1.

X, engaged in fabricating telecommunication towers, applied for a credit line of P3M

with ABC Bank which was later approved to finance the said business. He was required
to sign several documents among which are irrevocable letter of credit and trust receipt
agreement. After which, he received the goods from his suppliers to fabricate the said
towers. Unfortunately, X failed to pay ABC Bank. Demands were made by the latter but
remained unheeded. What crime/s did X commit, if any? Explain.
ANSWER:
No crime was committed.
The goods were not held in trust to constitute estafa or any other crime.
The essential elements of estafa in Art. 315 par. 1 (b) are: (1) that money, goods or
other personal property is received by the offender in trust or on commission, or for
administration, or under any obligation involving the duty to make delivery of or to return
it; (2) that there be misappropriation or conversion of such money or property by the
offender, or denial on his part of such receipt; (3) that such misappropriation or
conversion or denial is to the prejudice of another; and (4) there is demand by the
offended party to the offender.
In the case at bar, the real intent of the parties was simply to enter a loan. The subject
goods were not being held for sale, as in the case of Trust Receipt transactions where
the entrustee has the obligation to deliver to the entruster the price of the sale, but
rather to be used for the fabrication of steel communication towers in accordance with
his contracts with his clients. In these contracts, he was commissioned to build, out of
the materials received, steel communication towers, not to sell them. As such, PD 115
does not apply. (Anthony L. Ng v. People of the Philippines; G.R No. 173905; April
23, 2010)
2. X was charged for statutory rape of Y. The information alleged that Y was then eleven
(11) years old when X suddenly appeared, grabbed, and then led her to an adjacent
forested area. While alarmed over this turn of events, Y did not resist appellants
advances, having been sexually abused once before and threatened with physical harm
by appellant. Later, X succeeded with his carnal desire against Y. The physical
examination of the victim, however, revealed the absence of abrasion, contusions, or
scratches in her external genitalia. The RTC found X guilty as charged. The CA,
however, found X guilty of acts of lasciviousness only. X appealed before the SC. How
will you rule and why?
ANSWER:
X should be convicted as charged for statutory rape.

For conviction in the crime of rape, the following elements must be proved : (1)
that
the accused had carnal knowledge of a woman; (2)
that said act was
accomplished under any of the following circumstances: xxxx d. when the offended
party is under twelve (12) years of age or is demented, even though none of the
circumstances. (Art. 226-A, RPC).
Moreover, the Court emphasized that the absence of external signs or physical injuries,
such as freshly broken hymen, or laceration, on the complainants body, does not
necessarily negate the commission of rape. This is because complete or full penetration
of the victims private parts is not required to consummate rape.
In the case at bar, Ys testimony that she was raped was, as found by the CA,
corroborated on its material points. The Court stresses that the foremost consideration
in the prosecution of rape is the victims testimony and not the findings of the medicolegal officer. This is true, especially in case of a minor, who says that she has been
defiled, she says in effect all that is necessary to show that rape was inflicted on her.
(People of the Philippines v. Basilio Cadap; G.R. No. 190633; July 5, 2010).
3. MJ, while taking a bath alone in her house, noticed that the lights in her living room
were turned off. She then called her live-in partner, JM, thinking that the latter was the
one who arrived at their house. Suddenly, when she opened the door, she was shocked
when MM, holding a bread knife, kissed and touched her private parts and had carnal
knowledge of her. The RTC found MM guilty of rape. The CA affirmed the decision of
the trial court. On appeal, MM reiterated his contentions during trial that MJ and him
kept their relationship secret upon MJs request since the latter was allegedly afraid that
JM might not pursue his intention to marry her if he finds out about their relationship.
a.

What is the sweetheart theory/defense in criminal law?

b.
Should MMs
theory/defense?

criminal

liability

be

extinguished

based

on

the

above

ANSWERS:
a.
The sweetheart theory or defense in criminal law may be raised by compelling
evidence satisfying the following requisites: first, that the accused and the victim were
lovers; and, second, that she consented to the alleged sexual relations. The second is
as important as the first, because this Court has held often enough that love is not a
license for lust. (People v Andayang, GR 174861, April 11, 2011)

b.

NO. Xs criminal liability should not be extinguished.

