FINAL EXAM GUIDE QUESTIONS:

1.
A. What is illegal recruitment? enumerate the elements

Illegal recruitment shall mean any act of canvassing, enlisting, contracting, transporting, utilizing, hiring, or procuring of workers
which includes referring, contract services, promising or advertising for employment abroad, whether for profit or not, when
undertaken by a nonlicense or nonholder of authority contemplated under art 13 f of P.D. 442 otherwise known as the labor code
of the Philippines: provided that any such nonlicense or nonholder who, in any manner, offers or promises for a fee employment
abroad for two or more persons shall be deemed so engaged. It shall likewise include the following acts whether committed by any
person, whether a nonlicensee, nonholder, licensee or holder of authority:
a. Excessive collection of placement fee
b. Misrepresentation in relation to recruitment or employment
c. Misrepresentation for purposes of securing a license or authority under the labor code
d. Inducement of a worker to quit his present employment for another unless the transfer liberates a worker form oppressive terms
and conditions of employment
e. Influencing or attempting to influence any person or entity not to employ any worker who has not applied for employment
through his agency
f. Engagemen in recruitment or placement of workers in jobs harmful to public health or morality or to the dignity of the republic
of the Philippines
g. Obstruction of inspection by the sec. of labor and employment or by his duly authorized representative
h. Failure to submit reports required by secretary of labor or employment
i. Contract substitution for an officer or agent of a recruitment or placement agency to engage in the business of travel agency or
in the management thereof
j. Withholding or denying worker’s travel documents before departure for monetary or financial consideration other than those
authorized under the labor code and its implementing rules and regulations
k. Failure to actually deploy workers without valid reasons
l. Failure to reimburse worker for processing and documentary expenses, in cases where the deployment does not take without
the worker’s fault.

Elements of illegal recruitment are

i. The offender has no valid license or authority required by law to enable one to lawfully engage in recruitment and placement
of workers
 ii. He undertakes either any activity within the meaning of “recruitment and placement defined under Art 13 b or any prohibited
practices enumerated under Art 34 of the labor code

B. ways of committing estafa involving economic sabotage

a. syndicated estafa or illegal recruitment
b. estafa or illegal recruitment in a large scale

C. ways of committing rape

elements under par 1
i. Offender is a man
ii. Offender had carnal knowledge of a woman
iii. Such act is accomplished under any of the following circumstances:
a. By using force or intimidation
b. When the woman is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious
c. By means of fraudulent machination or grave abuse of authority or
d. When the woman is under 12 years of age or demented

Elements under par 2

i. Offender commits an act of sexual assault
ii. The act of sexual assault is committed by any of the following means:
a. By inserting his penis into another person’s mouth or anal orifice
b. By inserting any instrument or object into the genital or anal orifice of another person
iii. The act of sexual assault is accomplished under any of the following circumstances;
a. By using force or intimidation
b. When the woman is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious
c. By means of fraudulent machination or grave abuse of authority
d. When the woman is under 12 years of age or demented.

D. rape is qualified in the following circumstances:

i. where victim is under 18 years old and offender is her ascendant, stepfather, guardian, relative by affinity or consanguinity within 3rd
civil degree or common law husband of victim’s mother
ii. victim is under the custody of the police or military authorities
 iii. rape committed in full view of victim’s husband
iv. Victim is religious
v. Victim is under 7 years old
vi. Offender is a member of the armed forces of the Philippines
vii. Offender is afflicted with aids
viii. Victim suffered permanent physical mutilation
ix. Pregnancy of the offended party is known by rapist at time of rape
x. Rapist is aware of the victim’s mental ability emotional disturbance or physical handicap

E. elements of sexual harassment are as follows:

1) The employer, employee, manager, supervisor, agent of the employer, teacher, instructor, professor, coach, trainor, or any other
person has authority, influence or moral ascendancy over another;

2) The authority, influence or moral ascendancy exists in a working environment;

3) The employer, employee, manager, supervisor, agent of the employer, teacher, instructor, professor, coach, or any other person having
authority, influence or moral ascendancy makes a demand, request or requirement of a sexual favor. (Aquino vs Acosta)

F. Syndicated Child Pornography - The crime of child pornography is deemed committed by a syndicate if carried out by a group of
three (3) or more persons conspiring or confederating with one another

G. Requisites for Criminal Liability under BP 22:

1. A person makes, draws or issues a check as payment for account or for value.

2. That the check was dishonored by the bank due to a lack of funds, insufficiency of funds or account already closed.

3. The payee or holder of such check gives a written notice of dishonor and demand for payment. 4. That the maker, drawer or issuer,
after receiving such notice and demand, refuses or fails to pay the value of the check within FIVE BANKING DAYS.

