2016 Bar Exam vs.

Preweek
Materials by Judge Campanilla
MB CAMPANILLATUESDAY, NOVEMBER 29, 2016

Question I (a) Explain the application of the Indeterminate Sentence Law (ISL).
(5%)
Preweek Materials 34. Penalty - X x x If the penalty prescribed by law is
reclusion temporal (e.g. penalty for homicide) and there is one mitigating
circumstance, this penalty shall be imposed in its minimum period. In such case,
the indeterminate minimum penalty shall be fixed anywhere within the full range
of prision mayor (6 years and 1 day to 12 years), which is the penalty next lower
in degree, while the indeterminate maximum penalty shall be fixed anywhere
within the range of reclusion temporal in its minimum period (12 years and 1 day
to 14 years and 8 months). Hence, the court may sentence the accused to suffer
an indeterminate penalty of: 8 years and 1 day of prision mayor as minimum to
14 years of reclusion temporal as maximum (People vs. Placer, G.R. No.
181753, October 09, 2013). X x x If the penalty for possession of dangerous
drugs is 12 years and 1 day to 20 years of imprisonment, the court shall
sentence the accused to an indeterminate sentence the maximum of which shall
not exceed 20 years while the minimum shall not be less than 12 years and 1
day. Thus, the court can sentence the accused to suffer 15 years of
imprisonment as minimum to 18 years as maximum. The court cannot impose a
straight penalty of 12 years and 1 day since the application of indeterminate
sentence law is mandatory (Asiatico vs. People, G.R. No. 195005, September
12, 2011; Escalante vs. People, G.R. No. 192727, January 9, 2013).
Question II (b) Differentiate wheel conspiracy and chain conspiracy. (2.5%)
Preweek materials 64. Plunder - X x x There are two structures of multiple
conspiracies, namely: wheel or circle conspiracy and chain conpiracy. Under the
wheel or circle conspiracy, there is a single person or group (the "hub") dealing
individually with two or more other persons or groups (the "spokes"). Under the
chain conspiracy, usually involving the distribution of narcotics or other
contraband, in which there is successive communication and cooperation in
much the same way as with legitimate business operations between
manufacturer and wholesaler, then wholesaler and retailer, and then retailer and
consumer (Fernan, Jr. vs. People, G.R. No. 145927, August 24, 2007, Justice
Velasco). An illustration of wheel conspiracy wherein there is only one
conspiracy involved was the conspiracy alleged in the information for plunder

filed against former President Estrada and his co-conspirators. Former President
Estrada was the hub while the spokes were all the other accused individuals. The
rim that enclosed the spokes was the common goal in the overall conspiracy, i.e.,
the amassing, accumulation and acquisition of ill-gotten wealth (GMA vs. People,
G.R. No. 220598, July 19, 2016).
Question IV. Jojo and Felipa are husband and wife. Believing that his work as a
lawyer is sufficient to provide for the needs of their family, Jojo convinced Felipa
to be a stay- at-home mom and care for their children. One day, Jojo arrived
home earlier than usual and caught Felipa in the act of having sexual intercourse
with their female nanny, Alma, in their matrimonial bed. In a fit of rage, Jojo
retrieved his revolver from inside the bedroom cabinet and shot Alma,
immediately killing her. [a] Is Art. 247 (death or physical injuries inflicted under
exceptional circumstances) of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) applicable in this
case given that the paramour was of the same gender as the erring spouse?
(2.5%) [b] Is Felipa liable for adultery for having sexual relations with Alma?
(2.5%)
Preweek Materials 42. Death under exceptional circumstance X x x Killing his
wife after surprising her in the act of committing homosexual intercourse with
another woman is not death under exceptional circumstance. Sexual
intercourse mentioned in Article 247 is different from homosexual intercourse.
Killing his mistress after surprising in the act of committing sexual intercourse
with a man is not death under exceptional circumstance (U.S. vs. Versola, G.R.
No. 10759, January 25, 1916). The offender in Article 247 must be a legally
married person. Killing his wife under the circumstance indicating that she had
just finished having sexual intercourse with another man is not death under
exceptional circumstance. He did not catch his wife in the very act of sexual
intercourse, but after such act (People vs. Gonzales, G.R. No. 46310, October
31, 1939).
9. Impossible crime X x x Gender is an element of all crimes against chastity
except acts of lasciviousness. In seduction and consented acts of lasciviousness,
and abduction, the offender must be a man, while the victim must be a woman.
The offender in adultery must be a married woman, while in concubinage a
married man. If the element of gender is not present in a crime against chastity, it
is impossible to commit this crime (e.g. it is impossible to commit abduction
against a person, who is gay). Despite the impossibility of its commission, the
accused is not liable for impossible crime. To be held liable for impossible crime,
the act which is impossible to commit must constitutes crime against person or
property.However, abduction is a crime against chastity. But the accused may be
held liable for illegal detention.