Appellants bare invocation of the sweetheart theory cannot stand. As held in People vs.
Corpus, [a]ppellants sweetheart theory, being an affirmative defense, must be
established by convincing evidence some documentary and/or other evidence like
mementos, love letters, notes, photographs and the like. Other than appellants
testimony, however, no convincing evidence was presented to substantiate his theory.
In the case at bar, no love letter, memento or picture was presented by him to prove that
such romantic relationship existed. While one of the defenses witnesses testified on his
knowledge of the supposed relationship, he admitted that his basis was merely the
information previously given by accused-appellant and that he really had no personal
knowledge concerning the same. Further, and as correctly observed by the Court of
Appeals, even supposing that the sweetheart theory is true, a love affair does not justify
rape, for the beloved cannot be sexually violated against her will for love is not a license
for lust.( People of the Philippines v. Rommel Belo; G.R. No. 187075; July 5, 2010)
4. What is the Ivler Case Doctrine?
ANSWER:
The doctrine provides that reckless imprudence or negligence is a crime in itself.
Hence, once convicted or acquitted of a specific act of reckless imprudence, the
accused may not be prosecuted again for that same act. For the essence of the quasi
offense of criminal negligence under Article 365 of the Revised Penal Code lies in the
execution of an imprudent or negligent act that, if intentionally done, would be
punishable as a felony. The law penalizes thus the negligent or careless act, not the
result thereof. The gravity of the consequence is only taken into account to determine
the penalty, it does not qualify the substance of the offense. And, as the careless act is
single, whether the injurious result should affect one person or several persons, the
offense (criminal negligence) remains one and the same, and can not be split into
different crimes and prosecutions. (Ivler v. San Pedro,
G.R.
No.
17271,
November 17, 2010)
5. Dodong and Neneng, who were first cousins, were married in 1980. In 1989, Dodong
was told that his marriage to Neneng was incestuous under the law then in force and
therefore void ab initio. In 1990, he married Inday. Charged with bigamy, Dodong raised
the defense that his first marriage is void ab initio and therefore, there is no previous
marriage to speak of. Will you sustain Dodongs defense? Explain.
ANSWER:

NO. Dodongs defense cannot stand.

In Art. 40 of the Family Code, which took effect on August 3, 1988, in relation to Art. 349
of the RPC, it is mandated that the absolute nullity of a previous marriage maybe
invoked for purposes of remarriage on the basis solely of a final judgment declaring
such previous marriage void. In short, a judicial declaration of such nullity is needed.
In the case at bar, Dodong remarried in 1990 or after the Family Code took effect and
therefore his capacity to remarry in 1990 is governed by the said Code. Thus, his
subsequent marriage with Inday, before the former marriage was legally dissolved,
constitutes bigamy. (Art.349, RPC)
6. Digong, in the course of his lecture in a seminar attended by BIR employees, lamented
that a great majority of those people working in the said agency were utterly corrupt.
The following day, a group of employees who attended the lecture filed a criminal
complaint against Digong for uttering statements the complainants claimed to be
defamatory. In court, Digong filed a motion to quash the information based on the facts
abovementioned on the ground that no crime was committed. If you were the judge,
how would you resolve the motion? Explain.
ANSWER:
I would grant the motion to quash on the ground that the facts alleged do NOT
constitute an offense since there is NO definite person or persons dishonored.
In Art. 353 of the RPC, the crime of libel or slander is a crime against honor such that
the person or persons dishonored must be identifiable even by innuendoes; otherwise,
the crime against honor is NOT committed.
In the case at bar, Digong was not making a malicious imputation but only made an
expression of an opinion. He was delivering a lecture with no malice at all during the
said seminar. Malice, or personal ill-will or spite that injures the reputation of the person
defamed, is absent in the defendants utterance. Hence, the statement is NOT
actionable as defamatory.
7. JJ is the stepfather of GG. One night, JJ got very mad at GG for failing in the bar
exams. In his fury, JJ got hold of GGs suitcase and burned it together with all its
contents.
a.

What crime was committed by JJ? Explain.

b.

Is JJ criminally liable? Explain.

ANSWER:
a.
The crime committed by JJ is arson under PD 1613 (the new arson law) which
punishes any person who burns or sets on fire the property of another (Sec. 1, PD1613
as amended). In the case at bar, JJ intentionally burned GGs suitcase and all its
contents.
b.
JJ is criminally liable although he is MMs stepfather because such relationship
was NOT exempting from criminal liability in accordance with Art. 332 of the RPC which
covers only theft, estafa, and malicious mischief.
8. As Judy was on his way home, Albert poked a knife at her back and dragged her
towards his house. Once inside, Albert divested her of her valuables and had carnal
knowledge of her against her will. After satisfying his lust, Albert went outside of the
house and smoked a cigarette. After which, Alberto returned and again had carnal
knowledge of Judy against her will.
a.

What crime was committed by Albert? Explain.

b.
May the subsequent rape be considered as an aggravating circumstance?
Explain.
ANSWERS:
a.
Albert committed the special complex crime of robbery with rape. He committed
both robbery and rape with the intent to take personal property of another preceding the
rape. Under Art. 294, par. (1), of the Revised Penal Code, ". . . [a]ny person guilty of
robbery with the use of violence against or intimidation of persons shall suffer: 1. The
penalty of reclusion perpetua to death . . . when the robbery shall have been
accompanied by rape . . ."
b.
The subsequent rape cannot be appreciated as an aggravating circumstance
despite a resultant "anomalous situation" wherein robbery with rape would be on the
same level as robbery with multiple rapes in terms of gravity. The Court realized that
there was no law providing for the additional rape/s or homicide/s for that matter to be
considered as aggravating circumstance. It further observed that the enumeration of
aggravating circumstances under Art. 14 of the Revised Penal Code is exclusive, unlike
in Art. 13 of the same Code which enumerates the mitigating circumstances where
analogous circumstances may be considered, hence, the remedy lies with the
legislature. (People v Regala, G.R. No.130508, April 5, 2000)

