crim 2 bar qs and answers

7/24/2019 Crim 2 Bar Qs and Answers

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/crim-2-bar-qs-and-answers 1/20

Malversation (2001) Alex Reyes, together with Jose Santos, were former ware-housemen of the Rustan Department Store. In 198, the !"## se$uestere% theassets, fun% an% properties of the owners-in&orporators of the store,alleging that they &onstitute 'Ill-gotten wealth' of the (ar&os family.

)pon their appli&ation, Reyes an% Santos were appointe% as *s&alagents of the se$uestere% *rm an% they were gi+en &usto%y an%possession of the se$uestere% uil%ing an% its &ontents, in&lu%ing+arious +ehi&les use% in the *rms operations. After a few months, anin+entory was &on%u&te% an% it was %is&o+ere% that two/0 %eli+ery+ans were missing. After %eman% was ma%e up-on them, Reyes an%Santos faile% to gi+e any satisfa&tory explanation why the +ans weremissing or to turn them o+er to the !"## hen&e, they were &harge%with (al+ersation of !uli& !roperty. During the trial, the two a&&use%&laime% that they are not puli& a&&ountale o2&ers an%, if any &rime

was &ommitte%, it shoul% only e 3stafa un%er Art. 415, par. l0 of theRe+ise% !enal "o%e. 6hat is the proper o7ense &ommitte% State thereasons0for your answer. 50

S)##3S:3D A;S63R< :he proper o7ense &ommitte% was (al+ersation of !uli& !roperty, notestafa, &onsi%ering that Reyes an% Santos, upon their appli&ation, were&onstitute% as '*s&al agents' of the se$uestere% *rm an% were 'gi+en&usto%y an% pos-session' of the se$uestere% properties, in&lu%ing the%eli+ery +ans whi&h later they &oul% not a&&ount for. :hey were thus

ma%e the %epositary an% a%ministrator of properties %eposite% ypuli& authority an% hen&e, y the %uties of their o2&e=position, theyare a&&ountale for su&h properties. Su&h properties, ha+ing eense$uestere% y the #o+ernment through the !"##, are in &usto%ialegis an% therefore impresse% with the &hara&ter of puli& property,e+en though the properties elong to a pri+ate in%i+i%ualArt. ///,R!"0. :he failure of Reyes an% Santos to gi+e any satisfa&tory explanation why the +ans were missing, is prima fa&ie e+i%en&e that they ha%put the same to their personal use.

Malversation vs. Estafa (1999)>ow is mal+ersation %istinguishe% from estafa

S)##3S:3D A;S63R<(al+ersation %i7ers from estafa in that mal+ersation is &ommitte% yan a&&ountale puli& o2&er in+ol+ing puli& fun%s or property un%erhis &usto%y an% a&&ountaility while estafa is &ommitte% y non-



a&&ountale puli& o2&er or pri+ate in%i+i%ual in+ol+ing fun%s orproperty for whi&h he is not a&&ountale to the go+ernment.

Complex Crime; Parricide w/ nintentional a!ortion(199") Al%ri&h was %ismisse% from his Jo y his employer. )pon rea&hing

home, his pregnant wife, "armi, nagge% him aout money for herme%i&ines. Depresse% y his %ismissal an% angere% y the nagging of his wife, Al%ri&h stru&? "armi with his *st. She fell to the groun%. As aresult, she an% her unorn ay %ie%. 6hat &rime was &ommitte% yAl%ri&h

S)##3S:3D A;S63R< Al%ri&h &ommitte% the &rime of parri&i%e with unintentional aortion.6hen Al%ri&h stru&? his wife, "armi, with his *st, he &ommitte% the&rime of maltreatment un%er Art, /, par. 4of the Re+ise% !enal "o%e,

Sin&e "armi %ie% e&ause of thefelonious a&t of Al%ri&h, he is &riminallyliale of parri&i%e un%er Art. /@, R!" in relation to Art. @, p ar. 1 of thesame "o%e. Sin&e the unorn ay of "armi %ie% in the pro&ess, utAl%ri&h ha% no intention to &ause the aortion of his wife, Al%ri&h&ommitte% unintentional aortion as %e*ne% in Art./5, R!". Inasmu&has the single a&t of Al%ri&h pro%u&e% two gra+e or less gra+e felonies,he falls un%er Art, @8, R!",ie. a &omplex &rime!eople +s. Salufran&ia, 159 S"RA @B10.

#ape; $omicide % &'eft (199)

Cing went to the house of aura who was alone. aura o7ere% him a%rin? an% after &onsuming three ottles of eer. Cing ma%e a%+an&esto her an% with for&e an% +iolen&e, ra+ishe% her. :hen Cing ?ille% auraan% too? her Eewelry. Doming, Cings a%opte% rother, learne% aoutthe in&i%ent. >e went to auras house, hi% her o%y, &leane%e+erything an% washe% the loo%stains insi%e the room. ater, Cingga+e Jose, his legitimate rother, one pie&e of Eewelry elonging toaura. Jose ?new that the Eewelry was ta?en from aura utnonetheless he sol% it for !/,BBB. 6hat &rime or &rimes %i% Cing,Doming an% Jose &ommit Dis&uss their &riminal liailities.

S)##3S:3D A;S63R<Cing &ommitte% the &omposite &rime of Rape with homi&i%e as a singlein%i+isile o7ense, not a &omplex &rime, an% :heft. :he ta?ing of auras Eewelry when she is alrea%y %ea% is only theft.

eat' nder Exceptional Circmstances (2001)



A an% F are husan% an% wife. A is employe% as a se&urity guar% atan%mar?, his shift eing from 11<BBp.m. to <BB a.m. Gne night, hefelt si&? an% &ol%, hen&e, he %e&i%e% to go home aroun% mi%night aftergetting permission from his %uty o2&er. )pon rea&hing the front yar%of his home, he noti&e% that the light in the master e%room was on

an% that the e%room win%ow was open. Approa&hing the front %oor,he was surprise% to hear sighs an% giggles insi%e the e%room. >eopene% the %oor +ery &arefully an% peepe% insi%e where he saw hiswife F ha+ing sexual inter&ourse with their neighor ". A rushe% insi%ean% grae% " ut the latter manage% to wrest himself free an%

