ANSWER KEY:
Case 1 of 327: 3M Philippines Inc. vs. Lauro D. Yuseco (G.R. No. 248941)
📌 ANSWER KEY WITH EXPLANATIONS:
1. C – Redundancy due to organizational restructuring
3M Philippines justified Yuseco’s termination by citing a corporate merger that rendered his position superfluous.
2. B – Conducted a merger of business groups and identified overlapping roles
The company merged the Industrial and Safety & Graphics Business Groups, leading to role redundancy.
3. B – There was insufficient proof of redundancy
The Court of Appeals ruled the dismissal illegal due to lack of supporting documents proving the redundancy.
4. A – Personal friendship with management
Friendship is not a valid criterion; only fair, objective factors like efficiency and seniority are acceptable.
5. C – They were accepted as substantial evidence
The Supreme Court held that affidavits of HR officers with personal knowledge satisfied the requirement for substantial evidence.
6. B – Because the letters actually complemented each other when read together
The Court ruled that the two letters were not contradictory but explained the same redundancy-based termination.
7. B – Lopez had higher performance ratings and broader experience
Lopez was retained based on a broader work scope and superior ratings, unlike Yuseco who only had industrial experience.
8. C – Separation package as previously computed by the employer
Yuseco was not reinstated but was awarded the special separation package computed by 3M.
9. C – Sent written notices to both the employee and the labor department
3M complied with labor regulations by notifying both Yuseco and the DOLE at least 30 days in advance.
10. C – Employers may validly reduce workforce if positions become unnecessary
The Court reiterated that redundancy is lawful even if the company is not in financial distress.
🎓 Great job reviewing! Keep practicing for mastery of key labor doctrines.
Case 160 of 327: People of the Philippines vs. Nestor Bendecio y Viejo alias "Tan", G.R. No. 235016, promulgated on September 8, 2020
1. C. Complex crime of murder with attempted murder
👉 The accused’s single act of shooting resulted in one death (murder) and one failed killing (attempted murder), constituting a complex crime.
2. B. Aberratio ictus
👉 This doctrine applies when an unlawful act intended for one victim affects another due to a mistake in aim.
3. C. The child had no chance to defend herself
👉 The Court ruled the killing as murder because the child, an unintended victim, was completely helpless and the attack was sudden.
4. D. Gerry Marasigan
👉 The shooter’s true target was Gerry Marasigan, whom he tried to kill by firing at him directly.
5. C. The bullet missed and did not cause fatal injury
👉 The attempt to kill Gerry was unsuccessful not due to the shooter’s desistance, but because he missed.
6. C. It produced two grave felonies arising from one act
👉 The Court classified the shooting as a complex crime because one act led to both murder and attempted murder.
7. C. Treachery
👉 Treachery was appreciated in both the attempted and consummated acts due to the sudden and unprovoked nature of the attack.
8. B. Their testimonies were consistent and candid
👉 The Court upheld the credibility of the prosecution witnesses because they testified in a straightforward, convincing, and consistent manner.
9. C. It was uncorroborated and inconsistent
👉 The defense’s alibi was weak because it lacked any supporting evidence and could not overcome positive identification by witnesses.
10. B. Reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole
👉 The Supreme Court imposed reclusion perpetua without parole as mandated for murder cases where the death penalty is prohibited under R.A. 9346.
CASE 161: People of the Philippines vs. Marvin Bolado y Naval, G.R. No. 227356, promulgated on October 16, 2019.
-
B. The chain of custody of the drug was broken
➤ The Supreme Court acquitted Bolado because the required procedural safeguards for preserving the identity of the seized drug were not followed. -
C. DOJ representative and elected official
➤ The law mandates their presence during the inventory; their absence constituted a fatal lapse in the chain of custody. -
C. Police station
➤ The photographs were not taken at the place of arrest, violating proper procedure for handling seized drugs. -
B. 0.06 gram
➤ Bolado was accused of selling a small amount—0.06 grams—of shabu during the buy-bust operation. -
C. Clear non-compliance with chain of custody rules
➤ The presumption of regularity cannot cure major lapses in following required procedures. -
C. Illegal sale of dangerous drugs
➤ He was charged specifically with the sale, not possession or manufacture, of methamphetamine. -
B. Dangerous Drugs Act
➤ The case hinged on compliance with procedural requirements under the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act (RA 9165). -
D. Middleman in the buy-bust
➤ The confidential informant facilitated the transaction but was not the actual poseur-buyer. -
B. No justifiable reason was presented for the procedural lapses
➤ The saving clause could not apply because the prosecution failed to explain or justify the deviation from procedure. -
B. Evidence is considered contaminated
➤ Breaks in the chain of custody cast doubt on the integrity of the drug, weakening its value as evidence.
Case 162: People v. Bombasi y Vergara (G.R. No. 230555, October 9, 2019)
1. B – The police failed to justify their deviation from procedural requirements
👉 The Court held that unjustified non-compliance with the chain of custody rules invalidated the evidence.
2. C – Compliance with the chain of custody procedure
👉 The integrity of drug evidence hinges on an unbroken, well-documented chain of custody.
3. C – They serve as required witnesses in the inventory process
👉 The law mandates their presence to insulate against tampering or planting of evidence.
4. C – Inventory and marking were not done at the scene
👉 The police conducted these at the station, violating the requirement for on-site processing.
5. B – Chain of custody
👉 This principle ensures the proper handling of evidence from seizure until court presentation.
6. B – Explained and justified to preserve integrity
👉 Procedural lapses may be excused only with valid explanation and proof of evidence integrity.
7. C – Drug cases require strict adherence to evidence handling
👉 The Court emphasized that strict compliance is necessary due to the nature of the offense.
8. B – Presence of required witnesses
👉 Only a media representative was present; DOJ and an elected official were absent during inventory.
9. C – Ensures the drugs are immediately marked and witnessed at the arrest scene
👉 The first link is crucial to proving the identity and origin of the seized items.
10. C – It undermines the reliability of the evidence
👉 Without compliance or justification, the integrity of the evidence becomes doubtful, leading to acquittal.