9. Armed with short hand guns, A, B, and C rushed into the house of D while the latter was
preparing for his familys supper. A suddenly poked his gun at D while B and C
simultaneously grabbed D who was then hog-tied. C got hold a piece of cloth and
placed it in the mouth of D and was later herded into the van. D was taken into a
secluded area in the next town and was shot dead.
a.
Should A, B, and C be found guilty of kidnapping instead of murder?
b.
Should A, B, and C be held criminally liable for illegal possession of firearm
assuming the use of such was proven during trial but not alleged in the Information?
ANSWERS:
a.
No. A, B, and C should be found guilty of murder and NOT kidnapping.
Murder, in Art. 248 of RPC, provides that the specific intent is to kill the victim. In
kidnapping, the specific intent is to deprive the victim of his/her liberty.
In this case, it is evident on the face of the Information that the specific intent of the
malefactors in barging into the house of D was to kill him and that he was seized
precisely to kill him with the attendant modifying circumstances. The act of the
malefactors of abducting D was merely incidental to their primary purpose of killing him.
Moreover, there is no specific allegation in the information that the primary intent of the
malefactors was to deprive Modesto of his freedom or liberty and that killing him was
merely incidental to kidnapping. Irrefragably then, the crime charged in the Information
is Murder under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code and not Kidnapping under Article
268 thereof.
b. No. Although the special aggravating circumstance of the use of unlicensed firearms
was proven during the trial, there is no allegation in the Information that A, B, and C had
no license to possess the firearm. Lack of license to possess a firearm is an essential
element of the crime of violation of PD1866 as amended by Republic Act No. 8294, or
as a special aggravating circumstance in the felony of homicide or murder. It cannot
aggravate the crime because said circumstance was not alleged in the Information as
required by Rule 110, Section 8 of the Revised Rules of Court. Although this rule took
effect on December 1, 2000, after the commission of the offense in this case,
nonetheless it had been given retroactive effect considering that the rule is favorable to
the accused. (People v. Delim, G.R. No. 142773, January 28, 2003).
10. Totoy, Tuklaw, Rotrot, and Jonjon boarded a taxicab in Alabang, Muntinlupa driven by
M. When the said taxi stopped under the bridge at Moonwalk Subd., Tuklaw told M,
Tol, pera pera lang ito, dahil kailangan lang. However, M resisted and tried to get out
of the taxicab. Armed with a bladed weapon, Totoy pulled him back and stabbed him.

Tuklaw, Rotrot, and Jonjon, on the other hand, took turns in stabbing M. The latter was
able to flee and was later taken into the hospital where he immediately expired. What
crime/s did Totoy and his confederates commit?
ANSWER:
Totoy and his confederates are guilty of attempted robbery with homicide.
For the appellant to be guilty of consummated robbery under Art. 297 the RPC, there
must be incontrovertible proof that property was taken from the victim. The appellant is
guilty of attempted robbery only when he commenced the commission of robbery
directly by overt acts and did not perform all the acts of execution which would produce
robbery by reason of some causes or accident other than his own spontaneous
desistance.
In this case, Tuklaw demanded from the victim, Tol, pera-pera lang ito, dahil kailangan
lang. The victim refused to part with his earnings and resisted. He even tried to get out
of the taxicab but Tuklaw pulled him back and stabbed him. The appellant, Rot-Rot and
Jon-Jon followed suit and stabbed the victim with their bladed weapons. The victim was
able to flee from the vehicle without anything being taken from him. The appellant and
his confederates commenced by overt acts the execution of the robbery, but failed to
perform all the acts of execution by reason of the victims resistance. Hence, the
appellant and his co-conspirators are guilty only of attempted robbery with homicide.
(People v Bocalan, G.R. No. 141527, September 4, 2003).
11. Maria lives in an apartment where she loves to cook naked in the kitchen. She was
unaware that her neighbors can see her through her window. She was reported to the
authorities by said neighbors. Eventually, her cooking naked became the talk of the town.
What crime, if any, did Maria commit? Explain.
ANSWER:
Maria did not commit any crime, the felony closest to making Maria criminally liable is
Grave Scandal. However, such act is not to be considered as highly scandalous and
offensive against decency and good customs. It was not done in a public place and within
public knowledge or view.
12. A is an employee of X Piggery and is in charge of buying feeds for the animals. A
recorded a higher price for the feeds than it actually was in the budget proposal and
submitted it to the treasury department. Once approved, A pocketed the difference. What is
the crime committed, if any? Explain your answer.

ANSWER: A committed the crime of estafa by misappropriating or converting money,

goods or any other personal properties received in trust, to the prejudice of another. A is in
charge of buying the feeds. (Article 315, par. 1[b], Revised Penal Code). The falsification of
the budget is merely intended to conceal the misappropriation of the money, and does not
constitute a separate crime of falsification.