Eumpe% out of the win%ow, A followe% suit an% manage% to &at&h "again an% after a furious struggle, manage% also to strangle himto %eath. A then rushe% a&? to his e%room where his wife F was&owering un%er the e% &o+ers. Still enrage%, A hit F with *st lows an%ren%ere% her un&ons&ious. :he poli&e arri+e% after eing summone% y their

neighors an% arreste% A who was %etaine%, in$ueste% an% &harge% forthe %eathof " an% serious physi&al InEuries of F. a0 Is A liale for"s %eath 6hy50 0 Is A liale for Fs inEuries 6hy 50

S)##3S:3D A;S63R<a0 Hes, A is liale for "s %eath ut un%er the ex&eption-al&ir&umstan&es in Arti&le /@ of the Re+ise% !enal "o%e, whereonly %estierro is pres&rie%. Arti&le /@ go+erns sin&e A surprise% hiswife F in the a&t of ha+ing sexual inter&ourse with ", an% the ?illing

of " was 'Imme%iately there after'as the %is&o+ery, es&ape, pursuitan% ?illing of " form one &ontinuous a&t.(U.S. vs. Vargas, 2 Phil. 194)0 i?ewise, A is liale for the serious physi&al inEuries he ini&te% onhis wife F ut un%er the same ex&eptional &ir&umstan&es in Arti&le /@of the Re+ise% !enal "o%e, for the same reasons

)n%er Arti&le /@ of the Re+ise% !enal "o%e, is %estierro a penalty3xplain.

*+,,3S:3D A;S63R<In the &ase of People v. Abarca, G.R. No. 744, Sep!e"ber 14,19#7,the "ourt rule% that Arti&le /@ %oes not %e*ne a felony. >owe+er, itwent on to state that the penalty is merely anishment of the a&&use%,inten%e% for his prote&tion. !unishment, therefore, is not ini&te% onthe a&&use%.



A:3R;A:I3 A;S63R< Hes. Arti&le /@ of the Re+ise% !enal "o%e %oes not %e*ne an% pro+i%efor a spe&i*& &rime ut grants a pri+ilege or ene*t to the a&&use% forthe ?illing of another or the ini&tion of Serious !hysi&al InEuries.Destierro is a punishment wherey a &on+i&t is anishe% to a &ertain

pla&e an% is prohiite% from entering or &oming near that pla&e%esignate% in the senten&e, not less than /5 ?ms.(People v. Ara$%el, G.R. No. &'1229, ece"ber 9, 19*9)

-nfanticide (200) Ana has een a ar girl=#RG at a eer house for more than / years.She fell in lo+e with Gnio?, the arten%er, who impregnate% her.Fut Ana %i% not inform him aout her &on%ition an% instea%, wenthome to "eu to &on&eal her shame. >owe+er, her parents %ro+e heraway. So she returne% to (anila an% staye% with Gnio? in his

oar%ing house. )pon learning of her pregnan&y, alrea%y in ana%+an&e% state, Gnio? trie% to persua%e her to un%ergo an aortion,ut she refuse%. Fe&ause of their &onstant an% itter $uarrels, shesu7ere% irth pangs an% ga+e irth prematurely to a li+e ay girlwhile Gnio? was at his pla&e of wor?. )pon &oming home an% learningwhat happene%, he pre+aile% upon Ana to &on&eal her %ishonor. >en&e,they pla&e% the infant in a shoe ox an% threw it into a neary &ree?.>owe+er, an in$uisiti+e neighor saw them an% with the help of others,retrie+e% the infant who was alrea%y %ea% from %rowning. :he in&i%entwas reporte% to the poli&e who arreste% Ana an% Gnio?. :he / were

&harge% with parri&i%e un%er Arti&le /@ of the Re+ise% !enal "o%e.After trial, they were &on+i&te% of the &rime &harge%. 6as the&on+i&tion &orre&t

S)##3S:3D A;S63R< :he &on+i&tion of Ana an% Gnio? is not &orre&t. :hey are liale forinfanti&i%e e&ause they ?ille% a &hil% less than three %ays of age Art./55, Re+ise% !enal "o%e0

Mrder; $omicide; -nfanticide; Parricide (1999)

A ?ille%< 10 a woman with whom he li+e% without ene*t of &lergy, /0their &hil% who was only two %ays ol%, 40their %aughter, an% @0 theira%opte% son. 6hat &rime or &rimes %i% A &ommit 40S)##3S:3D A;S63R< A &ommitte% the following &rimes<1.K >G(I"ID3 or mur%er as the &ase may e, for the ?illing of his&ommon-law wife who is not legally &onsi%ere% a 'spouse'



/.K I;LA;:I"ID3 for the ?illing of the &hil% as sai% &hil% is less thanthree 40 %ays ol%. Art. /55, R!"0>owe+er, the penalty &orrespon%ingto parri&i%e shall e impose% sin&e A is relate% to the &hil% within the%egree %e*ne% in the &rime of parri&i%e.4.K !ARRI"ID3 for the ?illing of their %aughter, whether legitimate

or illegitimate, as long as she is not less than three 40 %ays ol% at thetime of the [email protected] ()RD3R for the ?illing of their a%opte% son as the relationshipetween A an% the sai% son must e y loo% in or%er for parri&i%e toarise

Mrder; +se of -lleal irearms (200")!> ?ille% GJ, his politi&al ri+al in the ele&tion &ampaign for (ayor of their town. :he Information against !> allege% that he use% anunli&ense% *rearm in the ?illing of the +i&tim, an% this was pro+e%

eyon% reasonale %out y the prose&ution. :he trial &ourt &on+i&te%!> of two &rimes< mur%er an% illegal possession of *rearms. Is the&on+i&tion &orre&t Reason riey. 50

S)##3S:3D A;S63R<;o, the &on+i&tion of !> for two &rimes, mur%er an% illegal possessionof *rearm is not &orre&t. )n%er the new law on illegal possession of *rearms an% explosi+es,Rep. A&t ;o. 8/9@, a person may only e &riminally liale forillegalpossession of *rearm if no other &rime is &ommitte% therewith if a

homi&i%e or mur%er is &ommitte% with the use of an unli&ense%*rearm, su&h use shall e &onsi%ere% as an aggra+ating &ir&umstan&e.!> therefore may only e &on+i&te% of mur%er an% the use of anunli&ense% *rearm in its &ommission may only e appre&iate% as aspe&ial aggra+ating &ir&umstan&e, pro+i%e% that su&h use is allege%spe&i*&ally in the information for (ur%er.

