Sunshine, a beauteous "colegiala" but a shoplifter, went to the Ever Department Store and

proceed to the women's wear section. The saleslady was of the impression that she brought to the
fitting room three (3) pieces of swimsuits of different colors. When she came out of the fitting
room, she returned only two (2) pieces to the clothes rack. The saleslady became suspicious and
alerted the store detective. Sunshine was stopped by the detective before she could leave the
store and brought to the office of the store manager. The detective and the manager searched her
and found her wearing the third swimsuit under her blouse and pants. Was the theft of the
swimsuit consummated, frustrated or attempted? Explain. (5%).
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The theft was consummated because the taking was complete when the offender acquired
exclusive control of the personal property being taken; in this case, when Sunshine wore the
swimsuit under her blouse and pants and was on her way out of the store. With evident intent to
gain, the taking constitutes theft and being complete, it is consummated. It is not necessary that
the offender is in a position to dispose of the property.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
The crime of theft was only frustrated because Sunshine has not yet left the store when the
offense was opportunely discovered and the article seized from her. She does not have yet the
freedom to dispose of the swimsuit she was taking (People vs. Dino, CA 45 O.G. 3446). Moreover,
in case of doubt as to whether it is consummated or frustrated, the doubt must be resolved in
favor of the milder criminal responsibility.

While they were standing in line awaiting their vaccination at the school clinic, Pomping
repeatedly pulled the ponytail of Katreena, his 11 years, 2 months and 13 days old classmate in
Grade 5 at the Sampaloc Elementary School. Irritated, Katreena turned around and swung at
Pomping with a ballpen. The top of the ballpen hit the right eye of Pomping which bled profusely.
Realizing what she had caused, Katreena immediately helped Pomping. When investigated, she
freely admitted to the school principal that she was responsible for the injury to Pomping's eye.
After the incident, she executed a statement admitting her culpability. Due to the injury, Pomping
lost his right eye.
a) Is Katreena criminally liable? Why? (3%)
b) Discuss the attendant circumstances and effects thereof. (2%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
a) No, Katreena is not criminally liable although she is civilly liable. Being a minor less than fifteen
(15) years old although over nine (9) years of age, she is generally exempt from criminal liability.
The exception is where the prosecution proved that the act was committed with discernment. The
burden is upon the prosecution to prove that the accused acted with discernment.
The presumption is that such minor acted without discernment, and this is strengthen by the fact
that Katreena only reacted with a ballpen which she must be using in class at the time, and only
to stop Pompong's vexatious act of repeatedly pulling her ponytail. In other words, the injury was
accidental.
b) The attendant circumstances which may be considered are:
1. Minority of the accused as an exempting circumstances under Article 12, paragraph 3, Rev.
Penal Code, where she shall be exempt from criminal liability, unless it was proved that she acted
with discernment. She is however civilly liable;
2. If found criminally liable, the minority of the accused as a privileged mitigating circumstance. A
discretionary penalty lower by at least two (2) degrees than that prescribed for the crime

committed shall be imposed in accordance with Article 68, paragraph 1, Rev. Penal Code. The
sentence, however, should automatically be suspended in accordance with Section 5(a) of Rep.
Act No. 8369 otherwise known as the "Family Courts Act of 1997";
3. Also if found criminally liable, the ordinary mitigating circumstance of not intending to commit
so grave a wrong as that committed, under Article 13, paragraph 3, Rev. Penal Code; and
4. The ordinary mitigating circumstance of sufficient provocation on the part of the offended party
immediately preceded the act.
a) Lucresia, a store owner, was robbed of her bracelet in her home. The following day, at about 5
o'clock in the afternoon, a neighbor, 22-year old Jun-Jun, who had an unsavory reputation, came to
her store to buy bottles of beer. Lucresia noticed her bracelet wound around the right arm of JunJun. As soon as the latter left, Lucresia went to nearby police station and sought the help of a
policeman on duty, Pat. Willie Reyes. He went with Lucresia to the house of Jun-Jun to confront the
latter. Pat. Reyes introduced himself as a policeman and tried to get hold of Jun-Jun who resisted
and ran away. Pat. Reyes chased him and fired two warning shots in the air. Jun-Jun continued to
run and when he was about 7 meters away, Pat. Reyes shot him in the right leg. Jun-Jun was hit
and he fell down but he crawled towards a fence, intending to pass through an opening
underneath. When Pat. Reyes was about 5 meters away, he fired another shot at Jun-Jun hitting
him at the right lower hip. Pat. Reyes brought Jun-Jun to the hospital, but because of profuse
bleeding, he eventually died. Pat. Reyes was subsequently charged with homicide. During the trial,
Pat. Reyes raised the defense, by way of exoneration, the he acted in the fulfillment of a duty. Is
the defense tenable? Explain. (3%).
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
a) No, the defense of Pat. Reyes is not tenable. The defense of having acted in the fulfillment of a
duty requires as a condition, inter alia, that the injury or offense committed be the unavoidable or
necessary consequence of the due performance of the duty (People vs. Oanis, et al., 74 Phil. 257).
It is not enough that the accused acted in fulfillment of a duty.
After Jun-Jun was shot in the right leg and was already crawling, there was no need for Pat. Reyes
to shoot him further. Clearly, Pat. Reyes acted beyond the call of duty which brought about the
cause of death of the victim.
Mr. Carlos Gabisi, a customs guard, and Mr. Rico Yto, a private individual, went to the office of Mr.
Diether Ocuarto, a customs broker, and represented themselves as agents of Moonglow
Commercial trading, an importer of children's clothes and toys. Mr. Gabisi and Mr. Yto engaged Mr.
Ocuarto to prepare the file with the Bureau of Customs the necessary Import Entry and Internal
Revenue Declaration which declared the shipment as children's toys, the taxes and duties of
which were computed at P60,000,00. Mr. Ocuarto filed the aforementioned documents with the
Manila International Container Port. However, before the shipment was released, a spot check was
conducted by the Customs Senior Agent James Bandido, who discovered that the contents of the
van (shipment) were not children's toys as declared in the shipping documents but 1,000 units of
video cassette recorders with taxes and duties computed at P600,000.00. A hold order and
warrant of seizure and detention were then issued by the District Collector of Customs. Further
investigation showed that Moonglow is non-existent. Consequently, Mr. Gabisi and Mr. Yto were
charged with and convicted for violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. 3019 which makes it unlawful
among others, for public officers to cause any undue injury to any party, including the
Government, in the discharge of official functions through manifest partiality, evident bad faith or
gross inexcusable negligence. In their motion for reconsideration, the accused alleged that the
decision was erroneous because the crime was not consummated but was only at an attempted
stage, and that in fact the Government did not suffer any undue injury.

