Page |1

QUESTIONS ASKED MORE THAN ONCE IN THE BAR

QuAMTO (1987-2010)

QUESTIONS ASKED MORE THAN ONCE IN THE

BAR

QuAMTO (1987-2010)
Criminal Law

ACADEMICS COMMITTEE
ALJON D. DE GUZMAN CHAIRPERSON
MARK KEVIN U. DELLOSA VICE-CHAIR FOR ACADEMICS
SHARMAGNE JOY A. BINAY VICE-CHAIR FOR ADMINISTRATION AND FINANCE
ANTHONY M. ROBLES VICE-CHAIR FOR LAYOUT AND DESIGN
CLARABEL ANNE R. LACSINA MEMBER, LAYOUT AND DESIGN TEAM
RAFAEL LORENZ SANTOS MEMBER, LAYOUT AND DESIGN TEAM
JAMES BRYAN V. ESTELEYDES VICE-CHAIR FOR RESEARCH

RESEARCH COMMITTEE
JAMES BRYAN V. ESTELEYDES RESEACH COMMITTEE HEAD
MARIA JAMYKA S. FAMA ASST. RESEARCH COMMITTEE HEAD
PAULINE BREISSEE GAYLE D. ALCARAZ MEMBER
ROBBIE BAÑAGA MEMBER
MONICA S. CAJUCOM MEMBER
DOMINIC VICTOR C. DE ALBAN MEMBER
ANNABELLA HERNANDEZ MEMBER
MA. CRISTINA MANZO-DAGUDAG MEMBER
WILLIAM RUSSELL MALANG MEMBER
CHARMAINE PANLAQUE MEMBER
OMAR DELOSO MEMBER

UST ACADEMICS COMMITTEE

 Page |2

QUESTIONS ASKED MORE THAN ONCE IN THE BAR

QuAMTO (1987-2010)

DISCLAIMER

THE RISK OF USE, MISUSE OR NON-

USE OF THIS BAR REVIEW MATERIAL
SHALL BE BORNE BY THE USER/
NON-USER.

UST ACADEMICS COMMITTEE

 Page |3

QUESTIONS ASKED MORE THAN ONCE IN THE BAR

QuAMTO (1987-2010)

GENERAL PRINCIPLES good, and thus, good faith or lack of criminal intent
in doing the prohibited act is not a defense. In
Q: What are the three cardinal features or main crimes mala in se, the acts are by nature wrong, evil
characteristics of Philippine Criminal Law? (1998, or bad, and so generally condemned. The moral trait
1988) of the offender is involved; thus, good faith or lack of
criminal intent on the part of the offender is a
A: The three main characteristics of Philippine defense, unless the crime is the result of criminal
criminal law are: negligence. Correspondingly, modifying
circumstances are considered in punishing the
a. Generality or its being binding to all persons offender.
who live or sojourn in Philippine territory subject
to certain exceptions Q: When is motive relevant to prove a case? When
is it not necessary to be established? (2006, 1999)
b. Territoriality or its having force and effect only
within Philippine territory, subject to certain A: Motive is relevant to prove a case when there is
exceptions also doubt as to the identity of the offender or when the
act committed gives rise to variant crimes and there
c. Irretrospectivity/Prospectivity or its application is the need to determine the proper crime to be
only to acts and omissions committed/incurred imputed to the offender. Proof of motive is not
after the effectivity of the law except if it favors required when the offender is positively identified or
the offender unless he is a habitual delinquent or has admitted the commission of the crime and when
the law otherwise provides the crime committed is a malum prohibitum or
where the crime is a product of culpa or criminal
Q: Hubert and Eunice were married in the negligence.
Philippines. Hubert took graduate studies in New
York and met his former girlfriend Eula. They Q: Distinguish intent from motive (2004, 1999,
renewed their friendship and finally decided to get 1996, 1988)
married. The first wife, Eunice, heard about the
marriage and secures a copy of the marriage A: Intent is the purpose for using a particular means
contract in New York. Eunice filed a case of Bigamy to achieve the desired result, and is an ingredient of
against Hubert in the Philippines. dolo or malice and thus an element of deliberate
felonies whereas motive is the moving power which
1. Will the case prosper? Explain. impels a person to act for a definite result and is not
2. If Eunice gave her consent to the second an element of a crime.
marriage, what will your answer be?
Explain. (2008) Q: The defense raised by an accused in a
prosecution for murder is that the corpus delicti is
A: not established since the body of the victim was
1. No, because Philippine courts have no not recovered, is the contention correct? (2006,
jurisdiction over a crime committed outside 2001, 2000)
of the Philippine territory. Under the
principle of territoriality, penal laws, A: No, the contention is incorrect. Corpus delicti
specifically the RPC are enforceable only does not refer to the body of the purported victim
within the bounds of our territory (Art. 2, which had not been found. Corpus delicti literally
RPC). means the body or substance of the crime or the fact
2. The answer would be the same. The that a crime has been committed. It is a compound
consent of Eunice would not confer fact made up of two things: the existence of certain
jurisdiction on Philippine courts. Bigamy is a act or result forming the basis of the criminal charge
public crime and not subject to agreement and the existence of criminal agency as the cause of
between the victim and the accused. The the act. Even without the body of the victim, the
legal obstacle to the institution of a case for offender can be convicted when the facts and
bigamy in the Philippines is jurisdictional circumstances of a crime is established.
and cannot be excused or waived by the
parties affected. Q: After due hearing on a petition for a writ of
amparo founded on the acts of enforced
Q: Distinguish between a crime mala prohibita disappearance and extralegal killing of the son of
from a crime mala in se (2005, 2003, 2001, 1999, the complainant allegedly done by the respondent
1997, 1988) military officers, the court granted the petition.
May the military officers be criminally charged in
A: In crimes mala prohibita, the acts are not by court with enforced disappearance and extralegal
nature wrong, evil or bad. They are punished only killing? Explain fully. (2008)
because there is a law prohibiting them for public

UST ACADEMICS COMMITTEE

 Page |4

QUESTIONS ASKED MORE THAN ONCE IN THE BAR

QuAMTO (1987-2010)

A: No. Enforced disappearance and extralegal killing FELONIES

is not per se a criminal offense although it is
wrongful. The grant of a writ of amparo only Q: Luis Cruz was deeply hurt when his offer of love
provides for a relief; it does not establish a basis for wsa rejected by his girlfriend Marivella one
a crime. Unless the writ was issued because of afternoon when he visited her. When he left her
specific overt acts shown to have been committed house, he walked as if he was sleepwalking so
by the respondent military officers and such acts are much so that a teenage snatcher was able to grab
crimes under penal laws, no criminal charge may be his cellphone and flee without being chased by Luis.
routinely filed just because the petition for the writ At the next LRT station, he boarded one of the
was granted. coachers bound for Baclaran. While seated, he
happened to read a newspaper left on the seat and
Q: Are human rights violations considered as crimes noticed that the headlines were about the sinking
in the Philippines? Explain. (2008) of the Super Ferry while on its way to Cebu. He
went over the list of missing passengers who were
A: Not necessarily, since there are human rights presumed dead and came across the name of his
violations which do not amount to a criminal grandfather who had raised him from childhood
offense. In this country, there can be no crime when after he was orphaned. He was shocked and his
there is no law punishing an act or omission as a mind went black for minutes, after which he ran
crime. However, if the acts constitute violations of amuck and, using his balisong, started stabbing at
customary international law, they may be the passengers who then scampered away, with
considered violations of Philippine law (Sec. 8, Art. II, three of them jumping and landing on the road
Constitution). Also, the acts may constitute elements below. All the three passengers died later of their
of offenses penalized under Philippine laws, like injuries at the hospital. Is Luis liable for the death of
kidnapping/illegal detention. the three passengers who jumped out of the
moving train? (2001, 1996, 1994, 1987)
Q: Because of the barbarity and hideousness of the
acts committed by the suspects/respondents in A: Yes, Luis is liable for their deaths because he was
cutting off their victims’ appendages, stuffing their committing a felony when he started stabbing at the
torsos, legs, body parts into oil drums and bullet- passengers and such wrongful act was the proximate
riddled vehicles and later on burying these oil cause of said passengers’ jumping out of the train;
drums, vehicles with the use of backhoes and other hence, their deaths. Under Art. 4 of the RPC, any
earth-moving machinery, the Commission on person committing a felony shall incur criminal
Human Rights (CHR) investigating team liability although the wrongful act done be different
recommended to the panel of public prosecutors from that which he intended. In this case, the death
that all respondents be charged with violation of of the three passengers was the direct, natural and
the “Heinous Crimes Law.” The prosecution panel logical consequence of Luis’ felonious act which
agreed with the CHR. As the Chief Prosecutor created an immediate sense of danger in the minds
tasked with approving the filing of the Information, of said passengers who tried to avoid or escape from
how will you pass upon the recommendation? it by jumping out of the train.
Explain. (2010) Q: What do you understand by aberratio ictus,
error in personae and praeter intentionem? (1999
A: The CHR is correct in describing the crimes 1994, 1989)
committed as “heinous crimes” as defined in the
preamble of the Heinous Crimes Law (R.A. 7659), A: Aberratio ictus or mistake in the blow occurs
despite the passage of R.A. 9346 prohibiting the when the offender delivered the blow at his
imposition of death penalty. intended victim but missed and instead such blow
landed on an unintended victim. The situation
However, the Heinous Crimes Law does not define generally brings about complex crimes where from a
crimes; it is only an amendatory law increasing the single act, two or more grave or less grave felonies
penalty for the crimes specified therein as heinous, may result, namely, the attempt against the
to a maximum of death. Thus, the heinous crimes intended victim and the consequence on the
committed shall be prosecuted under the penal law unintended victim. It is only when the resulting
they are respectively defined and penalized, such as crimes are only light that complex crimes do not
the Revised Penal Code as the case may be. The result and separate penalties may be imposed.
circumstances making the crimes heinous may be
alleged as qualifying or generic aggravating, if Error in personae or mistake in identity occurs when
proper. The crime shall be designated as defined and the offender actually hit the person to whom the
punished under the penal law violated and the blow was directed but turned out to be different
penalty shall be reclusion perpetua without the from and not the victim intended. The criminal
benefit of parole or life imprisonment without the liability of the offender is not affected unless the
benefit of parole, as the case may be, in lieu of death mistake in identity resulted to a crime different from
penalty. what the offender intended to commit, in which

UST ACADEMICS COMMITTEE

 Page |5

QUESTIONS ASKED MORE THAN ONCE IN THE BAR

QuAMTO (1987-2010)

case the lesser penalty between the crime intended 1. Delito continuado refers to a crime
and the crime committed shall be imposed but in the constituted by several overt acts committed
maximum period (Art. 49, RPC). by the offender in one place, at about the
same time, and all such overt acts violate
In praeter intentionem, the injurious result is greater one and the same provision of penal law,
than that intended by the offender. This is a thus, demonstrating that all such acts are
mitigating circumstance of lack of intent to commit the product of a single indivisible criminal
so grave a wrong when the resulting felony could not resolution. Hence, all said acts are
reasonably be anticipated or foreseen by the considered as one crime only.
offender from the act or means employed by him. 2. No. His contention is not tenable. He
committed as many counts of estafa against
Q: What is the doctrine of implied conspiracy? the 500 victims and 2000 counts of violation
(2003, 1998) of BP 22, since each swindling is achieved
through distinct fraudulent machinations
A: The doctrine of implied conspiracy holds two or contrived at different times or dates, and in
more person participating in the commission of a different amounts. Moreover, his drawing
crime collectively responsible and liable as co- separate checks payable to each payee is a
conspirators although absent any agreement to that separate criminal resolution, as they must
effect, when they act in concert, demonstrating be of different amounts and of different
unity of criminal intent and a common purpose or dates. He acted with separate fraudulent
objective. The existence of conspiracy can be intent against each swindling victim and
inferred or deduced from the manner the had distinct criminal intent in drawing and
participants in the commission of crime carried out issuing each check. It cannot be maintained
its execution and thus the act of one shall be that his acts are the product of one criminal
deemed the act of all. resolution only.