#ape; Consented !dction (2002) A with lew% %esigns, too? a 14-year ol% girl to a nipa hut in his farman% there ha% sexual inter&ourse with her. :he girl %i% not o7er any

resistan&e e&ause she was infatuate% with the man, who was goo%-loo?ing an% elonge% to ari&h an% prominent family in the town. 6hat&rime, if any, was &ommitte% y A 6hy /0

S)##3S:3D A;S63R< A &ommitte% the &rime of &onsente% a%u&tion un%er Arti&le 4@4 of the Re+ise% !enal "o%e, as amen%e%. :he sai% Arti&le punishes the



a%u&tion of a +irgin o+er 1/ an% un%er 18 years of age, &arrie% outwith her &onsent an% with lew% %esigns. Although the prolem %i% notin%i&ate the +i&tim to e +irgin, +irginity shoul% not e un%erstoo% in itsmaterial sense, as to ex&lu%e a +irtuous woman of goo% reputation,sin&e the essen&e of the &rime is not the inEury to the woman ut the

outrage an% alarm to her family(Val+epeas vs. People,1 S-RA #71 19/).

#ape; Male ictim (2002) A, a male, ta?es F, another male, to a motel an% there, through threatan% intimi%ation, su&&ee%s in inserting his penis into the anus of F.6hat, if any, is AMs &riminal liaility 6hy

S)##3S:3D A;S63R< A shall e &riminally liale for rape y &ommitting an a&t of sexual

assault against F, y inserting his penis into the anus of the latter.3+en a man may e a +i&tim of rape y sexual assault un%er par. / of Arti&le /-A of the Re+ise% !enal "o%e, as amen%e%, 'when theo7en%ers penis is inserte% into his mouth or anal ori*&e.'

#ape; Mltiple #apes; orci!le !dction (2000)Llor%eluna oar%e% a taxi on her way home to NueOon "ity whi&hwas %ri+en y Roger, Llor%eluna noti&e%that Roger was always pla&ing his &ar freshener in front of the &arair&on +entilation ut %i% not other as?ing Roger why. Su%%enly,

Llor%eluna felt %iOOy an% e&ame un&ons&ious. Instea% of ringing herto NueOon "ity, Roger rought Llor%eluna to his house in "a+ite whereshe was %etaine% for two /0 wee?s. She was rape% for the entire%uration of her %etention. (ay Roger e &harge% an% &on+i&te% of the&rime of rape with serious illegal %etention 3xplain. 50

S)##3S:3D A;S63R<;o, Roger may not e &harge% an% &on+i&te% of the &rime of rape withserious illegal %etention. Roger may e &harge% an% &on+i&te% of multiplerapes. 3a&h rape is a %istin&t o7ense an% shoul% e punishe% separately.

3+i%ently, his prin&ipal intention was to ause Llor%eluna the%etention was only in&i%ental to the rape.

A:3R;A:I3 A;S63R<;o, Roger may not e &harge% an% &on+i&te% of the &rime of rape withserious illegal %etention, sin&e the %etention was in&urre% in raping the+i&tim %uring the %ays she was



hel%. At most, Roger may e prose&ute% for for&ile a%u&tion forta?ing Llor%eluna to "a+ite against the latters will an% withlew% %esigns. :he for&ile a%u&tion shoul% e &omplexe% with one of the multiple rapes &ommitte%, an% the other rapes shoul% eprose&ute% an% punishe% separately, in as many rapes were &harge%

an% pro+e%.

,rave Coercion vs. Maltreatment of Prisoner (1999)Lor&ily rought to the poli&e hea%$uarters, a person was torture% an%maltreate% y agents of the law in or%er to &ompel him to &onfess a&rime impute% to him. :he agents faile%, howe+er, to %raw from him a&onfession whi&h was their intention to otain through the employmentof su&h means. 6hat &rime was &ommitte% y the agents of the law3xplain your answer. 40

S)##3S:3D A;S63R<3+i%ently, the person torture% an% maltreate% y the agents of the lawis a suspe&t an% may ha+e een %etaine% y them. If so an% he ha%alrea%y een oo?e% an% put in Eail, the &rime is maltreatment of prisoner an% the fa&t that the suspe&t was suEe&te% to torture toextort a&onfession woul% ring aout a higher penalty. In a%%ition to theo7en%ers liaility for the physi&al inEuries ini&te%. Fut if the suspe&t wasfor&ily rought to the poli&e hea%$uarters to ma?e him a%mit the&rime an% torture%=maltreate% to ma?e him &onfess to su&h &rime, ut

later release% e&ause the agents faile% to %raw su&h &onfession, the&rime is gra+e &oer&ion e&ause of the +iolen&e employe% to &ompelsu&h &onfession without the o7en%e% party eing &on*ne% in Eail.(US vs. -%si, 10 Phil 14)It is note% that the o7en%e% party was merely 'rought' to the poli&ehea%$uarters an% is thus not a %etention prisoner. >a% he een +ali%lyarreste%, the &rime &ommitte% woul% e maltreatment of prisoners.

-lleal etention vs. ,rave Coercion (1999)Distinguish &oer&ion from illegal %etention. 40

S)##3S:3D A;S63R<"oer&ion may e %istinguishe% from illegal %etention as follows< in&oer&ion, the asis of &riminal liaility is the employment of +iolen&e orserious intimi%ation approximating +iolen&e, without authority of law,to pre+ent a person from %oing something not prohiite% y law or to&ompel him to %o something against his will, whether it e right or



wrong while in Illegal %etention, the asis of liaility is the a&tualrestraint or lo&?ing up of a person, therey %epri+ing him of his liertywithout authority of law. If there was no intent to lo&? up or %etain theo7en%e% party unlawfully, the &rime of illegal %etention is not&ommitte%.