CASE 163 OF 327: People of the Philippines vs. Naci Borras y Lascano G.R. No. 250295, March 15, 2021
✅ ANSWER KEY WITH
EXPLANATIONS:
- C. The public prosecutor
🔎 Because the prosecutor represents the State, which is the offended party in criminal drug cases, their consent is required in plea bargaining. - B. Illegal possession and sale of dangerous drugs
🔎 The accused was charged with both selling and possessing methamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous drug. - C. It declared the DOJ circulars unconstitutional
🔎 The trial court allowed the plea bargain by striking down DOJ issuances it deemed contrary to the Supreme Court’s authority. - C. Possession of drug paraphernalia
🔎 The accused pleaded guilty to a lesser offense involving possession of paraphernalia, not to the original drug sale and possession charges. - C. Deleted that part from the ruling
🔎 While affirming the conviction, the Court of Appeals removed the RTC’s ruling that declared DOJ circulars unconstitutional. - B. It invalidated the plea bargain for lack of
mutual agreement
🔎 The Supreme Court ruled that the plea bargain was void because it was done without the required consent of the prosecutor. - C. The State
🔎 In drug cases, the legal victim is the State, as it is society that suffers harm from drug crimes. - B. A discretionary privilege, not a demandable
right
🔎 Plea bargaining is allowed only upon agreement of the parties and court approval; it is not a matter of right. - C. It lacked the required prosecutorial consent
🔎 The absence of the prosecutor’s agreement rendered the plea and resulting conviction invalid. - C. They are internal guidelines that do not usurp
the Court’s rule-making power
🔎 The Supreme Court clarified that DOJ Circulars guide prosecutors internally and do not override judicial rules.
CASE 164 OF 327:
CASE 165 OF 327: People of the Philippines v. Pilar Burdeos y Oropa G.R. No. 218434, July 17, 2019
✅ ANSWER KEY WITH EXPLANATIONS – People v. Burdeos Quizzer
-
C. The chain of custody was repeatedly broken
👉 The Supreme Court acquitted the accused due to multiple unexplained breaches in the chain of custody, undermining the integrity of the evidence. -
C. The dangerous drug seized
👉 In drug-related cases, corpus delicti refers to the drug itself as the essential element of the crime. -
D. Court stenographer
👉 A court stenographer is not required during inventory; the law requires a media representative, DOJ representative, and elected public official. -
B. There were serious lapses in procedure without justification
👉 The Court held that procedural violations without valid explanation cannot be cured by the presumption of regularity. -
A. Chain of custody
👉 Marking the drug only at the station instead of immediately at the place of arrest violates the first link in the chain of custody. -
C. They contradicted each other on the handling of evidence
👉 Inconsistent testimonies between the officers regarding who handled the drugs created doubt and broke the chain of custody. -
B. The transfer of the drugs to the forensic chemist
👉 The prosecution failed to clearly establish who delivered the drugs to the lab, creating a missing link in the chain. -
C. It was insufficient without the other required witnesses
👉 The presence of a civilian alone during inventory does not satisfy the legal requirement of having three specific witnesses. -
C. Provide a valid explanation and prove integrity of evidence
👉 The law permits deviations only if the prosecution justifies them and proves that the drug evidence remained intact. -
D. The accused may be acquitted
👉 Without justifiable reasons for non-compliance, the Court must acquit the accused due to compromised evidence integrity.
- B.
Procedural lapses in inventory
👉 The Supreme Court acquitted the accused because required procedures during the inventory of seized drugs were not followed. - B.
To prevent switching or tampering
👉 The presence of insulating witnesses ensures the credibility and integrity of the seized items. - B.
She was framed and illegally detained
👉 The accused claimed she was illegally arrested and a demand for money was made by the arresting officers. - C.
To ensure evidence integrity
👉 An unbroken chain of custody proves that the evidence presented in court is the same as that originally seized. - C.
It opens the possibility of evidence contamination
👉 The absence of required witnesses allows the possibility of tampering, which weakens the prosecution’s case. - C.
Required witnesses during inventory were missing
👉 No DOJ representative or elected official was present during the inventory, violating established procedure. - B.
That attempts were made to contact other available witnesses
👉 The prosecution failed to show earnest efforts to find alternative witnesses, which is required under the saving clause. - C.
The saving clause
👉 This doctrine allows deviation from procedure if justified and if the evidence's integrity is preserved. - B.
That good faith efforts were made
👉 Courts require proof that authorities seriously tried to comply with procedural requirements, even if ultimately unsuccessful. - C.
Broken chain of custody and lack of justifiable explanation
👉 Without an unbroken chain or valid excuse for non-compliance, the drugs were deemed inadmissible.
CASE 167 OF 327: People v. Philip Carreon y Mendiola, G.R. No. 229086 (Jan. 15, 2020):
-
C. There was no proof of actual restraint or intent to detain
➤ The Court ruled that the prosecution failed to prove the essential element of illegal detention—deprivation of liberty. -
D. The complainant willingly stayed with the accused
➤ Her voluntary presence with the accused weakened the claim that she was forcibly detained. -
C. That they were in a romantic relationship
➤ Their status as sweethearts undermined the theory of abduction or coercion. -
C. She had chances to leave but didn’t
➤ The complainant admitted having opportunities to escape but chose to stay. -
C. Prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt
➤ The ruling emphasized that all criminal convictions require this high standard of proof. -
C. The complainant never tried to escape despite opportunities
➤ Her inaction suggested no intent by the accused to restrict her liberty. -
C. She feared the consequences of the case filed by her parents
➤ Her fear was not caused by the accused but by the situation with her parents. -
C. By examining its consistency with common human behavior
➤ The Court held that credible testimony must align with normal human conduct. -
B. Criminal Law
➤ The case deals with kidnapping, serious illegal detention, and rape—all under criminal law. -
D. Proof beyond reasonable doubt
➤ Without meeting this standard, the Supreme Court held that conviction is not justified.
CASE 168 OF 327 People of the Philippines v. Ronilee Casabuena y Francisco and Kevin Formaran y Gilera; G.R. No.: 246580; Date: June 23, 2020
-
C. The killing occurred by reason or on occasion of the robbery.
➡ The Supreme Court ruled that liability attaches when a killing happens by reason or on occasion of the robbery, regardless of who is killed or who does the killing. -
C. The established conspiracy among the robbers.
➡ The Court found that conspiracy was proven; thus, the acts of one conspirator are attributable to all. -
D. The robbers acted in concert during the commission of the crime.
➡ The coordinated and concerted actions of the accused during the robbery showed unity of purpose, proving conspiracy. -
B. Part of the single crime of robbery with homicide.
➡ The killing of a co-conspirator by a police officer during the robbery’s aftermath was still deemed part of the complex crime. -
C. The killing was not connected to the robbery.
➡ The accused argued there was no direct relation between the robbery and the killing, but the Court disagreed. -
C. There was a direct connection between the robbery and the killing.
➡ The Court emphasized that the killing happened on the occasion of the robbery, thus meeting the legal requirement. -
C. The presence of a conspiracy.
➡ Conspiracy allowed the imputation of criminal liability for the homicide to all co-conspirators. -
B. The killing happens after the robbery.
➡ Timing is irrelevant; as long as the killing is connected to the robbery, liability remains. -
B. The killing happened on the occasion of the robbery.
➡ This satisfies the legal condition for the crime of robbery with homicide. -
C. Anyone, including the robbers themselves.
➡ The Court clarified that even the death of a fellow robber can satisfy the homicide element in robbery with homicide.