Q: Ricky was reviewing for the bar exam when the Q: What is delito continuado? Differentiate it from
commander of a vigilante group came to him and a continuing crime (2005, 1994)
showed him a list of five policemen to be liquidated
by them for graft and corruption. He was further A: Delito continuado or continued crime is
asked if any of them is innocent. After going over constituted by a series of overt acts committed by
the list, Ricky pointed to two of the policemen as the offender arising from a single criminal resolution
honest. Later, the vigilante group liquidated the which are carried out in the same place and at about
three other policemen in the list. The commander the same time andviolating one and the same penal
of the vigilante group reported the liquidation to provision. On the other hand, a continuing offense is
Ricky. Is Ricky criminally liable? Explain. (2008) one whose essential ingredients took place in more
than one municipality or city, so much so that the
A: No, there was no conspiracy between Ricky and criminal prosecution may be instituted and the place
the Commander of vigilante. Mere vouching for the tried in the competent court of any one of such
honesty of 2 policemen in the list cannot make him a municipality or city.
co-conspirator for the killing. Ricky enjoys the
presumption of innocence. Q: Distinguish between compound and complex
crimes (2004, 1999)
Q: Angelo devised a Ponzi Scheme in which 500
persons were deceived into investing their money A: Compound crimes result when the offender
upon a promise of a capital return of 25%, committed only a single felonious act from which
computed monthly, and guaranteed by post-dated two or more crimes resulted. The resulting crimes
checks. During the first two months following the are limited only to grave and/or less grave felonies.
investment, the investors received their profits, but Hence, light felonies are excluded even though the
thereafter, Angelo vanished. Angelo was charged resulting from the same single act. Complex crimes
with 500 counts of estafa and 2,000 counts of result when the offender has to commit an offense
violation of Batas Pambansa (BP) 22. In his motion as a necessary means for committing another
to quash, Angelo contends that he committed a offense.
continued crime, or delito continuado, hence, he
committed only one count of estafa and one count Q: Distinguish an ordinary complex crime from a
of violation of BP 22. (2009) special complex crime (2005, 2003, 1999)

1. What is delito continuado? A: An ordinary complex crime is made up of two or

2. Is Angelo’s contention tenable? Explain. more crimes being punished in distinct provisions of
the Revised Penal Code but alleged in one
A: information either because they were brought about
by a single felonious act or because one offense is a

UST ACADEMICS COMMITTEE

 Page |6

QUESTIONS ASKED MORE THAN ONCE IN THE BAR

QuAMTO (1987-2010)

necessary means for committing the other offense (People v. Genosa GR No. 135981, Jan. 15,
or offenses. They are alleged in one information so 2004)
that only one penalty shall be imposed. The penalty 3. Yes. Sec. 26 of R.A. 9262 provides that
for the most serious crime shall be imposed and in victim survivors who are found by the
its maximum period. courts to be suffering from battered woman
syndrome does not incur any Criminal and
In special complex crime, also known as composite civil liability notwithstanding the absence of
crime, the component crimes constitute a single any of the elements for justifying
indivisible offense and are thus penalized as one circumstances of self defense under the
crime under one Article of the Revised Penal Code. RPC.
The component crimes are not regarded as distinct
crimes and so it is the penalty specifically provided Q: Distinguish between entrapment and instigation
for the special complex crime that shall be applied. (2003, 1995)

A: In entrapment, the criminal design originates

CIRCUMSTANCES AFFECTING CRIMINAL LIABILITY from and is already in the mind of the lawbreaker
even before entrapment and that the law enforcers
Q: Distinguish between justifying and exempting resort to ways and means for the purpose of
circumstance (2004, 1998) capturing the lawbreaker in flagrante delicto. This
circumstance is then no bar to prosecution and
A: Justifying circumstance affects the act, not the conviction of the lawbreaker. In instigation, the idea
actor; while exempting circumstance affects the and design to bring about the commission of the
actor. In justifying circumstance, no criminal and crime originate and developed in the mind of the law
generally, no civil liability is incurred; while in enforcers who induce, lure or incite a person who is
exempting circumstance, civil liability is generally not minded to commit a crime and would not
incurred although there is no criminal liability. otherwise commit it, into committing the crime. This
circumstance absolves the accused from criminal
Q: Jack and Jill have been married for seven years. liability.
One night, Jack came home drunk. Finding no food
on the table, Jack started hitting Jill only to Q: Joe was 17 years old when he committed
apologize the following day. A week later, the same homicide in 2005. The crime is punishable by
episode occurred – Jack came home drunk and reclusion temporal. After two years in hiding, he
started hitting Jill. Fearing for her life, Jill left and was arrested and appropriately charged in May
stayed with her sister. To woo Jill back, Jack sent 2007. Since Republic Act 9344 (Juvenile Justice and
her floral arrangements of spotted lilies and Welfare Act of 2006) was already in effect, Joe
confectioneries. Two days later, Jill returned home moved to avail of the process of intervention or
and decided to give Jack another chance. After diversion.
several days, however, Jack again came home
drunk. The following day, he was found dead. Jill 1. What is intervention or diversion? Is Joe
was charged with parricide but raised the defense entitled to intervention or diversion?
of “battered woman syndrome.” Explain.
2. Suppose Joe’s motion for intervention or
1. Define “Battered Woman Syndrome.” diversion was denied, and he was
2. What are the three phases of the convicted two (2) years later when Joe was
“Battered Woman Syndrome”? already 21 years old, should the judge
3. Would the defense prosper despite the apply the suspension of sentence? Explain
absence of any of the elements for 3. Suppose Joe was convicted of attempted
justifying circumstances of self-defense murder with a special aggravating
under the Revised Penal Code? Explain. circumstance and was denied suspension
(2010) of sentence, would he be eligible for
probation under Presidential Decree (PD)
A: 968, considering that the death penalty is
1. Battered woman syndrome refers to a imposable for the consummated felony?
scientifically defined pattern of Explain (2009)
psychological and behavioral symptoms
found in women living in battering A:
relationships as a result of cumulative 1. Intervention refers to a series of activities
abuse (Sec. 3(d) of R.A. 9262) which are designed to address issues that
2. The three phases of BWS are: a.) tension- caused the child to commit an offense. It
building phase, b.) acute battering incident, may take the form of an individualized
and c.) tranquil, loving or non violent phase treatment program which may include
counseling, skills training, education, and

UST ACADEMICS COMMITTEE

 Page |7

QUESTIONS ASKED MORE THAN ONCE IN THE BAR

QuAMTO (1987-2010)

other activities that will enhance his/her Health (NCMH) where he was diagnosed to be
psychological, emotional and psycho-social mentally unstable. Charged with murder, Romeo
well-being. This is available to a child 15 pleaded insanity as a defense.
years old or less at the time of the
commission of the offense or although over 1. Will Romeo’s defense prosper? Explain.
15 but below 18 years old at the time of 2. What is the effect of the diagnosis of the
commission of the crime, the child acted NCMH on the case? (The diagnosis will be
without discernment. taken as a defense of insanity) (2010)

Diversion refers to an alternative, child A:

appropriate process of determining the 1. No, Romeo’s defense of insanity will not
responsibility and treatment of a child in prosper because, even assuming that
conflict with the law on the basis of his/her Romeo was insane when diagnosed after he
social, cultural, economic, psychological or committed the crime, insanity as a defense
educational background without resorting to the commission of a crime must have
to formal court proceedings. This process existed and proven to be existing at the
governs when the child is over 15 years old time precise moment when the crime was
but below 18 at the time of the commission committed. The facts of the case indicate
of the crime and he acted with that Romeo committed the crime with
discernment. Joe is entitled to diversion. discernment
Being only 17 years old at the time he 2. The effect of the diagnosis made by NCMH
committed the crime of homicide, he is sis possibly a suspension of the proceedings
treated as a child in conflict with the law against Romeo and his commitment to
under RA 9344 appropriate institution for treatment until
he could already understand the
2. No. the judge should not suspend the proceedings
sentence anymore because Joe was already
21 years old. Suspension of sentence is Q: True or False: Voluntary surrender is a
availing under R.A. 9344 only until a child mitigating circumstance in all acts and omissions
reaches the maximum age of 21 years. punishable under the Revised Penal Code. (2009)

3. Yes. He would be eligible for probation A: False. Voluntary surrender may not be
because the penalty imposable on Joe will appreciated in cases of criminal negligence under
not exceed 6 years imprisonment. Even if it Art. 365 since in such cases, the courts are
would be considered that the crime authorized to impose a penalty without considering
committed was punishable by death, the Art. 62 regarding mitigating and aggravating
penalty as far Joe is concerned can only be circumstances.
reclusion perpetua because R.A 9344
forbids the imposition of the capital PERSONS CRIMINALLY LIABLE/DEGREE OF
punishment upon the offenders PARTICIPATION
thereunder. The murder being attempted
only, the prescribed penalty is 2 degree Q: Ponciano borrowed Ruben’s gun, saying that he
lower than reclusion perpetua; hence, would use it to kill Freddie. Because Ruben also
prision mayor. Because Joe was 17 years old resented Freddie, he readily lent his gun, but told
when he committed the crime, the penalty Ponciano: "O, pagkabaril mo kay Freddie, isauli mo
of prision mayor should be lowered further kaagad, ha." Later, Ponciano killed Freddie, but
by one degree because his minority is a used a knife because he did not want Freddie’s
privileged mitigating circumstance; hence, neighbors to hear the gunshot
prision correccional or imprisonment within 1. What, if any, is the liability of Ruben?
the range of 6 months and 1 day to 6 years Explain.
is the imposable. 2. Would your answer be the same if, instead
of Freddie, it was Manuel, a relative of
Q: While his wife was on a 2-year scholarship Ruben, who was killed by Ponciano using
abroad, Romeo was having an affair with his maid Ruben’s gun? Explain. (2009)
Dulcinea. Realizing that the affair was going
nowhere, Dulcinea told Romeo that she was going A:
back to the province to marry her childhood 1. Ruben’s liability is that of an accomplice
sweetheart. Clouded by anger and jealousy, Romeo because he merely cooperated in
strangled Dulcinea to death while she was sleeping Ponciano’s determination to kill Freddie.
in the maid’s quarters. The following day, Romeo Such cooperation is not indispensable to
was found catatonic inside the maid’s quarters. He the killing, as in fact the killing was carried
was brought to the National Center for Mental out without the use of Ruben’s gun. Neither