3idnappin w/ $omicide (2004)!aO (asipag wor?e% as a housemai% an% yaya of theone-wee? ol% sonof the spouses (artin an% !ops Curipot. 6hen !aO learne% that her Byear-ol%mother was seriously ill, she as?e% (artin for a &ash a%+an&e of !1,BBB.BB ut (artin refuse%. Gne morning, !aO gagge% the mouth of (artinMsson with sto&?ings pla&e% the &hil% in a ox seale% it with mas?ingtape an% pla&e% the ox in the atti&. ater in the afternoon, she%eman%e% !5,BBB.BB as ransom for the release of his son. (artin %i%

not pay the ransom. Suse$uently, !aO%isappeare%. After a &ouple of %ays, (artin %is&o+ere% the ox in theatti& with his &hil% alrea%y %ea%. A&&or%ing to the autopsy report, the&hil% %ie% of asphyxiation arely three minutes after the ox wasseale%. 6hat &rime or &rimes %i% !aO &ommit 3xplain. 50

S)##3S:3D A;S63R<!aO &ommitte% the &omposite &rime of ?i%napping with homi&i%e un%erArt. /, RL" as amen%e% y R.A. ;o.59. )n%er the law, any personwho shall %etain another or in any manner %epri+e him of lierty an%

the +i&tim %ies as a &onse$uen&e is liale for ?i%napping with homi&i%ean% shall e penaliOe% with the maximum penalty. In this &ase,notwithstan%ing the fa&t that the one-wee? ol% &hil% was merely ?eptin the atti& of his house, gagge% with sto&?ings an% pla&e% in a oxseale% with tape, the %epri+ation of lierty an% the intention to ?ille&omes apparent. :hough it may appear that the means employe% y!aO was atten%e% y trea&hery ?illing of an infant0,ne+ertheless, aseparate &harge of mur%er will not e proper in +iew of theamen%ment. >ere, the term 'homi&i%e' is use% in its generi& sense an%&o+ers all forms of ?illing whether in the nature of mur%er or otherwise.

It is of no moment that the e+i%en&e shows the %eath of the &hil% too?pla&e three minutes after theox was seale% an% the %eman% for the ransom too? pla&e in theafternoon. :he intention is &ontrolling here, that is, ransom was%eman%e%.

3idnappin; E5ects; olntar6 #elease (200")



DA;, a pri+ate in%i+i%ual, ?i%nappe% ">), a minor. Gn the se&on% %ay,DA; release% ">) e+en efore any &riminal information was *le%against him. At the trial of his &ase, DA; raise% the %efense that he %i%not in&ur any &riminal liaility sin&e he release% the &hil% efore thelapse of the 4-%ay perio% an% efore &riminal pro&ee%ings for

?i%napping were institute%. 6ill DA;s %efense prosper Reason riey.50

S)##3S:3D A;S63R<;o. DA;s %efense will not prosper. oluntary release y the o7en%er of the o7en%e% party in ?i%napping is not asolutory. Fesi%es, su&hrelease is irrele+ant an% immaterial in this &ase e&ause the +i&timeing a minor, the &rime &ommitte% is ?i%napping an% serious illegal%etention un%er Art. /, Re+ise% !enal "o%e, to whi&h su&h&ir&umstan&e %oes not apply. :he &ir&umstan&e may e appre&iate%

only in the &rime of Slight Illegal Detention in Art. /8(Asis!io v. Sa iego, 10 S-RA 7 194/)

3idnappin; -lleal etention; Minorit6 (200)Dang was a eauty $ueen in a uni+ersity. Jo, a ri&h &lassmate, was soenamore% with her that he persistently wooe% an% pursue% her. Dang,eing in lo+e with another man, reEe&te% him. :his angere% Jo,Sometime in Septemer /BB4, while Dang an% her sister yn were ontheir way home, Jo an% his minor frien% ;onoy grae% them an%pushe% them insi%e a white +an. :hey rought them to an aan%one%

warehouse where they for&e% them to %an&e na?e%. :hereafter, theyrought them to a hill in a neary arangay where they too? turnsraping them. After satisfying their lust, Jo or%ere% ;onoy to pushDang %own a ra+ine, resulting in her %eath. yn ran away ut Jo an%;onoy &hase% her an% pushe% her insi%e the +an. :hen the %uo %ro+eaway. yn was ne+er seen again.6hat &rime or &rimes were &ommitte% y Jo an% ;onoy /.50

S)##3S:3D A;S63R< Jo an% ;onoy &ommitte% 10 ?i%napping an% serious illegal %etention

with homi&i%e an% rape for the su-se$uent %eath of Dang, an% /0?i%napping with rape against her sister, yn. :he +i&tims, who were?i%nappe% an% %etaine%, were suse$uently rape% an% ?ille% asregar%s Dang0 in the &ourse of their %etention. :he &omposite &rime is&ommitte% regar%less of whether the suse$uent &rimes werepurposely sought or merely an afterthought(People v. &arraaga, G.R. Nos. 1##74'*, ebr%ars,2004).



+n7st exation vs cts of 8asciviosness (199") 6hen is emra&ing, ?issing an% tou&hing a girls reast &onsi%ere%only unEust +exation instea% of a&ts of las&i+iousness

S)##3S:3D A;S63R< :he a&ts of emra&ing, ?issing of a woman arising either out of passion or other moti+e an% the tou&hing of her reast as amere in&i%ent of the emra&e without lew%%esign &onstitutes merely unEust +exation(People vs,3gacio. -A GRNo. *119'R, Sep!e"ber 0, 19*0).

>owe+er, where the ?issing, emra&ing an% the tou&hing of the reastof a woman are %one with lew% %esign, the same &onstitute a&ts of las&i+iousness

(People vs. Percival Gilo, 10S-RA 7*).

rson; estrctive rson (2000)Gne early e+ening, there was a *ght etween 3%%ie #utierreO an%(ario "orteO. ater that e+ening, at aout11 o&lo&?, 3%%ie passe% ythe house of (ario &arrying a plasti& ag &ontaining gasoline, threwthe ag at the house of (ario who was insi%e the house wat&hingtele+ision, an% then lit it. :he front wall of the house starte%laOing an% some neighors yelle% an% shoute%. Lorthwith, (ariopoure% water on the urning portion of the house. ;eighors also

rushe% in to help put the *re un%er &ontrol efore any great %amage&oul% e ini&te% an% efore the ames ha+e extensi+ely sprea%. Gnlya portion of the house was urne%. Dis&uss 3%%ies liaility, 40

S)##3S:3D A;S63R<3%%ie is liale for %estru&ti+e arson in the &onsummate% stage. It is%estru&ti+e arson e&ause *re was resorte% to in %estroying the houseof (ario whi&h is an inhaite% house or %welling. :he arson is&onsummate% e&ause the house was in fa&t alrea%y urne% althoughnot totally. In arson, it is not re$uire% that the premises e totally

urne% for the &rime to e &onsummate%. It is enough that thepremises su7er %estru&tion y urning.