CASE 169 OF 327: People of the Philippines vs. Edgardo Catacutan y Mortera alias "Batibot" "Enzo" & "Gerry" G.R. No. 260731, February 13, 2023
1. C – He was guilty of homicide and theft
👉
The Supreme Court ruled that the intent to rob did not precede the killing,
thus convicting him of two separate crimes instead of robbery with homicide.
2. C – Clear premeditated intent to rob before the
killing
👉
The Court emphasized that the absence of prior intent to steal negated the
classification as robbery with homicide.
3. C – An admission against interest and admissible
👉
The accused’s confession to a friend was voluntary, specific, and
incriminating, thus qualifying as an admissible admission against interest.
4. C – The killing was not related to the intention to
steal
👉
The theft happened only after the killing, which was allegedly due to personal
anger, making it an afterthought.
5. C – Security guard’s logbook and testimony
👉
The guard documented and confirmed the accused's presence at the victim’s
apartment during the critical timeframe.
6. C – The intent to rob only came after the killing
👉
The Court found that the accused decided to steal only after killing the victim
due to a separate motive.
7. C – The acts constitute separate offenses
👉
The legal rule holds that when the robbery follows the homicide without prior
intent, they are treated as distinct crimes.
8. A – Confession and attempt to sell the items
👉
The accused admitted to selling the stolen items, supporting the finding of
theft even in the absence of item recovery.
9. B – The order and intent behind the acts
👉
The sequencing of the killing before the theft and the accused’s motive were
crucial in classifying the offenses.
10. D – Estimated worth based on attempted sale
👉
The penalty was based on the accused’s own attempt to sell a stolen item, which
helped approximate the total value.
- D.
Accidental shooting
➤ The accused claimed the gun accidentally discharged during a struggle with the victim. - C.
The victim was pinned down and unable to defend himself
➤ Treachery was appreciated because the attack was sudden, and the victim was defenseless when shot. - C.
The credible eyewitness accounts
➤ The Supreme Court relied on the consistent testimonies of the victim’s wife and son, which contradicted the accident claim. - B.
There was no proof of planning before the shooting
➤ Evident premeditation was rejected due to lack of evidence that the killing was planned in advance. - D.
Credible and straightforward
➤ The Court found the witnesses’ testimonies spontaneous and believable, even if they were related to the victim. - C.
Reclusion perpetua
➤ The penalty for murder without aggravating circumstances is reclusion perpetua. - D.
Nominal damages
➤ The Court awarded civil, moral, exemplary, and temperate damages, but not nominal damages. - C.
Treachery
➤ The qualifying circumstance that elevated the crime to murder was treachery. - B.
Fled into the fields holding a gun
➤ Witnesses saw the accused walk away into the fields while still holding the firearm after the shooting. - C.
The testimonies were consistent and lacked improper motive
➤ The appellate courts upheld the credibility of the prosecution's witnesses due to their clear, consistent accounts and absence of ill motive.
CASE 171 OF 327: People of the Philippines vs. Danilo Reyes Crisologo and Roberto Loleng Manlavi, G.R. No. 253327, June 27, 2022
1. C. President
Danilo Crisologo was the President of PADC and approved the pricing memorandum that led to the irregular sale.
2. B. Wingtips Parts Corporation
The parts were sold to Wingtips at significantly reduced prices, resulting in undue benefits to the company.
3. C. The parts were allegedly obsolete
The accused justified the low pricing by claiming the aircraft parts were nearing obsolescence, which the court rejected.
4. B. 30%
PADC’s revised pricing policy mandated a 30% markup on parts acquired from local sources.
5. C. ₱6.6 million
The financial loss to the government due to the underpriced sale amounted to approximately ₱6.6 million.
6. C. Unwarranted benefit
A key element of the anti-graft violation is when a public officer gives a private party any unwarranted benefit.
7. C. They were still stored in the inventory and not obsolete
The Supreme Court found the parts were still in stock and therefore not subject to depreciation or classified as obsolete.
8. C. They bypassed the pricing committee and board
Crisologo and Manlavi unilaterally implemented the pricing guidelines without board or committee approval.
9. C. Computer-printed receipts
Instead of official receipts, the accused used computer-printed ones, violating COA regulations on documentation.
10. D. Imprisonment and perpetual disqualification from public office
The Supreme Court affirmed their conviction with a sentence of 6 years and 1 month to 10 years, plus perpetual disqualification.
CASE 173 OF 327: People of the Philippines vs. Chris John Custodio y Argote; G.R. No. 251741, June 14, 2023
-
C. Conducting the inventory at the police station without justification
➡ The Supreme Court held that the inventory must be done at the place of seizure unless a valid justification is clearly provided. -
C. Rendered the seized items inadmissible
➡ The broken chain of custody compromised the identity and integrity of the evidence, making it inadmissible in court. -
C. It must be strictly followed unless adequately justified
➡ Strict compliance is mandatory unless a sensible, consistent reason for deviation is offered by the police. -
C. Sensible and specific justification
➡ The law requires a concrete, not generic, explanation for not conducting the inventory at the arrest site. -
C. The first link in the chain of custody was broken
➡ The Court reversed its decision due to the unexcused failure to comply with the initial step of the chain of custody. -
C. Criminal prosecution for drug offenses
➡ The case arose from violations of laws prohibiting the sale and possession of dangerous drugs. -
C. Insufficient to cure the prior breach
➡ The later presence of insulating witnesses at the police station could not fix the initial procedural defect. -
C. The integrity and identity of the corpus delicti
➡ The Court stressed that any break in the chain of custody casts doubt on the legitimacy of the evidence. -
C. Protection of constitutional rights
➡ The Court underscored the importance of upholding the rights of the accused, even amid the war on drugs. -
C. Acquitted and immediately released
➡ Due to the fatal procedural lapses, the Supreme Court acquitted the accused and ordered his release.
Here are the answers to the quiz questions along with brief explanations:
1. C – The chain of custody was breached
➡️ The Supreme Court acquitted the accused due to multiple procedural violations that broke the chain of custody of the drug evidence.
2. C – To preserve the identity and integrity of the evidence
➡️ Strict compliance ensures that the drug presented in court is the same item seized, safeguarding against tampering or substitution.
3. B – Conduct the physical inventory and take photographs
➡️ Law requires immediate inventory and photographing of seized items to maintain evidentiary integrity.
4. C – The suspect, a barangay official, DOJ, and media representatives
➡️ These witnesses are mandated by law to be present during inventory and documentation to prevent abuse or manipulation.
5. C – The integrity of the evidence is questioned
➡️ Non-compliance without justification creates doubt on the legitimacy of the evidence, often resulting in acquittal.
6. C – A mugshot and a man writing
➡️ The prosecution failed to provide proper photographs of the seized items as required, presenting irrelevant images instead.
