Chinese National Charged With Unjust Vexation

The Chinese National who threw a "taho" at a PNP member at the mrt-boni station, was finally charged with the criminal complaint of unjust vexation, disobedience to an agent of person in authority and direct assault.
Chinese National na nagsaboy ng taho sa isang pulis sa mrt-boni station, sinampahan na ng reklamong unjust vexation, disobedience to an agent of person in authority at direct
assault. @gmanews via @JonathanAndal_

Things to Remember About Unjust Vexation

1. Unjust Vexation is an offense punishable by the Revised Penal Code which carries an  imprisonment of arresto menor or a fine ranging from 5 pesos to 200 pesos, or both.

Arresto Menor is imprisonment of 1 day to 30 days.

2. It is a light offense which prescribe in 2 months.

3. Unjust Vexation is distinguished from grave coercion by the absence of violence.

4. Any act committed without violence, but which unjustifiably annoys or vexes an innocent person amounts to light coercion.

5. Should include any human conduct which, although not productive of some physical or material harm would, however, unjustifiably annoy or vex an innocent person.

Direct Assault
Resistance and Disobedience

Conquer Review Center for Criminologist

conquer review center
Conquer Review Center

Conquer Review Center "Conquer the world, Conquer the board, Together we conquer".

Criminologist Licensure Examination Review


Conquer Review Center Zamboanga branch is still accepting enrollees for the June 2019 Criminologist Licensure Examination.

Visit their office at the 3rd floor of Zamsowedco building located at Pilar street, Zamboanga City, fronting Southern City Colleges.

For details regarding review fee and facilities, kindly call their office in these numbers:

  • (062) 310-9340
  • 0975-804-1101 
  • 09354818910

Justifying vs. Exempting Circumstances

Distinguish clearly but briefly: Between justifying and exempting circumstance in criminal law. (2004 Bar Exam Question)

Justifying circumstance affects the act, not the actor; while exempting circumstance affects the actor, not the act. In justifying circumstance, no criminal and, generally no civil liability incurred; while in exempting circumstance, civil liability is generally incurred although there is no criminal liability.

1998 Bar Exam Question

Distinguish between justifying and exempting circumstance.

1. In justifying circumstances:
a. The circumstance affects the act, not the actor;
b. The act is done within legal bounds, hence considered as not a crime;
c. Since the act is not a crime, there is no criminal;
d. There being no crime nor criminal, there is no criminal nor civil liability

Where as

2. In Exempting circumstances:
a. The circumstance affect the actor, not the act;
b. The act is felonious and hence a crime but the actor acted without voluntariness;
c. Although there is a crime, there is no criminal because the actor is regarded only
as an instrument of the crime;
d. There being a wrong done but no criminal.

Jolo Cathedral Bombers Charged with Complex Crime of Multiple Murder

Complex Crime of Multiple Murder with Multiple Frustrated Murder Filed against the Jolo Cathedral Bombers.

Sulu Provincial Prosecutors Office, sasampahan na ng kasong Complex Crime of Multiple Murder with Multiple Frustrated Murder at Damage to Property sina Mukammar Pae at apat na iba pa kaugnay ng  pagsabog sa Jolo Cathedral matapos makitaan ng probable cause.(Maan Macapagal) @DZMMTeleRadyo

For purposes of the criminology licensure examination, bear in mind that there is no provision in the Revised Penal Code which defines Damage to Property and penalizes it as a felony. Malicious Mischief, punishable under Art.237 of the Revised Penal Code, is the nearest felony which a complainant may utilize for the purpose of filing a complaint involving an intentional destruction of property.

Important Points To Remember Regarding The Felony of Murder

- One attendant qualifying circumstance is enough. If there are more than one alleged in the information for murder, only one will qualify the killing to murder and the other circumstances will be taken as generic.

- Any of the qualifying circumstances enumerated in Art.248 must be alleged in the information.

- When the other circumstances are absorbed or included in one qualifying circumstance, they cannot be considered as generic aggravating.

- When the victim is already dead, intent to kill becomes irrelevant. It is important only if the victim did not die to determine if the felony is physical injury or attempted or frustrated homicide.

Malicious Mischief
Criminal Law
Criminal Procedure

Motive vs. Intent

1. Distinguish intent from motive in Criminal Law.
2. May crimes be committed without criminal intent?

1. Motive is the moving power which impels one to action for a definite result; whereas intent is the purpose to use a particular means to effect such results. Motive is not an essential element of a felony and need not be proved for purpose of conviction, while intent is an essential element of felonies by dolo.

2. Yes, a crime may be committed without criminal intent is such is a culpable felony, wherein intent is substituted by negligence or imprudence, and also in a malum prohibitum or if an act is punishable by special law.

1999 Bar Exam Question

1. Distinguish "motive" from "intent".
2. When is motive relevant to prove a case? When is it not necessary to be established? Explain.

1. "Motive" is the moving power which impels a person to do an act for a definite result; while "intent" is the purpose for using a particular means to bring about a desired  result. Motive is not an element of a crime but intent is an element of intentional crimes. Motive, if attending a crime, always precede the intent.

2. Motive is relevant to prove a case when there is doubt as to the identity of the  offender or when the act committed gives rise to variant crimes and there is the need to determine the proper crime to be imputed to the offender.

It is not necessary to prove motive when the offender is positively identified or the criminal act did not give rise to variant crimes.

2004 Bar Exam Question

Distinguish clearly but briefly between intent and motive in the commission of an offense.

Intent is the purpose for using a particular means to achieve the desired result; while motive is the moving power which impels a person to act for a definite result. Intent is an ingredient of dolo or malice and thus an element of deliberate felonies; while motive is not an element of a crime but only considered when the identity of the offender is in doubt.

2006 Bar Exam Question

Motive is essential in the determination of the commission of a crime and the liabilities
of the perpetrators. What are the instances where proof of motive is not essential or
required to justify conviction of an accused? Give at least 3 instances.

Suggested Answer:

1. When there is an eyewitness or positive identification of the accused.
2. When the accused admitted or confessed to the commission of the crime.
3. In Crimes Mala Prohibita
4. In direct assault, when the victim, who is a person in authority or agent of a person in authority was attacked in the actual performance of his duty (Art.148, Revised Penal Code).
5. In crimes committed through reckless imprudence.