P 22; Presmption of 3nowlede (2002) A a usinessman, orrowe% !5BB,BBB.BB from F, a frien%. :o pay theloan, A issue% a post%ate% &he&? to e presente% for payment 4B %aysafter the transa&tion. :wo %ays efore the maturity %ate of the &he&?, A



&alle% up F an% tol% him not to %eposit the &he&? on the %ate state% onthe fa&e thereof, as A ha% not %eposite% in the %rawee an? theamount nee%e% to &o+er the &he&?. ;e+ertheless, F %eposite% the&he&? in $uestion an% the same was %ishonore% of insu2&ien&yof fun%s. A faile% to settle the amount with F in spite of the latters

%eman%s. Is A guilty of +iolating F.!. Flg. //, otherwise ?nown as theFoun&ing "he&?s aw 3xplain. 50

S)##3S:3D A;S63R< Hes, A Is liale for +iolation of F!. Flg. // Foun&ing "he&?s aw0,Although ?nowle%ge y the %rawer of insu2&ien&y or la&? of fun%s atthe time of the issuan&e of the &he&? is an essential element of the+iolation, the law presumes prima fa&ie su&h ?nowle%ge, unless within*+e50 an?ing %ays of noti&e of %ishonor or nonpayment, the %rawerpays the hol%er thereof the amount %ue thereon or ma?es

arrangements for payment in full y the %rawee of su&h &he&?s. Amere noti&e y the %rawer A to the payee F efore the maturity %ate of the &he&? will not %efeat the presumption of ?nowle%ge &reate% y thelaw otherwise, the purpose ean% spirit of F.!. // will e ren%ere%useless

Estafa (1999)Is there su&h a &rime as estafa through negligen&e3xplain./0 Aurelia intro%u&e% Rosa to i&toria, a %ealer in Eewelry who %oesusiness in :imog, NueOon "ity. Rosa, a resi%ent of "eu "ity, agree% to

sell a %iamon% ring an% ra&elet to i&toria on a &ommission asis, on&on%ition that, if these items &an not e sol%, they may e returne% toi&toria forth with. )nale to sell the ring an% ra&elet, Rosa %eli+ere%oth items to Aurelia in "eu "ity with the un%erstan%ing that Aureliashall, in turn, return the items to i&toria in :imog,NueOon "ity. Aurelia%utifully returne% the ra&elet to i&toria ut sol% the ring, ?ept the&ash pro&ee%s thereof to herself, an% issue% a &he&? to i&toria whi&houn&e%. i&toria sue% Rosa for estafa un%er Arti&le 415, R.!.".,i&toria insisting that %eli+ery to a thir% person of the thing hel%in trustis not a %efense in estafa. Is Rosa &riminally liale for estafa un%er the

&ir&umstan&es 3xplain, P@0S)##3S:3D A;S63R<a0 :here is no su&h &rime as estafa through negligen&e.In estafa, thepro*t or gain must e otaine% y the a&&use% personally, through hisown a&ts, an% his mere negligen&e in allowing another to ta?ea%+antage of or ene*t from the entruste% &hattel &annot &onstituteestafa.



(People v. Nepo"%ceo, -A, 4G 1*)0 ;o, Rosa &annot e hel% &riminally liale for estafa. Although shere&ei+e% the Eewelry from i&toria un%er anoligation to return thesame or %eli+er the pro&ee%s thereof, she %i% not misappropriate it. Infa&t, she ga+e them to Aurelia spe&i*&ally to e returne% to i&toria.

:he misappropriation was %one y Aurelia, an% asent the showing of any &onspira&y etween Aurelia an% Rosa, the latter &annot e hel%&riminally liale for Amelias a&ts. Lurthermore, as explaine% ao+e,Rosas negligen&e whi&h may ha+e allowe% Aurelia to misappropriatethe Eewelry %oes not ma?e her &riminally liale for estafa.

3stafa Swin%ling 19980Di+ina, is the owner of a 5BB-s$uare meter resi%ential lot in (a?ati "ity&o+ere% y :": ;o. 1998. As her son nee%e% money for his triparoa%, Di+ina mortgage% her lot to her neighor Dino for !1,BBB,BBB.

ater Di+ina sol%the same lot to Angel for !/,BBB,BBB. In the Dee% of Sale, she expressly state% that the property is free from any lien oren&umran&e. 6hat &rime, if any, %i% Di+ina &ommitP5K

S)##3S:3D A;S63R<Di+ina &ommitte% estafa or swin%ling un%er Art. 41, par./ of theRe+ise% !enal "o%e e&ause, ?nowing that thereal property eing sol%is en&umere%, she still ma%e a misrepresentation in the Dee% of Salethat the same is free from any lien or en&umran&e. :here is thus a%e&eit or frau% &ausing %amage to the uyer of the lot.

Roery un%er R!" /BB10 A an% F are neighors in Farangay ;ue+o I, Silang,"a+ite. A is aarangay Cagawa% an% ?nown to e a ully, while F is repute% to egay ut note% for his in%ustry an% e&onomi& sa++y whi&h allowe% himtoamass wealth in leaps an% oun%s, in&lu%ing registere% an%unregistere% lan%s in se+eral arangays. Resenting Fs ri&hes an% relying on hispoliti&al inuen&e, A %e&i%e% to harass an% intimi%ate F into sharingwith him some of his lan%s, &onsi%ering that the latter was single an%

li+ing alone. Gne night, A ro?e into Fs house, for&e% him to ring outsome titles an% after pi&?ing out a title &o+ering /BB s$uare meters intheir arangay, &ompelle% F to type out a Dee% of Sale &on+eying thesai% lot to him for !1.BBan% other +aluale &onsi%erations. All thewhile, A &arrie%a palti? &alier .@5 in full +iew of F, who signe% the%ee% out of fear. 6hen A later on trie% to register the %ee%, Fsummone% enough &ourage an% ha% A arreste% an% &harge% in



