Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Yes, Ms. A can validly put up the defense of Battered Woman Syndrome as a
justifying circumstance.
Under the Anti-Violence against Women and their Children Act of 2004
(RA 9262), Battered Woman Syndrome is a justifying circumstance notwithstanding
that any of the elements of self-defense is lacking. The emphasis on
notwithstanding that any of the elements of self-defense is lacking was added
precisely to avoid confusion with the rule on self-defense under the Revised Penal
Code.
Article 4 of the Revised Penal Code provides that criminal liability is incurred
by a person committing a felony although the wrongful act done be different from
which he intended.
Here, Macho committed a felony. The fact that he had no intention of killing
Ganda when he accidentally pulled the trigger of the gun is of no moment. Hence, he
is liable for the death of Ganda.
Here, all the elements of the crime plunder are present. City Engr. A
accumulated more than fifty (50) million pesos, which was way beyond his legitimate
income, through a combination or series of overt criminal acts such as malversation
and direct bribery. Hence, the charge of plunder.
1
B. No, my answer will not be the same.
Here, the requisite for plunder that the aggregate amount or total value of
the amassed, accumulated or acquired ill-gotten wealth is at least fifty (50) million
pesos is absent. Hence, a different answer (from sub-question A).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------
A cannot be charged with plunder but shall be proceeded against each of the crimes he
committed.
1. Technical malversation.
2. Violations of RA 3019
Under the Revised Penal Code, to fall under the crime of qualified theft, the
following elements must concur:
2
Here, all the elements for the crime of qualified theft was committed by
Madam X as principal by direct participation and Madam W as principal by
indispensable cooperation.
1. Penal law shall have no retroactive effect unless favorable to the accused who is
not a habitual delinquent.
2. No ex post facto law shall be enacted.
Under the principle that penal laws are prospective in nature, the general rule
is that acts or omissions will only be subject to a penal law if they are committed
after a penal law has taken effect. Conversely, acts or omissions which have been
committed before the effectivity of a penal law, could not be penalized by such penal
law.
1. makes an action done before the passing of the law, and which was innocent
when done, criminal, and punishes such action;
2. aggravates the crime or makes it greater than when it was committed;
3. changes the punishment and inflicts a greater punishment than that which the
law annexed to the crime when it was committed;
4. alters the legal rules of evidence and receives less testimony than the law
required at the time of the commission of the offense in order to convict the
accused;
5. assumes to regulate civil rights and remedies only but, in effect, imposes a
penalty or deprivation of a right, which when done, was lawful; or
6. deprives a person accused of a crime of some lawful protection to which he has
become entitled (such as the protection of a former conviction or acquittal, or a
proclamation of amnesty).
Unjust vexation as a form of light coercion causing annoyance or vexing the sense of
the offended party short of injury.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------
3
Corruption of public officials is the crime of the giver in bribery and it is
committed when any person offers or promises or gives gifts or presents to a public
officer by reason or in connection with the performance of his official duties. Bribery
requires concurrence of the will of the corruptor and the public officer.
1. That the offender makes offers or promises or gives gifts or presents to a public
officer; and
2. That the offers or promises are made or the gifts or presents are given to a public
officer under circumstances that will make the public officer liable for (direct or
indirect) bribery.
VIII. Complex crime of forcible abduction with rape plus multiple rapes.
A. Guapo and Pogi committed forcible abduction with rape for the first rape
committed and as many separate counts of rape as are charged, alleged and
proved.
Under the Revised Penal Code, the elements of forcible abduction (Art. 342)
are that the:
On the other hand, under the provisions of criminal law, the elements of rape
pertinent to this case are that:
B. No, Guapo and Pogi are not liable for Prettys death.
4
The act of Pretty in taking her own life by hanging is an act foreign from the
felony committed by Guapo and Pogi.
The law requires that to make anyone liable for felony committed their act
must be the proximate case of the same felony.
Proximate cause means all the direct, natural and logical consequences that
will result from the commission of the felony. Here, suicide is not a direct, natural
and logical consequences of either forcible abduction or rape.
