill the latter, thus making him an
accomplice of the crime.

B No, the answer would not be the same. When Ruben lent his gun to
Ponciano, what he consented is the intention of killing Freddie. In the
absence of criminal intent to kill Manuel thus, Ruben cannot be held liable of
the crime.

Antero Makabayan was convicted of the crime of Rebellion. While serving sentence, he
escaped from jail. Captured, he was charged with, and convicted of, Evasion of Service
of Sentence. Thereafter, the President of the Philippines issued an amnesty
proclamation for the offense of Rebellion. Antero applied for and was granted the benefit
of the amnesty proclamation.
Antero then filed a petition for habeas corpus, praying for his immediate release from
confinement. He claims that the amnesty extends to the offense of Evasion of Service of
Sentence. As judge, will you grant the petition? Discuss fully.
Yes, I will grant the petition. As provided under Article 89 (3) of the RPC, criminal
liability is totally extinguished by amnesty, which completely extinguishes the
penalty and all its effects. When amnesty was granted to Antero, the case of

evasion of service of sentence which proceeded from the crime of rebellion will
not subsist because its legal basis has lost. Therefore, petition for habeas corpus
shall be granted as amnesty extinguishes the criminal liability and all its effects .
Baldo killed Conrad in a dark corner, at midnight, on January 2, 1960. Dominador
witnessed the entire incident, but he was so scared to tell the authorities about it.
On January 2, 1970, Dominador, bothered by his conscience, reported the matter to the
police. After investigation, the police finally arrested Baldo on January 6, 1980. Charged
in court, Baldo claims that the crime he committed had already prescribed.
Is Baldos contention correct?
1st Para. No, Baldos contention is not correct. As provided under Art. 91. of the
RPC, the period of prescription shall commence to run from the day on which the
crime is discovered by the offended party, the authorities, or their agents, and
shall be interrupted by the filing of the complaint or information, and shall
commence to run again when such proceedings terminate without the accused
being convicted or acquitted, or are unjustifiably stopped for any reason not
imputable to him.ch
2nd Para. The police discovered the crime only after the Dominador reported the
incident of killing on January 2, 1970. When Baldo was arrested on January 6,
1980, only ten years has lapsed. The law provides that a crime of murder has
penalties of reclusion perpetua to death that prescribes in 20 years and crime of
homicide has a maximum penalty of reclusion temporal that prescribes in 15
years. Considering the crime committed of Baldo is either murder or homicide
depending on the circumstances, the crime has not yet prescribes because only
ten years has lapsed from the discovery of the crime.
3rd Para. Therefore, Baldo can be prosecuted because the crime committed has
not yet prescribed.
William is the son-in-law of Mercedes who owns several pieces of real property. In 1994,
William's wife, Anita, died. In 1996, William caused the preparation of a Special Power of
Attorney (SPA) giving him the authority to sell two (2) parcels of land registered in the name of
Mercedes. The signature of Mercedes in the SPA was forged and, through this forged SPA and
without the consent and knowledge of Mercedes, William succeeded in selling the two (2)
parcels for Php 2,000,000. He pocketed the proceeds of the sale.
Mercedes eventually discovered William's misdeeds and filed a criminal complaint. William was
subsequently charged with estafa through falsification of public document.
Was the criminal charge proper?

Yes, the criminal charge is proper. There exists a complex crime of estafa through
falsification of public document. In this case, the falsification of the SPA was such a necessary
means as it was resorted to by William to facilitate and carry out his evil design to swindle
Mercedes. He as well used the SPA to sell the two parcels of land to a third person. The
falsification was consummated upon the execution of the SPA, and the consummation of estafa
occurred when William later utilized the SPA.
Therefore, the charge is proper because falsification of the public document was used to
facilitate and ensure the commission of the estafa.

2) Arlene is engaged in the buy and sell of used garments, more popularly known
as"ukay-ukay." Among the items found by the police in a raid of her store in Baguio City
were brand-new Louie Feraud blazers.
Arlene was charged with "fencing." Will the charge prosper? Why or why not?
Yes, the charge of fencing will prosper. The raid conducted by the police in the store
of Arlene presupposes the presumption of a violation to secure the clearance/permit to sell/used
second hand articles. Thus, any person who fails to secure the clearance or permit required by
Section 6 of P.D. 1612 shall upon conviction be punished as a fence. The brand-new Louie
Feraud blazer which is offered for sale without prior compliance to the requirement of securing
clearance and permit shall be held in restraint until satisfactory evidence or legitimacy of
acquisition has been established.
Therefore, the charge of fencing will prosper on the ground of failure to secure the
necessary permits in the operation of buy and sell of ukay-ukay.

3.) A asked financial support from her showbiz friend B who accommodated her by
issuing in her favor a postdated check in the sum of P90,000.00. Both of them knew that
the check would not be honored because Bs account had just been closed. The two then
approached trader C whom they asked to change the check with cash, even agreeing
that the exchange be discounted at P85,000.00 with the assurance that the check shall
be funded upon maturity. Upon Cs presentment of the check for payment on due date, it
was dishonored because the account had already been closed.
What action/s may C commence against A and B to hold them to account for the
loss of her P85,000.00? Explain.
C may file a complaint for Estafa by postdating or issuing a bad check and a complaint
for violation of BP 22.
A and B can be charged for Estafa because they both issued a check knowing it to be
without sufficient funds. The issuance of the bounced check here was with fraudulent intent that
causes damage to C. Hence, deceit and damage are present.

A and B can also be charged for Violation of BP 22, apart from the estafa case, because
BP cases makes the mere act of issuing a worthless check a special offense punishable
thereunder.