7. C – It was already dark and they feared commotion
➡️ The police claimed potential disturbance as the reason for not doing the inventory at the scene, which the Court found unjustified.
8. B – No, if lapses affect the integrity of evidence
➡️ The presumption of regularity cannot override clear breaches of mandatory procedures that affect evidence reliability.
9. C – It is the actual drug that must be proven to be the same item seized
➡️ In drug cases, the “corpus delicti” is the illicit substance, and its identity must be proven beyond doubt.
10. C – Accused acquitted
➡️ Due to serious violations of procedural safeguards, the Supreme Court reversed the conviction and acquitted the accused.
Case 175 of 327
Case 176 of 327
People vs. Delos Reyes, G.R. No. 264958, August 14, 2023:
1. C. To collect money as part of an initiation
👉 The victim accompanied the accused as part of a supposed fraternity initiation involving collecting money.
2. B. Pointing a knife and tying him up
👉 The accused pointed a knife at the victim and tied him up, beginning the illegal detention.
3. D. The victim was a minor
👉 The Supreme Court ruled that detention of a minor qualifies the act as serious illegal detention.
4. C. Consistent and credible
👉 The SC and lower courts found the minor’s testimony straightforward and convincing.
5. C. The victim voluntarily came with him
👉 The accused’s main defense was that the victim voluntarily accompanied him and no force was used.
6. C. They were immaterial to the issue
👉 The Court ruled that the absence of wrist marks was trivial and didn’t disprove the detention.
7. B. Civil, moral, and exemplary damages
👉 The accused was ordered to pay ₱75,000 each in civil indemnity, moral, and exemplary damages.
8. A. Victim's age and pit depth
👉 The act of pushing a 15-year-old into a 20-foot pit demonstrated intent to deprive liberty.
9. B. Absence of mitigating or aggravating circumstances
👉 Under applicable rules, reclusion perpetua was imposed because there were no modifying circumstances.
10. C. The conviction was affirmed
👉 The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction of serious illegal detention with full penalties.
Case 177 of 327
People of the Philippines vs. Paulino Delos Santos Jr., G.R. No. 248929, November 9, 2020:
-
C. Parricide
🔹 The crime committed was parricide—killing of a parent by their child. -
B. Father and son
🔹 The victim was the father of the accused, Paulino Sr. -
C. Positive eyewitness identification
🔹 The conviction was based on a credible lone eyewitness testimony. -
C. Proof of motive
🔹 Motive is not essential when identity is clearly established. -
B. It can be enough if found credible
🔹 The Court held that one credible witness is sufficient to convict. -
C. Fleeing the crime scene
🔹 Flight is a strong indication of guilt, as cited by the Court. -
C. Heated drunken argument
🔹 The stabbing happened during a drunken altercation with his father. -
D. Dismissed as weak and self-serving
🔹 Alibi and denial were rejected in favor of positive ID by a witness. -
C. Reclusion perpetua
🔹 The SC upheld the sentence of reclusion perpetua (no parole). -
D. Civil, moral, exemplary, and temperate damages
🔹 SC awarded ₱75,000 each in civil, moral, and exemplary, and ₱50,000 in temperate damages, with 6% interest per annum.
Case 178 of 327
People v. Diamante, G.R. No. 231980, October 9, 2019:
1. C. The prosecution failed to maintain an unbroken chain of custody
👉 The Supreme Court acquitted the accused due to multiple breaks in the chain of custody, which cast doubt on the integrity of the drug evidence.
2. B. Presence of both DOJ and media representatives
👉 The law requires that the inventory be witnessed by a DOJ and media representative, which was not complied with during the seizure.
3. C. Chain of Custody
👉 This rule ensures the identity and integrity of the seized drugs from the moment of seizure until presentation in court.
4. C. The illegal drug itself
👉 In drug cases, the corpus delicti is the dangerous drug which must be proven to be the same one seized and presented in court.
5. C. The police laboratory custodian
👉 PO2 Sotero Tauro Jr., who received and handled the evidence before it reached the forensic chemist, was not presented, creating a break in custody.
6. B. There was a lack of continuity in handling
👉 The chain of custody was broken due to mishandling and unaccounted transfers of the seized drug, making the evidence unreliable.
7. A. There was no available DOJ representative in the province
👉 The PDEA agent claimed in court that there was no DOJ representative available in Sultan Kudarat during the operation.
8. C. Private prosecutor
👉 Only a barangay official, media representative, and DOJ representative are mandated witnesses during physical inventory—not the private prosecutor.
9. D. As sufficient to create reasonable doubt
👉 The Court found the inconsistencies in witness testimonies material enough to affect the credibility of the prosecution's case.
10. C. Clear breaches in mandatory procedure were present
👉 The presumption of regularity was set aside because substantial violations in the mandated chain of custody procedures occurred.
Case 179 of 327
Case 180 of 327
People of the Philippines vs. Jomar Doca y Villaluna,
G.R. No. 233479, October 16, 2019:
1. B. The burden shifts to the accused to prove
unlawful aggression
→ When self-defense is invoked, the accused must prove by
clear and convincing evidence that the victim was the aggressor. (SC ruling, p.
25)
2. C. Treachery was not adequately proven
→ The Supreme Court held that although the attack was
sudden, it did not constitute treachery because the victim had forewarning of
danger. (p. 33)
3. D. There was no credible evidence of unlawful
aggression
→ The accused’s testimony was self-serving and
uncorroborated; no unlawful aggression from the victim was established. (p.
27–28)
4. C. It was appreciated as a mitigating
circumstance
→ The Court credited voluntary surrender as mitigating since
it was spontaneous and done before arrest. (p. 37)
5. D. Indeterminate sentence of 8 years to 12
years and 6 months
→ The penalty was reduced from reclusion perpetua to an
indeterminate sentence appropriate for homicide with a mitigating circumstance.
(p. 38)
6. D. The victim could have foreseen the danger
→ Since the accused was visibly angry and armed, the victim
should not be considered completely unsuspecting. Thus, no treachery. (p. 32)
7. C. Self-serving and uncorroborated testimony
→ The accused had no supporting evidence or witnesses to
back up his claim of self-defense. (p. 28)
8. C. Eyewitness account of the stabbing
→ The Court gave weight to the testimony of Rogelio Castro,
who saw the stabbing firsthand. (p. 29)
9. C. Actual damages
→ The Supreme Court deleted the ₱30,000 actual damages for
lack of documentary evidence and instead awarded temperate damages. (p. 40)
10. C. 6% per annum from finality of decision
→ The Court imposed legal interest of 6% per annum on
monetary awards from finality until fully paid. (p. 41)
✅ Great job reviewing! These
points are key to mastering the doctrine of self-defense and qualifying
circumstances in criminal law.