A and B committed the special complex crime of robbery with homicide while
C committed robbery only.
A conviction requires certitude that the robbery is the main purpose and
objective of the malefactor, and the killing is merely incidental to the robbery. The
intent to rob must precede the taking of human life although the killing may occur
before, during or after the robbery.
Under the Revised Penal Code, a person is liable only to the extent of his
knowledge or participation in the commission of the crime.
C did not have anything to do with the killing made by B as he was positioned
as mere look out for the commission of robbery. But by reason of the conspiracy to
commit robbery, C is liable for said crime.
X. Anti-trafficking in persons.
5
Loko is liable for violation of Anti-trafficking in Persons Act of 2003 (RA 9208)
in relation to Special Protection of Children against Child Abuse, Exploitation and
Discrimination Act (RA 7610, as amended).
Under ATi PA of 2003 (RA 9208), it shall be unlawful for any person, natural or
juridical, to recruit, transport, harbor, provide or receive a person by any
means, including those done under the pretext of domestic or overseas
employment or training or apprenticeship, for the purpose of prostitution,
pornography, sexual exploitation, forced labor, slavery, involuntary
servitude or debt bondage.
Under SPo. CA CaEDA (RA 7610, as amended), any who shall engage in
trading and dealing with children including, but not limited to, the act of
buying and selling of a child for money, or for any other consideration, or
barter is punishable. The mere act of selling or bartering is punishable. The child
is not taken against his will.
When you fire a gun in a public place, then it will be alarm and scandal (RPC,
Art. 155) when the purpose of firing of the gun is to cause a public disturbance.
1. If the gun is fired in a public place merely to disturb alarm and scandal.
2. If a gun is fired at somebody else without the intent to kill illegal discharge of
firearm.
3. But if with intent to kill and the victim is not killed attempted felony.
4. If you fire the gun aimed at somebody else with the intent to kill, and he was not
killed, and then he spontaneously desisted at that stage grave threat.
5. If the tried to fire a gun without intent to kill -- aimed at somebody else, with
proper bullet, but the gun did not fire frustrated illegal discharge of
firearm.
6. If the gun is fired, not knowing that there is no bullet (without intent to kill)
impossible crime.
Pogi committed the separate crimes of multiple rape and serious illegal
detention. There is no complex crime because Sexy could have been raped even if
the she was not illegally detained.
The illegal detention was not a necessary means to the commission of the crime
rape.
6
A. Puti committed an impossible crime.
Under the Revised Penal Code, criminal liability is 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.
B. No. Puti no longer committed an impossible crime but he can be held liable for
less serious physical injuries.
It is not an impossible crime if the act constitutes a crime under the Revised
Penal Code.
XIV. RA 3019 v. indirect bribery; estafa.
A. No, Malo is not correct. There is variance of the elements in the offenses
charged.
One may therefore be charged with violation of Aga CoPrA (RA 3019,
as amended) in addition to a felony under the Revised Penal Code for the
same delictual act, that is, either concurrently or subsequently to being
charged with the felony under the Revised Penal Code.
Here, although the two charges against Malo stemmed from the same
transaction, the same act gave rise to two separate and distinct offenses. No
double jeopardy attached since there was a variance between the offenses
charged. The Constitutional protection against double jeopardy proceeds
from a second prosecution for the same offense, not for a different one.
B. No, the charge of estafa under Art. 315 of the Revised Penal Code against Malo is
not correct.
Under Art. 315 of the Revised Penal Code, the fraud be committed
7
XV. Privileged mitigating circumstance.
i.e. 17-year old offender, incomplete self-defense, incomplete defense of a relative
Under the Revised Penal Code, Mr. Ed may be held liable for estafa through
the issuance of a worthless check because the offended party parted with his goods
due to the assurance that checks will be honored when presented for payments and
the checks were issued to cover an obligation.
The accused may likewise be held liable under BP 22. The gravamen of BP 22
is the issuance of worthless check.