Question V. Governor A was given the amount of PIO million by the Department
of Agriculture for the purpose of buying seedlings to be distributed to the farmers.
Supposedly intending to modernize the farming industry in his province,
Governor A bought farm equipment through direct purchase from XY Enterprise,
owned by his kumpare B, the alleged exclusive distributor of the said equipment.
Upon inquiry, the Ombudsman discovered that B has a pending patent
application for the said farm equipment. Moreover, the equipment purchased
turned out to be overpriced. What crime or crimes, if any, were committed by
Governor A? Explain. (5%)
Preweek Materials Mayor, treasurer and planning coordinator approved the
overpayments in favor of a private individual for the construction of public market.
The public officers caused undue injury to the government through manifest
partiality and evident bad faith in violation of Section 3 (e) of RA No. 3019. The
private individual, who was overpaid, is also liable on the basis of conspiracy and
Go vs. Fifth Division of the Sandiganbayan (Santillano vs. People, G.R. Nos.
175045-46, March 03, 2010, Justice Velasco; Uyboco vs. People, G.R. No.
211703, December 10, 2014, Justice Velasco).
Question VI. Ofelia, engaged in the purchase and sale of jewelry, was charged
with violation of PD 1612, otherwise known as the Anti-Fencing Law, for having
been found in possession of recently stolen jewelry valued at P100,000.00 at her
jewelry shop. Her defense is that she merely bought the same from Antonia and
produced a receipt covering the sale. She presented other receipts given to her
by Antonia representing previous transactions. Convicted of the charge, Ofelia
appealed, arguing that her acquisition of the jewelries resulted from a legal
transaction and that the prosecution failed to prove that she knew or should have
known that the pieces of jewelry which she bought from Antonia were proceeds
of the crime of theft. [a] What is a fence under PD 1612? (2.5%) [b] Is Ofelia
liable under the Anti-Fencing Law? Explain. (2.5%)
Materials 24. Fencing In fencing, the property, which the accused possesses
with intent to gain, must be derived from the proceeds of theft or robbery (Ong
vs. People, GR No. 190475, April 10, 2013). The concept of carnapping is the
same as that of theft or robbery (People vs. Sia, G.R. No. 137457, November 21,
2001). Thus, carnapping can be considered as within the contemplation of the
word theft or robbery in PD No. 1612 (Dimat vs. People, G.R. No. 181184,
January 25, 2012). If the property is derived from the proceeds of malversation or
estafa, fencing is not committed. But the accused can be held liable as an
accessory if he profited or assisted other to profit from this misappropriated
property. Actual knowledge that the property is stolen is not required. Fencing is