UST ACADEMICS COMMITTEE

 Page |8

QUESTIONS ASKED MORE THAN ONCE IN THE BAR

QuAMTO (1987-2010)

may Ruben be regarded as a co-conspirator hand is a penalty prescribed by special laws, with no
since he was not a participant in the fixed duration of imprisonment and without any
decision-making of Ponciano to kill Freddie; accessory penalty.
he merely cooperated in carrying out the
criminal plan which was already in place. Q: True or False: Life imprisonment is a penalty
2. No. The answer would not be the same more favorable to the convict than reclusion
because Ruben lent his gun purposely for perpetua. (2009)
the killing of Freddie only, not only for any
other killing. Ponciano’s using Ruben’s gun A: False. Life imprisonment is unfavorable to a
in killing a person other than Freddie is convict because the penalty is without a fixed
beyond Ruben’s criminal intent and willing duration, unlike reclusion perpetua which has a fixed
involvement. Only Ponciano will answer for duration of 40 years and the convict may be eligible
the crime against Manuel. It has been ruled for pardon after 30 years of imprisonment (People v
that when the owner of the gun knew that Penillos, 205 SCRA 546)
it would be used to kill a particular person,
the owner of the gun is not an accomplice Rules on Indeterminate Sentence Law (2007, 2005,
as to the killing of another person. While 2003, 2002, 1999, 1990, 1989, 1988)
there was community of design between
Ponciano and Ruben, there was none with Q: How are the maximum and the minimum terms
respect to the killing. of the indeterminate sentence determined? (2002,
1989, 1988)
Q: Manolo revealed to his friend Domeng his desire
to kill Cece. He likewise confided to Domeng his A: For crimes punished under the Revised Penal
desire to borrow his revolver. Domeng lent it. Code, the maximum term of the Indeterminate
Manolo shot Cece in Manila with Domeng's Sentence shall be the penalty properly imposable
revolver. As his gun was used in the killing,Domeng under the same Code after the penalty properly
asked Mayor Tan to help him escape. The mayor imposable under the same Code after considering
gave Domeng P5,000.00 and told him to proceed to the attending mitigating and/or aggravating
Mindanao to hide. Domeng went to Mindanao. The circumstances. The minimum term of the same
mayor was later charged as an accessory to Cece's sentence shall be fixed within the range of the
murder. penalty next lower in degree to that prescribed for
the crime under the said Code.
1. Can he be held liable for the charge?
Explain. For crimes punished under special laws, the
2. Can he be held liable for any other indeterminate sentence shall consist of a maximum
offense? Explain fully. (2008) term which shall not exceed the maximum fixed by
the special law and a minimum term which shall not
A: be less than the minimum term prescribed by the
1. Domeng, being an accomplice and not a same.
principal to the crime of murder, the Mayor
may not be held liable as an accessory since Q: What is the purpose for fixing the maximum and
he merely assisted in the escape of an the minimum terms of the indeterminate sentence?
accomplice. Art. 19 of the RPC speak of (2002)
harboring or assisting in the escape of a
principal. The mayor can however be held A: The purpose of the law in fixing the minimum
liable as principal in the crime of maliciously term of the sentence is to set the grace period at
refraining from instituting or prosecuting an which the convict may be released on parole from
offender under Art. 208 of the RPC. imprisonment, unless by his conduct he is not
2. Yes. For obstruction of justice or violation of deserving of parole and thus he shall continue
P.D. 1829 for assisting Domeng, who was serving his prison term in jail but in no case to go
involved in the commission of a crime to beyond the maximum term fixed in the sentence.
escape from Manila to Mindanao.
Q: In a conviction for homicide, the trial court
PENALTIES appreciated two (2) mitigating circumstances and
one (1) aggravating circumstance. Homicide under
Q: What is the difference between reclusion Article 249 of the Revised Penal Code is punishable
perpetua and life imprisonment? (2001, 1994) by reclusion temporal, an imprisonment term of
twelve (12) years and one (1) day to twenty (20)
A: Reclusion perpetua is a penalty prescribed by the years. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law,
RPC with a fixed duration of imprisonment from 20 determine the appropriate penalty to be imposed.
years and 1 day to 40 years and carries it with (2009)
accessory penalties. Life imprisonment on the other

UST ACADEMICS COMMITTEE

 Page |9

QUESTIONS ASKED MORE THAN ONCE IN THE BAR

QuAMTO (1987-2010)

A: Under the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the Q: Harold was convicted of a crime defined and
minimum of the sentence shall be anywhere within penalized by a special penal law where the
the range of 6 years and 1 day to 12 years imposable penalty is from 6 months as minimum to
imprisonment while the maximum of the sentence 3 years as maximum. Can the court correctly
shall be anywhere within the range of Reclusion impose the following penalties:
Temporal minimum i.e. not lower than 12 years and a. a straight penalty of 10 months
1 day to not more than 14 years and 8 months. b. 6 months as minimum to 11 months as maximum
c. a straight penalty of 2 years (2005, 1999)
Q: When would the Indeterminate Sentence Law be
inapplicable? (2003, 1999, 1988) A:
a. The court may validly impose a straight penalty of
A: 10 months imprisonment because the penalty
a. persons convicted of offenses punished with prescribed by law is imprisonment of 6 months to 3
death penalty or life-imprisonment; years and the Indeterminate Sentence Law does not
b. to those convicted of treason, conspiracy or apply when the penalty imposed is imprisonment
proposal to commit treason; which does not exceed 1 year.
c. to those convicted of misprision of treason,
rebellion, sedition or espionage; b. a prison term of 6 months as minimum to 11
d. to those convicted of piracy; months as maximum may not be imposed by the
e. to those who are habitual delinquents; court because the indeterminate sentence law does
f. to those who have escaped from confinement or not apply when the penalty imposed as maximum of
evaded sentence; the sentence is imprisonment which does not
g. to those who having been granted conditional exceed 1 year.
pardon by the Chief Executive shall have violated the
terms thereof; c. the court may not validly impose a straight penalty
h. to those whose maximum term of imprisonment of 2 years because the Indeterminate sentence law
does not exceed one year, requires the court to set a minimum and a maximum
i. to those already sentenced by final judgment at of the sentence where the imprisonment to be
the time of approval of this Act, imposed already exceeds 1 year, unless the offender
j. those whose sentence imposes penalties which do is disqualified from the benefits of the said law.
not involve imprisonment like destierro
Q: An agonizing and protracted trial having come to
Q: Carlos was charged and convicted of murder. He a close, the judge found A guilty beyond reasonable
was sentenced to life imprisonment and to doubt of homicide and imposed on him a straight
indemnify the offended party in the amount of penalty of SIX (6) YEARS and ONE (1) DAY of prision
P30,000. He sought a reconsideration of the penalty mayor.
on the ground that he should be entitled to the The public prosecutor objected to the sentence on
benefits of the Indeterminate Sentence Law. Decide the ground that the proper penalty should have
(1990) been TWELVE (12) YEARS and ONE (1) DAY of
reclusion temporal.
A: Carlos is not entitled to avail of the Indeterminate
Sentence because Sec 2 of said law specifically The defense counsel chimed in, contending that
disqualifies and disallows application thereof to application of the Indeterminate Sentence Law
persons sentenced to life imprisonment. should lead to the imposition of a straight penalty
of SIX (6) MONTHS and ONE (1) DAY of prision
Q: While serving sentence for destierro, Macky correccional only. Who of the three is on the right
entered the prohibited area and had pot session track? Explain. (2010)
with Ivy. Is Macky entitled to an indeterminate
sentence in case he is found guilty of use of A: None of the contentions is correct because the
prohibited substances? (2007) Indeterminate Sentence Law has not been followed.
The imposition of penalty for the crime of homicide,
A: No, Macky is not entitled to the benefit of the which is penalized by imprisonment exceeding one
Indeterminate sentence law for having evaded the (1) year and is divisible, is covered by the
sentence which placed him on destierro. Sec. 2 of Indeterminate Sentence Law. The said law required
the said law expressly provides that the law shall not that the sentence in this case should reflect a
apply to those who have evade sentence. Moreover, minimum term for purposes of parole, and a
the penalty for use of any dangerous drug by a first maximum term fixing the limit of the imprisonment.
offender is rehabilitation for a minimum period of 6 Imposing a straight penalty is incorrect.
months. The Indeterminate sentence law does not
apply when the penalty is imprisonment not RULES ON PROBATION (1988, 1989, 1990, 1992,
exceeding 1 year. 1993, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005)

UST ACADEMICS COMMITTEE

 P a g e | 10

QUESTIONS ASKED MORE THAN ONCE IN THE BAR

QuAMTO (1987-2010)

Q. Who are the offenders disqualified from availing appealed both his conviction and the penalty
themselves the benefits of the probation law? imposed upon him to the Court of Appeals. The
(1988) appellate court ultimately sustained Juan’s
conviction but reduced his sentence to a maximum
A: The following offenders are disqualified from of four years and eight months imprisonment.
availing of the benefits of the Probation Law: Could Juan forthwith file and application for
probation? (2003, 2001, 1992)
a. those sentenced to serve a maximum term of
imprisonment of more than 6 years A: No, Juan can no longer avail of the probation
b. those convicted of subversion or any crime because he appealed from the judgment of
against national security or public order conviction of the trial court, and therefore, cannot
c. those who have previously been convicted by apply for probation anymore. Section 4 of the
final judgment of an offense punished by Probation Law, as amended, mandates that no
imprisonment of not less than one month and one application for probation shall be entertained or
day and/ or a fine of not less than P200 granted if the accused has perfected an appeal from
d. those who have been once on probation under the judgment of conviction.
the provisions of the decree
e. those who are already serving sentence at the Q: A was charged with theft and upon arraignment,
time the substantive provisions of this decree pleaded guilty to the charge. He was detained for
applicable pursuant to Sec 33 of PD 968. failure to post bail. After 2 months, a decision was
rendered, sentencing A to an indeterminate
Q: Matt was found guilty of drug trafficking while sentence of 6 months and 1 day as minimum to 1
his younger brother Jeff was found guilty of year and 1 month as maximum and to pay the
possession of equipment, instrument, apparatus offended party the amount of P700. On January 16,
and other paraphernalia for dangerous drugs under 1985, the very day the sentence was read to A, the
Section 12 of Republic Act No. 9165. Matt filed a Judge issued a Commitment Order addressed to the
petition for probation. Jeff appealed his conviction Provincial Jail Warden. On January 28, 1985, A
during the pendency of which he also filed a applied for probation but his application was
petition for probation. The brothers’ counsel denied on the ground that the sentence of
argued that they being first time offenders, their conviction became final and executory on January
petitions for probation should be granted. How 16, 1985, when A commenced to serve his
would you resolve the brothers’ petitions for sentence. Is A eligible for probation? (1989, 1993)
probation? Explain. (2010)
A: A is still eligible for probation since he filed his
A: The brother’s petition for probation should both application for probation within 15 days from the
be denied. Matt’s petition for probation shall be promulgation of the judgment. Under the Probation
denied because he was convicted for drug law, the accused may apply for probation within the
trafficking. Sec. 24 of R.A. 9165 expressly provides period for perfecting an appeal which is 15 days
that Any person convicted for drug trafficking or from promulgation or notice thereof. The probation
pushing regardless of the penalty imposed by the law does not speak of filing an application for
court, cannot avail of the privilege granted by the probation before judgment has become final. It only
Probation Law. On the other hand, Jeff’s application speaks of filing the application within the period for
for probation cannot also be entertained or granted perfecting an appeal. There is nothing in the
because he has already appealed his conviction by probation law which bars an accused who has
the trial court. commenced to serve his sentence from filing an
application for probation provided he does so within
Q: PX was convicted and sentenced to the period for perfecting an appeal.
imprisonment of thirty days and a fine of one
hundred pesos. Previously, PX was convicted of Q: May a probationer appeal from the decision
another crime for which the penalty imposed on revoking the grant of probation or modifying the
him was thirty days only. Is PX entitled to terms and conditions thereof? (2002)
probation? (2004, 2002, 1990)
A: No. Under Sec. 4 of the Probation Law, as
A: Yes, PX may apply for probation since the penalty amended, an order granting or denying probation is
imposed on him does not exceed 6 years. The not appealable.
previous conviction for another crime does not
disqualify him since the penalty for his previous Q: a.) Maganda was charged with violation of BP 22
conviction did not exceed 1 month. punishable by imprisonment of not less than 30
days but not more than 1 year or a fine shall not
Q: Juan was convicted by the Regional Trial Court of exceed P200,000 or both. The court convicted her
a crime and sentenced to suffer the penalty of of the crime and sentenced her to pay a fine of
imprisonment for a minimum of eight years. He P50,000 with subsidiary imprisonment in case of

