1. In People V.

Hernandez, the Supreme Court ruled that if common crimes like

homicide, murder, physical injuries, and arson have been committed in
furtherance of, or in connection with rebellion, then it is considered as absorbed
in the crime of rebellion (Theory of Absorption), therefore there could be no
Complex Crime. But before these common crimes can be absorbed, it is
necessary that there is evidence to show that these common crimes has promote
or espoused the ideals of the Rebels.

2. A.) Elements of Sedition

1. Offenders rise (1) publicly and (2) tumultuously;
2. They employ force, intimidation, or other means outside of legal
methods; and
3. The offenders employ any of those means to attain any of the
following objects or purposes:
a. Prevent the promulgation or execution of any law or the holding of any
popular election;
b. Prevent the National Government, or any provincial or municipal
government, or any public officer thereof from freely exercising its or his
functions, or prevent the execution of any administrative order;
c. Inflict any act of hate or revenge upon the person or property of any
public officer or employee;
d. Commit for any political or social end any act of hate or revenge against
private persons or any social class; and
e. Despoil, for any political or social end, any person, municipality or
province, or the National Government of all its property or any party
thereof.

Participants must at least be four in numbers.

B.) Sedition distinguished from rebellion.

a. As to its commission, in sedition it is sufficient that public uprising be
tumultuous while in rebellion there must be taking up of arms against
the government.
b. As to purpose, sedition may be political or social, that is merely to go
against the established government not to overthrow it while rebellion
it is always political, that is to overthrow the government.
c. As to absorption of other crimes, in sedition crimes associated with
sedition can be prosecuted while in rebellion offenses committed
pursuant to rebellion are absorbed.
 What distinguishes sedition from rebellion is not the extent of the territory
covered by the uprising but rather the object at which the uprising aims.
3. No, the arrest of Go is not valid because it was made without a warrant. The act
of Go in going to the police station was not a case of voluntary surrender nor was
it a ground for a valid warrantless arrest under section 5 rule 113 of the rules in
criminal procedure.

For a warrantless arrest to be valid it must be made in the following instances:

a) When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually

committing, or is attempting to commit an offense;

b) When an offense has in fact just been committed, and he has probable cause
to believe based on personal knowledge of facts and circumstances that the
person to be arrested has committed it; and

c) When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped from a penal
establishment or place where he is serving final judgment or temporarily confined
while his case is pending, or has escaped while being transferred from one
confinement to another.

In the case at bar none of those enumerated under section 5 rule 113 of the rules
in criminal procedure are present, therefore it is not a valid warrantless arrest.
The arresting officer should have obtained a warrant of arrest in order for the
arrest to be valid.

4. D

5. Arbitrary detention under Art. 124 vs. Arbitrary detention under Art. 125

 In arbitrary detention under Art. 124, the detention is illegal from the
beginning; while in arbitrary detention under Art. 125, the detention is legal
in the beginning but the illegality of the detention starts from the expiration
of any of the periods of time specified in Art. 125, without the detained
prisoner detained having been delivered to the proper judicial authority.

6. No, the commissioners cannot be charge with Plunder. The proper charge should
be Direct Bribery which is punishable and defined under article 210 of the revised
penal code. The act of demanding or soliciting gift from the undesirable alien in
exchange for the non-performance of their duties falls under the third form of
Direct Bribery which provides the following elements:

Elements
 Offender is a public officer within the scope of Art. 203;
  Offender accepts an offer or promise or receives a gift or present by
himself or through another;
 Such offer or promise be accepted, or gift or present received by the
public officer to refrain from doing something, which is his official duty to
do; and
 That act which the offender agrees to perform or which he executes be
connected with the performance of his official function.

7.
a. Mr. D can be charged with Violation of Section 5. Sale, Trading,
Administration, Dispensation, Delivery, Distribution and Transportation of
dangerous Drugs and/or controlled Precursors and Essential Chemical; and
Section 12. Possession of Equipment, Instrument, Apparatus and other
Paraphernalia’s, of the Dangerous Drugs of RA 9165 or the Comprehensive
Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.

b. In order to protect the integrity and admissibility of the evidence the arresting
officer must comply with the procedure provided by RA 9165 or the
Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002 as amended by RA 10640.