committed is the accused should have known that the property is stolen taken
into consideration the attending circumstances such as (1) the price of the
property is so cheap; (2) expensive jewelry is being offered for sale at midnight in
a street; (3) accused knew that the car he bought was not properly documented
(Dimat vs. People, supra); or (4) new tires are being peddled in the streets by an
unknown seller (Ong vs. People, supra). Furthermore, mere possession of stolen
property shall be prima facie evidence of fencing (Section 6 of PD No. 1612).
Question VIII. Charges daffaires Volvik of Latvia suffers from a psychotic
disorder after he was almost assassinated in his previous assignment. One day,
while shopping in a mall, he saw a group of shoppers whom he thought were the
assassins who were out to kill him. He asked for the gun of his escort and shot
ten (10) people and wounded five (5) others before he was subdued. The
wounded persons required more than thirty (30) days of medical treatment. What
crime or crimes, if any, did he commit? Explain. (5%)
Preweek materials Consular officers are immune from criminal prosecution of
acts performed in the exercise of function (1967 Convention on Consular
Relation). Immunity does not cover slander(Liang vs. People, GR No. 125865,
January 28, 2000), or reckless imprudence resulting in homicide for not being
function-related. A Chinese diplomat, who killed another Chinese diplomat in
Cebu, is immune from criminal prosecution (The Vienna Convention on
Diplomatic Relations). Unlike consular officers, diplomatic agents are vested with
blanket diplomatic immunity from civil and criminal suits (Minucher vs. Hon. CA,
G.R. No. 142396, February 11, 2003).
Question XI Angelino, a Filipino, is a transgender who underwent gender
reassignment and had implants in different parts of her body. She changed her
name to Angelina and was a finalist in the Miss Gay International. She came
back to the Philippines and while she was walking outside her home, she was
abducted by Max and Razzy who took her to a house in the province. She was
then placed in a room and Razzy forced her to have sex with him at knifes point.
After the act, it dawned upon Razzy that Angelina is actually a male. Incensed,
Razzy called Max to help him beat Angelina. The beatings that Angelina received
eventually caused her death. What crime or crimes, if any, were committed?
Explain. (5%)
Preweek materials 9. Impossible crime X x x Gender is an element of all
crimes against chastity except acts of lasciviousness. In seduction and
consented acts of lasciviousness, and abduction, the offender must be a man,
while the victim must be a woman. The offender in adultery must be a married
woman, while in concubinage a married man. If the element of gender is not

present in a crime against chastity, it is impossible to commit this crime (e.g. it is

impossible to commit abduction against a person, who is gay). Despite the
impossibility of its commission, the accused is not liable for impossible crime. To
be held liable for impossible crime, the act which is impossible to commit must
constitutes crime against person or property. However, abduction is a crime
against chastity. But the accused may be held liable for illegal detention.
29. Special complex crime X x x In robbery with homicide, all other felonies
such as rape, intentional mutilation, usurpation of authority, or direct assault with
attempted homicide are integrated into this special complex crime. This special
complex crime is committed as long as death results by reason or on occasion or
robbery without reference or distinction as to the circumstances, causes or
modes or persons intervening in the commission of the crime(People vs. De
Leon, GR No. 179943, June 26, 2009; People vs. Jugueta, G.R. No. 202124,
April 05, 2016).
Question XIII Domingo is the caretaker of two (2) cows and two (2) horses
owned by Hannibal. Hannibal told Domingo to lend the cows to Tristan on the
condition that the latter will give a goat to the former when the cows are returned.
Instead, Tristan sold the cows and pocketed the money. Due to the neglect of
Domingo, one of the horses was stolen. Knowing that he will be blamed for the
loss, Domingo slaughtered the other horse, got the meat, and sold it to Pastor.
He later reported to Hannibal that the two horses were stolen. [a] What crime or
crimes, if any, did Tristan commit? Explain. (2.5%) [b] What crime or crimes, if
any, were committed by Domingo? Explain. (2.5%)
49. Theft - X x x Misappropriation of personal property received by the accused
with consent of the owner is theft or carnapping if his possession is physical or
de facto, or estafa through misappropriation if it is legal or de jure. If the accused
received the car from the owner for repair the possession is physical, and thus,
misappropriation thereof is carnapping (Santos vs. People, G.R. No. 77429
January 29, 1990).If the accused received the property to bring it to a goldsmith
for examination and to immediately return it back to the owner, his possession is
physical, and thus, misappropriation thereof is theft (U.S. v. De Vera, G.R. No. L16961, September 19, 1921). If the accused received the property with authority
to sell it (Guzman vs. CA, 99 Phil. 703), or money with authority to use it to buy
palays (Carganillo vs. People, G.R. No. 182424, September 22, 2014), or with
full freedom and discretion on how to use it to facilitate its remittance to BIR as
payment of tax and reduce the amount due (Velayo vs. People, G.R. No. 204025,
November 26, 2014), his possession is juridical. Thus, failure of the agent to
return it is estafa (Guzman v. Court of Appeals, 99 Phil. 703; Tria vs. People,
G.R. No. 204755, September 17, 2014). A franchise holder must personally
operate the motor vehicle. That is the reason why government regulation