a) Is the contention of both accused correct? Explain.

b) Assuming that the attempted or frustrated stage of the violation charged is not punishable,
may the accused be nevertheless convicted for an offense punished by the Revised Penal Code
under the facts of the case? Explain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
a) Yes, the contention of the accused that thee crime was not consummated is correct. R.A. 3019
is a special law punishing acts mala prohibita. As a rule, attempted violation of a special law is not
punished. Actual injury is required.
b) Yes, both are liable for attempted for estafa thru falsification of commercial documents, a
complex crime. They tried to defraud the Government with the use of false commercial and public
documents. Damage is not necessary.
XVII
a) What is an impossible crime? (2%)
b) Is an impossible crime really a crime? (2%)
c) A, B, C and D, all armed with armalites, proceeded to the house of X. Y, a neighbor of X, who
happened to be passing by, pointed to the four culprits the room that X occupied. The four culprits
peppered the room with bullets. Unsatisfied, A even threw a hand grenade that totally destroyed
Xs room. However, unknown to the four culprits, X was not inside the room and nobody was hit or
injured during the incident. Are A, B, C and D liable for any crime? Explain. (3%)
d) Carla, 4 years old, was kidnapped by Enrique, the tricycle driver paid by her parents to bring
and fetch her to and from school. Enrique wrote a ransom note demanding P500,000.00 from
Carlas parents in exchange for Carlas freedom. Enrique sent the ransom note by mail. However,
before the ransom note was received by Carlas parents, Enriques hideout was discovered by the
police. Carla was rescued while Enrique was arrested and incarcerated. Considering that the
ransom note was not received by Carlas parents, the investigating prosecutor merely filed a case
of Impossible Crime to Commit Kidnapping against Enrique. Is the prosecution correct? Why?
(3%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
a) An impossible crime is an act which, would be an offense against person property, were if not
for the inherent impossibility of its accomplishment or on account of the employment of
inadequate or ineffectual means (Art. 4, par. 2, RPC).
b) No, an impossible crime is not really a crime. It is only so-called because the act gives rise to
criminal liability. But actually, no felony is committed. The accused is to be punished for his
criminal tendency or propensity although no crime was committed.
c) Yes, A, B, C and D are liable for destructive arson because of the destruction of the room of X
with the use of an explosive, the hand grenade. Liability for an impossible crime is to be imposed
only if the act committed would not constitute any other crime under the Revised Penal Code.
Although the facts of the case are parallel to the case of Intod vs. Court of Appeals (215 SCRA 52),
where it ruled that the liability of the offender was for an impossible crime, no hand grenade was
used in said case, which constitutes a more serious crime though different from what was
intended.
d) No, the prosecutor is not correct in filing a case for impossible crime to commit kidnapping
against Enrique. Impossible crimes are limited only to acts which when performed would be a

crime against persons or property. As kidnapping is a crime against personal security and not
against persons or property, Enrique could not have incurred an impossible crime to commit
kidnapping. There is thus no impossible crime of kidnapping.