From <https://chatgpt.com/g/g-ipZC0xKZ1-case-digest/c/66eeb645-c25c-800a-8b4d-2d8a7141964a>
Case 181 of 327
📌 Answer Key with
Explanations – People vs. Dolendo (G.R. No. 223098, June 3, 2019)
- C.
To burn the house
👉 The Supreme Court found that the accused's primary intent was to set the house on fire, not to kill. - C.
Simple arson
👉 Because the death was incidental to the intent of burning property, the crime was classified as simple arson. - C.
The intent to kill was not established
👉 The Court emphasized that without proof of intent to kill, the resulting death is absorbed by the crime of arson. - C.
They were done long after conviction and contradicted in-court testimony
👉 The affidavits were made 15 years later and did not outweigh sworn court testimonies. - B.
Fire was accidental
👉 The Court found the fire was intentionally set, so this reason is invalid for downgrading the charge. - C.
Mother
👉 Deolina Perocho was the mother of the child victim, Leonardo Jr. - B.
He had no witnesses or documents to support it
👉 Dolendo’s alibi lacked corroborative proof and could not defeat the positive identification by witnesses. - C.
The judge who decided the case was not the one who heard the evidence
👉 The Court held that this does not invalidate the decision, as reliance on records is legally acceptable. - C.
₱75,000
👉 The Supreme Court affirmed ₱75,000 in moral damages awarded to the victim’s heirs. - C.
Testimonies in open court under cross-examination are more credible than
recantations
👉 The Court gives more weight to courtroom testimonies than affidavits executed after trial.
From <https://chatgpt.com/g/g-ipZC0xKZ1-case-digest/c/66eeb683-bba8-800a-81dc-4b584ff5dde1>
Case 182 of 327
Case 183 of 327
Here are the answers with short explanations to the
10 HOTS multiple-choice questions based on People v. Espina, G.R. No.
219614, July 10, 2019:
1. C – The treacherous and sudden nature of the attack
➡️ Treachery was present as the
attack was sudden and left the victim defenseless, qualifying the act as
murder.
2. C – Employing a means of attack that prevents the
victim from defending himself
➡️ Treachery exists when the
method used ensures execution without risk from retaliation.
3. D – He was positively identified by eyewitnesses
➡️ The accused’s denial and alibi
were overcome by clear, credible eyewitness testimony.
4. B – “Patay, buhay?”
➡️ This exact phrase was uttered
by the accused before shooting the victim, proving intent and deliberation.
5. C – Conviction for murder affirmed with modifications
➡️ The Supreme Court upheld the
murder conviction, modifying only the damages.
6. C – The victim died due to a deliberate act
➡️ Death resulting from a
deliberate act presumes intent to kill.
7. B – ₱275,000 plus interest
➡️ The Supreme Court awarded
₱75,000 each for civil, moral, and exemplary damages, and ₱50,000 temperate
damages.
8. C – It was a public document
➡️ A duly registered death
certificate is admissible without further authentication.
9. B – Use of firearm
➡️ Though alleged, use of a
firearm was not appreciated as an aggravating circumstance due to lack of
evidence.
10. C – Estoppel
➡️ A party is barred from
changing theory on appeal if it was not raised in the lower court, to ensure
fairness.
✅ Review your score and
revisit the case to master the doctrines of intent to kill and treachery —
vital for every criminal law student!
From <https://chatgpt.com/g/g-ipZC0xKZ1-case-digest/c/66eeb716-538c-800a-ae0e-f2f1ac71964a>
Case 184 of 327
Case 185 of 327
Case 186 of 327
✅ ANSWER KEY WITH EXPLANATIONS
1. C. Homicide
🔹 The Supreme Court
downgraded the conviction from murder to homicide because qualifying
circumstances were not proven.
2. C. The attack was frontal and preceded by an argument
🔹 Treachery requires a
sudden, unexpected attack; here, the victim had warning and even provoked the
shooter.
3. B. No clear act showed that the threat was followed
through
🔹 The Court held that the
threat alone, without overt acts to show persistent intent, was insufficient
for evident premeditation.
4. D. Their accounts were consistent, clear, and
corroborated
🔹 Despite being family,
their testimonies were credible and aligned with medical findings.
5. B. Alibi
🔹 One accused claimed he
was elsewhere, supported by relatives, but this defense was not strong enough.
6. C. It did not show physical impossibility to be at the
crime scene
🔹 The accused was only
500 meters away, making his alibi weak and unconvincing.
7. C. It confirmed that the cause of death aligned with
the eyewitness testimony
🔹 The medico-legal
findings matched the witness accounts, confirming the gunshot wound as fatal.
8. D. As failure to rebut the prosecution’s case
🔹 The absence of a
defense from one accused left the prosecution’s evidence uncontested.
9. B. They acted together with shared intent before,
during, and after the crime
🔹 Their coordinated
actions indicated a common intent to kill, establishing conspiracy.
10. C. ₱150,000
🔹 The Supreme Court
awarded ₱50,000 each in civil indemnity, moral damages, and temperate damages.
From <https://chatgpt.com/g/g-ipZC0xKZ1-case-digest/c/66eeb804-68f4-800a-b093-5adbba4762d1>
Case 187 of 327
Case 188 of 327
People of the Philippines vs. Edgardo Garcia y Ancheta
G.R. No. 230983 | Promulgated on September 4, 2019
1. C – It ensures the integrity and identity of seized
items
The chain of custody is vital to prove that the drug
presented in court is the exact one seized from the accused.
2. D – Acquittal due to broken chain of custody
The Supreme Court acquitted Garcia because procedural lapses
undermined the credibility of the seized evidence.
3. B – Delay in marking the seized drug
Immediate marking is required to avoid confusion or
tampering of evidence, which the officers failed to do.
4. C – Weakens the prosecution's case
The absence of a DOJ representative during inventory
violated the requirements for proper documentation and witness presence.
5. C – Presumption of regularity in official functions
This presumption was overturned due to clear and convincing
proof of protocol breaches by the police.
6. B – One 1000-peso bill
The buy-bust operation used a marked Php1,000 bill, as
specifically stated in the case facts.
7. C – There was no valid explanation for noncompliance
The saving clause applies only if lapses are justified,
which was not proven in this case.
8. C – They convicted Garcia
Both lower courts convicted the accused before the Supreme
Court reversed the ruling on appeal.
9. C – To prevent switching or tampering
Marking the seized drugs at the moment of confiscation
ensures their traceability and authenticity.
10. C – Mishandling of inventory process and marking
The core error was in the delayed marking and improperly
conducted inventory, which broke the chain of custody.
📌 Remember: Even
minor lapses in procedure can mean the difference between conviction and
acquittal in criminal cases involving drugs.