UST ACADEMICS COMMITTEE

 P a g e | 11

QUESTIONS ASKED MORE THAN ONCE IN THE BAR

QuAMTO (1987-2010)

insolvency and to pay the private complainant the from jail. Captured, he was charged with, and
amount of the check. Maganda was unable to pay convicted of, Evasion of Service of Sentence.
the fine but filed a petition for probation. The court Thereafter, the President of the Philippines issued
granted the petition subject to the condition, an amnesty proclamation for the offense of
among others, that she should not change her Rebellion. Antero applied for and was granted the
residence without the court’s prior approval. What benefit of the amnesty proclamation. Antero then
is the proper period of probation? (2005) filed a petition for habeas corpus, praying for his
immediate release from confinement. He claims
A: The period of probation shall not be less than the that the amnesty extends to the offense of Evasion
total number of days of subsidiary imprisonment or of Service of Sentence. As judge, will you grant the
more than twice said number of days as computed petition? Discuss fully. (2009)
at the rate established under the RPC.
A: Yes, I will grant the petition because the sentence
b.) Supposing before the Order of Discharge was that was evaded proceeded from the crime of
issued by the court but after the lapse of the period Rebellion which has been obliterated by the grant of
of probation, Maganda transferred residence amnesty to the offender. Since the amnesty erased
without prior approval of the court. May the court the criminal complexion of the act committed by the
revoke the Order of Probation and order her to offender as a crime of rebellion and rendered such
serve the subsidiary imprisonment? act as though innocent, the sentence lost its legal
basis. The purported evasion thereof cannot
A: Yes, the court may revoke the Order of Probation therefore subsist (People v. Patriarca, 341 SCRA
and order the convicted accused to serve the 464). Amnesty obliterates, not only the basis of
subsidiary imprisonment, because she violated the conviction but also all the legal effects thereof.
condition of her probation before the Order of
Discharge was issued by the court. The conditions of CRIMES AGAINST NATIONAL SECURITY
probation are not co-terminous with the period of
probation; such conditions continue even after the Q: Because peace negotiations on the Spratlys
probation had ended and thus requires faithful situation had failed, the People’s Republic of China
compliance or fulfillment, for as long as the court declared war against the Philippines. Myra, a
which placed the convict on probation has not issued Filipina who lives with her Italian expatriate
the Order of Discharge that would release her from boyfriend, discovered e-mail correspondence
probation (Bala v. Martinez, 181 SCRA 459) between him and a certain General Tung Kat Su of
China. On March 12, 2010, Myra discovered that on
MODIFICATION AND EXTINCTION OF CRIMINAL even date her boyfriend had sent an e-mail to
LIABILITY General Tung Kat Su, in which he agreed to provide
vital information on the military defense of the
Q: OW is a private person engaged in cattle Philippines to the Chinese government in exchange
ranching. One night, he saw AM stab CV for P1 million and his safe return to Italy. Two
treacherously, then throw the dead man’s body weeks later, Myra decided to report the matter to
into ravine. For 25 years, CV’s body was never seen the proper authorities. Did Myra commit a crime?
nor found; and OW told no one what he had Explain. (2010)
witnessed. Yesterday after consulting the parish
priest, OW decided to tell the authorities what he A: Yes, Myra committed the crime of Misprision of
had witnessed, and revealed that AM had killed CV treason under Art. 116 of RPC for failing to report or
25 years ago. Can AM be prosecuted for murder make known as soon as possible to the governor or
despite the lapse of 25 years? (2004, 2000) provincial fiscal or to the mayor or fiscal of the city
where she resides, the conspiracy between her
A: Yes, AM can be prosecuted for murder despite Italian boyfriend and the Chinese General to commit
the lapse of 25 years, because the crime has not yet treason against the Philippine Government in time of
prescribed and legally, its prescriptive period has not war. She decided to report the matter to the proper
even commenced to run. The period of a crime shall authorities only after two weeks.
commence to run only from the day on which the
crime shall commence to run only from the day on Q: The inter-island vessel M/V Viva Lines I, while
which the crime has been discovered by the cruising off Batanes, was forced to seek shelter at
offended party, the authorities or their agents (Art. the harbor of Kaoshiung, Taiwan because of a
91, RPC). OW, a private citizen who saw the killing strong typhoon. While anchored in said harbor,
but never disclosed it is not the offended party nor Max, Baldo and Bogart arrived in a speedboat, fired
has the crime been discovered by the authorities or a bazooka at the bow of the vessel, boarded it and
their agents. divested the passengers of their money and
jewelry. A passenger of M/V Viva Lines I, Dodong
Q: Antero Makabayan was convicted of the crime took advantage of the confusion to settle an old
of Rebellion. While serving sentence, he escaped grudge with another passenger, and killed him.

UST ACADEMICS COMMITTEE

 P a g e | 12

QUESTIONS ASKED MORE THAN ONCE IN THE BAR

QuAMTO (1987-2010)

After their apprehension, all four were charged duty by the offended party acting as a
with qualified piracy before a Philippine court. practicing lawyer. Lawyers are considered
1. Was the charge of qualified piracy against persons in authority by virtue of BP 873,
the three person ( Max, Badong and Bogart which states that lawyers in the actual
) who boarded the inter-island vessel performance of their professional duties or
correct? Explain. on the occasion of such performance shall
2. Was Dodong correctly charged before the be deemed persons in authority. But the
Philippine court for qualified piracy? crime having been committed 10 years ago,
Explain. (2008) may have already prescribed because it is
punishable by a correctional penalty.
A:
1. Yes, they boarded and fired upon the ship, Q: A teacher at Mapa High School, having gotten
and divested the passengers of their money mad at X, one of his pupils, because of the latter's
and jewelry. As long as murder or homicide throwing paper clips at his classmates, twisted his
is committed as a result or on occasion of right ear. X went out of the classroom crying and
piracy, the special complex crime of proceeded home located at the back of the school.
qualified piracy is committed. He reported to his parents Y and z what A had done
2. Dodong was correctly charged before to him. Y and Z immediately proceeded to the
Philippine court, though it should be for school building and because they were running and
murder or homicide because he did not act talking in loud voices, they were seen by the
in conspiracy or in concert with the pirates, barangay chairman, B, who followed them as he
Under the territorial principle of jurisdiction suspected that an untoward incident might happen.
in International Law, the Philippine court Upon seeing A inside the classroom, X pointed him
will have jurisdiction over the offense of out to his father, Y, who administered a fist blow
murder or homicide because it was on A, causing him to fall down. When Y was about
committed by Dodong on a vessel of to kick A, B rushed towards Y and pinned both of
Philippine registry, and the crime is also the latter's arms. Seeing his father being held by B,
cognizable by the courts of Kaoshing X went near and punched B on the face, which
Taiwan. cause him to lose his grip on Y. Throughout this
incident, Z shouted words of encouragement at Y,
CRIMES AGAINST PUBLIC ORDER her husband, and also threatened to slap A. Some
security guards arrived, intervened and sorrounded
Q: Rigoberto gate-crashed the 71st birthday party X, Y, and Z so that they could be investigated in the
of Judge Lorenzo. Armed with a piece of wood principal's office. Before leaving, Z passed near A
commonly known as dos por dos, Rigoberto hit and threw a small flower pot at him but it was
Judge Lorenzo on the back, causing the latter’s deflected by B. What if any, are the respective
hospitalization for 30 days. Upon investigation, it criminal liability of X. Y. and Z? Would your answer
appeared that Rigoberto had a grudge against be the same if B were a barangay tanod only?
Judge Lorenzo who, two years earlier, had cited (2001,2002, 1993)
Rigoberto in contempt and ordered his
imprisonment for three (3) days. A: X is liable for Direct Assault only, assuming the
physical injuries inflicted on B, the Brangay Chairman
1. Is Rigoberto guilty of Direct Assault? Why to be only slight and hence, would be absorbed in
or Why not? the direct assault. A Barangay Chairman is a person
2. Would your answer be the same if the in authority and in this case was performing his duty
reason for the attack was that when Judge to maintaining peace and order when attacked.
Lorenzo was still a practicing lawyer ten
years ago, he prosecuted Rigoberto and Y is liable for the complex crime of Direct Assault
succeeded in sending him to jail for one with Less serious Physical Injuries for the fist blow on
year? Explain your answer. (2009) A, the teacher, which caused the latter to fall down.
For purposes of the crimes in Art. 148 and 151 of the
A: RPC, a teacher is considered a person in authority
1. No. Regoberto is not guilty of direct assault and having been attacked by Y by reason of his
because Judge Lorenzo has ceased to be a performance of official duty, direct assault is
judge when he was attacked. He has retired committed with the resulting less serious physical
from his position as a person in authority injuries complexed.
when he was attacked. Hence, the attack on
him cannot be regarded as against a person Z, the mother of X may only be liable as an
in authority anymore. accomplice to the complex crimes of direct assault
2. Yes. Rigoberto is guilty of Direct Assault with less serious physical injuries committed by Y.
because the employment of violence was Her participation should not be considered as that of
by reason of an actual performance of a a co-principal, since her reactions wre only incited by