&ourt after preliminary in+estigation. 6hat &harge or &harges shoul% e*le% against A 3xplain.50S)##3S:3D A;S63R< :he &harge for Roery un%er Arti&le /98 of the Re+ise% !enal "o%eshoul% e *le% against A. Sai% Arti&le pro+i%es that any person who,

with intent to %efrau% another, y means of +iolen&e or intimi%ation,shall &ompel him to sign, exe&ute an% %eli+er any puli& instrument or%o&ument shall e hel% guilty of roery. :he palti? &alier .@5 *rearm &arrie% y A was o+iously inten%e% to intimi%ate F an% thus, use% in the &ommission of the roery. If it &oul% e estalishe% that A ha% noli&ense or permit to possess an%&arry su&h *rearm, itshoul% e ta?en only as spe&ial aggra+ating&ir&umstan&e tothe &rime of roery, not suEe&t of a separateprose&ution.

Roery +s. >ighway Roery /BBB0Distinguish >ighway Roery un%er !resi%ential De&ree ;o. 54/ fromRoery &ommitte% on a highway. 40

S)##3S:3D A;S63R<>ighway Roery un%er !res. De&ree 54/ %i7ers from or%inary Roery&ommitte% on a highway in these respe&ts<

In >ighway Roery un%er !D 54/, the roery is &ommitte%in%is&riminately against persons who &ommute in su&h highways,

regar%less of the potentiality they o7er while in or%inary Roery&ommitte% on a highway, the roery is &ommitte% only againstpre%etermine% +i&tims/ It is >ighway Roery un%er !D 54/, when the o7en%er is a rigan% orone who roams in puli& highways an% &arries out his roery in puli&highways as +enue, whene+er the opportunity to %o so arises. It isor%inary Roery un%er the Re+ise% !enal "o%e when the &ommissionthereof in a puli& highway is only in&i%ental an% the o7en%er is nota rigan%< an%4. In >ighway Roery un%er !D 54/, there

is fre$uen&y in the &ommission of the roery in puli& highways an%against persons tra+elling thereat whereas or%inary Roery in puli&highways is only o&&asional against a pre%etermine% +i&tim, withoutfre$uen&y in puli& highways.

Roery w= >omi&i%e - R.A. ;o. 59 /BB50



Jose employe% (ario as gar%ener an% >enry as &oo?. :hey learne%that Jose won !5BB,BBB.BB in the lotto, an% %e&i%e% to ro him. (ariopositione% himself aout 4B meters away from JoseMs house an% a&te%as loo?out. Lor his part, >enry surreptitiously gaine% entry into the housean% ?ille%

Jose who was then ha+ing his %inner. >enry foun% the !5BB,BBB.BB an%too? it. >enry then too? a &an of gasoline from the garage an% urne%the house to &on&eal the a&ts. (ario an% >enry e%, ut were arreste%aroun% /BB meters away from the house y alert arangay tano%s. :hetano%s re&o+ere% the !5BB,BBB.BB.(ario an% >enry were &harge% withan% &on+i&te% of roery with homi&i%e, with the aggra+ating&ir&umstan&es of arson, %welling, an% nighttime .(ario mo+e% tore&onsi%er the %e&ision maintaining that he was not at the s&ene of the&rime an% was not aware that >enry ?ille% the +i&tim hen&e, he wasguilty only of roery, as an a&&ompli&e. (ario also &laime% that

he &on-spire% with >enry to &ommit roery ut not to ?ill Jose.>enry, li?ewise, mo+e% to re&onsi%er the %e&ision, asserting that he isliale only for attempte% roery with homi&i%e with no aggra+ating&ir&umstan&e, &onsi%ering that he an% (ario %i% not ene*t from the!5BB,BBB.BB.>e further allege% that arson is a felony an% not anaggra+ating &ir&umstan&e %welling is not aggra+ating in attempte%roery with homi&i%e an% nighttime is not aggra+ating e&ause thehouse of Jose was lighte% at the time he was ?ille%. Resol+ewith reasons the respe&ti+e motions of (ario an% >enry. 0

S)##3S:3D A;S63R<(ario is not &orre&t. (ario &onspire% an% a&te% in&on&ert with >enry to &ommit roery. >en&e, the a&t of one isthe a&tof all an% the extent of the spe&i*& parti&ipation of ea&h in%i+i%ual&onspirator e&omes se&on%ary, ea&h eing hel% liale for the &riminal%ee%s0 exe&ute% y another or others. As a &onspirator, (ario &astshis lot with his fellow &onspirators an% e&omes liale to any thir%person who may get ?ille% in the &ourse of implementing the &riminal%esign.(People v. P%5ala, e! al.. G.R. No. 7##*, Nove"ber #,1991)

>enry is in&orre&t, sin&e he a&$uire% possession of the money. :he&rime of roery with for&e an% intimi%ation is &onsummate% when theroer a&$uires possession of the property, e+en if for a short time. Itis no %efense that they ha% no opportunity to %ispose of or ene*tfrom the money ta?en. (People v. Salvilia, e! al., G.R. No. ##1, April2,1990)



Sin&e the &rime in roery with for&e an% intimi%ation against personsroery with homi&i%e0, %welling is aggra+ating. Arson, whi&ha&&ompanie% the &rime of roery with homi&i%e is asore%(Ar!. 294, R- as a"e+e+ b R.A. No. 7*9) an% is not aggra+atinge&ause the R!" %oes not pro+i%e that su&h &rime is an aggra+ating

&ir&umstan&e. (People v. Regala, G.R. No. 10*0#, April *, 2000);ighttime, li?ewise, is not aggra+ating. :here is no showing that thesame was purposely sought y the o7en%ers to fa&ilitate the &om-mission of the &rime or impunity.

Roery w= >omi&i%e 19980 A, F, " an% D all arme%, roe%a an?, an% when they were aout toget out of the an?, poli&emen &ame an% or%ere% them to surren%erut they *re% on the poli&e o2&ers who *re% a&? an% shot it out withthem.