H. distinguish estafa from bp 22

In bp 22
i. Even though the check was issued in payment of a pre-existing obligation, liability is incurred
 ii. Damage or deceit is immaterial to criminal liability
iii. Crime against public interest since the act is penalized because of the disastrous effect to the stability of the banking system
and prejudicial to the country
iv. Only the drawer is liable and if the drawer was a juridical entity, its officer who signed the check shall be liable. The indorser is
not liable
v. Drawer is given five banking days from notice of dishonour to make good the cash value thereof in order to avoid criminal
liability
vi. This is malum prohibitum

In estafa
i. The check should be issued concurrently and reciprocally in payment of the exchange consideration the check should not be
for a pre-existing obligation
ii. Damages to the offended and deceit of offender are essential elements
iii. Crimes against property
iv. Not only the drawer but even indorsee may incur liability if he were aware at the time of the indorsement of the insufficiency of
funds
v. Drawer is given only three days after notice of dishonour to make good the cash value to avoid liability
vi. This is malum in se

I. Is bp 22 a continuing crime? Yes

Violations of B.P. 22 are categorized as transitory or continuing crimes. A suit on the check can be filed in any of the places
where any of the elements of the offense occurred, that is, where the check is drawn, issued, delivered or dishonoured

J elements of arson
when any person burns or sets fire to the property of another, or his own property under circumstance which expose to danger
the life or property of another. (Sec. 1, PD 1613)
elements are
(a) There is intentional burning (b) What is intentionally burned is an inhabited house or dwelling.
K. persons liable for violation of ra 8049

• 1. If the person subjected to hazing or other forms of initiation rites suffers any physical injury or dies as a result thereof, the
officers and members of the fraternity, sorority or organization who actually participated in the infliction of physical harm shall be
liable as principals.
2. The owner of the place where hazing is conducted shall be liable as an accomplice, when he has actual knowledge of
the hazing conducted therein but failed to take any action to prevent the same from occurring. If the hazing is held in the home
of one of the officers or members of the fraternity, group, or organization, the parents shall be held liable as principals when
they have actual knowledge of the hazing conducted therein but failed to take any action to prevent the same from occurring.

• 3. The school authorities including faculty members who consent to the hazing or who have actual knowledge thereof, but failed
to take any action to prevent the same from occurring shall be punished as accomplices for the acts of hazing committed by the
perpetrators.
• 4. The officers, former officers, or alumni of the organization, group, fraternity or sorority who actually planned the hazing
although not present when the acts constituting the hazing were committed shall be liable as principals. A fraternity or sorority's
adviser who is present when the acts constituting the hazing were committed and failed to take action to prevent the same from
occurring shall be liable as principal.
• 5. The presence of any person during the hazing is prima facie evidence of participation therein as principal unless he prevented
the commission of the acts punishable herein.

L . elements of parricide
Elements:

1. A person is killed;
2. The deceased is killed by the accused;
3. The deceased is the father, mother, or child, whether legitimate or illegitimate; or a legitimate other ascendant or other descendant,
or the legitimate spouse, of the accused.

M. Rules for the application of the circumstances which qualify the killing to murder:
a. that the murder will exist with only one of the circumstances described in Article 248.
b. that when the other circumstances are absorbed or included in one of the qualifying circumstance, they cannot be
considered as generic aggravating.
c. that any of the qualifying circumstances enumerated in Article 248 must be alleged in the information.
N. Elements of Intentional Abortion:
1. there is a pregnant woman;
2. violence is exerted, or drugs, or beverages administered, or that the accused otherwise acts upon such pregnant woman;
3. as a result of the use of violence or drugs or beverages upon her, or any other act of the accused, the foetus dies, either in
the womb or after having been expelled therefrom
4. that the abortion is intended.
Elements of Unintentional Abortion
1. There is a pregnant woman.
2. Violence is used upon such pregnant woman without intending an abortion.
3. The violence is intentionally exerted.
4. As a result of the violence the foetus dies, either in the womb or after having been expelled therefrom.
Elements of Abortion practiced by the woman herself or by her parents:
1. There is a pregnant woman who suffered an abortion.
2. Abortion is intended.
3. The abortion is caused by:
a. the pregnant woman herself;
b. any other person with her consent; or
c. any of her parents, with her consent for the purpose of concealing her dishonor.
Elements of Abortion practiced by a physician or midwife and dispensing of abortives:
1. There is a pregnant woman who suffered an abortion.
2. The abortion is intended
3. The offender, who must be a physician or midwife, causes, or assists in causing, the abortion.
4. Said physician or midwife takes advantage of his or her scientific knowledge or skill.
O. Distinctions between physical injuries and frustrated homicide:

In frustrated homicide, the offender must have intent to kill the victim. In physical injuries there is no intent to kill on the part of the
offender.
P. Distinctions between robbery and theft:

1. In theft, offender does not use violence or intimidation or does not enter a house or a building through any of the means specified in
Art. 299 or Art. 302 in taking personal property of another with intent to gain. (Reyes)
2. For robbery to exist, it is necessary that there should be a taking against the will of the owner; for theft, it suffices that consent on the
part of the owner is lacking. (Reyes)
3. In Robbery, taking is by means of force upon things or violence against or intimidation of persons. In theft, not so.
4. In robbery, penalty does not necessarily depend on the amount involved. In estafa, penalty depends on the amount involved.
5. In robbery, offender takes the property without the consent of the owner by using threats, intimidation or violence.
6. In theft, offender takes the property without the consent of the owner and without using threats, intimidation or violence (USTGolden
Notes).
Q. presumption of Fencing.
Under sec.5 of PD 1612 or the Anti Fencing Law, mere possession of any good, article, item, object , or anything of value which
has been the subject of robbery or thievery shall be prima facie evidence of fencing.
R. Ways of committing estafa:
1. with unfaithfulness or abuse of confidence;
2. by means of false pretenses or fraudulent acts; or
3. through fraudulent means.
S. Elements of Adultery and concubinage
Elements of adultery:
1. that the woman is married;
2. that she has sexual intercourse with a man not her husband;
3. that as regards the man with whom she has sexual intercourse, he must know her to be married.