prohibits operator of motor vehicle from leasing it. In the eye of the law the driver
of taxi or passenger jeepneyunder boundary arrangement was only an employee
of the owner rather than a lessee. For being an employee, his possession of the
jeepney is physical (People v. Isaac G.R. No. L-7561, April 30, 1955), and thus,
misappropriation thereof is carnapping (People vs. Bustinera, G. R. No. 148233,
June 8, 2004) As a rule, the possession of the employee such as bank teller,
collector or cash custodian is only physical possession. Hence, misappropriation
of property is qualified theft. Abuse of confidence is present since the property is
accessible to the employee (People v. Locson, G.R. No. L-35681, October 18,
1932; Matrido vs. People, G.R. No. 179061, July 13, 2009; Benabaye vs. People,
G.R. No. 203466, February 25, 2015; Chua-Burce vs. CA, G.R. No. 109595, April
27, 2000; Balerta vs. People, G.R. No. 205144, November 26, 2014). However, if
the employee is an officer of the company with discretion on how to use property
or fund of the company,his possession is juridical; hence, misappropriation
thereof is estafa. Thus, the following officers are liable for estafa through
misappropriation (1) a corporate officer with discretion option on how to use
bending machine without the participation of the corporation(Aigle vs. People,
G.R. No. 174181, June 27, 2012); (2) bank President with discretion on how to
administer fund (People vs. Go, G.R. No. 191015, August 6, 2014), and (3)
Liaison Officer of a pawnshop with discretion on how to secure or renew licenses
and permits (Gamboa vs. People, G.R. No. 188052, April 21, 2014).
Question XIV Dimas was arrested after a valid buy-bust operation. Macario, the
policeman who acted as poseur-buyer, inventoried and photographed ten (10)
sachets of shabu in the presence of a barangay tanod. The inventory was signed
by Macario and the tanod, but Dimas refused to sign. As Macario was stricken
with flu the day after, he was able to surrender the sachets to the PNP Crime
Laboratory only after four (4) days. During pre-trial, the counsel de oficio of
Dimas stipulated that the substance contained in the sachets examined by the
forensic chemist is in fact methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu. Dimas was
convicted of violating Section 5 of RA 9165. On appeal, Dimas questioned the
admissibility of the evidence because Macario failed to observe the requisite
chain of custody of the alleged shabu seized from him. On behalf of the State,
the Solicitor General claimed that despite non-compliance with some
requirements, the prosecution was able to show that the integrity of the
substance was preserved. Moreover, even with some deviations from the
requirements, the counsel of Dimas stipulated that the substance seized from
Dimas was shabu so that the conviction should be affirmed. [a] What is the
chain of custody requirement in drug offenses? (2.5%) [b] Rule on the
contention of the State. (2.5%)