1. Suppose a an? employee was ?ille% an% the ullet whi&h ?ille% him &amefrom the *rearm of the poli&e o2&ers, with what &rime shall you &hargeA, F. " an% D P4K/. Suppose it was roer D who was ?ille% y the poli&emen an% theprose&utor &harge% A, F an% " with Roery an% >omi&i%e. :hey%emurre% arguing that they A, F an% "0 were not the ones who ?ille%roer D, hen&e, the &harge shoul% only e Roery. >ow woul% youresol+e their argument /0

S)##3S:3D A;S63R<

1. A, F, " an% D shoul% e &harge% with the &rime of roery withhomi&i%e e&ause the %eath of the an? employee was rought aouty the a&ts of sai% o7en%ers on the o&&asion of the roery. :hey shotit out with the poli&eman, therey &ausing su&h %eath y reason or onthe o&&asion of a roery hen&e, the &omposite &rime of roery withhomi&i%e./. :he argument is +ali%, &onsi%ering that a separate &harge for>omi&i%e was *le%. It woul% e %i7erent if the &harge *le% was for the&omposite &rime of roery with homi&i%e whi&h is a single, in%i+isileo7ense.

Roery w= >omi&i%e Spe&ial "omplex "rime 19950 i&-tor, Ri&?y, Ro% an% Ronnie went to the store of (ang !an%oy. i&toran% Ri&?y entere% the store while Ro% an%Ronnie poste% themsel+es atthe %oor. After or%ering eer Ri&?y &omplaine% that he wasshort&hange% although (ang !an%oy +ehemently %enie% it. Su%%enlyRi&?y whippe% out a?nife as he announ&e% '>ol%-up itoQ' an% stae% (ang



!an-%oy to %eath. Ro% oxe% the stores salesgirl u&y to pre+entherfrom helping (ang !an%oy. 6hen u&y ran out of thestore to see? helpfrom people next %oor she was &hase% y Ronnie. As soon as Ri&?y ha%stae% (ang !an%oy, i&tors&oope% up the money from the &ash ox.

:hen i&tor an% Ri&?y %ashe% to the street an% shoute%, ':uma?o na

?ayoQ'Ro% was 1@ an% Ronnie was 1. :he money an% other arti&lesloote% from the store of (ang !an%oy were later foun%in the houses of i&tor an% Ri&?y. Dis&uss fully the &riminal liaility of i&tor, Ri&?y, Ro%an% Ronnie.

S)##3S:3D A;S63R< All are liale for the spe&ial &omplex &rime of roery with homi&i%e.

:he a&ts of Ri&?y in staing (ang !an%oy to %eath, of Ro% in oxingthe salesgirl to pre+ent her from helping (ang !an%oy, of Ronnie in&hasing the salesgirl to pre+ent her in see?ing help, of i&tor in

s&ooping up money from the &ash ox, an% of Ri&?y an% i&tor in%ashing to the street an% announ&ing the es&ape, are all in%i&ati+e of &onspira&y. :he rule is settle% that when homi&i%e ta?es pla&e as a&onse$uen&e or on the o&&asion of a roery, all those who too? partin the roery are guilty as prin&ipals of the &rime of roery withhomi&i%e, unless the a&&use% trie% to pre+ent the ?illing (People vs. 6aello,224 S-RA 21#). Lurther, the aggra+ating &ir&umstan&e of &raft &oul% e assesse%against the a&&use% for preten%ing to e &ustomers of (ang !an-%oy.

Roery w= Rape "onspira&y /BB@0 :ogether A, HF an% " planne% to ro (iss GD. :hey entere% herhouse y rea?ing one of the win%ows in her house. After ta?ing herpersonal properties an% as they were aout to lea+e, A %e&i%e% onimpulse to rape GD. As A was molestingher, HF an% " stoo% outsi%e the %oor of her e%room an% %i% nothingto pre+ent A from raping GD. 6hat &rime or &rimes %i% A, HF an% "&ommit, an% what is the &riminal liaility of ea&h 3xplain riey. 50

S)##3S:3D A;S63R<

:he &rime &ommitte% y A, HF an% " is the &omposite &rime of Roery with Rape, a single, in%i+isile o7ense un%er Art. /9@10 of theRe+ise% !enal "o%e. Although the &onspira&y among the o7en%ers wasonly to &ommit roery an% only A rape% "D, the other roers, HFan% ", were present an% aware of the rape eing &ommitte% y their&o-&onspirator. >a+ing %one nothing to stop A from &ommitting therape, HF an% " therey &on&urre% in the &ommission of the rape



y their &o-&onspiratorA. :he &riminal liaility of all, A, H an% ", shall e thesame, asprin&ipals in the spe&ial &omplex &rime of roery with rape whi&h is a single, in%i+isile o7ense where therapea&&ompanying the roery is Eust a &omponent.

&'eft (199)(ario foun% a wat&h in a Eeep he was ri%ing, an% sin&e it %i% not elongto him, he approa&he% poli&eman ! an% %eli+ere% the wat&h withinstru&tion to return the same to whoe+er may e foun% to e theowner. ! faile% to return the wat&h to the owner an%, instea%, sol% itan% appropriate% for himself the pro&ee%s of the sale. "harge% withtheft, ! reasone% out that he &annot e foun% guilty e&ause it was nothe who foun% the wat&h an%, moreo+er, the wat&h turne% out to estolen property. Is !s %efense +ali% P5K

S)##3S:3D A;S63R<;o, !s %efense is not +ali%. In a &harge for theft, it is enough that thepersonal property suEe&t thereof elongs to another an% not to theo7en%er !0. It isirrele+ant whether the person %epri+e% of the possession of the wat&hhas or has no right to the wat&h. :heft is &ommitte% y one who, withintent to gain, appropriates property of another without the &onsent of its owner. An% the &rime is &ommitte% e+en when the o7en%er re&ei+esproperty of another ut a&$uires only physi&al possession to hol% the

same. &'eft (2001)Lran&is #ar&ia, a Jolliee waiter, foun% a gol% ra&elet in front of hiswor?ing pla&e in (a?ati an%, upon inspe&ting it, saw the name an%a%%ress of the owner engra+e% on the insi%e. Rememering hisparents a%monition that he shoul% not ta?e anything whi&h %oesnot elong to him, he %eli+ere% the ra&elet to !G1 Jesus Reyes of the(a?ati Nua% pre&in&t with the instru&tion to lo&ate the owner an%return it to him. !G1 Reyes, instea%, sol% the ra&elet an%