13. Arthur, an employee of the Department of Justice was issued by the DOJ a laptop.
After 11 months, his supervisor made an inspection of all the laptops issued in the
Department. Arthur, who reported for work during that morning, did not show up during the
inspection and went on absence without leave. After 3 months, he surrendered to the DOJ
the laptop issued to him. He was charged with malversation of government property before
the Sandiganbayan.
Arthur argued that he did not appropriate the laptop for his own use, and that the delay in
accounting for it does not constitute conversion and that actually the laptop was stolen by
his neighbor, Ruhtra. Decide the case.
ANSWER: Arthur is criminally liable under Art. 217, RPC. He is accountable for the laptop
the Department issued to him in his official capacity. His failure to submit the laptop upon
demand created the presumption that he converted them to his own use. Even if there is
no direct evidence of misappropriation, his failure to account for the government property
is enough factual basis for a finding of malversation. Indeed, even his explanation that the
laptop was stolen is incredible. For if it was actually stolen, he should have reported the
matter immediately to the authorities.

14. Nicdao is an isaw vendor near the gate of University X. He has been selling isaw there
for 5 years already. One day, he saw, upon his arrival, that Ferd has set up an isawan stall
on his usual spot. This was bitterly resented by Nicdao. He confronted Ferd and a heated
argument ensued. The barangay chairperson, Larry, who was patrolling the area saw the
happening and tried to appease the 2 vendors to prevent a violent confrontation. However,
Nicdao resented the intervention of Larry and stabbed him to death with a barbeque stick.
What crime was committed by Nicdao? Discuss fully.
ANSWER: Nicdao committed the complex crime of homicide with assault upon a person in
authority (Arts. 148 and 249 in relation to Art. 48, RPC). According to Art, 152 RPC, a
barangay chairperson is a person in authority and if he is attacked while in the
performance of his official duties or on the occasion thereof the felony of direct assault is
committed.

15. Elyas lost in a betting game. Upon reaching home, he was nagged by his pregnant
wife, Rosa, about the money for her pre-natal check up the next day. Stressed by his lost
and angered by the nagging, Elyas kicked Rosa. She fell to the ground and it resulted to
her and the unborn babys death. What crime was committed by Elyas?
ANSWER: Elyas committed the crime of Parricide with Unintentional abortion. When Elyas
kicked Rosa, which resulted to her death, Elyas committed Parricide, in accordance with
Art. 246, RPC in relation to Art. 4, par 1, RPC. Since the unborn baby died in the process,
but Elyas had no intention to cause the abortion, he committed unintentional abortion as
defined in Art. 257, RPC.
16. Digs lost his cellphone which has his initials engraved in the phones case. One day, he
saw Noy using said phone. Digs asked Noy to return to him the phone as it belongs to him,
but Noy refused. Digs then drew his gun and told Noy, Pag di mo binalik yan, papatayin
kita! Out of fear for his lofe and against his will, Noy gave the phone to Digs. What crime
did Digs committed?
ANSWER: Digs committed the crime of grave coercion (Art. 286, RPC) for compelling Noy,
by means of serious threats or intimidation, to do something against the latter's will,
whether it be right or wrong. Serious threats or intimidation approximating violence
constitute grave coercion, not grave threats. Such is the nature of the threat in this case
because it was committed with a gun, is a deadly weapon.
The crime is not robbery because intent to gain, which is an essential element of robbery,
is absent since the phone belongs to Digs.
17. Jon, Rick, Joff, and Tom robbed one after another three houses occupied by different
families located inside the Western Compound, enclosed by a nine- feet high fence. How
many robberies did the four commit? Discuss fully.
ANSWER: The four committed only one robbery in the eyes of the law because when they
entered Western Compound, they were impelled only by a single indivisible criminal
resolution to commit a robbery as they were not aware that there were three families inside
said compound, considering that the same was enclosed by a nine-feet high fence. The
series of robbery committed in the same compound at about the same time constitutes one
continued crime, motivated by one criminal impulse.
18. Lowie found a wallet in a jeep he was riding. He picked it up and approached
Policeman Lupin and surrendered the wallet with instruction to return the same to whoever
may be found to be the owner. Lupin failed to return the wallet to the owner and, instead,
used the money inside the wallet to buy his sick mother medicine.

Charged with theft, Lupin reasoned out that he cannot be found guilty because it was not
he who found the wallet and, moreover, the wallet turned out to be stolen property. Is
Lupin's defense valid?
ANSWER: No. Lupin's defense is not valid. In a charge for theft, it is enough that the
personal property subject thereof belongs to another and not to the offender (Lupin). It is
irrelevant whether the person deprived of the possession of the wallet has or has no right
to the wallet. Theft is committed by one who, with intent to gain, appropriates property of
another without the consent of its owner. And the crime is committed even when the
offender receives property of another but acquires only physical possession to hold the
same.
19. Sersa and James married in 1975, not knowing that they were siblings separated at
birth. In 1995, James was told that his marriage to Sersa was incestous under the law
then in force and therefore void ab initio. In 1997, he married Briena and had 4 children.
Charged with bigamy, Jamie raised the defense that his first marriage is void ab initio and
therefore, there is no previous marriage to speak of. Is Jamies defense valid?
ANSWER: No. Jamies defense is not valid. His second marriage was in 1997, or after the
Family Code took effect on August 3, 1988, and therefore his capacity to marry in 1997
shall be governed by said Code. In Art. 40 of the Family Code, it is mandated that the
absolute nullity of a previous marriage may be invoked for purposes of remarriage on the
basis solely of a final judgment declaring such previous marriage void. In short, there is a
need of a judicial declaration of such nullity before Jamie may validly remarry.
20. Jardy was nominated as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court. While the
nomination was being considered, a group of concerned youth caused to be published in
the newspaper a statement objecting to Jardys appointment. They alleged that Jardy is
not fit for the position. They said that he was corrupt, having accepted bribes or favors
from businessmen in his previous office. As a result of the publication, he was not chosen
for the position. Jardy sued the youth group and the newspaper for libel and damages on
account of his non-confirmation. Is his argument valid?
ANSWER: No. His argument is not valid. The youth group and the newspaper cannot be
held guilty of libel, because they made the denunciation out of moral or social duty and
thus there is absence of malice.
Since Jardy was a candidate for a very important public position, his moral, mental and
physical fitness for the public trust in such position becomes a public concern as the