Preweek Materials 61. RA No. 9165 X x x Non-compliance with the

requirements of Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 on inventory and photograph will not
necessarily render the items seized or confiscated in a buy-bust operation
inadmissible. Strict compliance with the letter of Section 21 is not required if there
is a clear showing that the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items
have been preserved (People vs. Ladip, GR No. 196146, March 12, 2014;
People vs. Bis, GR No. 191360, March 10, 2014). The following links must be
established in the chain of custody in a buy-bust situation: first, the seizure and
marking, if practicable, of the illegal drug recovered from the accused by the
apprehending officer; second, the turn over of the illegal drug seized by the
apprehending officer to the investigating officer; third, the turn over by the
investigating officer of the illegal drug to the forensic chemist for laboratory
examination; and fourth, the turn over and submission of the marked illegal drugs
seized from the forensic chemist to the court (People vs. Constantino, Jr. GR No.
199689, March 12, 2014).
Question XV Pedro, Pablito, Juan and Julio, all armed with bolos, robbed the
house where Antonio, his wife, and three (3) daughters were residing. While the
four were ransacking Antonios house, Julio noticed that one of Antonios
daughters was trying to escape. He chased and caught up with her at a thicket
somewhat distant from the house, but before bringing her back, raped her. [a]
What crime or crimes, if any, did Pedro, Pablito, Juan and Julio commit? Explain.
(2.5%) [b] Suppose, after the robbery, the four took turns in raping the three
daughters inside the house, and, to prevent identification, killed the whole family
just before they left. What crime or crimes, if any, did the four malefactors
commit? (2.5%) Preweek Materials 22.
Conspiracy X x x Conspirators are all liable for robbery although not all
profited and gained from the robbery. When a conspirator committed homicide by
reason of or on the occasion of the robbery, his co-conspirators are liable for
special complex crime of robbery with homicide, unless they endeavored to
prevent the killing (People vs. Ebet, GR No. 181635, November 15, 2010; People
vs. De Leon, GR No. 179943, June 26, 2009; People vs. Diu, GR No. 201449,
April 03, 2013) or they cannot prevent the killing since they are not aware thereof
(People vs. Corbes, G.R. No. 113470, March 26, 1997). This rule is applicable to
special complex crime of kidnapping with rape (People vs. Anticamaray, GR No.
178771, June 08, 2011) or robbery with rape (People v. Suyu, G.R. No. 170191,
August 16, 2006; People v. Canturia, G.R. No. 108490 June 22, 1995).
29. Special complex crime In robbery with homicide, all other felonies such as
rape, intentional mutilation, usurpation of authority, or direct assault with
attempted homicide are integrated into this special complex crime. This special
complex crime is committed as long as death results by reason or on occasion or

robbery without reference or distinction as to the circumstances, causes or

modes or persons intervening in the commission of the crime(People vs. De
Leon, GR No. 179943, June 26, 2009; People vs. Jugueta, G.R. No. 202124,
April 05, 2016).
Question XVI A is the president of the corporate publisher of the daily tabloid,
Bulgar; B is the managing editor; and C is the author/writer. In his column, Direct
Hit, C wrote about X, the head examiner of the BIR-RDO Manila as follows: !
tong si X ay talagang BUWAYA kaya ang logo ng Lacoste T shirt niya ay napaka
suwapang na buwaya. Ang nickname niya ay si Atty. Buwaya. Ang PR niya ay
90% sa bayad ng taxpayer at ang para sa RP ay 10% /ang. Kaya ang baba ng
collection ng RDO niya. Masyadong magnanakaw si X at dapat tangga/in itong
bundat na bundat na buwaya na ito at napakalaki na ng kurakot. A, B and C
were charged with libel before the RTC of Manila. The three (3) defendants
argued that the article is within the ambit of qualified privileged communication;
that there is no malice in law and in fact; and, that defamatory comments on the
acts of public officials which are related to the discharge of their official duties do
not constitute libel. Was the crime of libel committed? If so, are A, B, and C all
liable for the crime? Explain. (5%)
Preweek Materials 53. Libel - Under Article 360 of the RPC, the publisher, and
editor of newspaper, shall be responsible for the defamations contained therein
to the same extent as if he were the author thereof. The publisher and editors
cannot disclaim liability for libelous articles that appear on their paper by simply
saying they had no participation in the preparation of the same. They cannot say
that Tulfo was all alone in the publication of Remate, on which the defamatory
articles appeared. It is not a matter of whether or not they conspired in preparing
and publishing the subject articles, because the law simply so states that they
are liable as if they were the author (Tulfo vs. People, G.R. No. 161032,
September 16, 2008, Justice Velasco). Comment is not fair if there is reckless
disregard of knowing whether the defamatory imputation is false or not. Hence,
the accused cannot use the fair comment principle as a defense. In Erwin Tulfo
vs. People, G.R. No. 161032, September 16, 2008, Justice Velasco Journalists bear the burden of writing responsibly when practicing their
profession, even when writing about public figures or matters of public interest.
The report made by Tulfo describing a lawyer in the Bureau of Customs as
corrupt cannot be considered as "fair" and "true" since he did not do research
before making his allegations, and it has been shown that these allegations were
baseless. The articles are not "fair and true reports," but merely wild accusations.
He had written and published the subject articles with reckless disregard of
whether the same were false or not.