SECTION 1. Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165, otherwise known as the

“Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002″, is hereby amended to read as
follows:

“SEC. 21. Custody and Disposition of Confiscated, Seized, and/or Surrendered

Dangerous Drugs, Plant Sources of Dangerous Drugs, Controlled Precursors
and Essential Chemicals, Instruments/Paraphernalia and/or Laboratory
Equipment. – The PDEA shall take charge and have custody of all dangerous
drugs, plant sources of dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and essential
chemicals, as well as instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment
so confiscated, seized and/or surrendered, for proper disposition in the
following manner:

“The apprehending team having initial custody and control of the dangerous
drugs, controlled precursors and essential chemicals,
instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment shall, immediately after
seizure and confiscation, conduct a physical inventory of the seized items and
photograph the same in the presence of the accused or the person/s from
whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or
counsel, with an elected public official and a representative of the National
Prosecution Service or the media who shall be required to sign the copies of
the inventory and be given a copy thereof: Provided, That the physical
inventory and photograph shall be conducted at the place where the search
warrant is served; or at the nearest police station or at the nearest office of the
apprehending officer/team, whichever is practicable, in case of warrantless
 seizures: Provided, finally, That noncompliance of these requirements under
justifiable grounds, as long as the integrity and the evidentiary value of the
seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending officer/team, shall not
render void and invalid such seizures and custody over said items.

A certification of the forensic laboratory examination results, which shall be

done by the forensic laboratory examiner, shall be issued immediately upon the
receipt of the subject item/s: Provided, That when the volume of dangerous
drugs, plant sources of dangerous drugs, and controlled precursors and
essential chemicals does not allow the completion of testing within the time
frame, a partial laboratory examination report shall be provisionally issued
stating therein the quantities of dangerous drugs still to be examined by the
forensic laboratory: Provided, however, That a final certification shall be issued
immediately upon completion of the said examination and certification.

8. Yes, the Supervisor can be charged with Direct Bribery under Article 210 of the
RPC and under Section 3 of RA 3019 known as the Anti-graft and Corrupt
Practices Act without violating his right against double jeopardy. In the case of
Juanito T. Merencillo v People of the Philippines G.R. Nos. 142369-70 with
similar facts, the Supreme Court has laid to rest the issue of whether or not an
offender be charged with direct bribery and Violation of section 3(b) of the Anti-
graft and Corrupt Practices Act without violating his right against double
jeopardy. The rule against double jeopardy prohibits twice placing a person in
jeopardy of punishment for the same offense. The test is whether one offense is
identical with the other or is an attempt to commit it or a frustration thereof; or
whether one offense necessarily includes or is necessarily included in the other,
as provided in Section 7 of Rule 117 of the Rules of Court. An offense charged
necessarily includes that which is proved when some of the essential elements or
ingredients of the former, as alleged in the complaint or information, constitute
the latter; and an offense charged is necessarily included in the offense proved
when the essential ingredients of the former constitute or form a part of those
constituting the latter. .

Section 3(b) of RA 3019 provides:

Section 3. In addition to acts or omissions of public officers already penalized by

existing law, the following shall constitute corrupt practices of any public officer
and are hereby declared unlawful:

(b) Directly or indirectly requesting or receiving any gift, present, share

percentage or benefit, for himself or for any other person, in connection with any
contract or transaction between the Government and any other party, wherein
the public officer in his official capacity has to intervene under the law.

The elements of the crime penalized under Section 3(b) of RA 3019 are:
(1) the offender is a public officer;

(2) he requested or received a gift, present, share, percentage or benefit;

(3) he made the request or receipt on behalf of the offender or any other person;

(4) the request or receipt was made in connection with a contract or transaction
with the government and

(5) he has the right to intervene, in an official capacity under the law, in
connection with a contract or transaction has the right to intervene.