interest of the public is at stake. It is pursuant to such concern that the denunciation was
made; hence, bereft of malice.
21. Honesto found a bag containing identification cards and a diamond ring. He went to the
nearest police station to seek help in finding the owner of the bag. PO1 Liaro attended to
him. Knowing that the diamond ring would cost a lot, PO1 Liaro proposed to Honesto that
they just pawn it. Honesto agreed and the ring was pawned for P100,000. What is the
criminal
liability
of
PO1
Liaro,
if
any?
Explain.
ANSWER:
PO1 Melvin committed the crime of malversation of property under Art. 217, RPC since the
subject ring appears to be his accountability and the act of pawning the same constitutes
misappropriation.
22. What are the three (3) classes of offender in the crime of qualified seduction? Give an
example
of
each.
ANSWER:
The three (3) classes of offenders in the crime of qualified seduction are:
1. Those who exercise moral influence over the victim, such as a priest who acts as
spiritual adviser of the victim, or a teacher in the school where the victim is enrolled;
2. A brother or ascendant by consanguinity of the victim, such as her uncle; and
3. Those who are regarded as domestic in relation to the victim, enjoying the confidence
and intimacy shared by members of the same household, such as household helpers and
boarders living under the same roof and with same household as the victim.
23.

What

are

the

elements

of

the

crime

of

bigamy?

ANSWER:
The elements of bigamy are: (1) the offender has been legally married; (2) the first
marriage has not been legally dissolved, or in case his or her spouse is absent, the absent
spouse has not been judicially declared presumptively dead; (3) he contracts a subsequent
marriage; and (4) the subsequent marriage would have been valid had it not been for the
existence of the first (Marbell-Bobis v. Bobis, G.R. No. 138509, July 31, 2000).
24. Ganda is married to Pogi. Since the life in Saranggani is hard, Ganda went to Manila to
look for a job. When Ganda met Mayaman in Manila, they both experienced love at first
sight. Ganda decided to wed Mayaman, who had no inkling that she was married. Ganda
and Mayaman accomplished an application for marriage license which they subscribed
and swore to before the Local Civil Registrar. Ganda declared, in the application, that she

is single. The marriage licensed was issued. In due time, the couple were married by the
mayor. Ganda and Mayaman had their first sexual intercourse later in the evening. What
crime
or
crimes,
if
any,
did
Ganda
commit?
Explain
briefly.
ANSWER:
Ganda committed bigamy for contracting a second marriage while her first marriage is still
subsisting (Art. 349, RPC). She is also guilty of perjury for making untruthful statements
under oath or executing an affidavit upon a material matter, when she declared she was
not married in the application for marriage license a public document (Art. 171, RPC).
Lastly, she is also guilty of adultery (Art. 333, RPC) for having sexual intercourse with
Mayaman,
although
she
is
a
married
woman.
25. Weakie, Mr. X's daughter, caught a cold and was brought to the hospital. The doctor
just prescribed paracetamol and let Weakie go home. Before going home, Mr. X went to a
drug store with the prescription, and the pharmacist sold him five (5) tablets. Upon arriving
home, Weakie took a tablet. One hour later, Weakie had a seizure and died. The autopsy
showed that the tablet she had taken was not paracetamol but a pill to which she was
allergic. The pharmacist was charged with murder. Is the charge proper? If not, what
should
it
be?
Explain.
ANSWER:
The charge was improper. The pharmacist should be charged with criminal negligence, or
reckless imprudence resulting in homicide, because there was no intent to kill Weakie. The
accused inexcusably lacked precaution in failing to dispense the proper medicine to the
victim which caused his death (Art. 365, RPC).
26. Is Indirect Bribery a crime involving moral turpitude?
ANSWER:
Yes, moral tupitude can be inferred from the third element: "accepting a promise or gift
and deliberately committing an unjust act/crime/refraining from performing an official
duty in exchange for favors". There is malicious intent to renege on the duties the public
officer owes to society and he also takes advantage of his office or position to do betray
the public trust (Magno v. COMELEC, GR 147904, October 4, 2002).
27. On his way home from office, ZZ rode in a jeepney. Subsequently, XX boarded
thesame jeepney. Upon reaching a secluded spot in QC, XX pulled out a grenade
fromhis bag and announced a hold-up. He told ZZ to surrender his watch, wallet
andcellphone. Fearing for his life, ZZ jumped out of the vehicle. But as he fell, hishead
hit the pavement, causing his instant death . Is XX liable for ZZ's death?Explain briefly.