Under the Revised Penal Law, novation is not a mode of extinguishing criminal
liability. It is well settled that criminal liability for estafa is not affected by
compromise or novation of contract, for it is a public offense which must be
prosecuted and punished by the Government on its own motion even though
complete reparation should have been made of the damage suffered by the offended
party.
Under the principle of generality, the general rule is that criminal law is
binding on all persons who live or sojourn in the Philippine territory. Exceptions to this
principle are a) sovereigns and other chiefs of state; b) ambassadors, ministers
plenipotentiary, ministers resident, and charge daffaires.
8
XVIII. Anti-fencing law.
Under Anti-Fencing Law (PD 1612), mere possession of a thing which the
accused knew or should have known to be a product of robbery or theft is a prima
facie evidence of fencing.
Here, Manolo entered Tonios house by destroying the wall which is through a
way not intended for the purpose. There is, however, no robbery nor theft because
the painting belongs to Manolo. Hence, there is no unlawful taking of a property that
belongs to another person but qualified trespass to dwelling only.
XIX. Theft.
Under the Revised Penal Code, the elements of theft are the following:
9
5. accomplished without the use of violence or intimidation against persons, nor of
force upon things.
Here, there can be no question that as of the time that Clepto took possession
of the purse, she had performed all the acts to consummate the crime of theft even if
she left her own purse in place of the one she took.
Under the Revised Penal Code (Art. 14), a recidivist is one who, at the time of
trial for a crime, he has been previously convicted by final judgment of another crime
embraced in the same title of the Revised Penal Code where the current crime on trial
is found.
Here, during the trial for Theft, AA had been previously convicted by final
judgment for the crime of Robbery, both crimes being embraced in the same title of
the Revised Penal Code. Hence, the judge can only appreciate the aggravating
circumstance of a recidivist.
Mr. White and Mr. Blue are principals by direct participation who materially
executed the crime.
10
B. Mr. Red had no liability for the injuries of Ms. Yellow.
It is a settled principle that mere careless comment made by one who does
not possess dominance or moral ascendancy over the offender will not make him a
principal by inducement. Here, it can be inferred that the comment of Mr. Red are
careless and vague. Hence, Mr. Red cannot be a principal by inducement in the
killing by Mr. White and Mr. Blue.
Mr. White and Mr. Blue are principals by direct participation who materially
executed the crime.
No, the prosecutor is not correct. Neither can the prosecutor file a case of
grave coercion because, here, the crime of kidnapping for ransom was
consummated.
XXIV. Minority.
B. Yes, the Indeterminate Sentence Law is applicable even if considering that life
imprisonment has no fixed duration and the Dangerous Drugs Law is malum
prohibitum.
C. No, Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs Act (RA 9165) prohibits it.
11
It is a settled rule that even if there is no direct proof of forgery, the legal
presumption that the possessor or user of a forged document is the author
of the forgery applies.
In a case decided by the Supreme Court, it was held that although one of the
essential elements of estafa is damage or prejudice to the offended party, in the
absence of proof thereof, the offender would be guilty of attempted estafa.
Mr. Gray commenced the commission of the crime of estafa but he failed to
perform all the acts of execution which would produce the crime not by reason of his
spontaneous desistance but because of his apprehension by the authorities before he
could have obtained the amount and thereby causes damage or prejudice to the
offended party.
At the time of Mr. Grays apprehension, the bank and the authorities were
already alerted of the complaint filed by Mr. White. The absence of a direct proof that
Mr. Gray was the author of the falsification is of no moment for the rule remain that
whenever someone has in his possession falsified documents and uttered or used
the same for his advantage and benefit, the presumption that he authored it arises.
(Justice Peralta)
If you were bitten by a dog and you killed the dog malicious mischief.
If you burned the dog and it died arson.
If you burned the dog and it did not die impossible crime (there is no attempted
or frustrated malicious mischief).
If you killed and ate the dog simple theft. You make use of the damaged property
by reason of malicious mischief.
12