4a Crim Bq - Finalwpage
This document was uploaded by user and they confirmed that they have the permission to share it. If you are author or own the copyright of this book, please report to us by using this DMCA report form. Report DMCA
Overview
Download & View 4a Crim Bq - Finalwpage as PDF for free.
More details
- Words: 119,556
- Pages: 244
Loading documents preview...
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
This work is a compilation of the ANSWERS TO BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS by the UP LAW complex, UST bar exam Q and A and compiled
bar
exam
questions
of
Siliman
University College of law and not an original
0
creation or formulation of the authors.
Compiled by: 4A - Aiza, Gloovy, Vianney, Leilani, Joan, Freda and Hagad.
Page
“Consider it pure joy when you face trials of many kinds, because the testing of your faith produces endurance so that you may be lacking in nothing.” JAMES 1 :2-4
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS 1989-2016
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
Territoriality (1994) ............................ 18
PRINCIPLES
AND
CONCEPTS.............................................. 10 Wrongful Acts Which Are Not Per Se Considered As Criminal Offense (2008) 10 Human Rights Violation (2008) ........... 10 Simultaneous
prosecution
of
Territoriality principle (2008) .............. 19 Distinguish between ex post facto law and bill of attainder (2015) ........................ 19 Ex Post Facto Law (2014) .................... 19 What are the constitutional provisions
two
limiting the power of Congress to enact
different offenses (1991) ..................... 11
penal laws? (2012 BAR) ....................... 20
Circumstantial evidence; Proof beyond
Constitutional limitations on the power of
reasonable doubt (2006) ...................... 11
Congress to enact penal laws (1988) .... 20
Construction of penal laws – Doctrine of
Constitutional limitations on the power of
pro reo (2010) ..................................... 11
Congress to enact penal laws (2013) .... 20
Grounds for dismissal of cases; affidavit of
Due process – Proper allegation of the
desistance; effect thereof (1993) ......... 12
offense charged (1997) ........................ 21
Corpus delicti, Elements (2000) .......... 12
What is aberratio ictus? (2015)............ 22
Corpus delicti (2001) ........................... 12
Aberratio
Absence of corpus delicti .................... 13
(1993) .................................................. 22
Aberratio Ictus in rel. to ART 48, 49, 13—
ART 3 Mala in se and crimes mala
(1989) ................................................. 13
prohibita (2005, 2003, 2001, 1999, 1997,
Aberratio ictus and error in personae .. 14 Aberratio ictus: Error in personae; and Praeter intentionem
(1999 ................ 15
Art.2-Application of RPC’s provisions—
Ictus
vs
Impossible
Crime
1988)................................................... 22 ART 3 Motive (1999) ............................ 22 ART
3
Mala
in
se;
mala
prohibita
(1997) .................................................. 23
(2015) ................................................. 15
ART 3 Criminal Intent (1988) .............. 23
Characteristics of criminal law (1988) . 16
ART 3 Proof of motive; when not required
Characteristics of Philippine criminal law (1998) ................................................. 17 Generality
–
Diplomatic
Immunity
(2016) ................................................. 17 Generality
–
Diplomatic
Immunity
(2014) ................................................. 17 Territoriality (2004) ............................ 17
(2006) .................................................. 23 ART 3 Theories; motive; criminal intent (2004, 1996) ........................................ 23 ART 3 How are felonies committed? (2015) .................................................. 24 CRIMINAL LIABILITY .............................. 24
1
FUNDAMENTAL
Page
Table of Contents
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
–when
Art. 4 (2): Impossible crime of murder
incurred (1994) ................................... 24
(1998) .................................................. 33
Art 4 Criminal Liability In relation to Art
ART 4. In rel to ART 267—Impossible
8 Conspiracy (1992) ............................ 25
crime (2014) ........................................ 34
Art. 4 Criminal Liability – Proximate
ART. 4- Impossible crimes (2000) ........ 34
(1)
In
Criminal
relation
to
liability
robbery
with
homicide (1999) .................................. 25 Art. 4 Criminal Liability (2008) ........... 25 ART.4--Criminal liability – when incurred (1996) ................................................. 26 ART.4--Criminal liability; when incurred (2001) ................................................. 27 ART.4--Criminal liability; when incurred (2004) ................................................. 27 ART.4--Criminal liability; when incurred (2008) ................................................. 28 IMPOSSIBLE CRIMES ............................... 28
ART.4-Impossible crime of theft (2008) 35 ART .4(2)- Impossible crime of murder (1994) .................................................. 36 ART.4(2) Impossible crime of murder; less serious physical injuries (1998) ........... 36 STAGES OF EXECUTION ........................... 37 ART.
6-Stages
of
execution
–
Consummated theft (1998) .................. 37 ART.6- Stages of execution - Crime of theft; attempted; consummated (2000) 37 ART.6--Stages of execution – Frustrated felony (2005) ....................................... 38
Art 4 (2): Impossible crimes (2014) ...... 28
ART.6--Stages of execution – Frustrated
ART 4(2) Impossible Crime (2014) ....... 28
murder (2009) ..................................... 38
Art. 4 (2): Impossible crime of murder
Art 6: Consummated theft (1998) ........ 38
(2009) ................................................. 30
Art 6: Theft; attempted; consummated
ART 4(2)- Impossible crime of murder
(2000) .................................................. 39
(2009) ................................................. 30
LIGHT FELONIES .................................... 40
Art. 4 (2): Impossible crime of theft (2008)
Art 7 Light Felonies in relation to Art 16
........................................................... 31
(1988) .................................................. 40
Art. 4 (2) Impossible crime of murder (2004) ................................................. 31 ART.4(2)- Impossible crime of murder (2004) ................................................. 31 Art. 4 (2): Impossible crimes (2000) ..... 32 Art. 4 (2): Impossible crime of murder (1994) ................................................. 33
CONSPIRACY ........................................... 41 ART. 8-[b] Wheel vs Circle and Chain (2016) .................................................. 41 Art. 8: Define conspiracy (2012) .......... 41 Art. 8: Conspiracy as a Felony vs as a Manner (2012) ..................................... 41
2
Cause
4
Page
ART
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
Art. 8: Conspiracy (1991) .................... 41
ART.8-Define conspiracy. (2012) ......... 51
Art. 8: Conspiracy (1993) .................... 42
ART.8-- Conspiracy (1991) ................... 52
Art. 8: Conspiracy to commit robbery
ART.8-- Conspiracy; murder (1993) ..... 52 ART.8-Conspiracy
to
commit
robbery
Art. 8: Conspiracy (1994) .................... 43
(1996) .................................................. 53
Art.
Conspiracy
ART.8- Felonies – Proposal to commit
(1997) ................................................. 43
kidnapping (1996) ............................... 53
Art. 8: Implied conspiracy (1998) ........ 44
ART.8--Conspiracy (1994) .................... 53
Art. 8: Implied conspiracy (2003) ........ 44
ART.8-- Conspiracy – Who are liable
Criminal
law
–
Art. 8: Conspiracy (1988) .................... 44
(1997) .................................................. 54
Art. 8: Conspiracy to commit sedition
ART.8- Conspiracy - Implied conspiracy
(1987) ................................................. 45
(1998) .................................................. 55
Art. 8: Act of one is the act of all
ART.8- “Implied conspiracy” (2003) .... 55
(2004) ................................................. 46
Art. 8: Proposal (1996) ......................... 55
Art. 8: Conspiracy to commit robbery
JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES .................. 56
(2005) ................................................. 46 Art. 8: Conspiracy; Special complex crime of robbery with serious physical injuries (1992) ................................................. 47 Art. 8: Conspiracy - Special complex crime of robbery with rape (Art 294) (2004) ................................................. 48 Art. 8 Criminal law – Conspiracy In
Art.11 Defense Of Relative And Stranger (2016) .................................................. 56 Art. 11: Self-Defense (1987) ................. 56 Art. 11: Self-Defense (1993) ................. 57 Art. 11: Avoid Greater Evil (1990) ....... 57 Art
11
Lawful
Defense
Of
Property
(2008) .................................................. 58
relation to Special complex crime of
Art. 11 Defense Of Property Rights (1990)
robbery with homicide (2003) ............. 48
........................................................... 58
Art. 8 Conspiracy and proposal in relation
Art. 11:
to Special complex crime of robbery with
Sustained (2000) ................................. 58
homicide (2007) .................................. 49
Art.
Art.
In
Untenable (1998) ................................. 59
relation to PENALTIES (2006) ............. 50
Art. 11: Defense Of Property (2003) ..... 59
Art. 8. Conspiracy and proposal (2008) 50
Art. 11: Defense of a stranger (2002) ... 60
8:
Conspiracy
and
proposal
Art. 8: Conspiracy and proposal (2008) 50
11:
Defense Of Honor – When Not
Defense
Of
Honor;
When
3
8:
Page
(1996) ................................................. 42
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
Battered
Woman
Syndrome
Art 12: Minority; ................................. 68
(2014, 2010) ....................................... 60
In
Art.
Syndrome
circumstances (2000) .......................... 68
(2015) ................................................. 60
Art. 12 Minority In relation to robbery
Art
in
with homicide (1995) .......................... 69
Exempting
ART. 12 Warrantless arrest; entrapment;
Circumstances .................................... 62
in relation to prohibited drugs (1992).. 69
11:
Battered
11:
Justifying
relation
to
Woman
Circumstances
Art
12:
Distinction (2004) ............................... 62
ART.
relation
to
Art
12--Entrapment
13:
and
Mitigating
instigation
Art. 11; Art 12: Exempting circumstances
(1990) .................................................. 71
–
ART.12
in
comparison
with
justifying
circumstances; illustration of exempting circumstances; minor below nine (9) years old; (1998) ........................................... 62 EXEMPTING CIRCUMSTANCES .............. 63 Art. 12: Exempting circumstances; when
Entrapment
and
instigation;
illustration of instigation (1995) ......... 71 ART.12 Entrapment and instigation .... 71 MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES .................. 72 Art 13 Incomplete self-defense (1990) . 72
not appreciated (1989) ........................ 63
Art. 13: Intoxication (2002) ................. 72
Art. 12: Insanity (1991) ....................... 63
Art.
Art. 12: Insanity (2010) ....................... 64 Art.12:Insuperable cause (1994) .......... 65 Art.
