Practice question
An adult son commits simple theft of his father's property. Assume all conditions for Article 332 are met and no separate offense under another law is involved. The son argues that the exemption also cancels his duty to return or compensate for the property. Is he correct?
- Yes, because the exemption erases every legal consequence.
- No; Article 332 preserves civil liability.
- Yes, unless the father files a criminal complaint.
- Yes, because descendants never owe civil liability.
- No, because Article 332 never applies between father and son.
Legal references
- Revised Penal Code, Act No. 3815, specified articles, as amended: https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/28/20426; Articles 19, 20 and 332.
- Intestate Estate of Manolita Gonzales Vda. de Carungcong v People, G.R. No. 181409, February 11, 2010, main decision, necessary means and falsification-estafa: https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/feb2010/gr_181409_2010.html
Answer this question in flashcards to review your response and continue practicing.