On the other hand, direct bribery has the following essential elements:

(1) the offender is a public officer;

(2) the offender accepts an offer or promise or receives a gift or present by

himself or through another;

(3) such offer or promise be accepted or gift or present be received by the public
officer with a view to committing some crime, or in consideration of the execution
of an act which does not constitute a crime but the act must be unjust, or to
refrain from doing something which it is his official duty to do and

(4) the act which the offender agrees to perform or which he executes is
connected with the performance of his official duties

Clearly, the violation of Section 3(b) of RA 3019 is neither identical nor

necessarily inclusive of direct bribery. While they have common elements, not all
the essential elements of one offense are included among or form part of those
enumerated in the other. Whereas the mere request or demand of a gift, present,
share, percentage or benefit is enough to constitute a violation of Section 3(b) of
RA 3019, acceptance of a promise or offer or receipt of a gift or present is
required in direct bribery. Moreover, the ambit of Section 3(b) of RA 3019 is
specific. It is limited only to contracts or transactions involving monetary
consideration where the public officer has the authority to intervene under the
law. Direct bribery, on the other hand, has a wider and more general scope: (a)
performance of an act constituting a crime; (b) execution of an unjust act which
does not constitute a crime and (c) agreeing to refrain or refraining from doing an
act which is his official duty to do.

Although the two charges against petitioner stemmed from the same transaction,
the same act gave rise to two separate and distinct offenses. No double jeopardy
attached since there was a variance between the elements of the offenses
charged. The constitutional protection against double jeopardy proceeds from a
second prosecution for the same offense, not for a different one.
9. ( A). Under Article 172 paragraph 2 of the Revised Penal Code, falsification of
private document by any person is a crime when all the following elements
concur:

a. Offender committed any of the acts of falsification except Article 171 (7), that
is, issuing in an authenticated form a document purporting to be a copy of an
original document when no such original exists, or including in such a copy a
statement contrary to, or different from that of the genuine original;
b. Falsification was committed in any private document; and
c. Falsification caused damage to a third party or at least the falsification was
committed with the intent to damage.
Mere falsification of private documents is not enough, two things are
required:
 He must have counterfeited the false document; and
 He must have performed an independent act which operates to the
prejudice of a third person.
(B.) NONE. The fraudulent gain obtained through deceit in estafa, in the
commission of which a private document was falsified is nothing more or less
than the very damage caused by the falsification of such document. The proper
crime to be charged is estafa, if estafa can be committed without falsification,
such as when a private document is falsified to conceal the misappropriation of
money in possession of the offender, or when estafa was already consummated.
If estafa cannot be committed without falsification, then the crime is falsification
such as when the private document is falsified to obtain the money which was
later misappropriated.

10. (A.) In the case of De Guzman v. People 119 Scra 337, the Court laid down the
doctrine which held that in malversation, all that is necessary to prove is that the
defendant received in his possession the public funds and that he could not
account for them and that he could not give a reasonable excuse for their
disappearance. An accountable public officer may be convicted of malversation
even if there is no direct evidence of misappropriation and the only evidence is
the shortage in the accounts which he has not been able to explain satisfactorily.

(B.)
 The failure of a public officer to have duly forthcoming any public funds or
property with which he is chargeable, upon demand by any duly
authorized officer, shall be prima facie evidence that he has put such
missing funds or property to personal uses. Thus, the failure or inability of
the accused who was in custody of public funds to refund the shortage
 upon demand by the duly authorized offices constitutes prima facie
evidence of malversation, notwithstanding the fact that such demand had
been merely made verbally. (U.S. vs. Kalingo, 46 Phil. 651)

The disappearance of public funds in the hands of an accountable public

officer is prime facie evidence of their conversion. (People vs. Velasco,
CA-G.R. No. 2546-R, Nov. 8, 1948)

 The prima facie presumption of guilt in Malversation can be rebutted by

the accused if he has adduced evidence showing that he did not put the
missing funds or property to personal uses, then that presumption is at an
end and the prime facie case is destroyed. (People vs. Bernas, C.A., 53
O.G. 1105, citing Supreme Court Cases; See Quizo vs. Sandiganbayan,
supra)

11. The crime committed by Rafael Jr., Antonio, Eulogia, Gloria and Linda is the
crime of falsification under 171 paragraph 4 of the Revised Penal Code in
relation to Article 172. The following elements must concur:
a. The offender makes in a public document untruthful statements in a
narration of facts;
b. The offender has a legal obligation to disclose the truth of the facts
narrated by him; and
c. The facts narrated by the offender are absolutely false.