12:
Exempting
Circumstance-
Suspended sentence under The Child and
13:
Privileged
Mitigating In
Circumstance
relation
to
–
Penalties
(2012) .................................................. 73 Art. 13 Immediate Vindication (1988) . 74 Art. 13: Voluntary surrender (1996) ..... 74
Youth Welfare Code; when not applicable
Art. 13: Voluntary surrender and plea of
(2013) ................................................. 65
guilty; when not considered (1992) ..... 75
Art. 12: Suspended sentence under The
Art. 13: Voluntary surrender; plea of
Child and Youth Welfare Code; when not
guilty (1997) ........................................ 75
applicable (1995) ................................. 66
Art 13 Plea of Guilty (1999) ................. 76
Art. 12: Suspended sentence under The
Art. 13: Voluntary surrender (1999) ..... 76
Child and Youth Welfare Code; when not applicable (2003) ................................. 66 Art. 12: RA 9344) – When applicable (2006) ................................................. 67 Art 12: Persons exempt from criminal liability In relation to Art 332 (2008) .. 67
Art. 13: Voluntary surrender (2009) ..... 76 Art. 13: No intention to commit so grave a wrong as that committed; intoxication (2000) .................................................. 77
4
11:
Page
Art.
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
Art. 13: No intention to commit so grave
Art. 14:
a wrong as that which was committed
Uninhabitted Place (1996) ................... 85
(2001) ................................................. 77
Art.
Art. 13: Immediate vindication of a grave
treachery, night time and unlawful entry
offense to a descendant (2002) ............ 78
(1997) .................................................. 86
Art. 13: Lack of intention to commit so
Art. 14: Aggravating circumstances ..... 86
grave
Four
as
that
committed
(2005) ................................................. 78 Art.
13:
Mitigating
and
Art;
14:
aggravating circumstances (1993) ....... 79 AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES ............. 79 Art 14: Cruelty (1988) ......................... 79 Art. 14 Recidivism In relation to Art. 62 Habitual Delinquency (2012) ............... 79 Art. 14: Recidivism (2014) .................. 80
Evident
Kinds;
premeditation,
Generic
vs
Qualifying
(1999) .................................................. 86 Art. 14: Explosive, Treachery (2008) ... 87 Art. 14: Dwelling, Nighttime (2009) ..... 88 Art. 14: Qualifying circumstance in rape cases (2004) ........................................ 88 Art.
14:
Qualifying
Aggravating
circumstances (2003) .......................... 89 Art. 14: Special aggravating circumstance
Art. 14. Recidivist (2009) .................... 80
........................................................... 89
Arti. 14 Recidivism In relation to Art. 62
Use of an unlicensed firearm in the
reiteracion (1989) ............................... 81
commission of a crime (2004) ............. 89
Art. 14. Recidivism; In relation to Art. 62
Art. 14: Use of an unlicensed firearm in
habitual delinquency (2001) ................ 82
homicide or murder (2009) .................. 90
Art. 14 Recidivism And Art. 160. Quasi-
Article 14 Treachery (1993) ................. 90
recidivism (1998) ................................ 82
PERSONS CRIMINALLY LIABLE FOR FELONIES
Art. 14. Quasi recidivism – Art 160 (1991)
.............................................................. 90
........................................................... 82
ART.
Art. 14 Treachery (2008) ..................... 83
Participation ....................................... 90
Art. 14: Treachery; when not considered
ART.
(1992) ................................................. 83
participation
Art.
14:
Evident
Premeditation,
Treachery (1991) ................................. 84 Art. 14: Nighttime (1994) .................... 84 Art. 14: Cruelty; Relationship (1994) .. 85
17-
Principals
17-
Principals and
By
by
Direct
direct
co-principal
by
indispensable cooperation (2000) ........ 91 ART.
17
Principal
by
inducement;
Accessory (1987) ................................. 91 ART.
17
Principal
by
inducement;
Accessory (2015) ................................. 92
5
wrong
14:
Page
a
Band, Nocturnity, Dwelling,
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
Principal
by
inducement;
Duration
and
Effect
of
Penalties,
Accessory (1989) ................................. 93
Imposition (1997) .............................. 102
ART.
Duration
17
Principal
by
inducement;
and
Effect
of
Penalties,
Accessory (2002) ................................. 93
Imposition (1997) .............................. 102
ACCOMPLICES ....................................... 95
Alternative Penalty............................ 103
ART.
18-
Who
is
an
accomplice?
(2012) ................................................. 95 ART.
18
Accomplice
vs
Conspirator:
Distinctions (2007, 2012) ................... 95 ART.
18
Accomplice
vs
Conspirator
(1998) ................................................. 96 ACCESSORIES ........................................ 96 Art.
19.
Accessories
And
Art.
20
Civil Indemnity ................................. 103 Reclusion Perpetua vs Life Imprisonment (1994) ................................................ 103 Reclusion Perpetua vs Life Imprisonment (2001) ................................................ 104 Reclusion Perpetua vs Life Imprisonment (2009) ................................................ 104 ART 27 – Penalties – Reclusion perpetua;
Accessories who are exempt; In relation
pecuniary
to
liabilities ........................................... 104
Composite
crime
of
rape
with
homicide; theft (1998) ........................ 96 ART 19- Accessories (2013) ................. 97
penalties;
pecuniary
ART 38- PECUNIARY LIABILITIES ..... 105 ART 39-SUBSIDIARY PENALTY .......... 105
ART 19- Accessories (2009) ................. 97
ART 47- CASES WHEREIN THE DEATH
ART. 19- Accessories (1987) ................ 98
PENALTY SHALL NOT BE IMPOSED ... 106
ART. 19- Accessories (1989) ................ 98
Proscription on Death Penalty ........... 106
ART. 19- Accessories (2004) ................ 99
Death Penalty .................................... 106
ART. 19- Accessories (2010) .............. 100
ART. 48 in rel ART. 296 (2016).......... 108
ART. 19- Accessories (2008) .............. 100
Art. 48. Complex Crimes In relation to
PENALTIES............................................ 101 ART 25- PENALTIES WHICH MAY BE IMPOSED .......................................... 101 Duration
and
Effect
of
Penalties,
Imposition (1991).............................. 101 Duration
and
Effect
of
Penalties,
Imposition (1997).............................. 102
Art. 294 (1) Robbery with homicide; direct assault with multiple attempted homicide ......................................................... 108 Art 48 Complex Crimes, Art 294 Robbery, Art 249 Homicide, Art 320 Arson ...... 109 Art. 48: Complex crime of parricide with unintentional abortion ...................... 110
6
17
Page
ART.
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
Murder,
Art. 48 – Complex crimes - Frustrated
qualified by explosion, with direct assault
robbery, with homicide and damage to
......................................................... 110
property ............................................ 117
Art 48: Special Complex Crime In relation
Art. 48 - Complex crime of attempted
to
murder with homicide ....................... 117
Art.
Complex
14:
crime
Qualifying
of
Aggravating
Circumstance .................................... 111
Art. 48 – Complex crimes - Malversation
Art. 48 Special Complex crime of Robbery
through falsification .......................... 118
with Rape .......................................... 111
Art 48 Special Complex Crimes - Robbery
Art. 48 Criminal law – Complex crimes -
with homicide ................................... 118
Robbery with Homicide in relation to Art. 297 ................................................... 112
Art. 48: Special complex crime of Robbery with homicide ................................... 118
Art. 48 – Continuing crimes in relation to
Art. 48: Special complex crimes- Robbery
BP 22 ................................................ 112
with homicide ................................... 119
Art 48 - Complex crime; requirement of two or more grave or less grave felonies as a result of single act ......................... 113 Art
48
–
crimes;
to Art 267 Serious illegal detention with homicide ........................................... 119
when
Art 48Special complex crime In relation
proper ............................................... 113
to Art. 266 - B rape through sexual assault
Art
with homicide ................................... 120
48
Complex
Art. 48 Special Complex Crime In relation
–Complex
crimes,
what
constitutes, penalty .......................... 114
Art 48 Special Crime In relation to Art.
Art. 48 Complex crime; Special complex
266
crime; complex crime of coup d’etat with
Penalties ........................................... 120
rebellion; complex crime of coup d'etat with sedition ..................................... 114 Art.
48
-
of
rape
with
homicide,
Art. 48 Special Complex Crime In relation to Art 267. Kidnapping for ransom with homicide ........................................... 121
crimes ............................................... 115
Art 48 Special Complex Crime in relation
Art 48 Complex crime of estafa thru
to Art. 304 Rape with homicide ........ 122
of
and
B
complex
falsification
Compound
-
a
commercial
document .......................................... 116
Penalties – Disqualified offenders for parole; heinous crimes ...................... 122
Art. 48 – Complex crime; Special complex
ART.
crime; Delito continuado .................. 116
continuing offense ............................ 123
48--Delito
continuado
and
ART. 48--Doctrine of aberratio ictus .. 123
7
48:
Page
Art.
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
Art. 48: Special complex crime of Robbery
A. The differences between pardon and
with homicide ................................... 124
amnesty: ........................................... 154
Art. 62 Habitual delinquency (1991) .. 143
B.
MITIGATING
OR
CIRCUMSTANES
AND
AGGRAVATING
the
under
grant
of
Presidential
Proclamation No. 724: ....................... 154
HABITUAL
Pardon: Reinstatement ...................... 155
DELINQUENCY .................................. 143
Modification and extinction of criminal
ART 62 – EFFECTS OF THE ATTENDANCE
liability
OF
Executive .......................................... 155
MITIGATING
OF
amnesty,
by
OR
CIRCUMSTANES
AND
AGGRAVATING OF
HABITUAL
DELINQUENCY .................................. 144 EXTINCTION OF CRIMINAL LIABILITY . 145 Art. 93 in relation to Art 157 ............ 145 ART.
89-93
Extinction
of
criminal
liability- prescription of crimes ......... 145 ART.89/ART.
94
Total
and
partial
extinguishment – Acquittal in relation to civil liability ..................................... 150 ART.
89--Extinguishment
of
criminal
liability; civil liability ....................... 151 ART. 89--Effect of death of the accused on civil liability ..................................... 152 ART. 89/ART. 112--Effect of death of accused on criminal and civil liability152 ART. 89--effect death of the accused pending appeal
on
his criminal
and
pecuniary liabilities .......................... 153 ART.89--Criminal and civil liability; when extinguished ..................................... 153 ART. 89 Criminal law – Modification and extinction of criminal liability – Pardon and Amnesty ..................................... 153 Pardon vs Amnesty ........................... 154
–
Pardon
by
the
Chief
Amnesty ............................................ 156 Modification and extinction of criminal liability – Amnesty ............................ 156 CIVIL LIABILITY ...................................... 157 ART. 103--Execution of the employer’s subsidiary liability............................. 157 Art.
103--Civil
liability
–
Subsidiary
liability of the employer .................... 158 Art.