UST ACADEMICS COMMITTEE

 P a g e | 13

QUESTIONS ASKED MORE THAN ONCE IN THE BAR

QuAMTO (1987-2010)

her relationship to X and Y as the mother of X and making the false order and forging the judge’s
the wife of Y. signature thereon, to enable the prisoners to get out
of jail, d.) Evasion of service of sentence as a co-
If B were a Branagay Tanod only, the act of X of principal of Vincent by indispensable cooperation for
laying a hand on him, being an agent of a person in making the false order that enabled Vincent to
authority only would constitute the crime of evade service of his sentence.
Resistance and Disobedience since X, a high school
pupil, could not be considered as having acted out of Edwin committed the crimes of Infidelity in the
contempt for authority but more of helping his Custody of Prisoners specifically conniving with or
father get free from the grip of B. Laying hand on consenting to Evasion for leaving unguarded the
anagent of a person in authority is not ipso facto prisoners escorted by him and provide them an
direct assault, while it would always be direct assault opportunity to escape, and Direct Bribery for
if done to a person in authority in defiance to the receiving the P50,000 as consideration for leaving
latter's exercise of authority. the prisoners unguarded and allowing then the
opportunity to escape.
Q: To secure the release of his brother Willy, a
detention prisoner, and his cousin Vincent, who is The jail warden did not commit a crime there being
serving sentence for homicide, Chito asked the RTC no showing that he was aware of what his
Branch Clerk of Court to issue an Order which subordinates had done not of any negligence on his
would allow the two prisoners to be brought out of part that would amount to infidelity in the custody
jail. At first, the Clerk refused, but when Chito gave of prisoners.
her P50,000.00, she consented. She then prepared
an Order requiring the appearance in court of Willy CRIMES AGAINST PUBLIC INTEREST
and Vincent, ostensibly as witnesses in a pending
case. She forged the judge’s signature, and Q: Define Money Laundering. What are the three
delivered the Order to the jail warden who, in turn, (3) stages in money laundering? (2010)
allowed Willy and Vincent to go out of jail in the
company of an armed escort, Edwin. Chito also A: Money laundering is the process by which a
gave Edwin P50,000.00 to leave the two inmates person conceals the existence of unlawfully obtained
unguarded for three minutes and provide them money and makes it appear to have originated from
with an opportunity to escape. Thus, Willy and lawful sources. The intention behind such a
Vincent were able to escape. What crime or crimes, transaction is to hide the beneficial owner of said
if any, had been committed by Chito, Willy, funds and allows criminal organizations or criminals
Vincent, the Branch Clerk of Court, Edwin, and the to enjoy the proceeds of such criminal activities.
jail warden? Explain your answer. (2009)
The three stages in money laundering are:
A: Chito committed the crimes of Delivery of a. placement/infusion or the physical disposal of
Prisoners from Jail for working out the escape of the criminal proceeds
prisoners Willy and Vincent. He is also liable for two b. layering or the separation of the criminal
counts of Corruption of Public Officials and proceeds from their source by creating layers of
Falsification of Public Documents as a principal by financial transactions to disguise such proceeds as
inducement. legitimate and to avoid the audit of trail
c. integration or the provision of apparent
Willy committed the crime of Delivery of Prisoners legitimacy to the criminal proceeds
from Jail as a principal by indispensable cooperation
of he was aware of the criminal plan of Chito to have Q: There being probable cause to believe that
them escape pursuant to such criminal plan; certain deposits and investments in a bank are
otherwise he would not be liable for said crime of he related to an unlawful activity of smuggling by
escaped pursuant to human instinct only. Alessandro as defined under Republic Act (RA) No.
9160, as amended (Anti-Money Laundering Act) an
Vincent, being a prisoner serving sentence by final application for an order to inquiry into his deposit
judgment, committed the crime of Evasion of Service was filed with the Regional Trial Court. After
of Sentence for escaping during the term of his hearing the application, the court granted the
imprisonment. application and issued a freeze order. Pass upon
the correctness of the court’s order. Explain. (2010)
The Branch Clerk of Court committed the crimes of
a.) Direct Bribery for accepting the P50,000 in A: The freeze order issued by the RTC is not correct
consideration of the Order she issued to enable the because jurisdiction to issue said freeze order is now
prisoners to get out of jail, b.) Falsification of Public vested with the Court of Appeals. The Regional Trial
Document for forging the judge’s signature of said Court is without jurisdiction to issue a freeze order
order, c.) Delivery of Prisoners from Jail as a co- of the money involved.
principal of Chito by indispensable cooperation for

UST ACADEMICS COMMITTEE

 P a g e | 14

QUESTIONS ASKED MORE THAN ONCE IN THE BAR

QuAMTO (1987-2010)

Q: Al Chua, a Chinese national, filed a petition reasonable doubt. Hence, Tommy would be
under oath for naturalization, with the Regional acquitted on reasonable doubt.
Trial Court of Manila. In his petition, he stated that
he is married to Leni Chua; that he is living with her CRIMES COMMITTED BY PUBLIC OFFICERS
in Sampaloc Manila; that he is of good moral
character; and that he has conducted himself in an Q: Malversation (2006, 2005, 2001, 1999, 1990,
irreproachable manner during his stay in the 1987)
Philippines. However, at the time of the filing of the
petition, Leni Chua was already living in Cebu, while 1. A Municipal Treasurer, accountable for public
Al was living with Babes Toh in Manila, with whom funds or property, encashed with public funds
he has an amorous relationship. After his direct private checks drawn in favor of his wife. The
testimony, Al Chua withdrew his petition for checks bounced, the drawer not having enough
naturalization. Is he liable for perjury? (2005, 1997, cash in the drawee bank. The municipal treasurer,
1996, 1991, 1987) in encashing private checks from public funds
violated regulations of his office. Notwithstanding
A: Yes. The crime of perjury is committed by Al Chua restitution of the amount of the checks, can the
when he stated under oath that he was living with municipal treasurer nevertheless be criminally
Leni Chua in Sampaloc when in fact he was living liable? What crime did he commit?
with his mistress, and Leni Chua was already living in
Cebu at the time of the filing of the petition. It is a A: He is liable for malversation. Malversation is
false allegation under oath, on a material matter committed by a public officer who, by reason of his
required by law in naturalization cases. duties of his office, is accountable of public funds or
property, shall take, misappropriate, or shall
CRIMES RELATIVE TO OPIUM AND OTHER consent, or through abandonment or negligence,
PROHIBITED DRUGS shall permit any other person to take such public
funds or property. Notwithstanding the restitution of
Q: Following his arrest after a valid buy-bust the amount of the check, the municipal treasurer
operation, Tommy was convicted of violation of will be criminally liable as restitution does not
Section 5, Republic Act 9165. On appeal, Tommy negate criminal liability although it may be
questioned the admissibility of the evidence considered as a mitigating circumstance analogous
because the police officers who conducted the buy- to voluntary surrender. However, if the restitution
bust operation failed to observe the requisite was made immediately, under vehement protest
"chain of custody" of the evidence confiscated against an imputation of malversation, and without
and/or seized from him. What is the "chain of leaving the office, he may not be criminally liable.
custody" requirement in drug offenses? What is its
rationale? What is the effect of failure to observe 2. Alex Reyes, together with Jose Santos, were
the requirement? (2009) former warehousemen of the Rustan Department
Store. In 1986, the PCGG sequestered the assets,
A: Chain of custody requirement in drug offenses fund and properties of the owners-incorporators of
refers to the duly recorded, authorized movement the store, alleging that they constitute ill gotten
and custody of seized dangerous drugs, controlled wealth of the Marcos family. Upon their
chemicals, plant sources of dangerous drugs, and application, Reyes and Santos were appointed as
laboratory equipment for dangerous drugs from the fiscal agents of the sequestered building and its
time of confiscation/seizure thereof from the contents, including various vehicles used in the
offender, to its turn-over and receipt in the forensic firm’s operations. After a few months, an inventory
laboratory for examination, to its safekeeping and was conducted and it was discovered that 2
eventual presentation/ offer in court as evidence of delivery vans were missing. After demand was
the criminal violation, and for destruction. made upon them, Reyes and Santos failed ot give
any satisfactory explanation why the cans were
Its rationale is to preserve the authenticity of the missing or to turn them over to the PCGG; hence,
corpus delicti or body of the crime by rendering it they were charged with malversation of public
improbable that the original item seized/confiscated property. During the trial, the two acused claimed
in the violation has been exchanged or substituted that they are not public accountable officers and if
with another or tampered with or contaminated. It is any crime was committed, it should be estafa.
a method of authenticating the evidence as would What is the proper offense committed?
support a finding beyond reasonable doubt that the
matter is what the prosecution claims it to be. A: The proper offense if malversation of public
property not estafa considering that Reyes and
Failure to observe the chain of custody requirement Santos, upon their application, were constituted as
renders the evidence questionable, not trustworthy fiscal agents of the sequestered firm and were given
and insufficient to prove the corpus delicti beyond custody and possession of the sequestered
properties including the delivery cans which later

UST ACADEMICS COMMITTEE

 P a g e | 15

QUESTIONS ASKED MORE THAN ONCE IN THE BAR

QuAMTO (1987-2010)

they could not account for. They were thus made the transaction between the government and any other
depositary and administrator of properties party, wherein the public officer in his official
deposited by public authority and hence, by the capacity has to intervene under the law”] also be
duties of their office/ position, they are accountable simultaneously or successively charged with direct
for such properties. Such properties, having been bribery under Article 210 of the Revised Penal
sequestered by the government through the PCGG, Code? Explain. (2010)
are in custodial egis and therefore impressed with
the character of public property, even though the A: Yes, a public officer charged under Sec. 3 (b) of
properties belong to a private individual. The failure R.A. 3019 may also be charged simultaneously or
of Reyes and Santos to give any satisfactory successively for the crime of direct bribery under
explanation why the vans were missing, is prima Art. 210 of RPC because the two crimes are
facie evidence that they had put the same to their essentially different and are penalized under distinct
personal use. philosophies. Whereas violation of Sec. 3(b) of R.A.
3019 is a malum prohibitum, the crime under Art.
Q: Eliseo, the deputy sheriff, conducted the 210 of RPC is a malum in se. In Merencillo vs. People
execution sale of the property of Andres to satisfy G.R. Nos. 142369-70, the Court ruled that the
the judgment against him in favor of ABC violation of Section 3(b) of RA 3019 is neither
Corporation, a government-owned or controlled identical nor necessarily inclusive of direct bribery.
corporation with an original charter. However, the While they have common elements, not all the
representative of the corporation failed to attend essential elements of one offense are included
the auction sale. Gonzalo , the winning bidder, among or form part of those enumerated in the
purchased property for P100,000 which he paid to other. Whereas the mere request or demand of a
Eliseo. Instead of remitting the amount to the Clerk gift, present, share, percentage or benefit is enough
of Court as ex-officio Provincial Sheriff, Eliseo lent to constitute a violation of Section 3(b) of RA 3019,
the amount to Myrna, his officemate, who acceptance of a promise or offer or receipt of a gift
promised to repay the amount within two months, or present is required in direct bribery. Moreover,
with interest thereon. However, Myrna reneged on the ambit of Section 3(b) of RA 3019 is specific. It is
her promise. Despite demands of ABC Corporation, limited only to contracts or transactions involving
Eliseo failed to remit the said amount. monetary consideration where the public officer has
the authority to intervene under the law. Direct
1. State with reasons, the crime or crimes, if bribery, on the other hand, has a wider and more
any, committed by Eliseo. general scope: (a) performance of an act constituting
2. Would your answer to the first question be a crime; (b) execution of an unjust act which does
the same if ABC Corporattion were a not constitute a crime and (c) agreeing to refrain or
private corporation? Explain. (2008) refraining from doing an act which is his official duty
to do.
A:
1. Eliseo committed Malversation for allowing Q: Charina, Clerk of Court of an RTC Branch,
Myrna to misappropriate the money for promised the plaintiff in a case pending before the
which he, as sheriff, is accountable. In this court that she would convince the Presiding Judge
case, the act of Eliseo of lending the to decide the case in plaintiff’s favor. In
amount to his officemate is tantamount to consideration therefor, the plaintiff gave Charina
permitting any other person to take the P20,000.00. Charina was charged with violation of
public funds, considering that the P100,000 Section 3 (b) of Republic Act No. 3019, prohibiting
involved is a public funds, it should be any public officer from directly or indirectly
turned over to the Office of the Clerk of requesting or receiving any gift, present,
Court. percentage, or benefit in connection with any
2. The answer would be the same since even if contract or transaction x x x wherein the public
ABC is a private corporation, Eliseo is still officer, in his official capacity, has to intervene
accountable for it, and the same should be under the law.
delivered to the Court. The property was in
custodia legis, and although not strictly While the case was being tried, the Ombudsman
public property, it has become impressed filed another information against Charina for
with the character of public property when Indirect Bribery under the Revised Penal Code.
Eliseo, in his official capacity, conducted the Charina demurred to the second information,
execution sale and received its proceeds. claiming that she can no longer be charged under
the Revised Penal Code having been charged for the
Q: May a public officer charged under Section 3(b) same act under R.A. 3019. Is Charina correct?
of Republic Act No. 3019 [“directly or indirectly Explain. (2009)
requesting or receiving any gift, present, share,
percentage or benefit, for himself or for any other A: No. Charina is not correct. Although the charge
person, in connection with any contract or for violation of R.A. 3019 and the charge for Indirect