Elements of concubinage:
1. That the man must be married.
2. That he committed in the following acts:
a) Keeping a mistress in the conjugal dwelling,
b) Having sexual intercourse under scandalous circumstances with a woman who is not
his wife,
c) Cohabiting with her in any other place.
3. That as regards the woman, she must know him to be married.
T. Elements of qualified seduction of a virgin:
1. That the offended party is a virgin, which is presumed if she is unmarried and in good reputation.
2. That she is over 12 and under 18 years of age.
3. The offender has sexual intercourse with her.
4. That there is abuse of authority, confidence or relationship on the part of the offender.
 Elements of simple seduction:
1. Offended party is over 12 and under 18 years of age.
2. She must be of good reputation, single or widow.
3. The offender had sexual intercourse with her
4. It is committed by means of deceit.
U. Elements of forcible abduction:
1. The person abducted is an woman, regardless of her age, civil status, or reputation.
2. The abduction is against her will
3. The abduction is with lewd designs.

Elements of consented abduction:

1. The offended party must be a virgin.
2. She must be over 12 and under 18 years of age.
3. The taking away of the offended party must be with her consent, after solicitation or cajolery from the offender.
4. The taking away of the offended party must be with lewd designs.
V. Elements of libel:
1. that there must be an imputation of a crime, or of a vice or defect, real or imaginary, or any act, omission, status or
circumstance.
2. The imputation must be made publicly
3. That it must be malicious
4. That the imputation must be directed to a natural or juridical person, or one who is dead.
5. That the imputation must tend to cause the dishonor, discredit or contempt of the person defamed.
W. There are at least 7 instances or situations in criminal cases wherein the accused, either as an adult or as a minor, can apply for
and/or be granted a suspended sentence. Enumerate at least 5 of them. (5%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
1. Suspension of sentence of minor under P.D. 603 as amended by R.A. 9344.
2. Suspension of sentence of minor above 15 but below 18 years of age at the time of trial under R.A. 9344
3. Suspension of sentence of minor above 15 but below 18 years of age at the commission of the offense, while acting with
discernment.
4. Suspension of sentence by reason of insanity (Art. 79, Revised Penal Code)
5. Suspension of sentence for first offense of a minor violating RJV. 9165. (Sec. 32)
6. Suspension of sentence under the probation law. (P.D. 968)
 7. Suspension of death sentence of a pregnant woman. (Art. 83, Revised Penal Code). (criminal-law-suggested-answers-1994-
2006)

2. Mr. W is liable for violation of the Child Pornography Act.

One of the punishable acts in this act is to knowingly, willfully and intentionally provide a venue for the commission of prohibited
acts as, but not limited to, dens, private rooms, cubicles, cinemas, houses or in establishments purporting to be a legitimate
business.
The boarding house being a venue for the videotaping of children simulating explicit sexual activities and Mr. W knowing he is
liable under the Child Pornography Act.

3. LL is only civilly liable.

LL committed the crime of malicious mischief which is one of the crimes in the exception for criminal liability between relatives
by affinity. The stepfather and stepmother are included as ascendants by affinity. (ART 332 RPC)
Under Art. 332 stepfather, adopted children, natural children, concubine, and paramour are exempted from criminal liability
when the crime committed is either theft, swindling, malicious mischief.
4. The three accused forcibly took their victim from his car but the latter succeeded in freeing himself from their grip. What crime did the
three accused commit?
- Grave coercion. The elements of grave coercion are as follows:
(1) a person prevented another from doing something not prohibited by law or that he compelled him to do something
against his weill be it right or wrong
(2) prevention or compulsion be effected by violence, threats, or intimidation
(3) person that restrained the will and liberty of another has no authority of law or the right to do sp
Coercion os consummated even if the offended party did not accede to the purpose of the coercion. The essence of coercion
is an attack on individual liberty.
5. The accused was shocked to discover his wife and their driver sleeping in the master’s bedroom. Outraged, the accused got his gun
and killed both. Can the accused claim that he killed the two under exceptional circumstances?

- No, since the accused did not catch them while having sexual intercourse. What are the elements of Art. 247?

A:
1. A legally married person or a parent surprises his spouse or daughter, the latter under 18 years of age and living with him,
in the act of committing sexual intercourse.

2. He or she kills any or both of them or inflicts upon any or both of them any serious physical injury in the act or immediately
thereafter.

3. He has not promoted or facilitated the prostitution of his wife or daughter, or that he or she has not consented to the infidelity
of the other spouse.

Note: This article does not define a crime.

6. Separate crimes of murder or homicide as the case may be, and arson where the killing is the primary intention and arson
was done only to disguise the killing (PP vs Pedro Cedenio, 1994).
It depends.
Murder- if the primordial intent of the offender is to kill and fire was only used as a means to do so
Arson- if the primordial intent is to destroy the property with the use of pyrotechnics and incidentally, somebody within the
premises is killed
Murder and Arson- if fire is used to conceal the killing of the victims.

7. Private individuals
8. X draws a check upon request of Y, the payee, who told X that he would merely show the check to his creditor to gain more time to
pay his account. The check bounced upon presentation by the creditor. Under the circumstances, who can be prosecuted for estafa
based on the dishonoured check?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Y as the one who negotiated the check contrary to the agreement. (MCQ Bar Exam Question)
In the case of People vs. Isleta it was held that the appellant who only negotiated directly and personally the check drawn by
another is guilt of estafa because he ahd “guilty knowledge at the time he negotiated the check, the drawer has no sufficient
funds.