104-Civil
liability
-Restitution;
reparation ......................................... 158 ART. 104--Civil liability - Damages .... 159 ART.
104--Acquittal
prosecution;
in
a
Institution
criminal of
civil
action ................................................ 159 Civil action for recovery of property not subject to confiscation; jurisdiction .. 160 CRIMES AGAINST NATIONAL SECURITY AND THE LAW OF NATIONS .................. 161 ART.
116
Crimes
against
National
Security – Misprision of treason ........ 161 ART. 123-Qualified Piracy ................. 161 ART.
123
Crimes
against
national
security – Qualified piracy ................. 162
8
OF
covered
Page
ART 62 – EFFECTS OF THE ATTENDANCE
Crimes
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
a) Anti-Piracy and Anti-Highway Robbery
SPECIAL LAW- Pres. Decree Nos. 704 and
(P.D. 532)
(i) Definition of terms (ii)
1058 - Fishing with the use of explosives;
Punishable acts ................................. 163
punishable acts ................................. 224
ART.122, 123--Crimes against National
SPECIAL
Security and Law of Nations – Piracy; 163
Rights of Persons Arrested, Detained or
CRIMES AGAINST PUBLIC ORDER ....... 167 CRIMES
AGAINST
INTERESTCRIMES
PUBLIC
AGAINST
PUBLIC
INTEREST ............................................. 179 CRIMES
COMITTED
BY
PUBLIC
OFFICERS ............................................ 185 CRIMES AGAINST PERSONS ................. 194 CRIMES AGAINST PERSONAL LIBERTY AND SECURITY AND SECURITY ..................... 209
Defining
Certain
Under Custodial Investigation (RA 7438) – Rights which can be violated ............. 225 Special
law.
RA
9160:
Anti-Money
Laundering Act .................................. 225 Special Law. under Republic Act (RA) No. 9160,
as
amended
(Anti-
Money
Laundering Act) ................................. 225 Special penal law - Crimes relative to opium and other prohibited drugs - Rep. Act
No.
9165,
the
Comprehensive
Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002 ............ 227 Special law – Anti-Graft and Corrupt
CRIMES AGAINST PROPERTY .............. 211
Practices Act (RA 3019, as amended) –
CRIMES AGAINST CHASTITY ............... 213
......................................................... 229
CRIMES AGAINST THE CIVIL STATUS OF
Special penal law - Violation of Rep. Act
PERSONS.............................................. 214
6713
CRIMES AGAINST HONOR .................... 214 QUASI-OFFENSES ................................ 220 SPECIAL PENAL LAWS.......................... 221
(Code
Standards
of for
Conduct Public
and
Ethical
Officials
and
Employees) ........................................ 231 Criminal law – Crimes committed by public officers - Indirect bribery; Special
SPECIAL LAW-R.A 9262 .................... 221
penal law - Republic Act No. 3019- .... 231
SPECIAL LAW- RA 9165- ................... 222
Criminal law – Crimes committed by
SPECIAL LAW– RA 6805; Instances of
public officer - Republic Act No. 3019
legal use
(Anti-Graft
of
an
alias by
a
Filipino
and
Corrupt
Practices
citizen .............................................. 223
Act) ................................................... 233
SPECIAL LAW– PD 704 – punishable
Special penal law - Violation of Rep. Act
acts ................................................... 224
6713
(Code
Standards
of for
Conduct Public
and
Ethical
Officials
and
Employees) ........................................ 234
9
OF THE STATE ..................................... 164
Act
Page
CRIMES AGAINST THE FUNDAMENTAL LAW
LAW–
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
Special law – Penalties – Grave offense; life imprisonment ............................. 235 Prescription for violation of special laws Petition for forfeiture under Republic Act
PRINCIPLES
AND
FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLE -Wrongful Acts Which Are Not Per Se Considered As Criminal Offense (2008)
acts ................................................... 238
After due hearing on a petition for a writ of amparo founded on the acts of enforced disappearance and extralegal killing of the son of the complainant allegedly done by the respondent military officers, the court granted the petition. May the military officers be criminally charged in court with enforced disappearance and extralegal killing? Explain fully. (3%)
ART.220 in rel to RA 3019 ................ 240
SUGGESTED ANSWER
No. 1379 ........................................... 237 Special law - Highway Robbery under Presidential Decree No. 532 .............. 237 Special
law
–
Anti-Piracy
and
Anti-
Highway Robbery (PD 532) punishable
SPECIAL LAW- P.D 1612 .................... 241 SPECIAL LAW- RA 6539-Anti- carnapping Law ................................................... 242 SPECIAL LAW- R.A Child exploitation— ......................................................... 242
No. "Enforced disappearance and extralegal killing" is not per se a criminal offense although it is wrongful. The grant of a writ of amparo only provides a relief; it does not establish a basis for a crime. Unless the writ was issued because of specific overt acts shown to have been committed by the respondent military officers and such acts are crimes under penal laws, no criminal charge may be routinely filed just because the petition for the writ was granted. FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLE -Human Rights Violation (2008) Are human rights violations considered as crimes in the Philippines? Explain. (3%) SUGGESTED ANSWER: Not necessarily, since there are human rights violations which do not amount to criminal offenses. In this country, there can be no crime when there is no law punishing an act or omission as a crime.
10
RA8294 and RA 10591 : .................... 235
FUNDAMENTAL CONCEPTS
Page
Special Law. PD 1866, as amended by
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
two
May a ranking leader of the NPA who has taken up arms against the government be simultaneously prosecuted for violation of Section 1 of RA. 1700 (the AntiSubversion Act) and for rebellion under Article 135 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended? SUGGESTED ANSWER: Yes, because the two offenses are punished under separate laws. Besides, the elements of the two offenses differ. FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLE – Circumstantial evidence; Proof beyond reasonable doubt (2006) Forest Ranger Jay Velasco was patrolling the Balara Watershed and Reservoir when he noticed a big pile of cut logs outside the gate of the watershed. Curious, he scouted around and after a few minutes, he saw Rene and Dante coming out of the gate with some more newly-cut logs. He apprehended and charged them with the proper offense. During the preliminary investigation and up to the trial proper, Rene and Dante contended that if they were to be held liable, their liability should be limited only to the newly-cut logs found in their possession but not to those found outside the gate. If you were the judge, what will be your ruling? 2.5% SUGGESTED ANSWER:
FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES— Construction of penal laws – Doctrine of pro reo (2010) What is the doctrine of pro reo? How does it relate to Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code? (3%) SUGGESTED ANSWER: The doctrine of pro reo advocates that penal laws and laws penal in nature are to be construed and applied in a way lenient or liberal to the offender, consonant to and consistent with the constitutional guarantee that an accused shall be presumed innocent until his guilt is established beyond reasonable doubt. Following the pro reo doctrine, under Art. 48 of the Revised Penal Code, crimes are complexed and punished with a single penalty (i.e that prescribed for the most serious crime and to be imposed in its maximum period). The rationale being, that the accused who commits two crimes with single criminal impulse demonstrates lesser perversity
11
of
Page
FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLE Simultaneous prosecution different offenses (1991)
If I were the judge and the evidence adduced by the prosecution convincingly show a clear link between the accused and the cut logs piled outside the gate of the watershed, I will hold the accused criminally liable not only for the newly cut logs in their possession but also for those found outside the gate. Circumstantial evidence proving that the accused and no other persons could have done the cutting of the logs, such as the manner of cutting the logs, the area where they cut the logs they were carrying, and other indications pointing to them as the culprits may be considered.
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
than when the crimes are committed by different acts and several criminal resolutions. (People v. Comadre, 431 SCRA 366, 384 [2004}. However, Art. 48 shall be applied only when it would bring about the imposition of a penalty lesser than the penalties imposable for all the component crimes if prosecuted separately instead of being complexed. FUNDAMENTAL PRINICIPLE — Grounds for dismissal of cases; affidavit of desistance; effect thereof (1993) Ariel intimidated Rachel, a mental retardate, with a bolo into having sexual intercourse with him. Rachel’s mother immediately filed a complaint, supported by her sworn statement, before the City Prosecutor’s Office, After the necessary preliminary investigation, an information was signed by the prosecutor but did not contain the signature of Rachel nor of her mother. Citing Art. 344 of the RPC (prosecution of the crimes of rape, etc.), Ariel moves for the dismissal of the case. Resolve with reasons. After the prosecution had rested its case, Ariel presented a sworn affidavit of desistance executed by Rachel and her mother stating that they are no longer interested in prosecuting the case and that they have pardoned Ariel. What effect would this affidavit of desistance have on the criminal and civil aspects of the case? Explain fully.
was filed by the offended party or the parents in the Fiscal’s Office. The affidavit of desistance will only amount to the condonation of civil liability but not criminal liability hence the case should still proceed. FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLE – Corpus delicti, Elements (2000) A. Define “corpus delicti". (2%) (2000 Bar Question) B. What are the elements of "corpus delicti"? (3%) SUGGESTED ANSWER: A. Corpus Delicti literally means “the body or substance of the crime" or the fact that a crime has been committed, but does not include the identity of the person who committed it. (People vs. Pascual, 44 OG 2789). B.
Elements of corpus delicti:
The actual commission by someone of the particular crime charged. It is a compound fact made up of two things: a.the existence of a certain act or result forming the basis of the criminal charge; and b.the existence of a criminal agency as the cause of the act or result The identity of the offender is not a necessary element of corpus delicti
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
12
At a birthday party in Bogo, Cebu, A got intoxicated and started quarrelling with B
Page
The case should not be dismissed. This is allowed by law (People vs. Horde, 125 SCRA 11). It is enough that a complaint
FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLE Corpus delicti (2001)
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
SUGGESTED ANSWER: The defense of A is not tenable. "Corpus delicti' does not refer to the body of the purported victim which had not been found. Even without the body of the purported victim being found, the offender can be convicted when the facts and circumstances of a crime, the body of the crime or “corpus delicti' is established. In other words, the non-recovery of the body of the victim is not a bar to the prosecution of A for Murder, but the fact of death and identity of the victim must be established beyond reasonable doubt.