UST ACADEMICS COMMITTEE

 P a g e | 16

QUESTIONS ASKED MORE THAN ONCE IN THE BAR

QuAMTO (1987-2010)

Bribery arose from the same act, the elements of the Manila which could have saved him did not arrive
violation charged under R.A. 3019 are not the same on time. What crime/s was committed by Rodolfo?
as the felony charged for indirect bribery under the
RPC (Mejia v. Pamaran, 160 SCRA 457). Hence, the A: Rodolfo committed murder regarding the killing
crimes charged are separate and distinct from each of Pedro since Pedro was attacked from behind. The
other, with different penalties. The two charges do killing was attended by the qualifying circumstance
not constitute a ground for a motion to dismiss or of treachery. The mode of attack deprived Pedro of
motion to quash, as there is no jeopardy against the any chance to defend himself or to retaliate. Rodolfo
accused. is also liable for homicide regarding the killing of
Carling, Pedro’s son, as that is the result of a fight,
CRIMES AGAINST PERSONS both of them being armed with bolos.

Q: Murder (2007, 2005, 2004, 2001, 1999, 1996, 3. Fidel and Fred harbored a long standing grudge
1987) against Jorge who refused to marry their sister
Lorna, after the latter got pregnant by Jorge. After
1. Define murder. What are the elements of the weeks of surveillance, they finally cornered Jorge in
crime? Ermita, Manila when the latter was walking home
late at night. Fidel and Fred forcibly brought Jorge
A: Murder is the unlawful killing of a person which to Zambales where they kept him hogtied in a small
otherwise would constitute only homicide, had it not nipa house located in the middle of a rice field. Two
been attended attended by any of the following days later, they killed Jorge and dumped his body
circumstances: into the river. What crime/s did Fidel and Fred
commit?
a.) with treachery, or taking advantage of superior
strength, or with the aid of armed men, or A: Fidel and Fred committed the crime of murder,
employing means to weaken the defense or of the killing being qualified by evident premeditation.
means of persons to insure or afford impunity This is due to the long standing grudge entertained
b.) in consideration of a price, reward or promise by the two accused occasioned by the victim’s
c.) by means or on the occasion of inundation, fire, refusal to marry their sister after impregnating her.
poison, explosion, shipwreck, stranding of a vessel, In People v. Alfeche, 219 SCRA 85, the intention of
derailment or assault upon a railroad, fall of an the accused is determinative of the crime
airship, or by means of motor vehicles, or with the committed. Where the intention is to kill the victim
aid of any other means involving great waste and and the latter is forcibly taken to another place and
ruin later killed, it is murder. There is no indication that
d.) on occasion of an earthquake, eruption of a the offenders intended to deprive the victim of his
volcano, destructive cyclone, epidemic or other liberty. Whereas, if the victim is kidnapped, and
public calamity taken to another situs and killed as an afterthought,
e.) with evident premeditation it is kidnapping with homicide.
f.) with cruelty, by deliberately and inhumanly
augmenting the suffering of the victim, or outraging 4. Mang Jose, a septuagenarian, was walking with is
or scoffing at his person or corpse ten year old grandson along Paseo de Roxas and
decided to cross at the intersection of Makati
The elements of murder are: Avenue but both were hit by a speeding CRV
1.) That a person was unlawfully killed; Hondavan and were sent sprawling on the
2.) That such killing was attended by any of the pavement, a meter apart. The driver, a Chinese
above mentioned circumstances; mestizo, stopped his car after hitting the two
3.) That the killing is not parricide nor infanticide; victims but then reversed his gears and ran over
4.) That the accused killed the victim. Mang Jose’s prostrate body anew and third time by
advancing his car forward. Mang Jose suffered
2. Juan had a land dispute with Pedro for a number multiple fractures and broken ribs, causing his
of years. As Juan was coming down to his house, he instant death. The driver was arrested and charged
saw his brother, Rodolfo attack Pedro with a bolo with murder for the death of Mang Jose. Is the
from behind. Rodolfo was about to hit Pedro a charge correct?
second time while the latter was prostrate on the
ground, when Carling, Pedro’s son, shouted, “I’ll kill A: Yes, the charge is correct. For deliberately
you” This distracted Rodolfo, who turned to running over Mang Jose’s prostrate body after
Carling. Rodolfo and Carling fought with their bolos. having bumped him and his grandson, the driver
Carling suffered a number of wounds and died on indeed committed murder qualified by treachery.
the spot. Pedro who was in serious condition was Said driver’s deliberate intent to kill Mang Jose was
rushed to the hospital. He died five days later for demonstrated by his running over the latter’s body
loss of blood because the blood purchased from twice, by backing up the van and driving it forward,

UST ACADEMICS COMMITTEE

 P a g e | 17

QUESTIONS ASKED MORE THAN ONCE IN THE BAR

QuAMTO (1987-2010)

whereas the victim was helpless and not in a was on and that the bedroom window was open.
position to defend himself or to retaliate. Approaching the front door, he was surprised to
hear sighs and giggles inside the bedroom. He
Q: Roger, the leader of a crime syndicate in Malate, opened the door carefully and peeped inside where
Manila, demanded the payment by Antonio, the he saw his wife B having sexual intercourse with
owner of a motel in that area, of P10,000 a month their neighbor C. A rushed inside and grabbed C but
as "protection money". With the monthly payment, the latter managed to wrest himself free and
Roger assured, the syndicate would provide jumped out of the window. A followed suit and
protection to Antonio, his business, and his managed to catch C again and after a furious
employees. Should Antonio refuse, Roger warned, struggle, managed also to strangle him to death. A
the motel owner would either be killed or his then rushed back to his bedroom where his wife B
establishment destroyed. Antonio refused to pay was cowering under the bed covers. Still enraged, A
the protection money. Days later, at round 3:00 in hit B with fist blows and rendered her unconscious.
the morning, Mauro, a member of the criminal The police arrived after being summoned by their
syndicate, arrived at Antonio's home and hurled a neighbors and arrested A who was detained,
grenade inti an open window of the bedroom inquested and charged for the death of C and
where Antonio, his wife and their three year-old serious physical injuries of B. Is A liable for the
daughter were sleeping. All three of them were death of C? Why? Is A liable for B’s injuries? (2007,
killed instantly when the grenade exploded. State, 2005, 2001, 1991)
with reason, the crime or crimes that had been
committed as well as the aggravating A: Yes, A is liable for C’s death but under the
circumstances, if any, attendant thereto. (2008) exceptional circumstances in Art. 247 of the RPC
where only destierro is prescribed. Art. 247 governs
A: By demanding protection money under threat and since A surprised his wife B in the act of having
intimidation that the businessman would be killed or sexual intercourse with C, and the killing of C was
his establishment destroyed if he would refuse to “immediately thereafter” as the discovery, escape,
pay the protection money, the crime of grave threats pursuit and killing of C form one continuous act.
is committed by Roger, the leader of the crime Likewise, A is liable for serious physical injuries he
syndicate. inflicted on his wife B but under the same
exceptional circumstances in Art. 247 of RPC.
Roger and Mauro conspired to commit the crime of
murder qualified by treachery, with the use of Q: The conduct of wife A aroused the ire of her
means involving great waste and ruin. In this case, husband B. Incensed with anger almost beyond his
Mauro is liable as a principal by direct participation control, B could not help but inflict physical injuries
by using a grenade and hurled into an open window on A. Moments after B started hitting A with his
of the victim’s bedroom. Killing the victims while fists, A suddenly complained of severe chest pains.
they were sleeping and in no position to defend B, realizing that A was indeed in serious trouble,
themselves is a treacherous act (People v. Aguilar, 88 immediately brought her to the hospital. Despite
Phil 693) efforts to alleviate A's pains, she died of heart
attack. It turned out that she had been suffering
The aggravating circumstances includes Sec. 3 of R.A. from a lingering heart ailment. What crime, if any,
8294 which provides that when a person commits could B be held guilty of? (2003, 1999, 1996, 1994)
any of the crime under RPC or special laws with the
use of explosive and like incendiary devices which A: B could be held liable for parricide because his act
resulted in the death of any person. Likewise is of hitting his wife with fist blows and therewith
Art.23 of R.A. 7659 as organized/syndicated crime inflicting physical injuries on her, is felonious. A
group. It also includes dwelling because the killings person committing a felonious act incurs criminal
were committed in the home of the victims who had liability although the wrongful consequence is
not given any provocation, nocturnity, considering different from what he intended. Although A died of
that the offenders carried out the killing at around heart attack, the said attack was generated by B's
3:00AM, indicative of a deliberate choice of felonious act of hitting her with is fists. Even though
nighttime for the commission of the crime, and B may have acted without intent to kill his wife, lack
treachery considering that the victims were asleep of such intent is of no moment when the victim dies.
when killed. However, B may be given the mitigating
circumstance if having acted without intention to
Q: A and B are husband and wife. A is employed as commit so grave a wrong as that committed.
a security guard at Landmark, his shift being from
11:00 p.m.to 7:00 a.m. One night, he felt sick and Note: When the husband strikes his pregnant wife, he
cold, hence, he decided to go home around commits the crime of maltreatment. Consequently, if the
midnight after getting permission from his duty pregnant wife together with the unborn baby dies, the
husband is liable for parricide with unintentional abortion
officer. Upon reaching the front yard of his home,
there being no intention to cause the abortion of his wife.
he noticed that the light in the master bedroom

UST ACADEMICS COMMITTEE

 P a g e | 18

QUESTIONS ASKED MORE THAN ONCE IN THE BAR

QuAMTO (1987-2010)