Question XVII Braulio invited Lulu, his 11-year old stepdaughter, inside the
master bedroom. He pulled out a knife and threatened her with harm unless she
submitted to his desires. He was touching her chest and sex organ when his wife
caught him in the act. The prosecutor is unsure whether to charge Braulio for
acts of lasciviousness under Art. 336 of the RPC; for lascivious conduct under RA
7610 (Special Protection against Child Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination
Act); or for rape under Art. 266-A of the RPC. What is the crime committed?
Explain. (5%)
Preweek materials 57. RA No. 7610 - X x x Having sexual intercourse or
lascivious conduct with a child constitutes child prostitution if committed for
money, profit, or any other consideration (People vs. Jalosjos, G.R. Nos. 13287576, November 16, 2001); or sexual abuse is committed under coercion or
influence of any adult, syndicate or group. In child prostitution, the victim is called
child exploited in prostitution while in sexual abuse the victim is called child
subjected to other abuse (Section 5 of RA No 7610). Coercion is either physical
or psychological. Taking advantage of ascendency as a swimming instructor over
student is psychological coercion (People vs. Larin, G.R. No. 128777, October, 7
1998). The assurance of love, guarantee that she would not get pregnant by
using the "withdrawal method" and the promise of marriage were classified as
"psychological coercion" and "influence" within the purview of Section 5 of RA
7610. Hence, accused is guilty of sexual abuse (Caballo vs. People, GR No.
198732, June 10, 2013). If the child is 12 years old and above, and the acts of
the accused constitute sexual abuse under RA No. 7610 and rape through sexual
assault or acts of lasciviousness, he shall be prosecuted under RA No. 7610
since this law prescribed a grave penalty (Dimakuta vs. People, G.R. No.
206513, October 20, 2015). However, if the acts constitute sexual abuse and
rape through sexual intercourse, he shall be prosecuted under RPC since this
law prescribed a graver penalty. He cannot be prosecuted for compound crime of
rape and sexual abuse because the latter is punishable under special law. He
cannot be prosecuted for both rape and sexual abuse because of the rule on
double jeopardy (People v. Matias, G.R. No. 186469, June 13, 2012 and Alberto
vs. Hon. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 182130, June 19, 2013). If the child is under
12 years old, and the acts of the accused constitute sexual abuse and rape or
acts of lasciviousness, the latter shall be prosecuted penalized as follows: (1)
rape through sexual intercourse; (2) acts of lasciviousness with the penalty of
reclusion temporal in its medium period (Section 5 of RA No. 7610).Prior to RA
No. 8353 (Rape Law), inserting finger into genital orifice is acts of lasciviousness.
Hence, reclusion temporal in its medium period under RA No. 7610 should be
imposed. Under RA No. 8353, inserting finger into genital orifice is rape through
sexual assault where the penalty is prision mayor. To impose the lighter penalty
under RPC as amended by RA 8353 is unfair to the victim. It is not the intention
of RA No. 8353 to disallow the imposition of penalty under RA No. 7610 if the