Dang was a beauty queen in a university. Job, a rich classmate, was so enamored with her that he persistently wooed and pursued her. Dang, being in love with another man, rejected him. This angered Job. Sometime in September 2003, while Dang and her sister Lyn were on their way home, Job and his minor friend Nonoy grabbed them and pushed them inside a white van. They brought them in an abandoned warehouse where they forced them to dance naked. Thereafter, they brought them to a hill in a nearby barangay where they took turns raping them. After satisfying their lust, Job ordered Nonoy to push Dang down a ravine, resulting in her death. Lyn ran away but Job and Nonoy chased her and pushed her inside the van. Then the duo drove away. Lyn was never seen again. SUGGESTED ANSWER: No. The corpus delicti or fact of commission of the crime is clear. Even the death of Lyn may be established from the acts of the culprits, without the need of the body of Lyn being presented. FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLE Aberratio Ictus in rel. to ART 48, 49, 13— (1989) What do you understand by aberratio ictus; error in personae; and praeter intentionem? Do they alter the criminal liability of an accused? Explain. SUGGESTED ANSWER:
13
Is the defense of A tenable or not? State the reason(s) for your answer. (5%)
FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLE – Absence of corpus delicti
Page
and C. At the height of their arguments, A left and took a bolo from his house, after which he returned to the party and threatened to stab everybody. B got scared and ran towards the seashore, with A chasing him. B ran up a steep incline along the shore and was cornered on top of a cliff. Out of fear. B jumped from the cliff into the sea. A returned to the scene of their confrontation and seeing that nobody was there, went home to sleep. The next day, B’s wife reported to the police station that her husband had not yet come home. A search was conducted by the residents of the barangay but after almost two days, B or his body could not be located and his disappearance continued for the next few days. Based on the testimony of C and other guests, who had seen A and B on top of the cliff, A was arrested and charged with Murder. In his defense, he claimed that since B’s body has not been found, there was no evidence of "corpus delicti' and therefore, he should be acquitted.
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
In error in personae, there is a mistake in the identity of the victim, as for instance, when A, intending to kill B, his enemy lay in ambush for the latter to pass along a dark alley. Because of the darkness, A fired his gun at a person passing by, thinking him to be B. It turned out that the person shot was C, A's father. In praeter intentionem, the injurious result is greater than that intended by the offender, the act exceeds the intent, as for instance, where A, without intent to kill, strikes B with his fist at the back of the head, causing B to fall down with his head hitting the asphalt pavement, resulting in the fracture of his head that caused his death. The presence of these circumstances will alter the criminal liability of the accused. Thus: In aberratio ictus, two offenses are actually committed by the offender, that which he intended to commit and that which he actually committed. But if these two offenses are both either grave
In the case of error in personae, the offender shall be guilty of the crime actually committed by him, but the penalty to be imposed shall either be the penalty for the crime actually committed or that for the crime intended to be committed. Which ever is lower, but the same will be imposed in its maximum period. In the case praeter intentionem, the offended, will incur criminal liability for the felony actually committed by him, but he will be entitled to the mitigating circumstance of not having intended to commit so grave a wrong as that which he committed. FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLE in rel. to ART. 48, 49Aberratio ictus and error in personae Distinguish aberratio ictus from error in personae. (1994 Bar Question) SUGGESTED ANSWER: Aberratio ictus or mistake in the blow occurs when a felonious act missed the person against whom it was directed and hit instead somebody who was not the intended victim. Error in personae, or mistake in identity occurs when the felonious act was directed at the person intended, but who turned out to be somebody else. Aberratio ictus brings about at least two (2) felonious consequence. i.e the attempted felony on the intended victim who was not hit and the felony on the unintended victim who was hit. A complex crime of the first form under Art. 48, RPC generally result.
14
In aberratio ictus, there is a mistake in the blow meaning to say that the offender intending to cause an injury to one person actually inflicts it on another because of lack of precision, as far for example when A, intending to kill B, fires his gun at the latter but because of poor aim or lack of precision, he hits C instead, who suffers serious physical injury.
or less grave, since they are produced by one single act, a complex crime will result.
Page
Aberatio ictus, error in personae and praeter intentionem are the three ways by which a person may commit a felony although the wrongful act done is different from that which he intended.
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
What do you understand by aberratio ictus: error in personae; and praeter intentionem? Do they alter the criminal liability of an accused? Explain. (4%) SUGGESTED ANSWER: Aberratio ictus or mistake in the blow occurs when the offender delivered the blow at his intended victim but missed, )unintended victim. The situation generally brings about complex crimes where from a single act, two or more grave or less grave felonies resulted, namely the attempt against the intended victim and the consequence on the unintended victim. As complex crimes, the penalty for the more serious crime shall be the one imposed and in the maximum period. It is only when the resulting felonies are only light that complex crimes do not result and the penalties are to be imposed distinctly for each resulting crime. Error in personae or mistake in identity occurs when the offender actually hit the person to whom the blow was directed but turned out to be different from and not the victim intended. The criminal liability of the offender is not affected, unless the mistake in identity resulted to a crime different from what the offender intended to commit, in which case the lesser penalty between the crime intended and the crime committed shall be imposed but in the maximum period (Art. 49. RPC).
Art.2-Application of RPC’s provisions— (2015) Ando, an Indonesian national who just visited the Philippines, purchased a ticket for a passenger vessel bound for Hong Kong. While on board the vessel, he saw his mortal enemy Iason, also an Indonesian national, seated at the back portion of the cabin and who was busy reading a newspaper. Ando stealthily approached Iason and when he was near him, Ando stabbed and killed Iason. The vessel is registered in Malaysia. The killing happened just a few moments after the vessel left the port of Manila. Operatives from the PNP Maritime Command arrested Ando. Presented for the killing of Iason, Ando contended that he did not incur criminal liability because both he and the victim were Indonesians. He likewise argued that he could not be prosecuted in Manila because the vessel is a Malaysianregistered ship. Discuss the merits of Ando's contentions. Suggested Answer: Both contentions of Ando lack merit. The argument of Ando that he did not incur criminal liability because both he and the victim were Indonesians is not tenable. Under the generality principle,
15
FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLE in rel. to ART. 48, 49, 13— Aberratio ictus: Error in personae; and Praeter intentionem (1999)
Praeter intentionem or where the consequence went beyond that intended or expected. This is a mitigating circumstance (Art. 13, par. 3, RPC) when there is a notorious disparity between the act or means employed by the offender and the resulting felony, i.e., the resulting felony could not be reasonably anticipated or foreseen by the offender from the act or means employed by him.
Page
In error in personae only one crime is committed.
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
penal laws shall be obligatory upon all who live or sojourn in the Philippine territory (Article 14 of the Civil Code). The foreign characteristic of an offender and offended party does not exclude him from operation of penal laws (People v. Galacgac, C.A., 54 O.G. 1027). Under the Revised Penal Code, except as provided in treaties and laws of preferential application, penal laws of the Philippines shall have force and effect within its territory. Here, since the killing took place within the Philippine territory, our penal laws applies and Ando may be held criminally responsible despite his being and Indonesian citizen.
of a kind to disturb the peace of the country or the good order of the territorial sea. The vessel is still within the territorial waters of the Philippines when the crime was committed since the killing happened a few moments after the vessel left the port of Manila. Murder committed by Ando disturbs the peace of the Philippines; hence, he could be prosecuted in Manila. FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLECharacteristics of criminal law (1988) State the characteristics of criminal law and explain each. SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Under Section 27 of the Convention of the Law of The Sea, the criminal jurisdiction of the coastal State should not be exercised on board a foreign ship passing through the territorial sea to arrest any person or to conduct any investigation in connection with any crime committed on board the ship during its passage except if the crime is
1. GENERALITY — That the law is binding upon all persons who reside to sojourn in the Philippines, irrespective of age, sex, color, creed, or personal cricumtances. 2. TERRITORIALITY - That the law is applicable to all crimes committed with in the limits of Philippine territory, which includes its atmosphere interiors waters and maritime zone (Art. 2). 3. PROSPECTIVITY — that the law does not have any retroactive effect, except if it favors the offender unless he is a habitual delinquent (Art. 22) or the law otherwise provides. Article 2 if the Revised Penal Code however provides for the following exception: “Treaty stipulations or by a law of preferential application” FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLE—
16
ADDITIONAL ANSWER:
The characteristics of criminal law are as follows:
Page
Likewise, the contention of Ando that he could not be prosecuted in Manila because the vessel is a Malaysianregistered ship is without merit. Under the English Rule, which our jurisdiction recognizes and follows, crimes committed aboard a vessel within the territorial waters of a country are triable in the courts of such country except when crimes merely affect things within the vessel or when they only refer to the internal management thereof. Here, since the crime was committed within the Philippine waters and neither exception applies, Ando may be prosecuted in Manila.
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
SUGGESTED ANSWER: The three main characteristics of Philippine criminal law are: 1. Generality or its being binding to all persons who live or sojourn in Philippine territory subject to certain exceptions; 2. Territoriality or its having force and effect only within Philippine territory, subject to certain exceptions also; 3. Irretrospectivity or its application only to acts and omissions committed/incurred after the effectivity of the law. FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLE -Generality – Diplomatic Immunity (2016) Charges d'affaires Volvik of Latvia suffers from a psychotic disorder after he was almost assassinated in his previous assignment. One day, while shopping in a mall, he saw a group of shoppers whom he thought were the assassins who were out to kill him. He asked for the gun of his escort and shot ten (10) people and wounded five (5) others before he was subdued. The wounded persons required more than thirty (30) days of medical treatment. What crime or crimes, if any, did he commit? Explain. (5%) SUGGESTED ANSWER Volvik committed five frustrated murders for the unwounded victims and five frustrated murders for the wounded
FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLE— Generality – Diplomatic Immunity (2014) Pierce is a French diplomat stationed in the Philippines. While on EDSA and driving with an expired license, he hit a pedestrian who was crossing illegally. The pedestrian died. Pierce was charged with reckless imprudence resulting in homicide. In his defense, he claimed diplomatic immunity. Is Pierce correct? SUGGESTED ANSWER: Yes, Pierce is correct. Pierce, being a French diplomat stationed in the Philippines, would be exempt from the general application of our criminal laws, as provided for under laws or treaties of preferential application, more particularly under R.A. 75. Scope of application and characteristics of Philippine criminal law – Territoriality (2004)
17
What are the three cardinal features or main characteristics of Philippine criminal Law? [5%]
victims. Treachery is present since the sudden attack rendered the victims defenseless. The nature of the weapon used in attacking the victims and extent of the wounds sustained by the five victims showed intent to kill. His psychotic condition is not an exempting circumstance of insanity in the absence of showing that there is complete deprivation of intelligence in accordance with the cognition test. However, he is immune from criminal prosecution. Since the position of Volvik as charges de affaires is diplomatic, he is vested with blanket immunity from criminal suit (Minucher v. Hon. CA, G.R. No. 142396, 11 February 2003).