Inasmuch as the single act of striking the pregnant wife

produced 2 grave or less grave felonies, it falls under Art. Q: AJ, a medical student, was in a border in the
48 of RPC (complex crime) house of Mr. and Mrs. M who had a good-looking
25 year old retarded daughter with the mental age
On the other hand, if it is a child which was killed, he/she of an 11 year old girl. One day, when the couple
must be at least 3 years old to be liable for parricide. If
were out, Perlita, the retarded daughter, entered
he/she is less than 3 years old, parricide is not committed,
AJ's room, came near him and started kissing him.
instead, it is infanticide.
He tried to avoid her, but she persisted. They had
Q: Francis and Joan were sweethearts, but their sexual intercourse. This was repeated everytime
parents had objected to their relationship because Perlita's parents were out until Perlita got
they were first cousins. They forged a pact in pregnant. Mr. and Mrs. M filed a complaint of rape
writing to commit suicide. The agreement was against Aj who claimed that it was Perlita who
shoot each other in the head which they did. Joan seduced him; that Perlita was intelligent, clearly
died. Due to medical assistance, Francis survived. Is understood what she was doing; and that since
Francis criminally liable for the death of Joan? Perlita was already 25 years old did not herself file
Explain (2008) the complaint, her parents had no personality to
file the complaint for rape. How would you resolve
A: Yes. Francis’ act of shooting Joan, although done the case? (1987, 1996)
pursuant to a solemn pact is nevertheless felonious
and is the proximate cause of Joan’s death. A: The contention of Aj cannot be sustained. Sexual
Moreover, Francis is criminally liable for assisting in intercourse with Perlita, who is a mental retardate,
the suicide of Joan under Art. 253 of RPC, as although 25 years old but with a mental age of 11
evidenced by their written pact. year old girl is rape. She is the same class as a
woman deprived of reason or otherwise
Q: Dang was a beauty queen in a university. Job, a unconscious. Since she is suffering from an
rich classmate, was so enamored with her that he incapacity, being incompetent on account of her
persistently wooed and pursued her. Dang, being in mental age, the parents have the right to file the
love with another man, rejected him. This angered complaint for rape.
Job. Sometime in September 2003, while Dang and
CRIMES AGAINST PERSONAL LIBERTY AND SECURITY
her sister Lyn were on their way home, Job and his
minor friend Nonoy grabbed them and pushed
Q: Virgilio, armed with a gun, stopped a van along a
them inside a white van. They brought them in an
major thoroughfare in Manila, pointed the gun at
abandoned warehouse where they forced them to
the driver and shouted: "Tigil! Kidnap ito!"
dance naked. Thereafter, they brought them to a
Terrified, the driver, Juanito, stopped the van and
hill in a nearby barangay where they took turns
allowed Virgilio to board. Inside the van were
raping them. After satisfying their lust, Job ordered
Jeremias, a 6-year-old child, son of a multi-
Nonoy to push Dang down a ravine, resulting in her
millionaire, and Daday, the child’s nanny. Virgilio
death. Lyn ran away but Job and Nonoy chased her
told Juanito to drive to a deserted place, and there,
and pushed her inside the van. Then the duo drove
ordered the driver to alight. Before Juanito was
away. Lyn was never seen again. What crime or
allowed to go, Virgilio instructed him to tell
crimes were committed by Job and Nonoy? (2006,
Jeremias’ parents that unless they give a ransom of
1998)
P10-million within two (2) days, Jeremias would be
beheaded. Daday was told to remain in the van and
A: Job and Nonoy each committed 2 counts of the
take care of Jeremias until the ransom is paid.
special complex crime of rape with homicide under
Virgilio then drove the van to his safehouse. What
Art. 266-B for the rapes respectively committed on
crime or crimes, if any, did Virgilio commit? Explain.
Dang and Lyn. Their felonious acts grabbing and
(2009)
pushing the victims inside their van and later forcing
them to dance naked may only be appreciated as
A: The crime committed against Jeremias is
part of the violence and lewd desires attending the
Kidnapping and Serious Illegal Detention. The
rape, and are therefore absorbed by the rape.
evident criminal intent of the offender, Virgilio, is to
Although there is no indication that the same
lock up the child to demand ransom. Whether or not
culprits killed Lyn who was never seen again, it is
the ransom was eventually obtained will not affect
reasonable to assume from what the culprits did to
the crime committed because the demand for
Dang, and from the acts of violence they employed
ransom is not an element of the crime; it only
on Lyn, that they are answerable also for the
qualifies the penalty for the crime. As to Daday, the
presumed death of Lyn whom the culprits took with
nanny of the child who was told to remain in the van
them by force and was never seen again. Hence, the
and take care of the child until the ransom is paid,
rape committed against her is attended by homicide
the crime committed is Serious Illegal Detention
giving rise to the special complex crime of rape with
because the offender party deprived of liberty is a
homicide. It would be different if Lyn was not
female. As to Juanito, the driver of the van who was
subjected to physical violence.

UST ACADEMICS COMMITTEE

 P a g e | 19

QUESTIONS ASKED MORE THAN ONCE IN THE BAR

QuAMTO (1987-2010)

seriously intimidated with a gun pointed at him and CRIMES AGAINST PROPERTY
directed to stop the van and allow the gun-man to
board the same, and thereafter to drive to a Q: A entered the house of another without
deserted place, the crime committed by Virgilio is employing force or violence upon things. He was
Grave Coercion and Slight Illegal Detention for seen by a maid who wanted to scream but was
holding the driver before he was allowed to go. prevented from doing so because A threatened her
with a gun. A then took money and other valuables
Q: A and B, conspiring with each other, kidnapped and left. Is A guilty of theft or of robbery? (2002,
C and detained him. The duo then called up C’s wife 1992)
informing her that they had her husband and would
release him only if she paid a ransom in the amount A: A is liable for robbery because of the intimidation
of P10,000, and that if she were to fail, they would he employed on the maid before the taking of the
kill him. The next day, C, who had just recovered money and other valuables. It is the intimidation of
from an illness had a relapse. Fearing he might die person relative to the taking that qualifies the crime
if not treated at once by a doctor, A and B released as robbery, instead of simply theft. The non-
C during the early morning of the third day of employment of force upon things is of no moment
detention. Was the crime committed kidnapping because robbery is committed not only by employing
and serious detention or slight illegal detention? force upon things but also by employing violence
(1997, 1991) against or intimidation of persons.

A: The crime committed by A and B is kidnapping Q: A learned two days ago that B had received
and serious illegal detention because they made a dollar bills amounting to $10,000 from his daughter
demand for ransom and threatened to kill C if the working in the United States. With the intention of
latter’s wife did not pay the same. Without the robbing B of those dollars, A entered B’s house at
demand for ransom, the crime could have been midnight, armed with a knife which he used to gain
slight illegal detention only. entry, and began quietly searching the drawers,
shelves, and other likely receptacle of the cash.
Note: Had it been the wife who was kidnapped, even in the While doing that, B awoke, rushed out from the
absence of ransom, it will still constitute serious illegal bedroom, and grappled with A for the possession of
detention because the victim is a woman.
the knife which A was then holding. After stabbing
B to death, A turned over B’s pillow and found the
Q: A, B, C, D, and E were members of a gang
latter’s wallet underneath the pillow, which was
operating in Mindanao with Gorio as over-all
bulging with the dollar bills he was looking for. A
leader. Gorio assigned A, B and C to get money
took the bills and left the house. What crime was
from Pedro, a businessman from Agusan. As
committed? (2007, 2005, 2003, 1998, 1996, 1995)
instructed, A, B, and C, armed with guns, went to
see Pedro and demanded P100,000. When Pedro
A: The crime committed is robbery with homicide, a
refused, A pointed his gun at him while B hit him
composite crime. This is because A’s primordial
with the butt of his gun. Pedro gave the amount
intent is to commit a robbery and in the course of
demanded. After the 3 left, Pedro went to the PC
the robbery, the killing of B took place. Both the
Command to tell them what happened. On the
robbery and the killing were consummated, thus
way, he met Orlando, also a businessman, who told
giving rise to the special complex crime of robbery
him that D and E, a week earlier, wrote him a letter
with homicide. The primary intent being to commit
asking P50,000 and threatening to kill his son and
robbery, any killing on the occasion of robbery,
wife should he fail to give the amount. Afraid that
though not by reason thereof, is considered a
the two wuold make good their threat, he gave the
component of the crime of robbery with homicide as
money when D called him that day. Orlando was
a single indivisible offense.
also on his way to the PC to report what happened.
What crime did D and E commit? (1987, 1988)
Q: Together XA, YB and ZC planned to rob Miss OD.
They entered her house by breaking one of the
A: D and E committed grave threats. The reason is
windows in her house. After taking her personal
that intimidation employed refers to the killings of
properties and as they were abut to leave, XA
the wife and son of Orlando should he fail to give the
decided on impulse to rape OD. As XA was
amount of P50,000 demanded in the letter which D
molesting her, YB and ZC stood outside the door of
and E sent to him. The distinction between robbery
her bedroom and did nothing to prevent XA from
and grave threats when the purpose is the same,
raping OD. What crime did XA, YB, and ZC commit?
that is, to extort money, is that in robbery, the
(2004, 1999, 1997, 1996)
intimidation is actual and immediate whereas on
grave threats, the intimidation is future and
A: The crime committed by XA, YB, and ZC is the
conditional.
composite crime of robbery with rape, a single,
indivisible offense under Art. 294 of RPC. Although
the conspiracy among the offenders was only to

UST ACADEMICS COMMITTEE

 P a g e | 20

QUESTIONS ASKED MORE THAN ONCE IN THE BAR

QuAMTO (1987-2010)

commit robbery and only XA raped OD, the other is free from any lien or encumbrance. There is thus a
robbers, YB and ZC were present and aware of the deceit or fraud in causing damage to the buyer of
rape being committed by their co-conspirator. the lot.
Having done nothing to stop XA from committing the
rape, YB and ZC thereby concurred in the 2. Is there such a crime as estafa through
commission of the rape by their co-conspirator XA. negligence?

Q: Oscar owns and operates a gift and jewelry A: There is no such crime as estafa through
shop. Pilar sold to him for P1,000 a 5 carat diamond negligence. In estafa, the profit or gain must be
ring which he stole. May Oscar be liable under the obtained by the accused personally, through his own
Anti Fencing Law? How can Oscar acquire immunity acts, and his mere negligence in allowing another to
from criminal prosecution for purchasing the take advantage of/or benefit from the entrusted
diamond and thus enable him to sell the same to property cannot constitute estafa.
the general public for a profit? (1990, 1987)
3. Aurelia introduced Rosa to Victoria, a dealer in
A: Oscar is liable for fencing. The price is jewelry who does business in Timog, Quezon City.
unconscionable. This shows that he would have Rosa, a resident of Cebu City, agreed to sell a
known of the fact that the ring was stolen. Fencing is diamond ring and bracelet to Victoria on a
the act of any person who, with intent to gain for commission basis, on condition that, if these items
himself or another, shall buy, receive, sell, or dispose cannot be sold, they may be returned to Victoria
in any other manner deal in any article of value forthwith. Unable to sell the ring and bracelet, Rosa
which he knows, or should be known to him to have delivered both items to Aurelia in Cebu City with
been derived from the proceeds of the crime of the understanding that Aurelia shall in turn, return
robbery or theft. Oscar can acquire immunity by the items to Victoria. Aurelia dutifully returned the
securing a clearance/permit to sell second hand ring bracelet to Victoria but sold the ring, kept in cash
from the proper INP station commander. the proceeds thereof herself and issued a check to
Victoria which bounced. Victoria sued Rosa for
Note: The law refers to buy and sell of articles of value estafa insisting that delivery to a third person of the
which are the proceeds of robbery and theft and does not thing held in trust is not a defense in estafa. Is Rosa
apply to the proceeds of the crime of malversation as when criminally liable for estafa?
the items to be sold were received from an accountable
public officer.
A: No, Rosa cannot be held liable for estafa.
Although she received the jewelry from Victoria
Q: True or False: In a prosecution for fencing under
under an obligation to return the same or deliver the
P.D. 1612, it is a complete defense for the accused
proceeds thereof, she did not misappropriate it. In
to prove that he had no knowledge that the goods
fact, she gave them to Aurelia specifically to be
or articles found in his possession had been the
returned to Victoria. The misappropriation was done
subject of robbery. (2009)
by Aurelia and absent the showing of any conspiracy
between Aurelia and Rosa, the latter cannot be held
A: False. Fencing is committed if the accused should
criminally liable for Aurelia’s acts. Furthermore,
have known that the goods or articles had been the
Rosa’s negligence which may have allowed Aurelia to
subject of theft or robbery. Mere possession of the
misappropriate the jewelry does not make her
stolen goods gives rise to prima facie presumption of
criminally liable for estafa.
fencing.
Q: A entrusted her car for repainting at the agreed
Q: Estafa (2007, 2005, 1998, 1996, 1995, 1991,
cost of P7,800,000. When the painting job was
1989)
finished, A wanted to get the car but B refused to
deliver until payment is made. When A came back
1. Divina is the owner of a 500 square meter
the next day, the shop was already closed, and B
residential lot in Makati City covered by TCT No.
and the car were nowhere to be found. When
1998. As her son needed money for his trip abroad,
finally B was located, he told A that he sold the car
Divina mortgaged her lot to her neighbor Dino for
and applied the amount to the repainting cost and
P1,000,000. Later, Divina sold the same lot to Angel
labor. The trial court convicted B of estafa. Is the
for P2,000,000. In the Deed of Sale, she expressly
conviction proper?
stated that the property is free from any lien or
encumbrance. What crime, if any, did Divina
A: Conviction was correct. Estafa was committed as
commit?
B had both physical and juridical possession of the
car. Having painted the car, he acquired a lien
A: Divina committed estafa or swindling under Art.
thereto, and therefore could exercise that right
316 par. 2 of the RPC because knowing that the real
against the whole world, including the owner.
property being sold is encumbered, she still made a
misrepresentation in the Deed of Sale that the same