ANSWER:
Yes, XX is liable for ZZ's death because his acts of pulling out a grenade
andannouncing a hold-up, coupled with a demand for the watch, wallet and cellphone
ofZZ is felonious, and such felonious act was the proximate cause of ZZ's jumpingout of
the jeepney, resulting in the latter's death. Stated otherwise, the deathof ZZ was the
direct, natural and logical consequence of XX's felonious act whichcreated an
immediate sense of danger in the mind of ZZ who tried to avoid suchdanger by jumping
out of the jeepney (People v. Arpa, 27 SCRA 1037)
28. Z and Y were both courting their co-employee, SUE. Because of their bitterrivalry, Z
decided to get rid of Y by poisoning him. Z poured a substance into Y's coffee thinking it
was arsenic. It turned out that the substance was white sugar substitute known as
Equal. Nothing happened to Y after he drank the coffee.What criminal liability did Z
incur, if any?
ANSWER:
Z incurred criminal liability for an impossible crime of murder. Criminal liability shall be
incurred by any person performing an act which would be an offense against persons or
property, were it not for the inherent impossibility of its accomplishment or on account of
the employment of inadequate or ineffectual means (Art. 4, par. 2, RFC). In the problem
given, the impossibility of accomplishing the crime of murder, a crime against persons,
was due to the employment of ineffectual means which Z thought was poison. The law
imputes criminal liability to the offender although no crime resulted, only to suppress his
criminal propensity because subjectively, he is a criminal though objectively, no crime
was committed.
29. After raping the complainant in her house, the accused struck a match to smoke a
cigarette before departing from the scene. The brief light from the match allowed him to
notice a watch in her wrist. He demanded that she hand over the watch. When she
refused, he forcibly grabbed it from her. The accused was charged with and convicted of
the special complex crime of robbery with rape. Was the court correct?
ANSWER:
No. the court erred in convicting the accused of the special complex crime of robbery
with rape. The accused should instead be held liable for two (2) separate crimes of
robbery and rape, since the primary intent or objective of the accused was only to rape
the complainant, and his commission of the robbery was merely an after thought. The
robbery must precede the rape. In order to give rise to the special complex crime for
which the court convicted the accused.

30. Alden, a Jollibee waiter, found a gold bracelet in front of his working place in Makati
and, upon inspecting it, saw the name and address of the owner engraved on the
inside. He delivered the bracelet to PO1 Maine Reyes of the Makati Quad precinct with
the instruction to locate the owner and return it to him. PO1 Reyes, instead, sold the
bracelet and misappropriated the proceeds. Subsequent events brought out the fact that
the bracelet was dropped by a snatcher who had grabbed it from the owner a block
away from where Alden had found it and further investigation traced the last possessor
as PO1 Reyes. Charged with theft, PO1 Reyes reasoned out that he had not committed
any crime because it was not he who had found the bracelet and, moreover, it turned
out to have been stolen. Resolve the case.
ANSWER:
PO1 Reyes is criminally liable for theft. Her contention that he has not committed any
crime because he was not the one who found the bracelet and it turned out to be stolen
also, is devoid of merit. It is enough that the bracelet belonged to another and the failure
to restore the same to its owner is characterized by intent to gain.The act of PO1 Reyes
of selling the bracelet which does not belong to him and which he only held to be
delivered to its owner, is furtive misappropriation with intent to gain.Where a finder of
lost or mislaid property entrusts it to another for delivery to the owner, the person to
whom such property is entrusted and who accepts the same,assumes the relation of the
finder to the owner as if he was the actual finder: if she would misappropriate it, he is
guilty of theft (People vs. Avila, 44 Phil.720).
31. When is embracing, kissing and touching a girl's breast considered only unjust
vexation instead of acts of lasciviousness?
A. The acts of embracing, kissing of a woman arising either out of passion or other
motive and the touching of her breast as a mere incident of the embrace without lewd
design constitutes merely unjust vexation (People us, Ignacio. CA GR No. 5119-R,
September 30, 1950). However, where the kissing, embracing and the touching of the
breast of a woman are done with lewd design, the same constitute acts of
lasciviousness (People vs. Percival Gilo, 10 SCRA 753).
32. A, a married woman, had sexual intercourse with a man who was not her husband.
The man did not know she was married. What crime, if any, did each of them commit?
Why?
ANSWER:
A, the married woman, committed the crime of adultery under Article 333 of the Revised
Penal Code, as amended, for having sexual intercourse with a man not her husband
while her marriage is still subsisting. But the man who had carnal knowledge of her, not
knowing her to be married, shall not be liable for adultery.