Page
Characteristics of Philippine criminal law (1998)
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
Yes, the Motion to Quash the Information should be granted. The Philippine court has no jurisdiction over the crime committed since it was committed on the high seas or outside of Philippine territory and on board a vessel not registered or licensed in the Philippines (US vs. Fowler, 1 PhiL 614) It is the registration of the vessel in accordance with the laws of the Philippines, not the citizenship of her owner, which makes it a Philippine ship. The vessel being registered in Panama, the laws of Panama govern while it is in the high seas.
A. Can Abe be prosecuted for bigamy? (1994 Bar Question) B. If not, can he be prosecuted for any other crime? (1994 Bar Question) SUGGESTED ANSWER: A. No, Abe may not be prosecuted for bigamy since the bigamous marriage was contracted or solemnized in Singapore, hence such violation is not one of those where the Revised Penal Code, under Art. 2 thereof, may be appplied extraterritorially. The general rule on territoriality of criminal law governs the situation. B. Yes, Abe, together with Connie, may be prosecuted for concubinage under Art. 334 of the Revised Penal Code for having cohabited as husband and wife. But concubinage being a private crime requires the sworn complaint of Liza, the offended spouse in accordance with Rule 110 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure.
FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLE--Application of Philippine Criminal law – Territoriality (1994)
As lawyer of Andrew, I will file a motion to quash the information on the ground of prescription. The crime of false testimony under Art. 180 has prescribed because Paolo, the accused in the principal case, was acquitted on January 10, 1987 and therefore the penalty prescribed for such crime is arresto mayor under Art. 180. par. 4. RPC.
Abe, married to Liza, contracted another marriage with Connie in Singapore. Thereafter, Abe and Connie returned to the Philippines and lived as husband and wife
Crimes punishable by arresto mayor prescribes in five (5) years (Art. 90, par. 3. RPC). But the case against Andrew was filed only on June 18. 1994,
18
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
in the hometown of Abe in Calamba, Laguna.
Page
After drinking one (1) case of San Miguel beer and taking two plates of “pulutan", Binoy, a Filipino seaman, stabbed to death Sio My, a Singaporean seaman, aboard M/V “Princess of the Pacific", an overseas vessel which was sailing in the South China Sea. The vessel, although Panamanian registered, is owned by Lucio Sy, a rich Filipino businessman. When M /V “Princess of the Pacific" reached a Philippine Port at Cebu City, the Captain of the vessel turned over the assailant Binoy to the Philippine authorities. An Information for homicide was filed against Binoy in the Regional Trial Court of Cebu City. He moved to quash the Information for lack of jurisdiction. If you were the Judge, will you grant the motion? Why? (5%)
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
The inter-island vessel M/ V Viva Lines I, while cruising off Batanes, was forced to seek shelter at the harbor of Kaoshiung, Taiwan because of a strong typhoon. While anchored in said harbor, Max, Baldo and Bogart arrived in a speedboat, fired a bazooka at the bow of the vessel, boarded it and divested the passengers of their money and jewelry. A passenger of M/ V Viva Lines I, Dodong, took advantage of the confusion to settle an old grudge with another passenger, and killed him. After their apprehension, all four were charged with qualified piracy before a Philippine court. Was Dodong correctly charged before the Philippine court for qualified piracy? Explain. (3%) SUGGESTED ANSWER: No, Dodong was not correctly charged with qualified piracy because committing piracy was never in his mind nor did he have any involvement in the piracy committed. He merely took advantage of the situation in killing the passenger. He should be charged with murder since there was evident premeditation and intent to kill. FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLE—
SUGGESTED ANSWER: Ex post facto law is any law which makes an innocent act a crime after the act was committed. It is a Latin phrase which means “from something done afterwards.” It could also be a law which aggravates a crime, or makes it greater than when it was committed, or which changes the punishment and inflicts a greater penalty than the law governing the crime when committed. A bill of attainder is a law which inflicts punishment on a named individual or a group of individuals without judicial trial. Ex post facto law pertains to the act while a bill of attainder pertains to a named individual or to members of a group. FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLE Ex Post Facto Law (2014) Congress passed a law reviving the AntiSubversion Law, making it a criminal offense again for a person to join the Communist Party of the Philippines. Reporma, a former high-ranking member of the Communist Party, was charged under the new law for his membership in the Communist Party when he was a student in the 80’s. He now challenges the charge against him. What objections may he raise? SUGGESTED ANSWER: Reporma may raise the limitations imposed by the 1987 Constitution on the power of Congress to enact retroactive penal laws which are prejudicial to the
19
FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLE-- Application of Philippine criminal law – Territoriality principle (2008)
Distinguish between ex post facto law and bill of attainder (2015)
Page
whereas the principal criminal case was decided with finality on January 10, 1987 and, thence the prescriptive period of the crime commenced to run. From January 10, 1987 to June 18, 1994 is more than five (5) years.
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
SUGGESTED ANSWER: The constitutional provisions limiting the power of Congress to enact penal laws are the following: 1. The law must not be an ex post facto law or it should not be given a retroactive effect. 2. The law must not be a bill of attainder, meaning it cannot provide punishment without judicial process. 3. The law must not impose cruel, unusual or degrading punishment. 4. No person shall be held to answer for a criminal offense without due process of law. FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLE – Constitutional limitations on the power of Congress to enact penal laws (1988) A. What are the limitations upon the power of congress to enact penal laws? B. Are there common law crimes in our jurisdiction? SUGGESTED ANSWER:
1. Congress cannot enact an ex post facto law. 2. Congress cannot enact a bill of attainder. 3. Congress cannot provide for a cruel punishment. However, other limitations may be considered like: a. Congress cannot enact a law which shall punish for a condition. Congress shall punish an act and not the condition or status. (Robinson vs. California). b. Congress should consider Article 21 of the Revised Penal Code which provides that “penalties that may be imposed. No felony shall be punishable by any penalty not prescribed by law prior to its commission.” B. There are none. The rule is, nullum crimen, nulla poena sine lege, there is no crim if there is no law punishing it. FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLE— Constitutional limitations on the power of Congress to enact penal laws (2013) Assume that you are a member of the legal staff of Senator Salcedo who wants to file a bill about imprisonment at the National Penitentiary in Muntinlupa. He wants to make the State prison a revenue earner for the country through a law providing for premium accommodations for prisoners (other than those under maximum security status) whose wives are allowed conjugal weekend visits, and for those who want long-term premium accommodations.
20
FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLE – What are the constitutional provisions limiting the power of Congress to enact penal laws? (2012 BAR)
A. The limitations upon the power of congress to enact penal laws are as follows:
Page
accused. Under the Bill of Rights of the Constitution such is classified as an ex post facto law. It should be noted that when Congress decriminalized the crime of subversion, under R.A. 7637, it obliterated the felony and its effects upon Reporma. Consequently charging him now under the new law for his previous membership in the Communist Party would be constitutionality impermissible.
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
A has filed a motion to quash the information, contending that it does not charge an offense. Is he correct?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
I would advise Senator Salcedo not to file the said bill. First, the bill is unconstitutional as it violates the equal protection clause of the Constitution. It will create economic inequality in our criminal justice system. Rich prisoners will enjoy better amenities and privileges than those who are poor. Second, the bill will defeat the purpose of penalties in criminal law, which is to secure justice, retribution, and reformation.
Yes, the contention of A is correct. The information failed to allege that the undue lnjury to B and the government was caused by the accused's manifest partiality, evident bad faith, or gross inexcusable negligence, which are necessary elements of the offense charged, i.e., violation of Section 3(e) of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. The accused is employed in the Office of the District Engineer of the DPWH, which has nothing to do with the determination and fixing of the price of the land expropriated, and for which expropriated land the Government is legally obligated to pay. There is no allegation in the Information that the land was overpriced or that the payment of the amount was disadvantageous to the Government. It appears that the charge was solely based on the accused having followed up the payment for B's land which the Government has already appropriated, and that the accused eventually withheld for himself from the price of the said land, the amount of P4.000.00 for his services. No violation of Section 3(e) of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Act appears. At most, the
FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLE – Due process – Proper allegation of the offense charged (1997) A is charged with the crime defined in Section 3(e) of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act in an information that reads: "That from 1 to 30 January 1995, in the City of Pasig and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the accused, being then employed in the Office of the District Engineer, Department of Public Works and Highways and in the discharge of his official administrative functions, did then and there willfully and unlawfully work for and facilitate the approval of
21
What advice will you give the Senator from the point of view of criminal law, taking into account the purpose of imprisonment (7%) and considerations of ethics and morality (3%)?
B’s claim for the payment of the price of his land which the government had expropriated, and after the claim was approved, the accused gave B only PI,000.00 of the approved claim ofP5,000.00and willfully and unlawfully appropriated for himself the balance of P4,000.00, thus causing undue injury to B and the Government."
Page
For conjugal weekenders, he plans to rent out rooms with hotel-like amenities at rates equivalent to those charged by 4-star hotels; for long-term occupants, he is prepared to offer room and board with special meals in air conditioned single occupancy rooms, at rates equivalent to those charged by 3-star hotels.
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
accused should be merely charged administratively
ART 3 Mala in se and crimes mala prohibita (2005, 2003, 2001, 1999, 1997, 1988)
FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLE in rel. to Art 48— What is aberratio ictus? (2015)
Distinguish between crimes mala in se and crimes mala prohibita.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Aberratio ictus means mistake of blow. Under the principle of aberration ictus, a person is criminally responsible for committing an intentional felony although the consequent victim is different from that intended due to mistake of blow. This principle is based on the rule in Article 4 of the Revised Penal Code, which provides that criminal liability shall be incurred by any person committing a felony (delito) although the wrongful act done be different from that which he intended.
Crimes mala prohibita are distinguished from crimes mala insets follows, to wit:
FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLE in rel. to Art 48, 49, 13— Aberratio Ictus vs Impossible Crime (1993) Explain and illustrate the following: 1) aberratio ictus, 2) impossible crime, and 3) subordination of perjury.
In crimes mala prohibita, the acts are not by nature wrong, evil or bad. They are punished only because there is a law prohibiting them for public good, and thus good faith or lack of criminal intent in doing the prohibited act is not a defense. In crimes mala in se, the acts are by nature wrong, evil or bad, and so generally condemned. The moral trait of the offender is involved; thus, good faith or lack of criminal intent on the part of the offender is a defense, unless the crime is the result of criminal negligence. Correspondingly, modifying circumstances are considered in punishing the offender. ART 3 Motive (1999)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
“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.
22
FELONIES
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Page
1. Aberratio ictus - A fired a gun at his father to kill him but hit instead a stranger. 2. Impossible crime - Killing a dead person. 3. Subordination of perjury Procuring another to swear falsely and testify under circumstances rendering him guilty of perjury.