The first and third elements were committed through the execution of the deed of
succession by the five children of the first marriage where they stated that they
were the only heirs of Rafael and accordingly adjudicated unto themselves the
property left by their father to the exclusion of Corazon. The untruthfulness of the
statement is clear from the actions of the execution of the deed of succession to
the notarization of the Deed of Adjudication and cancellation and transfer of the
Title of the property No.P-22894 to Rafael Jr., Antonio, Eulogia, Gloria and Linda.

The second element was committed when the petitioners had the obligation to
speak only the truth in their deed of succession taking into account the very
nature of the document falsified. The deed, which was transformed into a public
document upon acknowledgement before a notary public, required only truthful
statements from the petitioners.

Given the prevailing facts since all of the elements are present the crime of
falsification under 171 paragraph 4 of the Revised Penal Code in relation to
Article 172 was consummated.
12. The crime of Coup d’etat under Art. 134-a of the RPC becomes punishable under
the Human Security Act of 2007 if it is committed by a swift attack, accompanied
by violence, intimidation, threat, strategy or stealth, directed against duly
constituted authorities of the Republic of the Philippines, or any military camp or
installation, communications networks, public utilities or facilities needed for the
exercise and continued possession of power, singly or simultaneously carried out
anywhere in the Philippines by any person or persons, belonging to the military
or police or holding any public office or employment, with or without civilian
support or participation, for the purpose of seizing or diminishing state power.

13. Applying Article 160 and 266-b of the RPC the proper penalty for X would be
Reclusion Temporal.

Under article 266-b the penalty for Sexual Assault with the use of a deadly
weapon shall be Prision Mayor to Reclusion Temporal. While under Article 160
which provides for the so-called quasi-recidivism states that Quasi-recidivism is a
special aggravating circumstance where a person, after having been convicted
by final judgment, shall commit a new felony before beginning to serve such
sentence, or while serving the same. He shall be punished by the maximum
period of the penalty prescribed by law for the new felony.

In the case at bar X was already been convicted by final Judgment for the crime
of Homicide and was serving his sentence when he committed the Crime of
Sexual Assault therefore he is a Quasi-Recidivist and the maximum penalty of
Sexual Assault should be imposed which is Reclusion Temporal. The Plea of
guilty of X which is an ordinary mitigating circumstance cannot offset the penalty
because Quasi-recidivism under Art. 160 of RPC specifically provides that the
offender shall be punished by the maximum period of the penalty prescribed by
law for the new felony.

14. Bruno committed the complex crime of Homicide with Unintentional abortion.
Under Article 48 of the RPC, complex crime is committed when a single act
causes two or more grave or less grave felonies. In the case at bar the single act
of boxing executed by Bruno caused the death of Bruna and the Abortion of the
Fetus, therefore it is a Complex crime of Homicide and Unintentional Abortion.

It is homicide under article 249 and not murder under article 248 because of the
absence of the Qualifying circumstances mentioned under Article 248 of the
RPC. The state of intoxication of Bruno does not qualify the death to murder
since it is only an Alternative Circumstance provided under Article 15 of the RPC.
In the case all the elements of homicide mentioned under Article 249 of RPC are
present:
 (1) That a person was killed;
(2) That the accused killed him without any justifying circumstance;
(3) That the accused had the intention to kill, which is presumed;
(4) That the killing was not attended by any of the qualifying circumstances of
murder, or by that of parricide or infanticide.

On the other hand there is Unintentional Abortion because Bruno intentionally

used violence against Bruna which caused the abortion of the Fetus. Under
Article 257 of the RPC Unintentional Abortion Exist when the following elements
are present:

(1). That there is a pregnant woman.

(2). That violence is used upon such pregnant woman without intending an
abortion.
(3.) That the violence is intentionally exerted.
(4.) That as a result of the violence the foetus dies, either in the womb or after
having been expelled therefrom.

15. The differences between Attempted Rape and Acts of lasciviousness are:
(a) If the acts performed by the offender clearly indicate that his purpose was to
lie with the offended woman, it is attempted rape. While in Acts of Lasciviousness
the purpose is only to commit acts of lewdness.
(b) In the case of attempted rape, the lascivious acts are but the preparatory acts
to the commission of rape; whereas, in the other, the lascivious acts are
themselves the final objective sought by the offender.