From <https://chatgpt.com/g/g-ipZC0xKZ1-case-digest/c/66eeb8ad-2d8c-800a-b638-d6887af6c976>
Case 189 of 327
Case 190 of 327
Case 191 of 327
Here are the answers to the quiz along with brief
explanations for each:
1. C – Procedural lapses in handling evidence
👉 The Supreme Court
acquitted the accused due to serious violations of the chain of custody rule,
which cast doubt on the identity of the seized drugs.
2. C – It ensures the drugs presented are the same seized
👉 Chain of custody
guarantees that the evidence in court is the exact same item taken from the
accused, free from tampering.
3. C – It lacked sufficient proof and must be rejected
👉 The Court held that
mere invocation of “security reasons” is not enough without factual
justification.
4. A – Presence of a media representative
👉 Only a barangay
official was present during inventory, violating the requirement for three
witnesses.
5. C – It raises doubt on the integrity of evidence
👉 The absence of required
witnesses undermines the reliability of the inventory process and evidence
handling.
6. C – The prosecution failed to justify the lapses
👉 The saving clause
applies only if the lapses are justified and the integrity of evidence is
preserved, which was not done here.
7. B – It verifies if the drugs were stored and resealed
properly
👉 The forensic chemist
must affirm that the seized items were received, tested, resealed, and marked
correctly.
8. C – Chain of custody must be strictly followed unless
properly justified
👉 The Court ruled that
strict adherence is mandatory unless valid, proven exceptions apply.
9. C – They require strict observance of safeguards
👉 Due to the harsh
penalties under RA 9165, strict compliance with procedural safeguards is
demanded.
10. C – They are fatal to the prosecution’s case if not
explained
👉 Any unexplained break
in the chain of custody renders the evidence unreliable and leads to acquittal.
Let us know how many you got right and don’t forget to save
this for your bar prep! 💼📚
From <https://chatgpt.com/g/g-ipZC0xKZ1-case-digest/c/66eeb9d3-2178-800a-a6d3-aa9bc960bd0a>
Case 192 of 327
People of the Philippines vs. Shager Lacdan y Parto🔹 G.R. No.: 232161
Here are the answers with brief explanations for each
of the 10 HOTS multiple choice questions:
1. C – Breach in the handling of drug evidence
🔍 The Supreme Court
acquitted the accused due to multiple, unjustified lapses in the chain of
custody of the drug evidence.
2. C – A DOJ representative and an elected official
🔍 The physical
inventory lacked the presence of these mandatory witnesses, violating
procedural requirements.
3. D – It preserves the identity and integrity of the
evidence
🔍 The rule ensures that
the drugs presented in court are the same ones seized from the accused.
4. B – The presence of only one witness during inventory
🔍 The police failed to
explain why only one of the three required witnesses was present during
inventory.
5. C – It must be justified, or it may lead to acquittal
🔍 Non-compliance with
procedural safeguards, if unjustified, undermines the prosecution’s case.
6. B – The name of the receiving clerk at the crime lab
was not disclosed
🔍 This omission
created a gap in the chain of custody, weakening the prosecution’s evidence
handling.
7. B – It rendered the evidence inadmissible
🔍 The lack of
testimony from the receiving clerk meant no assurance that the drug tested was
the same as the one seized.
8. C – It cannot override clear violations of required
procedures
🔍 The Court emphasized
that the presumption of regularity cannot cure evident breaches in evidence
handling.
9. C – The accused must be acquitted
🔍 Doubt on the integrity
of the drug evidence is fatal to the prosecution’s case.
10. C – The unbroken chain of custody
🔍 The entire case
hinges on proving the continuous and secure handling of the seized drug
evidence.
Let me know if you'd like these formatted for visual content
or presentation slides!
From <https://chatgpt.com/g/g-ipZC0xKZ1-case-digest/c/66eeba25-7758-800a-a7a5-6e1b4aad3884>
Case 193 of 327
Here are the answers with short explanations for each
of the multiple-choice questions:
1. C – The chain of custody rule was violated
🔍 The Supreme Court
acquitted the accused due to multiple, unjustified breaches in the chain of
custody of the seized drugs.
2. C – He kept them in his left and right pockets
👖 The officer placed the
sachets in his own pockets, a handling method the Court found suspicious and
improper.
3. C – To prevent allegations of evidence planting
🕵️♂️ Required witnesses
serve as safeguards to ensure transparency and authenticity of seized evidence.
4. C – It requires justification if not done at the site
📸 The law allows
inventory at other locations only if a valid reason for not doing it at the
scene is shown.
5. C – Testimony on the handover to investigating officer
🔗 The prosecution failed
to establish who received the evidence after initial seizure, breaking the
chain of custody.
6. C – Taking steps to preserve integrity of evidence
🧪 The chemist’s handling,
sealing, and marking of the evidence were not properly stipulated or explained.
7. C – Because the items were kept in his own pockets
🚫 This method of
bodily-keeping evidence was criticized by the Court as reckless and unreliable.
8. C – It may lead to acquittal due to reasonable doubt
⚖️ Any unjustified procedural
error weakens the evidence and may result in acquittal for lack of proof beyond
reasonable doubt.
9. B – In flagrante delicto or warrantless seizure
🚨 The arrest and seizure
occurred during a buy-bust operation, which is a form of warrantless arrest.
10. C – Comply strictly with custody procedures and
document all links
📋 The Court emphasized
the need to follow and document every step of the chain of custody to ensure
admissibility of evidence.
Case 194 of 327
📘 ANSWER KEY with
EXPLANATIONS
Based on People
of the Philippines vs. Leonardo Macalindong y Andallon,
G.R. No. 248202, October 13, 2021
- B.
Lack of clear proof of qualifying circumstances
👉 The Supreme Court held that neither treachery nor abuse of superior strength was proven beyond reasonable doubt, thus reducing the crime to homicide. - C.
Insanity
👉 The accused invoked insanity, claiming he was suffering from schizophrenia at the time of the killing. - D.
The accused’s minor daughter
👉 The 7-year-old daughter, Lyn Joy, witnessed the crime and gave credible, positive testimony identifying her father as the assailant. - C.
No expert testified about the accused’s mental state during the crime
👉 The insanity defense failed because there was no competent psychiatric testimony proving the accused’s mental condition at the time of the incident. - C.
In the same room as her parents
👉 Lyn Joy testified that she was in the room and saw her father stab her mother multiple times. - C.
Twenty-two
👉 According to the daughter’s testimony and later confirmed by relatives, the victim was stabbed 22 times. - B.
The attack was not premeditated
👉 The Court ruled that the attack occurred during a heated quarrel and was not a conscious exploitation of superior strength. - C.
The attack was impulsive and not deliberately planned
👉 The Court emphasized that suddenness alone does not amount to treachery without evidence of deliberate planning. - C.
Weak compared to a positive identification
👉 The Court reiterated that a mere denial cannot overcome a credible and categorical eyewitness identification. - D.