When is motive relevant to prove a case? When is it not necessary to be established? Explain. (3%)
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
Motive, if attending a crime, always precede the intent.
2. Felonies committed by means of culpa.
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.
ART 3 Proof of motive; when not required (2006)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
ART 3 Mala in se; mala prohibita (1997)
Proof of motive is not required –
May an act be malum in se and be, at the same time, malum prohibitum?
a. Where the offender is positively identified or b. has admitted the commission of the crime (People v. Yurong, 133 SCRA 26 (1984] citing People v. Realon, et. al., 94 SCRA 422 [1980]); c. Where the crime committed is a malum prohibitum; or d. Where the crime is the product of culpa or criminal negligence.
Yes, an act may be malum in se and malum prohibitum at the same time. In People v. Sunico, etaL, (CA 50 OG 5880) it was held that the omission or failure of election inspectors and poll clerks to include a voter's name in the registry list of voters is wrong perse because it disenfranchises a voter of his right to vote. In this regard it is considered as malum in se. Since it is punished under a special law (Sec. 101 and 103, Revised Election Code), it is considered malum prohibitum.
ART 3 Theories; motive; criminal intent (2004, 1996) A. What are the different schools of thought or theories in Criminal Law and describe each briefly. (1996 Bar Question)
ART 3 Criminal Intent (1988)
B. To what theory does our Revised Penal Code belong? (1996 Bar Question)
May a crime be committed without criminal intent? Explain.
C. Distinguish intent from motive in Criminal Law. (2004, 1996 Bar Question)
A crime may be committed without criminal intent in two cases: 1. Offense, punishable as mala prohibita; and
D. May crime be committed without criminal intent? (1996 Bar Question) SUGGESTED ANSWER:
23
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Page
It is not necessary to prove motive when the offender is positively identified or the criminal act did not give rise to variant crimes.
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. 5%
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
C. 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. D. Yes, a crime may be committed without criminal intent if 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.
SUGGESTED ANSWER: Felonies are committed not only by means of deceit (dolo) but also by means of fault (culpa). There is deceit when the act is performed with deliberate intent; and there is fault when the wrongful act results from imprudence, negligence, lack of foresight, or lack of skill (Article 3 of Revised Penal Code).
CRIMINAL LIABILITY ART 4 (1) Criminal liability –when incurred (1994) Bhey eloped with Scott. Whereupon, Bhey’s father, Robin, and brother, Rustom, went to Scott’s house. Upon reaching the house, Rustom inquired from Scott about his sister’s whereabouts, while Robin shouted and threatened to kill Scott. The latter then went downstairs but Rustom held his (Scott’s) waist. Meanwhile Olive, the elder sister of Scott, carrying her twomonth old child, approached Rustom and Scott to pacify them. Olive attempted to remove Rustom’s hand from Scott’s waist. But Rustom pulled Olive’s hand causing her to fall over her baby. The baby then died moments later. Is Rustom criminally liable for the death of the child? SUGGESTED ANSWER: Yes, Rustom is criminally liable for the death of the child because his felonious act was the proximate cause of such death. It was Rustom’s act of pulling Olive’s hand which caused the latter to
24
B. We follow the classical school of thought although some provisions of eminently positivist in tendencies, like punishment of impossible crime, juvenile circumstances, are incorporated in our Code.
ART 3 How are felonies committed? (2015)
Page
A. There are two schools of thought in Criminal Law, and these are (a) the classical theory, which simply means that the basis of criminal liabilities is human free will, and the purpose of the penalty is retribution which must be proportional to the gravity of the offense; and (b) the positivist theory, which considers man as a social being and his acts are attributable not just to his will but to other forces of society. As such, punishment is not the solution, as he is not entirely to be blamed; law and jurisprudence should not be the yardstick in the imposition of sanction, instead the underlying reasons would be inquired into.
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
fall on her baby. Had it not been for said act of Rustom, which is undoubtedly felonious (at least slight coercion) there was no cause for Olive to fall over her baby. In short, Rustom’s felonious act is the cause of the evil caused. Any person performing a felonious act is criminally liable for the direct, natural and logical consequence thereof although different from what he intended (Art. 4, par. 1. RPC: People vs. Pugay, et aL, GR No. 74324, Nov. 18, 1988).
During the robbery in a dwelling house, one of the culprits happened to fire his gun upward in the ceiling without meaning to kill anyone. The owner of the house who was hiding thereat was hit and killed as a result.
Art 4 Criminal Liability In relation to Art 8 Conspiracy (1992)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
SUGGESTED ANSWER: If they have to be criminally liable at all each will be responsible for their individual acts as there appears to be no conspiracy, as the acts of the three were spontaneous and a reflex response to Yabang’s shooting of Sergio. There was no concerted act that will lead to a common purpose. Art. 4 Criminal Liability – Proximate Cause In relation to robbery with homicide (1999)
No, I will not sustain the defense. The act being felonious and the proximate cause of the victim's death, the offender is liable therefor although it may not be intended or different from what he intended. The offender shall be prosecuted for the composite crime of robbery with homicide, whether the killing was intentional or accidental, as long as the killing was on occasion of the robbery Art. 4 Criminal Liability (2008) While Carlos was approaching his car, he saw it being driven away by Paolo, a thief. Carlos tried to stop Paolo by shouting at him, but Paolo ignored him. To prevent his car from being carnapped, Carlos drew his gun, aimed at the rear wheel of the car and fired. The shot blew the tire which caused the car to veer out of control and collide with an oncoming tricycle, killing the tricycle driver. Art 4 (1) What is the criminal liability of Carlos, if any? Explain. (4%) (2008) SUGGESTED ANSWER:
25
What are the criminal liabilities of Yoyong, Zoilo and Warlito for the injury to Yabang?
Will you sustain the defense? Why? (4%)
Page
As Sergio, Yoyong, Zoilo and Warlilo engaged in a drinking spree at Heartthrob Disco, Special Police Officer 3 (SPO 3) Manolo Yabang suddenly approached them, aimed his revolver at Sergio whom he recognized as a wanted killer and fatally shot the latter. Whereupon, Yoyong.Zoilo and Warlito ganged up on Yabang. Warlito, using his own pistol, shot and wounded Yabang.
The defense theorized that the killing was a mere accident and was not perpetrated in connection with, or for purposes of, the robbery.
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
liability
–
when
Alexander, an escaped convict, ran amuck on board a Superlines Bus bound for Manila from Bicol and killed ten (10) persons. Terrified by the incident, Carol and Benjamin who are passengers of the bus, jumped out of the window and while lying unconscious after hitting the pavement of the road, were ran over and crushed to death by a fast moving Desert Fox bus tailing the Superlines Bus. Can Alexander be held liable for the death of Carol and Benjamin although he was completely unaware that the two jumped out of the bus? Explain. SUGGESTED ANSWER: Yes, Alexander can be held liable for the death of Carol and Benjamin because of felonious act of running was the proximate cause of the victim’s death. The rule is that when a person, by a felonious act, generates in the mind of another a sense of imminent danger, prompting the latter to escape from or avoid such danger and in the process, sustains injuries or dies, the person committing the felonious act is responsible for such injuries or death.
ART.4 Criminal liability – when incurred (1997) While the crew of a steamer prepared to raise anchor at the Pasig River, A, evidently impatient with the progress of work, began to use abusive language against the men. B, one of the members of the crew, remonstrated saying that they could work best if they were not insulted. A took B's attitude as a display of insubordination and, rising in a rage, moved towards B wielding a big knife and threatening to stab B. At the instant when A was only a few feet from B, the latter, apparently believing himself to be in great and immediate peril, threw himself into the water, disappeared beneath the surface, and drowned. May A be held criminally liable for the death of B? SUGGESTED ANSWER: Yes, A can be held criminally liable for the death of B. Article 4 of the Revised Penal Code provides in part that criminal liability shall be incurred by any person committing a felony although the wrongful act done be different from that which he intended. In U.S. vs. Valdez, 41 Phil. 497, where the victim who was threatened by the accused with a knife, jumped into the river but because of the strong current or because he did not know how to swim, he drowned, the Supreme Court affirmed the conviction for homicide of the accused because, if a person against whom a criminal assault is directed believes himself to be in danger of death or great bodily harm
26
ART.4--Criminal incurred (1996)
(C7.S. os. Valdez. 41 Phil. 1497; People vs. Apra. 27 SCRA 1037.)
Page
Carlos did not incur criminal liability because his act of firing at the rear wheel of the car to stop the vehicle and prevent Paolo from taking away his (Carlos') car is neither done with dolo nor culpa. The act does not constitute a crime; it is a reasonable exercise of his right to prevent or repel an actual unlawful physical invasion or usurpation of his property pursuant to Art. 429 of the Civil Code.
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
Luis Cruz was deeply hurt when his offer of love was rejected by his girlfriend Marivella one afternoon when he visited her. When he left her house, he walked as if he was sleepwalking so much so that a teenage snatcher was able to grab his cellphone and flee without being chased by Luis. At the next LRT station, he boarded one of the coaches bound for Baclaran. While seated, he happened to read a newspaper left on the seat and noticed that the headlines were about the sinking of the Super Ferry while on its way to Cebu. He went over the list of missing passengers who were presumed dead and came across the name of his grandfather who had raised him from childhood after he was orphaned. He was shocked and his mind went blank for a few minutes, after which he ran amuck and, using his balisong, started stabbing at the passengers who then scampered away, with three of them jumping out of the train and landing on the road below. All the three passengers died later of their injuries at the hospital. Is Luis liable for the death of the three passengers who jumped out of the moving train? State your reasons. (5%) SUGGESTED ANSWER: Yes, Luis is liable for their deaths because he was committing a felony when he started stabbing at the passengers and such wrongful act was the proximate cause of said
Under Article 4, Revised Penal Code, any person committing a felony shall incur criminal liability although the wrongful act done be different from that which he intended. In this case, the death of the three passengers was the direct, natural and logical consequence of Luis felonious act which created an immediate sense of danger in the minds of said passengers who tried to avoid or escape from it by jumping out of the train. (People vs. Arpa, 27 SCRA 1037; U.S. vs. Valdez, 41 Phil. 497) ART.4--Criminal liability; when incurred (2004) On his way home from office, ZZ rode in a jeepney. Subsequently, XX boarded the same jeepney. Upon reaching a secluded spot in QC, XX pulled out a grenade from his bag and announced a hold-up. He told ZZ to surrender his watch, wallet and cellphone. Fearing for his life, ZZ jumped out of the vehicle. But as he fell, his head hit the pavement, causing his instant death. Is XX liable for ZZs death? Explain briefly. (5%) SUGGESTED ANSWER: Yes, XX is liable for ZZ's death because his acts of pulling out a grenade and announcing a hold-up, coupled with a demand for the watch, wallet and cellphone of ZZ is felonious, and such felonious act was the proximate cause of ZZ's jumping out of the jeepney, resulting in the latter's death. Stated otherwise, the death of ZZ was the
27
ART.4--Criminal liability; when incurred (2001)
passengers’jumping out of the train; hence their deaths.