33. Define "corpus delicti". What are the elements of "corpus delicti"?
ANSWER:
Corpus Delicti literally means "the body or substance of the crime" or the fact that a
crime has been committed, but does not include the identity of the person who
committed it. (People vs. Pascual 44 OG 2789). Elements of corpus delicti: -The actual
commission by someone of the particular crime charged. -It is a compound fact made
up of two things: 1. The existence of a certain act or result forming the basis of the
criminal charge; 2. The existence of a criminal agency as the cause of the act or result;
and 3. The identity of the offender is not a necessary element of corpus delicti.
34. Distinguish fully between entrapment and instigation in Criminal Law, Exemplify
each.
ANSWER:
In ENTRAPMENT - 1. The criminal design originates from and is already in the mind of
the law breaker even before entrapment; 2. the law enforcers resort to ways and means
for the purpose of capturing the law breaker in flagrante delicto- and 3. this
circumstance is no bar to prosecution and conviction of the lawbreaker. In
INSTIGATION- 1. the idea and design to bring about the commission of the crime
originated and developed in the mind of the law enforcers; 2. the law enforcers induce,
lure, or incite a person who is not minded to commit a crime and would not otherwise
commit it, into committing the crime; and 3. this circumstance absolves the accused
from criminal liability (People v.Dante Marcos, 185 SCRA 154. [1990]).
35. At about 9 o'clock in the morning, a Narcom Group laid a plan to entrap and
apprehend A, a long suspected drug dealer, through a "buy-bust" operation. At the
appointed time, the poseur-buyer approached A who was then with B. A marked P100
bill was handed over to A who in turn, gave the poseur-buyer one(1) tea bag of
marijuana leaves. The members of the team, who were then positioned behind thick
leaves, closed in but evidently were not swift enough since A and B were able to run
away. Two days later, A was arrested in connection with another incident. It appears that
during the operations, the police officers were not able to seize the marked money but
were able to get possession of the marijuana teabag. A was subsequently prosecuted
for violation of Section 4, Article II of Republic Act No. 6425, otherwise known as the
Dangerous Drugs Act, During the trial, the marked money was not presented. Can A be
held liable? Explain.
ANSWER:

Yes. A can be held liable. The absence of the marked money will not create a hiatus in
the prosecution's evidence as long as the sale of the dangerous drugs is adequately
proven and the drug subject of the transaction is presented before the court. There was
a perfected contract of sale of the drug (People vs. Ong Co, 245 SCRA 733; People vs.
Zervoulakos, 241 SCRA 625).
36. Alden is the Mayor of Aldubnation, a province in the Philippines. Maine, Aldens
girlfriend, got into a heated argument with Frankie. After their argument, Maine
proposed to Alden to try and kidnap Frankies girlfriend for revenge in which the latter
agreed. Alden thereafter, with the use of his power as a mayor, kidnapped Frankies
girlfriend. What is the crime committed by Maine?
ANSWER:
The crime committed by Maine is arbitrary detention. According to Article 124 of the
Revised Penal Code, Any public officer or employee who, without legal ground, detains
another is guilty of arbitrary detention. Also, according to the Supreme Court in the case
of People v Camerino, private individuals who conspired with public officers in detaining
a person shall also be guilty of arbitrary detention.
In this case, Alden accepted Maines proposal to kidnap Frankies girlfriend. Conspiracy
exist when two or more person agreed to commit a crime and decided to commit it.
Hence, even though Maine is a private individual she shall be guilty of arbitrary
detention.
37. Juliette and Marie are bestfriends. Juliette is engaged to Peter and will be having
their wedding soon. Marie is obsessed and is secretly in love with Peter, she wanted
nobody else to be with her forever but Peter. Due to her obsession, she planned to kill
Peter. Thereafter, she kidnapped Peter, Marie gave Peter a chance and told Peter that if
he will marry her instead of Juliette, she will not kill him, upon finding out that Peter
loves Juliette so much and will not agree to marry her, Marie killed him. What is the
crime
committed
by
Marie?
ANSWER:
The crime committed by Marie is Murder. According to the Supreme Court in the case of
People v. Puno, for kidnapping to exist, there must be indubitable proof that the actual
specific intent of the malefactor is to deprive the victim of his liberty and not where such
restraint of his freedom is merely an incident in the commission of another offense
primarily intended by the malefactor.

In this case, Marie wanted to kill peter primarily and only used kidnapping to intimidate
Peter to marry her. Hence, Marie committed Murder.
38. (same scenario as number 2) If Peter agreed on the condition of Marriage, and
thereafter told the Police of the scenario, what shall be the proper crime to charge
Marie?
ANSWER:
The proper crime to charge Marie should be kidnapping. According to the Revised
Penal Code, any private individual who, without legal ground, detains another depriving
him of his or her liberty shall be guilty of kidnapping.
In this case, Maries intent to kill Peter did not materialize for it was prevented by her
own will. Hence, the crime should only be kidnapping.
39. A was caught peeping through a small hole in the bathroom door while a young 16year-old lady was taking a bath. What is the crime committed by A?
ANSWER:
A committed light coercion specifically unjust vexation. Unjust vexation includes any
human conduct which, although not productive of physical or material harm would,
however, unjustly annoy or vex someone.
In this case, A committed unjust vexation by vexing a 16 y/o girl. Hence, A is liable for
light coercion.
40. While walking alone on her way home from a party, Sampaguita was seized at gun
point by Sambong and taken on board a tricycle to a house some distance away.
Sambong was with Oregano, Kataka-taka, who drove the tricycle. At the house,
Sambong, Oregano, and Kataka-taka succeeded in having sexual intercourse with
Mildred against her will and under the threat of Sambong's gun. For five days,
Sambong, Oregano and Kataka-taka kept Mildred in the house and took turns in
sexually assaulting her. On the 6th day, Mildred managed to escape; she proceeded
immediately to the nearest police station and narrated her ordeal. What is the crime
committed by Sambong, Oregano, Kataka-taka?
ANSWER:
The crime committed by Sambong, Oregano, Kataka-taka is a special complex crime of
kidnapping with rape. Kidnapping with rape is defined by the Revised Penal Code as