9. X, a court employee, wrote the presiding judge a letter, imputing to Y, also a court employee, the act of receiving an expensive gift
from one of the parties in a pending case. Because of this, Y accused X of libel. Does Y need to prove the element of malice in the case?
Answer: Yes, malice is not presumed since X wrote the letter to the presiding judge who has a duty to act on what it states.
Malice is not presumed when it is a private communication made by any person to another in the performance of any legal,
moral, or social duty and when it is addressed to an officer, or a board, or superior, having some interest or duty in the matter.

10. X killed B, mistakenly believing that she was his wife. upon surprising her having sex with another man in a motel room. what is the
criminal liability of X.

- Homicide. It will not fall under Art. 247 because it is not his wife whom she killed. Error in personae
The killing was not attended by any of the qualifying circumstances of murder, or by that of parricide or infanticide
11. A, B, and C agreed to rob a house of its cash. A and B entered the house while C remained outside as lookout. After getting the cash,
A and B decided to set the house on fire to destroy any evidence of their presence. what crime/ s did C commit.

- If someone was killed in the occasion of robbery. They committed robbery with homicide, arson will be absorbed. But if no
one was killed, the crime is robbery with arson for burning the house for the the purpose of concealing the crime. C conspired
and consented to the crime of robbery, he will also be liable to all acts that his co-conspirator committed. The act of one is the
act of all.

12. Any person, who having found a lost property, who fails to deliver the same to the local authorities or to its owner is liable
for theft under par. 1 of Art. 308 of the RPC.
13. The crime of infanticide is committed by a person who shall kill a baby or infant who is three days old and below. However
where the offender is not related to the child, the penalty corresponding to murder shall be imposed (Art.255, RPC) .
If the killer is the mother, or father, or legitimate grandfathers, although the crime is still infanticide and not parricide, the penalty
however, is that of parricide.

What is infanticide?

A: It is the killing of any child less than 3 days old or 72 hours of age, whether the killer is the parent or grandparent, any relative
of the child, or a stranger.

14. X, a tabloid columnist, wrote an article describing Y, a public official, as stupid, corrupt, and having amassed ill-gotten wealth. X relied
on a source from Y's own office who fed him the information. Did X commit libel?
---Yes, since the article was libelous and inconsistent with good faith and reasonable care.
Q: Do defamatory remarks and comments on the conduct or acts of public officers which are related to the discharge of their
official duties constitute libel?

A: No, it will not constitute libel if the accused proves the truth of the imputation. But any attack upon the private character of
the public officers on matters which are not related to the discharge of their official functions may constitute Libel.

Moreover, a written letter containing libelous matter cannot be classified as privileged when publicly published and circulated.
(Sazon vs. CA, G.R. No. 120715, Mar.29, 1996)

Q: Who are the persons liable for libel?

A:

1. Person who publishes, exhibits or causes the publication or exhibition of any defamation in writing or similar means.

2. Author or editor of a book or pamphlet.

3. Editor or business manager of a daily newspaper magazine or serial publication.

4. Owner of the printing plant which publishes a libelous article with his consent and all other persons who in any way participate
in or have connection with its publication.

15. On hearing a hospital ward patient on the next bed, shrieking in pain and begging to die, M shut off the oxygen that was sustaining
the patient, resulting in his death. What crime if any did M commit?
---M committed murder if she deliberated on her action.

Murder is the unlawful killing of any person which is not parricide or infanticide, provided that any of the following
circumstances is present:

1.With treachery, taking advantage of superior strength, with the aid of armed men, or employing means to weaken the defense,
or of means or persons to insure or afford impunity

There is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes against the person employing means, methods or forms in the
execution thereof that tend directly and especially to insure its execution without risk to himself arising from the defense which
the offended party might make.
Euthanasia may be murder. Because unlike in suicide, that person does not want to die.

16. When is a crime deemed to have been committed by a band?

Whenever more than three armed malefactors (at least four) shall have acted together in the commission of an offense, it shall
be deemed committed by a band.
17. When disturbance is deemed tumultous?
The interruption or disturbance shall be deemed tumultous if caused by more than three persons who are armed or provided
with means of violence.

18. What is the criminal liability, if any, of a pregnant woman who tried to commit suicide by poison, but she did not die and the fetus in
her womb was expelled instead?
The pregnant woman cannot be held liable for abortion under Article 258 of the Revide Penal Code because intent to abort,
which is an essential element of this crime, is lacking. Neither can she be held liable for unintentional abortion under Article
257, because the element of violence is wanting.
Criminal liability shall be incurred by any person committing a felony (delito) although the wrongful act done be different from
that which he intended (Article 4 of the Revised Penal Code). Attempt to commit suicide although an intentional act is not
constitutive of a felony. According to Luis B. Reyes, “a person who attempts to commit suicide is not criminally liable, because
thesociety has always considered a person attempts to kill herself as an unfortunate being, a watched person more deserving
of pity rather than of penalty.” Hence, the woman, who tried to commit suicide, is not liable for the direct, antural and logical
consequence of her non-felonious act.

Q: Suppose a pregnant woman decided to commit suicide by jumping out of the window of the building but landed on a passerby, she
did not die but abortion followed. Is she liable for unintentional abortion?

A: No, because what is contemplated is that the force or violence must come from another person. In this case, when the woman
tried to commit suicide but did not die, the attempt to commit suicide is not a felony under the RPC.