From the finality of judgment
👉 Interest on unliquidated damages begins to run only from the date the judgment becomes final, per Nacar v. Gallery Frames.
Case 195 of 327
Here is the Answer Key with brief explanations for
each question:
1. C – Movement of drugs from one place to another
➡️
The Court held that actual movement, even within the same premises, is
sufficient to constitute transportation.
2. D – From the baggage counter of a shopping mall
➡️
The accused retrieved the box containing the drugs from the SM Hypermarket
baggage counter.
3. B – Any form of movement is sufficient
➡️
The law does not require the drugs to be transported a specific distance; any
actual conveyance suffices.
4. C – Because they never left the mall premises
➡️
The defense claimed that transportation wasn't consummated since they didn’t
exit the mall complex.
5. C – Presumption of transport intent
➡️
Possession of a large amount of illegal drugs raises a presumption of intent to
transport.
6. C – The driver attempted to run over the agents
➡️
The driver tried to hit the NBI agents with the vehicle, prompting them to open
fire.
7. C – That they were merely meeting someone for a car
deal
➡️
The accused claimed they only went to SM MOA to meet a car buyer, not to
transport drugs.
8. C – Both parties stipulated the findings
➡️
The forensic chemist's live testimony was waived by stipulation of both the
prosecution and defense.
9. C – Presumed regular unless shown otherwise
➡️
Law enforcers' testimonies are given weight and presumed regular in the absence
of contrary evidence.
10. B – Life imprisonment and ₱500,000 fine
➡️
The penalty under the law for transporting a dangerous drug, regardless of
distance, includes life imprisonment and a hefty fine.
Case 196 of 327
✅ ANSWER KEY WITH SHORT
EXPLANATIONS:
1. C. Constructive possession
→ The Court ruled that the accused had control over the
premises, making him constructively in possession of the drugs.
2. D. Because it was part of the described rented
premises
→ The warrant covered the "rented residence and its
premises," which the Court interpreted to include the attached store.
3. B. It was considered a waiver of the objection
→ Failure to question the search warrant's validity during
trial is deemed a waiver of such objection.
4. C. They were binding since they were made with counsel
and voluntarily
→ The Court held that the accused’s counter-affidavits were
admissible because they were made knowingly, voluntarily, and with legal
assistance.
5. C. He claimed he was only a user, not a seller
→ The accused admitted drug use but denied intent to sell,
which the Court did not accept as a defense to possession.
6. C. It held the description was sufficient as the store
was part of the rented residence
→ The Court found that the description in the warrant
reasonably covered both the house and the store.
7. C. She was present but not charged, and he claimed the
drugs belonged to her ex-husband
→ The accused attempted to shift the blame to his
girlfriend's ex-husband, but the Court was not persuaded.
8. B. His admission in notarized affidavits about the
drugs
→ His own judicial admissions, made with counsel, were key
to proving his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
9. C. 20 to 30 years imprisonment and a P500,000 fine
→ The trial and appellate courts, as affirmed by the Supreme
Court, imposed this penalty due to the quantity of marijuana.
10. C. They are sufficient if they allow officers to
identify the place with reasonable effort
→ The constitutional requirement is met if the place can be
reasonably located and identified by the executing officers.
From <https://chatgpt.com/c/66eebb42-ae6c-800a-8fcb-4ef8af71d5bf>
Case 197 of 327
✅ Answer Key with Explanations
- b.
Approving a plea deal without prosecutor's consent
➤ The Supreme Court held that plea bargaining in drug cases is invalid without the prosecutor’s consent. - c.
Sale of dangerous drugs
➤ The original charge in Criminal Case No. 2016-0774 involved selling shabu, a graver offense under the law. - c.
It was filed within the proper period
➤ The Supreme Court found that the petition for certiorari was filed on time, contrary to the CA's conclusion. - c.
Prosecutor
➤ Only the prosecutor’s consent is required in plea bargaining for drug cases where there is no private offended party. - c.
One to two years and a fine
➤ For Criminal Case No. 2016-0775, both accused were sentenced to 1–2 years in prison and ₱20,000 fine. - b.
DOJ Circulars on plea bargaining
➤ The trial court wrongly declared DOJ Circular No. 027 unconstitutional; the Supreme Court upheld its validity. - c.
Prosecutor’s consent
➤ The ruling emphasized that plea bargaining cannot proceed without the prosecutor’s agreement. - b.
It has no legal effect
➤ A plea bargain without prosecutor consent is void, making any resulting conviction invalid. - c.
Retrial
➤ The Supreme Court ordered a remand and retrial of Criminal Case No. 2016-0774 due to the invalid plea. - b.
Judicial declarations of unconstitutionality require specific requisites
➤ The Court ruled the trial court erred in declaring a DOJ Circular unconstitutional sua sponte, lacking proper requisites.
From <https://chatgpt.com/g/g-ipZC0xKZ1-case-digest/c/66eebb8c-5c9c-800a-aa33-85553f59e435>
Case 198 of 327
Here are the correct answers to the quiz, each with a
short explanation to reinforce your understanding of the case:
1. C. Robbery with Homicide
➡️ The charge against Jay Godoy
Mancao was robbery with homicide because the killing occurred by reason
or on the occasion of the robbery.
2. C. Texting while waiting for a jeepney
➡️ Eyewitness Manuel Bernido Jr.
saw the victim texting at a roadside when the accused approached and stabbed
him.
3. C. The victim’s silver necklace
➡️ The silver necklace belonging
to the victim was found in the accused’s possession upon his arrest, leading to
the application of the legal presumption.
4. D. It failed to overcome circumstantial evidence
➡️ The Supreme Court ruled that
his uncorroborated alibi could not outweigh the strong circumstantial evidence
presented by the prosecution.
5. C. Whether circumstantial evidence can lead to
conviction
➡️ The central issue was whether
the conviction could stand despite the absence of direct evidence of the
robbery.
6. C. Presumption from possession of stolen property
➡️ Under Rule 131, Section 3(j)
of the Rules of Court, possession of recently stolen property raises a
presumption that the possessor is the thief.
7. C. Reclusion perpetua
➡️ The trial court, CA, and SC
all imposed the penalty of reclusion perpetua, which is appropriate for
robbery with homicide when no aggravating circumstances are present.
8. D. Manuel Bernido Jr.
➡️ He was the key eyewitness who
saw the accused stab the victim in the neck from a short distance.
9. D. A dipper with water
➡️ Witnesses testified that the
accused returned to the scene carrying a dipper, which he used to wash off
blood stains.
10. C. By following a trail of blood
➡️ The police followed blood
traces from the crime scene to the accused’s boarding house, helping them
locate him.
✅ These questions reinforce not
only factual recall but also legal reasoning based on Criminal Law
principles and rules on evidence.