any private individual who, without legal ground, detains another depriving him of his or
her liberty and thereafter raping him or her.
In this case, Sambong, Oregano and Kataka-taka detained Sampaguita and deprived
her of her liberty for the purpose of raping her. Hence, Sambong, Oregano and Katakataka is guilty of Kidnapping with Rape.
41. A, a 32 y/o guy, is a teacher at Greys Anatomy School of Medicine. B, a 15 y/o
virgin girl, is a student of A. A courted B diligently believing that he will eventually get Bs
yes because he is Bs professor and in order to have sex with her, brought her flowers
and chocolates which lead to Bs sweet yes. A and B dated for 9 months and constantly
having sexual intercourse without the knowledge of Bs parents. Bs parents then found
out that A is dating their daughter and that they are having sexual intercourse. Bs
parents confronted B and told her that they will file a rape case to A because it is evident
that there is intimidation because he is an authority in Bs school. Is their contention
correct?
ANSWER:
No. Their contention is incorrect, the proper crime to charge A is qualified seduction.
According to the Revised Penal Code, rape is committed by having sexual intercourse
with a woman against her will through violence and intimidation. On the other hand,
qualified seduction is committed by the seduction of a virgin over 12 years and under 18
years of age by certain persons in authority such as a teacher.
In the instant case, A clearly had sexual intercourse with B because of his diligence and
it is done without force and intimidation. To file a rape charge to A will be incorrect
because of the absence of force and intimidation which is an essential element of rape.
On the other hand, filing qualified seduction may prosper since all the essential
requisites of the crime is present. Hence, Bs parents contention is incorrect and the
proper crime to charge is qualified seduction.
42. A, a nurse, caught B trying to pickpocket a bystander. B, upon seeing A, ran away
and tried to escape. A pursued B and eventually caught the latter. A cannot find a police
station hence he detained B at his house until he find one. B then charged A with
unlawful arrest. Will Bs suit prosper?
ANSWER:

No. Bs suit will not prosper. According to the Revised Penal Code, in order for a person
to be convicted of unlawful arrest, he shall arrest or detain another, without legal or
reasonable ground, for the purpose of delivering him to the authorities.
In this case, A arrested B with the power vested by the Rules of Court regarding lawful
citizens arrests. A has reasonable ground to arrest B for the former witnessed the crime
of the latter in flagrante delicto. Hence, there is no crime committed.
43. Laida entrusted her 9 year-old sons custody to Mary while shes in Italy. While Laida
is still abroad, Mary entrusted Laidas son to Miguel, Laidas stepdad. Upon the return of
Laida, she demanded the return of her son from Mary. However, Mary refused. Laida
then demanded her son from Miguel. Miguel refused. What are the crimes committed?
ANSWER:
Mary committed the crime of failure to return a minor penalized by Art. 270 of the RPC.
Miguel committed the crime of Kidnapping penalized by Art. 267. According to Art. 270
of the Revised Penal Code, failure to return a minor is the deliberate failure by the
person having the custody of the minor to restore such minor to his parents or guardian.
Under Art. 267, the kidnapping of a minor is also punished. While under Art. 270, the
offender is entrusted with the custody of the minor, in Art. 267, the offender is not
entrusted with the custody of the minor.
In this case, Laida entrusted the custody of her child to Mary which then entrusted the
formers son to Miguel. Hence, Mary, having the custody of the child, shall be penalized
by failure to return a minor. On the other hand, Miguel, without the custody of the child,
shall be penalized with kidnapping.
44. James, Kathryns boyfriend, criticized Judge Nadines way of trying the murder case
of Kathryn. James shouted to Judge Nadine Wala namang kwenta yang Judge na yan!
Mas marunong pa mga law students! What is the crime committed?
ANSWER:
James committed oral defamation if the statements pertain to matters beyond the
courts. According to Art. 353 of the Revised Penal Code, defamation is injuring a
persons character, fame or reputation through false or malicious statements. It is an
invasion of a relational interest for it involves the opinion which others in the community
may have or tend to have of the victim.
In this case, James injured the reputation of Judge Nadine through malicious
statements fueled by the relation between James and Kathryn. However, if James
statements pertain to matters pending in court. James is guilty of indirect contempt.

Hence, depending on the status of the case trial, James may be guilty of oral
defamation or indirect contempt.
45. A was caught selling 17 year-old girls to certain police officers. A is liable for:
A.) Prostitution
B.) Corruption of Minor
C.) Violation of R.A. 7610
D.) Violation of R.A. 9262
ANSWER: B.