victim is child subjected to sexual abuse, who isunder 12 years of age (People
vs. Chingh, G.R. No. 178323, March 16, 2011). If the crime is qualified rape
through sexual assault, the Chingcase is not applicable since RA No. 8353
prescribed a grave penalty of reclusion temporal for it (People vs. Bonaagua,
G.R. No. 188897, June 6, 2011).
Question XVIII Lina worked as a housemaid and yaya of the one-week old son
of the spouses John and Joana. When Lina learned that her 70-year old mother
was seriously ill, she asked John for a cash advance of P20,000.00, but the latter
refused. In anger, Lina gagged the mouth of the child with stockings, placed him
in a box, sealed it with masking tape, and placed the box in the attic. Lina then
left the house and asked her friend Fely to demand a P20,000.00 ransom for the
release of the spouses child to be paid within twenty-four hours. The spouses did
not pay the ransom. After a couple of days, John discovered the box in the attic
with his child already dead. According to the autopsy report, the child died of
asphyxiation barely minutes after the box was sealed. What crime or crimes, if
any, did Lina and Fely commit? Explain. (5%)
Preweek Materials Where the person kidnapped is killed in the course of the
detention, regardless of whether the killing was purposely sought or was merely
an afterthought, the accused is liable for a special complex crime of kidnapping
with homicide (People vs. Mercado, G.R. No. 116239, November 29, 2000;
People vs. Ramos, G.R. No. 118570, October 12, 1998; People vs. Larranaga,
138874-75, February 3, 2004; People vs. Montanir, GR No. 187534, April 04,
2011; People vs. Dionaldo, G.R. No. 207949, July 23, 2014). However, if the
derivation of liberty is just incidental to the transportation of the victim to the place
where he will be executed, the crime is murder. Kidnapping with homicide is not
committed because of lack of intent to deprive liberty (People vs. Estacio Jr.,
G.R. No. 171655, July 22, 2009).
23. Accomplice - Lending weapon such a gun to a killer for purpose of killing a
specific person such as Pedro is an act of accomplice. But if the killer used the
weapon in killing a different person such as Juan, the lender is not liable as an
accomplice. To be held liable as an accomplice, it is important that that he knows
and concurs in the criminal design of the principal (community of design) and
participates before or during the commission of the crime by supplying moral or
material aid in an efficacious way. In this case, the lender concurred in the killing
of Pedro but not Juan. Hence, he is not liable as an accomplice. If the killer used
another weapon such as knife instead of the gun borrowed in killing Pedro, the
lender is not liable as an accomplice. Although the lender concurred in the killing
of Pedro, he did not supply the killer material or moral aid in an efficacious way
since the weapon used is not the one borrowed from him.

Question XIX Romeo and Julia have been married for twelve (12) years and had
two (2) children. The first few years of their marriage went along smoothly.
However, on the fifth year onwards, they would often quarrel when Romeo
comes home drunk. The quarrels became increasingly violent, marked by quiet
periods when Julia would leave the conjugal dwelling. During these times of
quiet, Romeo would court Julia with flowers and chocolate and convince her to
return home, telling her that he could not live without her; or Romeo would ask
Julia to forgive him, which she did, believing that if she humbled herself, Romeo
would change. After a month of marital bliss, Romeo would return to his drinking
habit and the quarrel would start again, verbally at first, until it would escalate to
physical violence. One night, Romeo came home drunk and went straight to bed.
Fearing the onset of another violent fight, Julia stabbed Romeo while he was
asleep. A week later, their neighbors discovered Romeos rotting corpse on the
marital bed. Julia and the children were nowhere to be found. Julia was charged
with parricide. She asserted battered womans syndrome as her defense [a]
Explain the cycle of violence. (2.5%) [b] Is Julias battered womans syndrome
defense meritorious? Explain. (2.5%)
Preweek Materials 11. Battered woman syndrome -The essence of this
defense of Battered Woman Syndrome as a defense is that battered woman,
who suffers from physical and psychological or emotional distress, is acting
under an irresistible impulse to defend herself although at the time of commission
of the crime the battererhad not yet committed unlawful aggression. That is why
Battered Woman Syndrome is a defense notwithstanding the absence of any of
the elements for justifying circumstances of self-defense such as unlawful
aggression (Section 26 of RA No. 9262). This Syndrome refers to a scientifically
defined pattern of psychological and behavioral symptoms found in women living
in battering relationships as a result of cumulative abuse(Section 3). The three
phases of the Battered Woman Syndrome are: (1) the tension-building phase; (2)
the acute battering incident; and (3) the tranquil, loving or non-violent phase
(People vs. Genosa, G.R. No. 135981, January 15, 2004). The basis of the
irresistible impulse to make a defense against the batterer is the womans
experiencing two battering episodes. The elements of Battered Woman
Syndrome as a defense are as follows: (1) the woman is subjected to cumulative
abuse by the victim, with whom she has marital, sexual or dating relationship;
and (2) the cumulative abuse or battery is the act of inflicting physical harm
resulting to physical and psychological or emotional distress. Since the abuse
must be cumulative, there must be at least two episodes involving the infliction of
physical harm. If the first episode is infliction of physical harm and the second
episode is verbal abuse, the accused cannot avail Battered Woman Syndrome
as a defense.