19. PO3 Bagsik entered the dwelling of Totoy against the latter’s will on suspicion that Totoy keep unlicensed firearms in his home. What
was the crime committed by PO3 Bagsik? a. Trespass to Dwelling b. Violation of Domicile c. Usurpation Of Authority d. Forcible
Trespassing
Answer:B
VIOLATION OF DOMICILE

(Art. 128)

Q: What are the modes of committing this crime?

A:

1.First mode: Entering any dwelling against the will of the owner thereof

Note: In the first mode, lack of consent would not suffice as the law requires that the offender’s entry must be over the owner’s objection,
express or implied.

2.Second mode: Searching papers or other effects found therein without the previous consent of such owner

Note: In the second mode, mere lack of consent is sufficient.

3.Third mode: Refusing to leave the premises after having surreptitiously entered said dwelling and after having been required to leave
the same

Note: In the third mode, what is punished is the refusal to leave, the entry having been made surreptitiously.
20. BA and BB had been married for more than six months. They live together with the children of BB from her first husband. BA had
sexual relationship with C, the 14 year old daughter of BB. C love BA very much. What was the crime committed by BA, if any?

He is guilty of qualified seduction. It is committed by: (1) seduction of a virgin over 12 years and under 18 years of age by certain
persons such as, a person in authority, priest, teacher or any person who, in any capacityshall be entrusted with the education
or custody of the woman seduced or (2) seduction of a sister by her brother, or descendant by her ascendant, regardless of her
age or reputation. The fact that the girl gave her consent is of no defense.
(MCQ lang to, walang rationale. di ko sure kung san dyan kaya nilagay ko nalang yun dalawa.)
21. A entered the house of B. Once inside the house of B, A took and seized personal property by compulsion from B with the use of
violence and force upon things, believing himself to be the personal owner of the things he seized. What is the criminal liability of A?

A is criminally liable for grave coercion because he used violence in seizing the property by reason of his mistaken belief that
he owned it. Thus, the presumption of intent to gain is rebutted.
A is not criminally liable for robbery since the presumption of intent to gain, an element of this crime, is rebutted when he took
the personal property under a bona fide belief that he owns the property (Gaviola v. People, GR No. 163927, January 27, 2006;
People v. Bautista, CA-GR No. 43390, December 17, 1936).

Q: Should the person from whom the property was taken be the owner of such?
A: No. Legal possession is sufficient
Q: Is the identity of real owner essential?
A:
GR: It is not essential so long as the personal property taken does not belong to the accused.

22. What is the criminal liability, if any, of a private person who enters the dwelling of another against the latter's will and by means of
violence or intimidation for the purpose of preventing some harm to himself?

The private person incurs no criminal liability.

under Article 280 of the Revised Penal Code, qualified trespass to dwelling is committed by any private person who shall enter
the dwelling of another against the latter‟s will and by means of violence or intimidation. However, the provisions of Article 280
shall not be applicable to any person who shall enter another‟s dwelling for the purpose of preventing some serious harm to
himself.

23. What crime is committed when a person ill-treats another by deed without causing any injury?

The offender commits maltreatment.

A.Maltreatment is committed by an offender, who shall ill-treat another by deed without causing any injury (Article 266 of the
Revised Penal Code).

24. What crime is committed?

Suggested Answer:
I is guilty of Robbery in an uninhabited place or in a private building.
The elements are:
(1) That the offender entered in an uninhabited place or a building which was not a dwelling house, not a public building,
or not an edifice devoted to a religious worship.
(2) That any of the ff circ was present:
a. The entrance was effected through an opening not intended for entrance or egress
 b. A wall, roof, or outside door or window was broken
c. The entrance was effected through the use of picklocks or other similar tools
d. A door, wardrobe, chest or any sealed furniture or receptacle was broken
e. A closed or sealed receptacle was removed, even if the same is to be broken open elsewhere.
In the case at bar, the first element is the said crime is established when I entered the pawnshop, a building which is not
a dwelling house, a public building or an edifice devoted to religious worship. The second element is established when
she took the jewelry chest, a closed or sealed receptacle, out of the shop presumably to be broken open elsewhere.
The final element of intent to gain is also present.
25. When is the crime of robbery in an inhabited house or public building mitigated?
As stated in Article 303, the crime of robbery in an inhabited house or public building is mitigated when it consists in the
taking of cereals, fruits or firewood.
26. The exchanges of highly offensive words between two quarrelling women in the presence of a crowd of people constitute how many
counts of slander?
A: Two separate counts of light slander, one for each woman.
Malicious imputation of any act, omission, condition or circumstance against a person, done orally in public, tending to cause
dishonor, discredit, contempt and embarrassment or ridicule to the latter.

Q: What are the factors that determine the gravity of oral defamation?

A:

1. Expressions used

2. Personal relations of the accused and the offended party

3. Circumstances surrounding the case

Note: Social standing and the position of the offended party are also taken into account.
Light slander kasi in the fit of an anger. When feelings are running high and people could not think clearly, only amount to light
slander.
27. People v. Sabardan Case
A: The original and primordial intention of the appellant in keeping Richelle in his apartment was to rape her and not to deprive
her of her liberty. Hence, the appellant is guilty only of rape and not of the complex crime of serious illegal detention with rape.
28. The 2 were charged with parricide under Article 246 of the Revised Penal Code. Correct?
No. The offense is infanticide. Where the child is less than 3 days old, the mother and father who killed the child is liable for
such offense. However, when the offender is the father, mother or legitimate ascendant, he shall suffer the penalty prescribed
for parricide.