Page
and in order to escape jumps into the water, impelled by the instinct of selfpreservation, the assailant is responsible for the homicide in case death results by drowning.
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
direct, natural and logical consequence of XX’s felonious act which created an immediate sense of danger in the mind of ZZ who tried to avoid such danger by jumping out of the jeepney (.People v. Arpat 27 SCRA 1037 [1969]). ART.4--Criminal liability; when incurred (2008)
was arrested. The prosecutor considered that the ransom note was never received by Carla’s parents and filed a case of “Impossible crime to commit kidnapping” against Enrique. Is the prosecutor correct? If he is not correct, can he instead file a case of grave coercion? SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Francis and Joan were sweethearts, but their parents had objected to their relationship because they were first cousins. They forged a pact in writing to commit suicide. The agreement was to shoot each other in the head which they did. Joan died. Due to medical assistance, Francis survived. Is Francis criminally liable for the death of Joan? Explain. (5%) SUGGESTED ANSWER: Yes, Francis is criminally liable for Joan's death. His act of shooting her, although done pursuant to a solemn pact, is nevertheless felonious and is the proximate cause of Joan's death (Art. 4, par. 1, RPC). Moreover, the mere act of giving assistance to a suicide is a crime (Art. 253, RPC)
The Prosecutor is not correct. There is no “Impossible crime to commit kidnapping”. First, an impossible crime applies only to Crimes against Persons and Crimes against Property under Titles 8 and 10 of the RPC, respectively. Kidnapping is a Crime against Personal Liberty and Security under Title 9, RPC. Second, even if the ransom note was not received by Carla’s parents, the crime of kidnapping and serious illegal detention for ransom is already consummated. Under Article 267, RPC, Kidnapping for Ransom is committed “when the kidnapping or detention is for the purpose of extorting ransom from the victim or any other person.” To consummate the crime, it suffices that the purpose is to extort ransom; it is not necessary that the ransom note be received or that ransom be paid.
IMPOSSIBLE CRIMES
ART 4(2) Impossible Crime (2014) Puti detested Pula, his roommate, because Pula was courting Ganda, whom Puti fancied. One day, Puti decided to teach Pula a lesson and went to a veterinarian (Vet) to ask for poison on the pretext that he was going to kill a sick pet, when
28
Carla, four (4) years old, was kidnapped by Enrique, the tricycle driver engaged by her parents to drive her to and from school every day. Enrique wrote a ransom note demanding that Carla’s parents pay him P500,000.00 ransom in exchange for her liberty. However, before the ransom note could be received by Carla’s parents, Enrique’s hideout was discovered by the police. Carla was rescued while Enrique
Page
Art 4 (2): Impossible crimes (2014)
No, the Prosecutor cannot file a case of grave coercion because the crime committed, as explained above, is kidnapping for ransom.
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
SUGGESTED ANSWER: (A) Puti committed the impossible crime of murder. All the elements of an impossible crime are present. Puti’s act of mixing a solution with Pula’s food would have been murder, a crime against persons. The act was done evil intent which is to kill Pula. However, the crime was not accomplished because of the employment of ineffectual means, i.e., the solution turned out to be nontoxic which would not kill Pula. And said act would not fall under any other provision of the RPC. (B) No, my answer would not be the same. If as a result of the mixture, Pula got an upset stomach and had to be hospitalized for 10 days, the crime committed by Puti is Less Serious Physical Injuries. It is not an impossible crime because the last element of an impossible requires that the act performed should not constitute a violation of another provision of the RPC.
Art. 4 (2) Impossible Crime In relation to Art. 265: Less serious physical injuries (1998) Buddy always resented his classmate, Jun. One day. Buddy planned to kill Jun by mixing poison in his lunch. Not knowing
(A) What crime or crimes, if any, did Jerry and Buddy commit? [3%J (1998 Bar Question) (B) Suppose that, because of his severe allergy to powdered milk, Jun had to be hospitalized for 10 days for ingesting it. Would your answer to the first question be the same? [2%] (1998 Bar Question) SUGGESTED ANSWER: (A) Jerry and Buddy are liable for the socalled “impossible crime” because, with intent to kill, they tried to poison Jun and thus perpetrate murder, a crime against persons. Jun was not poisoned only because the would-be killers were unaware that what they mixed with the food of Jun was powdered milk, not poison. In short, the act done with criminal intent by Jerry and Buddy, would have constituted a crime against persons were it not for the inherent inefficacy of the means employed. Criminal liability is incurred by them although no crime resulted, because their act of trying to poison Jun is criminal, (B) No, the answer would not be the same. Charlie would be, criminally liable for less serious physical injuries because his act of mixing the powder with Brad's food was done with felonious intent and was the proximate
29
(A) What crime, if any, did Puti commit? (B) Would your answer be the same if, as a result of the mixture, Pula got an upset stomach and had to be hospitalized for 10 days?
where he can get poison, he approached another classmate. Jerry to whom he disclosed his evil plan. Because he himself harbored resentment towards Jun, Jerry gave Buddy a poison, which Buddy placed on Jun's food. However, Jun did not die because, unknown to both Buddy and Jerry, the poison was actually powdered milk.
Page
actually Puti was intending to poison Pula. The Vet instantly gave Puti a non-toxic solution which, when mixed with Pula’s food, did not kill Pula.
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
Charlie hated his classmate, Brad, because the latter was assiduously courting Lily, Charlie's girlfriend. Charlie went to a veterinarian and asked for some poison on the pretext that it would be used to kill a very sick, old dog. Actually, Charlie intended to use the poison on Brad. The veterinarian mistakenly gave Charlie a non-toxic powder which, when mixed with Brad's food, did not kill Brad. (A) Did Charlie commit any crime? If so; what and why? If not, why not? (3%) SUGGESTED ANSWER: Charlie committed an impossible crime of murder. His act of mixing the nontoxic powder with Brad's food, done with intent to kill, would have constituted murder which is a crime against persons, had it not been for the employment of a means which, unknown to him, is ineffectual (Art.4, par. 2, RPC). ART 4(2)- Impossible crime of murder (2009)
The veterinarian mistakenly gave Charlie a non-toxic powder which, when mixed with Brad's food, did not kill Brad. [a] Did Charlie commit any crime? If so; what and why? If not, why not? (3%) [b] Would your answer be the same if Brad proved to be allergic to the powder, and after ingesting it with his food, fell ill and was hospitalized for ten (10) days? Explain. (3%) SUGGESTED ANSWER: a. Charlie committed an impossible crime of murder. His act of mixing the non-toxic powder with Brad's food, done with intent to kill, would have constituted murder which is a crime against persons, had it not been for the employment of a means which, unknown to him, is ineffectual (Art.4, par. 2, RPC).
b. No, the answer would not be the same. Charlie would be, criminally liable for less serious physical injuries because his act of mixing the powder with Brad's food was done with felonious intent and was the proximate cause of Brad's illness for 10 days. It cannot constitute attempted murder, although done with intent to kill, because the means employed is inherently ineffectual to cause death and the crime committed must be directly linked to the means employed,
30
Art. 4 (2): Impossible crime of murder (2009)
Charlie hated his classmate, Brad, because the latter was assiduously courting Lily, Charlie's girlfriend. Charlie went to a veterinarian and asked for some poison on the pretext that it would be used to kill a very sick, old dog. Actually, Charlie intended to use the poison on Brad.
Page
cause of Brad's illness for 10 days. It cannot constitute attempted murder, although done with intent to kill, because the means employed is inherently ineffectual to cause death and the crime committed must be directly linked to the means employed, not to the intent. Liability for an impossible crime can only arise from a consummated act.
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
Lucas had been the stay-in houseboy of spouses Nestor and Julia for five years. One night, while Nestor and Julia were out having dinner, Lucas and his friend Pedro gained entry into the masters' bedroom with the use of a false key. They found Julia's jewelry box in one of the cabinets, which was unlocked. Lucas believed that Julia's jewelry was inside the box. Unknown to Lucas and Pedro, the box was empty. Pedro took the box and left the bedroom with Lucas. They were shocked when they saw Nestor in the house pointing a gun at them. Nestor ordered them to stop hand over the box. Pedro complied. It turned out that Nestor had just arrived in time to see Lucas and Pedro leaving masters' bedroom with the box. State with reasons, the crime or crimes, if any, Lucas and Pedro committed. (7%) SUGGESTED ANSWER: Lucas and Pedro may be held liable only for impossible crime of theft because what they had in in in taking the jewelry box was to take Julia's jewelry. However, it turned out to be empty. The impossibility of committing the crime of theft is factual or physical since there is no jewelry to steal inside the box.
What criminal liability did OZ incur, If any? Explain briefly. (5%) (2004 Bar Question) SUGGESTED ANSWER: OZ incurred criminal liability for an impossible crime of murder. Criminal liability shall be incurred by any person performing an act which would be an offense against persons or property, were it not for the inherent impossibility of its accomplishment or on account of the employment of inadequate or ineffectual means (Art. 4, par. 2, RPC). In the problem given, the impossibility of accomplishing the crime of murder, a crime against persons, was due to the employment of ineffectual means which OZ thought was poison. The law imputes criminal liability to the offender although no crime resulted, only to suppress his criminal propensity. ART.4(2)- Impossible crime of murder (2004)
Art. 4 (2) Impossible crime of murder (2004)
OZ and YO were both courting their coemployee, SUE. Because of their bitter rivalry, OZ decided to get rid of YO by poisoning him. OZ poured a substance into YO’s coffee thinking it was arsenic. It turned out that the substance was white sugar substitute known as Equal. Nothing happened to YO after he drank the coffee.
OZ and YO were both courting their coemployee, SUE. Because of their bitter
What criminal liability did OZ incur, If any? Explain briefly. (5%)
31
Art. 4 (2): Impossible crime of theft (2008)
rivalry, OZ decided to get rid of YO by poisoning him. OZ poured a substance into YO’s coffee thinking it was arsenic. It turned out that the substance was white sugar substitute known as Equal. Nothing happened to YO after he drank the coffee.
Page
not to the intent. Liability for an impossible crime can only arise from a consummated act.