Question XX A, an OFW, worked in Kuwait for several years as a chief

accountant, religiously sending to his wife, B, 80% of all his earnings. After his
stint abroad, he was shocked to know that B became the paramour of a married
man, C, and that all the monies he sent to B were given by her to C. To avenge
his honor, A hired X, Y and Z and told them to kidnap C and his wife, D, so that
he can inflict injuries on C to make him suffer, and humiliate him in front of his
wife. X, Y and Z were paid P20,000.00 each and were promised a reward of
P50,000.00 each once the job is done. At midnight, A, with the fully armed X, Y
and Z, forcibly opened the door and gained entrance to the house of C and D. C
put up a struggle before he was subdued by As group. They boarded C and D in
a van and brought the two to a small hut in a farm outside Metro Manila. Both
hands of C and D were tied. With the help of X, Y and Z, A raped D in front of C.
X, Y and Z then took turns in raping D, and subjected C to torture until he was
black and blue and bleeding profusely from several stab wounds. A and his group
set the hut on fire before leaving, killing both C and D. X, Y and Z were paid their
reward. Bothered by his conscience, A surrendered the next day to the police,
admitting the crimes he committed. As the RTC judge, decide what crime or
crimes were committed by A, X, Y and Z, and what mitigating and aggravating
circumstances will be applied in imposing the penalty. Explain. (5%)
Preweek Materials 29. Special complex crime In robbery with homicide, all
other felonies such as rape, intentional mutilation, usurpation of authority, or
direct assault with attempted homicide are integrated into this special complex
crime. This special complex crime is committed as long as death results by
reason or on occasion or robbery without reference or distinction as to the
circumstances, causes or modes or persons intervening in the commission of the
crime(People vs. De Leon, GR No. 179943, June 26, 2009; People vs. Jugueta,
G.R. No. 202124, April 05, 2016). X x x In Sebastian case, when the elements of
both robbery by means of violence and intimidation and robbery by using force
upon thing are present, the accused shall be held liable of the former since the
controlling qualification is the violence and intimidation. However, the penalty for
robbery in inhabited house if the robber is armed is graver than simple robbery.
Hence, by hurting the victim, the offender shall be penalized with a lighter
penalty. Since Sebastian principle defies logic and reason, People vs. Napolis,
G.R. No. L-28865, February 28, 1972 abandoned it. Under the present rule,
when the elements of both robbery by means of violence and intimidation and
robbery by using force upon thing are present, the crime is a complex one under
Article 48 of said Code. Hence, the penalty for robbery in inhabited house shall
be imposed in its maximum period (People vs. Disney, G.R. No. L-41336,
February 18, 1983; Fransdilla vs. People, GR No. 197562, April 20, 2015). If the
entry into the dwelling is without force upon thing, and the property was taken by
means of violence or intimidation, the crime committed is robbery by means of
violence or intimidation with aggravating circumstance of disregard of dwelling

(People vs. Tejero, G.R. No. 128892 June 21, 1999; People vs. Evangelio, G.R.
No. 181902, August 31, 2011). When the elements of both robbery with homicide
and robbery by using force upon thing (unlawful entry) are present, the former
shall absorb the latter. In sum, robbery by using force upon thing shall be
integrated into the special complex crime of robbery with homicide (People vs.
De Leon, GR No. 179943, June 26, 2009; People vs. Jugueta, G.R. No. 202124,
April 05, 2016). But aggravating circumstances of disregard of dwelling and
unlawful entry shall be both appreciated (People vs. Lamosa, G.R. No. 74291-93,
May 23, 1989