29. No. Robbery with Homicide can only be commited when a person is killed on occasion or by reason of robbery. The robbery came
only as an after thought of seeing the vault open when he killed the manager. He is guilty of the separate crimes of theft and homicide.

30. No. In order to violate the Anti-Fencing Law, one must buy, receive, possess, keep, acquire, conceal, sell or dispose of, or shall buy
and sell, or in any other manner deal in any article, item, object or anything of value which he knows, or should be known to him, to have
been derived from the proceeds of the crime of robbery or theft. O may be not liable for violating the Anti-Fencing Law since R, as a public
officer, may be charged with Malversation under Art. 217 of the Revised Penal Code.

31. Answer: The crime committed by C is theft. For robbery with force upon things to be committed, the offender should have
entered the house. The facts of the problem show that C without entering the house, took the wooden chest lying underneath
the window which he broke open. To constitute robbery, the offender who brought outside the locked receptacle must have
entered it; otherwise the crime committed is theft.
32. Parricide; multiple Parricide; Homicide (1997)
A committed the crime of multiple parricide for the killing of C, her lawful husband, D, her illegitimate father, and E, her legitimate son. All
these killings constitute parricide under Article 246 of the RPC because of her relationship with the victims.
B committed the crime of murder as a co-conspirator of A I the killing of C because the killing was carried out by means of poison (Art.
248, par. 3, RPC) But for feloniously causing the death of D and E, B committed two counts of homicide. The plan was only to kill C.

Q: What are the elements of this crime?

A:

1.Deceased is killed by the accused.

2.Deceased is the:
a.Father

b.Mother

c.Child, whether legitimate or illegitimate

d.Legitimate other ascendant or other descendant

e.Legitimate spouse of the accused.

Illustration:

The relationship, except the spouse, must be in the direct line and not in the collateral line. Hence, if A, father of the victim V,
was assisted by N (a nephew) in killing V, then A is guilty of parricide while N committed murder (as the deceased

33. Answer: D is liable for libel because the imputation tend to cause dishonour, discredit or contempt on the hospital. It is not true that
the conditions] of the child was in a dying condition at the time. There was no check offered by way of deposit so the statement of D that
the hospital refused to accept the check was false. The fact that D did not even verify the report makes his liability clear.

LIBEL

(Art. 353)

Q: What is libel?

A: Libel is a public and malicious imputation of a crime, or of a vice or defect, real or imaginary, or any act, omission, condition,
status, or circumstance tending to cause the dishonor, discredit, or contempt of a natural or juridical person, or to blacken the
memory of one who is dead.

Q: How is libel committed?

A: Libel is a defamation committed by means of writing, printing, lithography, engraving, radio, phonograph, painting or
theatrical or cinematographic exhibition, or any similar means.

Note: No distinction between calumny, insult and libel.

Q: Who are liable for libel?

A:

1.Any person who shall publish, exhibit or cause the publication or exhibition of any defamation in writing or by similar means.

2.The author or editor of a book or pamphlet, or the editor or business manager of a daily newspaper, magazine or serial
publication, for defamation contained therein to the same extent as if he were the author thereof.

Q: What are the elements of defamation?

A:

1.There must be an imputation of a crime, or of a vice or defect, real or imaginary, or any act, omission, condition, status or
circumstance.

2.Imputation must be made publicly.

3.It must be malicious.

4.It must be directed at a natural or juridical person, or one who is dead (identification of the offended party is required).

5.It must tend to cause the dishonor, discredit or contempt of the person defamed.

34. No. B's defense will not prosper. Voluntary release by the offender of the offended party in kidnapping is not absolutory. Besides,
such release is irrelevant and immaterial in this case because the victim being a minor, the crime committed is kidnapping and serious
illegal detention under Art. 267, Revised Penal Code, to which such circumstance does not apply. The circumstance may be appreciated
only in the crime of Slight Illegal Detention in Art. 268 (Asistio v. San Diego, 10 SCRA 673 [1964])

35. m represented to a, r, h and s that she could sent them to london to work there as sales assistants. She collected and received from
them various amounts of money for recruitment and placement fees totaling 400,000. After their dates of departure were postponed
several times and after they already spent 4 despedida parties, the 4 prospects got suspiciousand went to POEA. There they found out
that M was not authorized nor licensed to recruit workers for employment abroad. They sought refund to no avail. Is M liable?

Suggested answer
Yes. M is liable for illegal recruitment constituting the offense of economic sabotage.
Economic sabotage is an offense defined in 38 (b) of the Labor Code, as amended by PD 2018, which is incurred when the
illegal recruitment is carried out in large scale or by syndicate. It is in large scale when there are three or more aggrieved parties,
individually or as a group. And it is committed by a syndicate when three or more persons conspire.
Source: Siliman Univ Suggested answers; Bar Exam Questions 1973-2003

36. Special Penal Laws

Anti-Carnapping Act; Carnapping w/ Homicide (1998)
Samuel, a tricycle driver, plied his usual route using a Honda motorcycle with a sidecar. Oneevening, Raul rode on the sidecar, poked a
knife at Samuel and instructed him to go near the bridge. Upon reaching the bridge, Raul alighted from the motorcycle and suddenly
stabbedSamuel several times until he was dead. Raul fled from the scene taking the motorcycle withhim. What crime or crimes did Raul
commit? |5%]
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Raul committed the composite crime of Carnapping with homicide under Sec. 14 of Rep. Act No. 6539, as amended, considering
that the killing "in the course or "on the occasion of a carnapping (People vs. De la Cruz, et al. 183 SCRA 763). A motorcycle is
included in the definition of a "motor vehicle" in said Rep. Act, also known as the 'Anti-Carnapping Act of 1972'. There is no
apparent motive for the killing of the tricycle driver but for Raul to be able to take the motorcycle.