UST ACADEMICS COMMITTEE

 P a g e | 21

QUESTIONS ASKED MORE THAN ONCE IN THE BAR

QuAMTO (1987-2010)

5. A sold a washing machine to B in credit, with the Q: A, a businessman, borrowed P500,000 from B, a
understanding that B could return the appliance friend. To pay the loan, A issued a postdated check
within two weeks if, after testing the same, B to be presented for payment 30 days after the
decided not to buy it. Two weeks lapsed without B transaction. Two days before the maturity date of
returning the appliance. A found out that B had the check, A called up B and told him not to deposit
sold the washing machine to a third party. Is B the check on the date stated on the face thereof, as
liable for estafa? A had not deposited in teh drawee bank the
amount needed to cover the check. Nevertheless, B
A: No, B is not liable for estafa because he is not just deposietd the check in uestion and the same was
an entrustee of the washing machine which he sold; dishonored of insufficiency of funds. A failed to
he is the owner thereof by virtue of the sale of the settle the amount with B in spite of the latter's
washing machine to him. The sale being on credit, B demands. Is A guilty of violating BP 22? Explain
as buyer is only liable for the unpaid price of the (2002, 2003, 1996, 1995, 1990)
washing machine; his obligation is only a civil
obligation. There is no felonious misappropriation A: Yes, A is liable for violation of BP 22. Although
that could constitute estafa. knowledge by the drawer of insufficiency or lack of
funds at the time of the issuance of the check is an
Q: Dennis leased his apartment to Myla for P10,000 essential element of the violation, the law presumes
a month. Myla failed to pay the rent for 3months. prima facie such knowledge, unless within 5 banking
Gabriel , the son of Dennis, prepared a demand days of notice of dishonor or non-payment, the
letter falsely alleging that his father had authorized drawer pays the holder thereof the amount due
him to collect the unpaid rentals. Myla paid the thereon or makes arrangements for payment in full
unpaid rentals to Gabriel who kept the payment. by the drawee of such checks. A mere notice by the
drawer A to the payee B before the maturity date of
1. Did Gabriel commit a crime? Explain the check will not defeat the presumption of
2. Can Gabriel invoke his relationship with knowledge created by the law; otherwise, the
Dennis to avoid criminal liability? Explain purpose and spirit of BP 22 will be rendered useless.
(2008)
Q: A asked financial support from her showbiz
A: friend B who accommodated her by issuing in her
1. Yes, Gabriel committed the crime of Estafa favor a postdated check in the sum of P90,000.00.
under Art. 315 par. 2(a) of RPC by Both of them knew that the check would not be
fraudulent acts executed prior to or honored because B’s account had just been closed.
simultaneous with the fraud or falsely The two then approached trader C whom they
pretending to possess agency. Myla paid asked to change the check with cash, even agreeing
the money because she relied upon the that the exchange be discounted at P85,000.00 with
demand letter prepared by Gabriel with the the assurance that the check shall be funded upon
false allegation that he was authorized to maturity. Upon C’s presentment of the check for
collect rentals payment on due date, it was dishonored because
2. No. Gabriel cannot invoke Art. 332 of RPC the account had already been closed. What
(persons exempt from criminal liability). It is action/s may C commence against A and B to hold
Myla, not the father Dennis, who is the them to account for the loss of her P85,000.00?
offended party. Explain. (2010)

Q: Can an accused be charged with BP 22 and A: A criminal complaint for violation of B.P. 22 may
estafa? (1990, 1987) be filed against B who drew the postdated check
against a closed account, for value paid by C, and
A: Yes. Although there can be no complex crime of with knowledge at the time he issued the check that
estafa and violation of BP 22 because complex the account thereof is already closed.
crimes refer only to felonies punished by the RPC, a
person can be liable for the two offenses. BP 22 A cannot be held liable under BP 22 because he was
specifically provides that liability under said act is a mere endorser of B’s check to C who exchanged
without prejudice to any liability for estafa under the the check with cash. BP 22 does not apply to
RPC. Damage is not an element of the offense endorser of checks. Hence, only a civil action may be
punished by BP 22 whereas in estafa, damage is an filed by C against A to recover the P85,000. Although
element. Estafa is an act mala in se which requires a simultaneous action for estafa is authorized by law
intent as an element while the offense punished by for the issuance of a worthless check, under the
BP 22 is an act mala prohibita where intent is not an given facts, the check was discounted and thus
element. However, if the check was postdated and in issued in a credit transaction for a pre existing
payment of a pre-existing obligation, the liability is indebtedness. Criminal liability for estafa does not
only for violation of BP 22 and not estafa arise when a check has been issued in payment for a
pre-existing debt.

UST ACADEMICS COMMITTEE

 P a g e | 22

QUESTIONS ASKED MORE THAN ONCE IN THE BAR

QuAMTO (1987-2010)

them. This fact plus the circumstance that Lt. Col.

Q: One early evening, there was a fight between Agaton stayed with the child, a girl in one room at
Eddie Gutierrez and Mario Cortez. Later that such beach resort for two nights, and thereafter, he
evening, at about 11 o'clock, Eddie passed by the gave her P1,000 for her services constitutes the very
house of Mario carrying a plastic bag containing evil punished, among other acts in said law.
gasoline, threw the bag at the house of Mario who
was inside the house watching television, and then The possible defenses Lt. Col. Agaton may interpose
lit it. The front wall of the house started blazing and are that the child is related to him by affinity or by
some neighbors yelled and shouted. Forthwith, consanguinity within the 4th degree, or by a bond
Mario poured water on the burning portion of the recognized in law, or local customs and traditions, or
house. Neighbors also rushed in to help put the fire that he was only acting in pursuance of a moral,
under control before any great damage could be social, or legal duty.
inflicted and before the flames have extensively
spread. Only a portion of the house was burned. CRIMES AGAINST HONOR
Discuss Eddie's liability. (2000, 2004,1994)
Q: During a seminar workshop attended by
A: Eddie is liable for destructive arson in the government employees from the Bureau of
consummated stage. It is destructive arson because Customs and the Bureau of Internal Revenue, A, the
fire was resorted to in destroying the house of Mario speaker, in the course of his lecture, lamented the
which is an inhabited house or dwelling. The arson is fact that a great majority of those serving in said
consummated because the house was in fact already agencies were utterly dishonest and corrupt. The
burned although not totally. In arson, it is not following morning, the whole group of employees
required that the premises be totally burned for the in the two bureaus who attended the seminar, as
crime to be consummated. It is enough that the complainants, filed a criminal complaint against A
premises suffer destruction by burning. for uttering what the group claimed to be
defamatory statements of the lecturer. In court, A
Note: Burning of property even of small value is arson, not filed a motion to quash the information, reciting
malicious mischief because burning of property with small fully the above facts on the ground that no crime
value as malicious mischief has long been repealed by PD was committed. If you were the judge, how would
1613, hence, there is no more legal basis to consider
you resolve the motion? (2003, 2002 2005)
burning property of small value as malicious mischief.

A: I would grant the motion to quash on the ground

CRIMES AGAINST CHASTITY
that the facts charged do not constitute an offense,
since there is no definite person or persons
Q:Sometime in December 1992, retired Lt. Col.
dishonored. The crime of libel or slander is a crime
Agaton, celebrating the first year of his compulsory
against honor such that the person or persons
retirement from the Armed Forces of the
dishonored must be identifiable even by innuendos;
Philippines, had in his company a 14 year old girl
otherwise the crime against honor is not committed.
whose parents were killed by the Mt. Pinatubo
Moreover, A was not making a malicious imputation,
eruption and being totally orphaned has been living
but merely stating an opinion; he was delivering a
or fending for herself in the streets in Manila. They
lecture with no malice at all during a seminar
were alone in one room in a beach resort and
workshop. Malice being inherently absent in the
stayed there for two nights. No sexual intercourse
utterance, the statement is not actionable as
took place between them. Before they parted,
defamatory.
retired Lt. Col. Agaton gave the girl P1,000 for her
services, she gladly accepted it. What crime may
Q: True or False: In the crime of libel, truth is an
the retired colonel be charged with? What possible
absolute defense. (2009)
defenses can he interposed? (1993, 2004, 2005,
2006)
A: False. Art. 361 of the RPC provides that proof of
truth shall be admissible in libel cases only if the
A: The retired colonel may be charged with child
same imputes a crime or is made against a public
abuse in violation of R.A. 7610. One of the acts of
officer with respect to facts related to the discharge
child abuse or exploitation penalized under R.A.
of their official duties, and moreover must have
7610 is that of keeping company of a minor who is
been published with good motives and for justifiable
ten years or more younger than the offender in a
ends. Hence, truth as a defense on its own, is not
hotel, motel, or beerhouse, disco joint, pension
enough.
house, cabaret, sauna, or massage parlor, beach
resort and similar places, considering that Lt. Agaton
CRIMINAL NEGLIGENCE
is a retiree pursuant to a compulsory retirement,
while the child he kept company within a private
Q: Olimpio caught a cold and was running a fever.
room in the beach resort is only 14 years old, there
His doctor prescribed paracetamol. Olimpio went to
must be a difference of more than 10 years between
a drug store with the prescription, and the

UST ACADEMICS COMMITTEE

 P a g e | 23

QUESTIONS ASKED MORE THAN ONCE IN THE BAR

QuAMTO (1987-2010)

pharmacist sold him three (3) tablets. Upon arriving

home, he took a tablet. One hour later, he had a
seizure and died. The autopsy showed that the
tablet he had taken was not paracetamol but a pill
to which he was allergic. The pharmacist was
charged with murder. Is the charge proper? If not,
what should it be? Explain. (2008)

A: The charge was improper. The pharmacist should

be charged with criminal negligence, or reckless
imprudence resulting in homicide, because there
was no intent to kill Olimpio. The accused
inexcusably lacked precaution in failing to dispense
the proper medicine to the victim which cause his
death.

UST ACADEMICS COMMITTEE