From <https://chatgpt.com/g/g-ipZC0xKZ1-case-digest/c/66eebc5d-cab0-800a-8add-3882b938f7b6>
Case 199 of 327
Here are the answers with short explanations for each of the 10 HOTS questions:
- C.
There were multiple breaks in the chain of custody
➤ The Supreme Court acquitted the accused due to serious and unjustified lapses in handling the evidence. - C.
Buy-bust operation
➤ The accused was apprehended through a planned buy-bust operation involving a poseur buyer and marked money. - B.
Marking of the seized item at the scene
➤ The drug item was not marked immediately at the place of arrest, violating key procedural rules. - C.
₱200
➤ The operation used two ₱100 bills marked with ultraviolet powder as buy-bust money. - B.
The prosecution failed to justify non-compliance with required procedures
➤ The Court held that failure to follow the required chain of custody cannot be cured by mere presumption of regularity. - C.
0.01 gram
➤ The plastic sachet allegedly seized contained only 0.01 gram of methamphetamine hydrochloride. - C.
A DOJ representative
➤ The inventory of the seized drug was conducted without the mandatory presence of a DOJ representative. - C.
Strict compliance is essential due to severe penalties
➤ The Court stressed that strict adherence to rules is necessary because of the harsh consequences of a drug conviction. - C.
Chain of custody rule
➤ The central doctrine emphasized was the need to maintain an unbroken chain of custody to preserve the integrity of the evidence. - C.
Immediate release unless held for another lawful cause
➤ The Supreme Court ordered the immediate release of the accused due to his acquittal.
From <https://chatgpt.com/g/g-ipZC0xKZ1-case-digest/c/66eebcd3-90c4-800a-b138-8b6506c9167f>
Case 200 of 327
Here are the answers with brief explanations for each
of the multiple-choice questions:
- B.
They recruited workers for South Korea without a license.
👉 Illegal recruitment is committed when a person recruits others for overseas work without a valid license or authority from the POEA, as in the case of Marzan and Dulay. - C.
The recruitment involved three or more victims.
👉 Illegal recruitment in large scale is defined as illegal recruitment committed against three or more persons, whether individually or as a group. - A.
The accused misrepresented themselves and collected fees without
fulfilling their promises.
👉 Estafa was committed through false pretenses—the accused deceived victims into paying fees for fake jobs abroad. - C.
Confession of guilt by the accused
👉 The accused did not confess; in fact, they denied involvement. The convictions were based on strong testimonial and documentary evidence, not admission. - C.
It could not stand against credible and positive testimonies.
👉 The Supreme Court ruled that denial is a weak defense, especially when there are multiple credible testimonies from the complainants. - C.
They confirmed with DOLE and POEA that the accused were unauthorized
recruiters.
👉 Many victims inquired with DOLE/POEA and discovered that the accused had no license, prompting them to file complaints. - C.
The court convicted them for all the offenses charged and proven.
👉 Although there was duplicity of offenses, the accused did not object before trial. Hence, they were deemed to have waived the defect, allowing conviction for all proven offenses. - C.
Filed a complaint at the NBI
👉 The complainants went to the NBI after realizing they were scammed. The NBI then referred the case to the proper court. - C.
Direct testimonies of the victims about meetings and payments
👉 The Court relied heavily on the positive, consistent, and categorical testimonies of victims who described how they were recruited and how payments were made. - B.
Life imprisonment
👉 Under RA 8042, illegal recruitment in large scale by a non-licensee is punishable by life imprisonment and a fine of up to ₱2 million.
From <https://chatgpt.com/g/g-ipZC0xKZ1-case-digest/c/66eebda3-5b50-800a-9485-79887e560ee1>
Case 201 of 327
Case 202 of 327
Case 203 of 327
Case 204 of 327
Case 205 of 327
Case 206 of 327
Case 207 of 327
Case 208 of 327
Case 209 of 327
Case 210 of 327
Case 211 of 327
Case 212 of 327
Case 213 of 327
Case 214 of 327
Case 215 of 327
Case 216 of 327
Case 217 of 327
Case 218 of 327
Case 219 of 327
Case 220 of 327
Case 221 of 327
Case 222 of 327
Case 223 of 327
Case 224 of 327
Case 225 of 327
Case 226 of 327
Case 227 of 327
Case 228 of 327
Case 229 of 327
Case 230 of 327
Case 231 of 327
Case 232 of 327
Case 233 of 327
Case 234 of 327
Case 235 of 327
Case 236 of 327
Case 237 of 327
Case 238 of 327
Case 239 of 327
Case 240 of 327
Case 241 of 327
Case 242 of 327
Case 243 of 327
Case 244 of 327
Case 245 of 327
Case 246 of 327
Case 247 of 327
Case 248 of 327
Case 249 of 327
Case 250 of 327
Case 251 of 327
Case 252 of 327
Case 253 of 327
Case 254 of 327
Case 255 of 327
Case 256 of 327
Case 257 of 327
Case 258 of 327
Case 259 of 327
Case 260 of 327
Case 261 of 327
Case 262 of 327
Case 263 of 327
Case 264 of 327
Case 265 of 327
Case 266 of 327
Case 267 of 327
Case 268 of 327
Case 269 of 327
Case 270 of 327
Case 271 of 327
Case 272 of 327
Case 273 of 327
Case 274 of 327
Case 275 of 327
Case 276 of 327
Case 277 of 327
Case 278 of 327
Case 279 of 327
Case 280 of 327
Case 281 of 327
Case 282 of 327
Case 283 of 327
Case 284 of 327
Case 285 of 327
Case 286 of 327
Case 287 of 327
Case 288 of 327
Case 289 of 327
Case 290 of 327
Case 291 of 327
Case 292 of 327
Case 293 of 327
Case 294 of 327
Case 295 of 327
Case 296 of 327
Case 297 of 327
Case 298 of 327
Case 299 of 327
Case 300 of 327
Case 301 of 327
Case 302 of 327
Case 303 of 327
Case 304 of 327
Case 305 of 327
Case 306 of 327
Case 307 of 327
Case 308 of 327
Case 309 of 327
Case 310 of 327
Case 311 of 327
Case 312 of 327
Case 313 of 327
Case 314 of 327
Case 315 of 327
Case 316 of 327
Case 317 of 327
Case 318 of 327
Case 319 of 327
Case 320 of 327
Case 321 of 327
Case 322 of 327
Case 323 of 327
Case 324 of 327
Case 325 of 327
Case 326 of 327
Case 327 of 327
Looking for a reliable and affordable study companion for the 2025 Bar Exams? The Law Requisites PH offers expertly curated digital case digests designed specifically for bar examinees, law students, and legal professionals. With concise, organized content tailored to support your review and legal practice, you can now access these powerful tools for only ₱499. Start strengthening your preparation today by visiting https://beacons.ai/thelawrequisitesph. Your bar success begins with the right resources—get yours now!
No comments:
Post a Comment