37. The crime committed by M is failure to return a minor.

M was given a monthly visitation rights over their child C but he fails to return C to the mother who have the custody of the
child. but M deliberately fails to return C to the mother and took C to United States.

Q: What are the elements of this crime?

A:

1.Offender is entrusted with the custody of a minor person (whether over or under 7 years but less than 21 years of age)

2.He deliberately fails to restore the said minor to his parents or guardians.

Note: What is actually punishable is not the kidnapping of the minor but rather the deliberate failure or refusal of the custodian
of the minor to restore the latter to his parents or guardian. Said failure or refusal must not only be deliberate but must also be
persistent as to oblige the parents or guardians of the child to seek the aid of the courts in order to obtain custody.

If any of the foregoing elements is absent, the kidnapping of the minor will then fall under Article 267 (kidnapping and serious
illegal detention).
If the accused is any of the parents, Article 267 does not apply. Articles 270 and 271 will apply.

38. Illegal Fishing - PD 704 (1996) Upon a laboratory examination of the fish seized by the police and agents of the Fisheries Commission,
it was indubitably determined that the fish they were selling were caught with the use of explosives. Accordingly, the three vendors were
criminally charged with the violation of Section 33 of P.D. 704 which makes it unlawful for any person to knowingly possess, deal in, or
sell for profit any fish which have been illegally caught. During the trial, the three vendors claimed that they bought the fish from a fishing
boat which they duly identified. The prosecution however claimed that the three vendors should nevertheless be held liable for the offense
as they were the ones caught in possession of the fish illegally caught. On the basis of the above facts, if you were the judge, would you
convict the three fish vendors? Explain.

SUGGESTED ANSWER: No, I would not convict the three fish vendors if I were the judge. Mere possession of such fish without
knowledge of the fact that the same were caught with the use of explosives does not by itself render the seller-possessor
criminally liable under P.D. 704. Although the act penalized in said Decree may be a malum prohibitum, the law punishes the
possession, dealing in or selling of such fish only when "knowingly" done that the fish were caught with the use of explosives;
hence criminal intent is essential. The claim by the fish vendors that they only bought the fish from fishing boats which they
"duly identified", renders their possession of such fish innocent unless the prosecution could prove that they have knowledge
that explosives were used in catching such fish, and the accused had knowledge thereof.
39. Answer: C, D and E are liable for the complex crime of murder, qualified by explosion, with direct assault for the death of X. A and B
are liable for the complex crime of murder qualified by explosion as to death of Y and simple murder qualified by explosion for the death
of Z.
No crime of direct assault can be filed in so far as the death of Z is concerned, he being a civilian.
This, of course, assumes that there is no conspiracy among A, B, C, D and E, otherwise all would have the same criminal liability as the
act of one becomes the act of all.

40. Kidnapping minority 2006

Yes the killing thereafter, constitutes the separate offense of murder qualified by treachery.

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Under RA. 9344, the Juvenile Justice and Reform Act, which retroacts to the date that the crime was committed, N will be
exculpated if he was 15 years old or below. However, if he was above 15 years old but below 18 years of age, he will be liable if
he acted with discernment. As the problem shows that Nonoy acted with discernment, he will be entitled to a suspension of
sentence.

41. The benefits of a suspended sentence can no longer apply to Michael. The suspension of sentence lasts only until the law reaches
the maximum age and thus, could no longer be considered a child for purposes of applying RA 9344. However, he shall be entitled to the
right of restoration, rehabilitation and reintegration in accordance with the law to give him the chance to live a normal life and become a
productive member of the community. Accordingly, Michael may be confined in n agricultural camp and other training facility in accordance
with section 51 of RA 9344.
42. Rape; Male Victim (2002)
A, a male, takes B, another male, to a motel and there, through threat and intimidation, succeeds in inserting his penis into the anus of
B. What, if any, is A’s criminal liability? Why?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
A shall be criminally liable for rape by committing an act of sexual assault against B, by inserting his penis into the anus of the
latter. Even a man may be a victim of rape by sexual assault under par. 2 of Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code, as amended,
"when the offender's penis is inserted into his mouth or anal orifice."