misappropriate% the pro&ee%s. Suse$uent e+ents rought out the fa&tthat the ra&elet was %roppe% y asnat&her who ha% grae% it from the owner a lo&? away from whereLran&is ha% foun% it an% further in+estigation tra&e% the last possessoras !G1 Reyes. "harge% with theft, !G1Reyes reasone% out that he ha%not &ommitte% any &rime e&ause it was not he who ha% foun% the



ra&elet an%, moreo+er, it turne% out to ha+e een stolen. Resol+e the&ase with reasons. 1B0S)##3S:3D A;S63R<"harge% with theft, !G1 Reyes is &riminally liale. >is &ontention thathe has not &ommitte% any &rime e&ause he was not the one who

foun% the ra&elet an% it turne% out to e stolen also, is %e+oi% of merit. It is enough that the ra&elet elonge% to another an% thefailure to restore the same to its owner is &hara&teriOe% y intent togain. :he a&t of !G1 Reyes of selling the ra&elet whi&h %oes notelong to him an% whi&h he only hel% to e %eli+ere% to its owner, isfurti+e misappropriation with intent to gain. 6here a *n%er of lostor mislai% property entrusts it to another for %eli+ery to the owner, theperson to whom su&h property is entruste% an% who a&&epts the same,assumes the relation of the *n%er to the owner as if he was the a&tual*n%er< if he woul% misappropriate it, he is guilty of theft (People vs. Avila,

44 Phil. 720).

:+8--E &$E&A +ehi&ular a&&i%ent o&&urre% on the national highway in Fula&an.Among the *rst to arri+e at the s&ene of the a&&i%ent was A, who foun%one of the +i&tims alrea%y %ea% an% the others un&ons&ious. Feforeres&uers &oul% &ome, A, ta?ing a%+antage of the helpless &on%ition of the +i&tims, too? their wallets an% Eewelry. >owe+er, the poli&e, whorespon%e% to the report of the a&&i%ent, &aught A. 6hat &rime or&rimes %i% A &ommit 6hy 50

S)##3S:3D A;S63R< A &ommitte% the &rime of $uali*e% theft e&ause he too? the walletsan% Eewelry of the +i&tims with e+i%ent intent to gain an% on theo&&asion of a +ehi&ular a&&i%ent wherein he too? a%+antage of thehelpless &on%ition of the +i&tims. Fut only one &rime of $ual i*e%theft was &ommitte% although there were more than one +i&tim%i+este% of their +aluales, e&ause all the ta?ing of the +alualeswere ma%e on one an% the same o&&asion, thus &onstituting a&ontinue% &rime.

8i!el (200)During a seminar wor?shop atten%e% y go+ernment employees fromthe Fureau of "ustoms an% the Fureau of Internal Re+enue, A, thespea?er, in the &ourse of his le&ture, lamente% the fa&t that a greatmaEority of those ser+ing in sai% agen&ies were utterly %ishonest an%&orrupt. :he following morning, the whole group of employees in the



two ureaus who atten%e% the seminar, as &omplainants, *le% a&riminal &omplaint against A for uttering what the group &laime% to e%efamatory statements of the le&turer. In &ourt, A *le% a motion to$uash the information, re&iting fully the ao+e fa&ts, on the groun%that no &rime were &ommitte%. If you were the Eu%ge, how woul% you

resol+e the motion 8

S)##3S:3D A;S63R<I woul% grant the motion to $uash on the groun% that the fa&ts &harge%%o not &onstitute an o7ense, sin&e there is no %e*nite person orpersons %ishonore%. :he &rime of liel or slan%er, is a &rime againsthonor su&h that the person or persons %ishonore% must e i%enti*alee+en y innuen%oes< otherwise the &rime against honor is not&ommitte%. (oreo+er, A was not ma?ing a mali&ious imputation, utmerely stating an opinion he was %eli+ering a le&ture with no mali&e at

all %uring a seminar wor?shop. (ali&e eing inherently asent in theutteran&e, the statement is not a&tionale as %efamatory.

*lander !6 eed vs. Maltreatment (199" )Distinguish slan%er y %ee% from maltreatment.

S)##3S:3D A;S63R<SA;D3R FH D33D is a &rime &ommitte% when a per-son puli&lysuEe&ts another to an a&t inten%e% or &al&ulate% to &ast %ishonor,%is&re%it or &ontempt upon the lat-ter. Asent the intent to &ast

%ishonor, %is&re%it, &ontempt, or insult to the o7en%e% party, the &rimeis only (A- :R3A:(3;: un%er Art, /. par. 4, where, y %ee%, ano7en%er ill-treats another without &ausing inEury.

#.. <o. 910 nti=Mone6 8anderin ct (2004)Don #aito, a philanthropist, o7ere% to fun% se+eral proEe&ts of the(ayor. >e opene% an a&&ount in the(ayorMs name an% regularly %eposite% +arious amounts ranging from!5BB,BBB.BBto !1 (illion. Lrom this a&&ount, the (ayor with%rew an%use% the money for &onstru&ting fee%er roa%s, arangay &lini&s,

repairing s&hools an% for all other muni&ipal proEe&ts .It wassuse$uently %is&o+ere% that Don #aito was a&tually a Euetengoperator an% the amounts he %eposite% were pro&ee%s fromhis Eueteng operations. 6hat &rime=s were &ommitte% 6ho are&riminally liale 3xplain. 0

S)##3S:3D A;S63R<



Don #aito +iolate% the Anti-(oney aun%ering A&t Se&. @,R.A. ;o.91B0 for ?nowingly transa&ting money as property whi&h in+ol+es orrelates to the pro&ee%s of an unlawful a&ti+ity su&h as Eueteng. Ina%%ition, he may e prose&ute% for liaility as aEueteng operator. R.A.;o. 9/80 :he mayor who allowe% the opening of an a&&ount in his

name is li?ewise guilty for +iolation of the A(A. >e, ?nowing that themoney instrument or property in+ol+es the pro&ee%s of an unlawfula&ti+ity, performs or fails to perform any a&t whi&h results in thefa&ilitation of money laun%ering.

crim 2 bar qs and answers

Documents