43. CHILD ABUSE; RA 7610 (2004) Mrs. MNA was charged of child abuse. It appears from the evidence that she failed to give
immediately the required medical attention to her adopted child, BPO, when he was accidentally bumped by her car, resulting in his head
injuries and impaired vision that could lead to night blindness. The accused, according to the social worker on the case, used to whip him
when he failed to come home on time from school. Also, to punish him for carelessness in washing dishes, she sometimes sent him to
bed without supper. She moved to quash the charge on the ground that there is no evidence she maltreated her adopted child habitually.
She added that the accident was caused by her driver's neg-ligence. She did punish her ward for naughtiness or care-lessness, but only
mildly. Is her motion meritorious? Rea-son briefly. (5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER: No, the motion to quash is not meritorious. It is not nec-essary that movant's maltreatment of a child
be "habitual" to constitute child abuse. The wrongful acts penalized as "Child Abuse" under Rep. Act No. 7610 refers to the
maltreatment of the child, "whether habitual or not": this is expressly stated in Sec. 2(b) of the said Law. Mrs. MNA should be
liable for child abuse.
44. RA 7610 – Child Exploitation (2006)
Aling Maria received an urgent telephone call from Junior,her eldest son, asking for P2,000.00 to complete his semestral tuition fees
preparatory to his final exams in Commerce. Distressed and disturbed, she borrowed money from her compadre Mang Juan with the
assurance to pay him within 2 months. Two months lapsed but Aling Maria failed to settle her obligation. Mang Juan told Aling Maria that
she does not have to pay the loan if she will allow her youngest 10-year old daughter Annie to work as a housemaid in his house for 2
months at Pl,000.00 a month. Despite Aling Maria's objection, Mang Juan insisted and brought Annie to his house to work as a maid.
1. Was a crime committed by Mang Juan when he brought Annie to his house as maid for the purpose of repaying her mother's loan?
(2.5%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes. Mang Juan committed the crime of exploitation of child labor which is committed by any persons who under the pretext of
reimbursing himself of a debt incurred by an ascendant, guardian or person entrusted with the custody of a minor, shall, against
the latter's will, retain him in his service (Art. 273, Revised Penal Code). He can also be liable as an employer for the employment
of a minor below 15 yrs. old, under Sec. 12, Art. 8 of RA. 7610.

45. Syndicated Estafa (2010 The president, treasurer, and secretary of ABC Corporation were charged with syndicated estafa under the
following Information: That on or about the 1st week of January 2010 or subsequent thereto in Cebu City and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, the above-named accused, conspiring and confederating together and all of them mutually helping and aiding one
another in a syndicated manner, through a corporation registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), with intention of
carrying out the unlawful or illegal act, transaction, enterprise or scheme, with intent to gain and by means of fraud and deceit, did then
and there willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously defraud Virna, Lana, Deborah and several other persons by falsely or fraudulently pretending
orrepresenting in a transaction or series of transactions, which they made with complainants and the public in general, to the effect that
they were in a legitimate business of foreign exchange trading successively or simultaneously operating under the name and style of
ABC Corporation and DEF Management Philippines, Incorporated, induced and succeeded in inducing complainants and several other
persons to give and deliver to said accused the amount of at least P20,000,000.00 on the strength of said manifestations and
representations, the accused knowing fully well that the abovenamed corporations registered with the SEC are not licensed nor authorized
to engage in foreign exchange trading and thatsuch manifestations and representations to transact in foreign exchange were false and
fraudulent, that these resulted to the damage and prejudice of the complainants and other persons, and that the defraudation pertains to
funds solicited from the public in general by such corporations/associations. Will the case for syndicated estafa prosper? Explain. (5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER: No, a case for syndicated estafa will not prosper because a syndicate for such crime under Pres. Decree
1689 must be comprised of five (5) or more persons committing the estafa or other forms of swindling defined in Arts. 315 and
316 of the Revised Penal Code; whereas the case given involved only three (3) accused who are alleged to have conspired in
the commission of the swindling. But because the amount defrauded exceeds P100,000.00, the case is still under the same P.D.
1689 with a lower penalty than syndicated estafa.
46. X violated PD 533 or the Anti-Cattle Rustling Law. According to the Supreme Court, the law reads “taking away by any means,
methods or schemes.” X’s stubborn insistence that the calf belonged to his brother, when he knew fully well that it belonged to Y, is the
essence cattle rustling. The perpetrator’s intent to gain is then inferred from his deliberate failure to deliver the lost property to the proper
person, knowing that the property does not belong to him. (Ordonio vs CA)
47. A criminal action for violation of BP 22 may be filed against B who drew the postdated check against a closed bank account, for value
paid by C, and with knowledge at the time he issued the check that the account thereof is already closed.
A cannot be held liable under BP 22 because he was a mere endorser of B‟s check to C who exchanged the check in cash. BP 22 does
not apply to endorser of checks. Hence only a civil action may be filed by C against A to recover the P85,000.00.
Although a simultaneous action for estafa is authorized by law for the issuance of a worthless check, under the given facts, the check
was discounted and thus issued in a credit transaction for a pre-existing indebtedness. Criminal liability for estafa does not arise when a
check has been issued in payment for a pre-existing debt.

48. Anti-Carnapping Act; Carnapping w/ Homicide (1998)

Samuel, a tricycle driver, plied his usual route using a
Honda motorcycle with a sidecar. One evening, Raul rode on the sidecar, poked a knife at Samuel and instructed himto go near the
bridge. Upon reaching the bridge, Raul alighted from the motorcycle and suddenly stabbed Samuel several times until he was dead. Raul
fled from the scene taking the motorcycle with him. What crime or crimes did Raul commit? |5%]

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Raul committed the composite crime of Carnapping with homicide under Sec. 14 of Rep. Act No. 6539, as amended, considering that the
killing "in the course or "on the occasion of a carnapping (People vs. De la Cruz, et al. 183 SCRA 763). A motorcycle is included in the
definition of a "motor vehicle" in said Rep. Act, also known as the 'Anti-Carnapping Act of 1972'. There is no apparent motive for the killing
of the tricycle driver but for Raul to be able to take the motorcycle. The fact that the tricycle driver was killed brings about the penalty of
reclusion perpetua to death.