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
In the problem given, the impossibility of accomplishing the crime of murder, a crime against persons, was due to the employment of ineffectual means which OZ thought was poison. The law imputes criminal liability to the offender although no crime resulted, only to suppress his criminal propensity because subjectively, he is a criminal though objectively, no crime was committed. Art. 4 (2): Impossible crimes (2000) A. What is an impossible crime? (2%) (2000 Bar Question) B. Is an impossible crime really a crime? (2%) (2000 Bar Question) 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 X's 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
SUGGESTED ANSWER: A. An impossible crime is an act which would be an offense against person or 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.
32
OZ incurred criminal liability for an impossible crime of murder. Criminal liability shall be incurred by any person performing an act which would be an offense against persons or property, were it not for the inherent impossibility of its accomplishment or on account of the employment of inadequate or ineffectual means (Art. 4, par. 2, RPC).
Page
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
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 Carla's parents in exchange for Carla's freedom. Enrique sent the ransom note by mail. However, before the ransom note was received by Carla's parents, Enrique's hideout was discovered by the police. Carla was rescued while Enrique was arrested and incarcerated. Considering that the ransom note was not received by Carla’s parents, the investigating prosecutor merely filed a case of ’‘Impossible Crime to Commit Kidnapping" against Enrique. Is the prosecutor correct? Why? (3%) (2000 Bar Question)
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
Although the facts involved are parallel to the case of Intod vs. Court of Appeals (215 SCRA 52). where it was 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.
On appeal to the Court of Appeals, all the accused ascribed to the trial court the sole error of finding them guilty of attempted murder. If you were the ponente, how will you decide the appeal? SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Art. 4 (2): Impossible crime of murder (1994) JP, Aries and Randal planned to kill Elsa, a resident of Barangay Pula, Laurel, Batangas. They asked the assistance of Ella, who is familiar with the place. On April 3, 1992, at about 10:00 in the evening, JP, Aries and Randal, all armed with automatic weapons, went to Barangay Pula. Ella, being the guide, directed her companions to the room in the house of Elsa. Whereupon, JP, Aries and Randal fired their guns at her room. Fortunately, Elsa was not around as she attended a prayer meeting that evening in another barangay in Laurel. JP, et aL, were charged and convicted of attempted murder by the Regional Trial Court at Tanauan, Batangas.
Art. 4 (2): Impossible crime of murder (1998) Buddy always resented his classmate, Jun. One day. Buddy planned to kill Jun by mixing poison in his lunch. Not knowing where he can get poison, he approached another classmate. Jerry to whom he disclosed his evil plan. Because he himself harbored resentment towards Jun, Jerry gave Buddy a poison, which Buddy placed on Jun's food. However, Jun did not die because, unknown to both Buddy and
33
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
If I were the ponente, I will set aside the judgment convicting the accused of attempted murder and instead find them guilty of impossible crime under Art. 4, par. 2, RPC, in relation to Art. 59, RPC. Liability for impossible crime arises not only when the impossibility is legal, but likewise when it is factual or physical impossibility, as in the case at bar. Elsa’s absence from the house is a physical impossibility which renders the crime intended inherently incapable of accomplishment. To convict the accused of attempted murder would make Art. 4, par. 2 practically useless as all circumstances which prevented the consummation of the offense will be treated as an incident independent of the actor’s will which is an element of attempted or frustrated felony (Intod vs. CA, 215 SCRA 52).
Page
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.
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
SUGGESTED ANSWER: 1. Jerry and Buddy are liable for the so-called “impossible crime” because, with intent to kill, they tried to poison Jun and thus perpetrate murder, a crime against persons. Jun was not poisoned only because the would-be killers were unaware that what they mixed with the food of Jun was powdered milk, not poison. In short, the act done with criminal intent by Jerry and Buddy, would have constituted a crime against persons were it not for the inherent inefficacy of the means employed. Criminal liability is incurred by them although no crime resulted, because their act of trying to poison Jun is criminal. ART 4. In rel to ART 267—Impossible crime (2014) Carla, four (4) years old, was kidnapped by Enrique, the tricycle driver engaged by her parents to drive her to and from school every day. Enrique wrote a ransom note demanding that Carla’s parents pay him P500,000.00 ransom in exchange for her liberty. However, before the ransom note could be received by Carla’s parents, Enrique’s hideout was discovered by the police. Carla was rescued while Enrique was arrested. The prosecutor considered that the ransom note was never received by Carla’s parents and filed a case of “Impossible crime to commit kidnapping” against Enrique.
SUGGESTED ANSWER: The Prosecutor is not correct. There is no “Impossible crime to commit kidnapping”. First, an impossible crime applies only to Crimes against Persons and Crimes against Property under Titles 8 and 10 of the RPC, respectively. Kidnapping is a Crime against Personal Liberty and Security under Title 9, RPC. Second, even if the ransom note was not received by Carla’s parents, the crime of kidnapping and serious illegal detention for ransom is already consummated. Under Article 267, RPC, Kidnapping for Ransom is committed “when the kidnapping or detention is for the purpose of extorting ransom from the victim or any other person.” To consummate the crime, it suffices that the purpose is to extort ransom; it is not necessary that the ransom note be received or that ransom be paid. No, the Prosecutor cannot file a case of grave coercion because the crime committed, as explained above, is kidnapping for ransom. ART. 4- Impossible crimes (2000) A. What is an impossible crime? (2%) (2000 Bar Question) B. Is an impossible crime really a crime? (2%) (2000 Bar Question) 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
34
What crime or crimes, if any, did Jerry and Buddy commit? [3%)
Is the prosecutor correct? If he is not correct, can he instead file a case of grave coercion?
Page
Jerry, the poison was actually powdered milk
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
SUGGESTED ANSWER: A. An impossible crime is an act which would be an offense against person or 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.
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 ART.4-Impossible crime of theft (2008) Lucas had been the stay-in houseboy of spouses Nestor and Julia for five years. One night, while Nestor and Julia were out having dinner, Lucas and his friend Pedro gained entry into the masters' bedroom with the use of a false key. They found Julia's jewelry box in one of the cabinets, which was unlocked. Lucas believed that Julia's jewelry was inside the box. Unknown to Lucas and Pedro, the box was empty. Pedro took the box and left the bedroom with Lucas. They were shocked
35
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 Carla's parents in exchange for Carla's freedom. Enrique sent the ransom note by mail. However, before the ransom note was received by Carla's parents, Enrique's hideout was discovered by the police. Carla was rescued while Enrique was arrested and incarcerated. Considering that the ransom note was not received by Carla’s parents, the investigating prosecutor merely filed a case of ’‘Impossible Crime to Commit Kidnapping" against Enrique. Is the prosecutor correct? Why? (3%)
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 involved are parallel to the case of Intod vs. Court of Appeals (215 SCRA 52). where it was 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.
Page
peppered the room with bullets. Unsatisfied, A even threw a hand grenade that totally destroyed X's 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%) (2000 Bar Question)
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
when they saw Nestor in the house pointing a gun at them. Nestor ordered them to stop hand over the box. Pedro complied. It turned out that Nestor had just arrived in time to see Lucas and Pedro leaving masters' bedroom with the box.
error of finding them guilty of attempted murder. If you were the ponente, how will you decide the appeal? SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Lucas and Pedro may be held liable only for impossible crime of theft because what they had in in in taking the jewelry box was to take Julia's jewelry. However, it turned out to be empty. The impossibility of committing the crime of theft is factual or physical since there is no jewelry to steal inside the box. ART .4(2)- Impossible crime of murder (1994) JP, Aries and Randal planned to kill Elsa, a resident of Barangay Pula, Laurel, Batangas. They asked the assistance of Ella, who is familiar with the place. On April 3, 1992, at about 10:00 in the evening, JP, Aries and Randal, all armed with automatic weapons, went to Barangay Pula. Ella, being the guide, directed her companions to the room in the house of Elsa. Whereupon, JP, Aries and Randal fired their guns at her room. Fortunately, Elsa was not around as she attended a prayer meeting that evening in another barangay in Laurel. JP, et aL, were charged and convicted of attempted murder by the Regional Trial Court at Tanauan, Batangas. On appeal to the Court of Appeals, all the accused ascribed to the trial court the sole
ART.4(2) Impossible crime of murder; less serious physical injuries (1998) Buddy always resented his classmate, Jun. One day. Buddy planned to kill Jun by mixing poison in his lunch. Not knowing where he can get poison, he approached another classmate. Jerry to whom he disclosed his evil plan. Because he himself harbored resentment towards Jun, Jerry gave Buddy a poison, which Buddy placed on Jun's food. However, Jun did not die because, unknown to both Buddy and Jerry, the poison was actually powdered milk
36
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
If I were the ponente, I will set aside the judgment convicting the accused of attempted murder and instead find them guilty of impossible crime under Art. 4, par. 2, RPC, in relation to Art. 59, RPC. Liability for impossible crime arises not only when the impossibility is legal, but likewise when it is factual or physical impossibility, as in the case at bar. Elsa’s absence from the house is a physical impossibility which renders the crime intended inherently incapable of accomplishment. To convict the accused of attempted murder would make Art. 4, par. 2 practically useless as all circumstances which prevented the consummation of the offense will be treated as an incident independent of the actor’s will which is an element of attempted or frustrated felony (Intod vs. CA, 215 SCRA 52).
Page
State with reasons, the crime or crimes, if any, Lucas and Pedro committed. (7%)
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
–
What crime or crimes, if any, did Jerry and Buddy commit? [3%]
ART. 6-Stages of execution Consummated theft (1998)
Suppose that, because of his severe allergy to powdered milk, Jun had to be hospitalized for 10 days for ingesting it. Would your answer to the first question be the same? [2%]
In the jewelry section of a big department store, Julia snatched a couple of bracelets and put these in her purse. At the store's exit, however, she was arrested by the guard after being radioed by the store personnel who caught the act in the store's moving camera. Is the crime consummated, frustrated, or attempted? (5%)
Criminal liability is incurred by them although no crime resulted, because their act of trying to poison Jun is criminal, 2. No, the answer would not be the same as above. Jerry and Buddy would be liable instead for less serious physical injuries for causing the hospitalization and medical attendance for 10 days to Jun. Their act of mixing with the food eaten by Jun the matter which required such medical attendance, committed with criminal intent, renders them liable for the resulting injury.
STAGES OF EXECUTION
SUGGESTED ANSWER: The crime is consummated theft because the taking of the bracelets was complete after Julia succeeded in putting them in her purse. Julia acquired complete control of the bracelets after putting them in her purse; hence, the taking with intent to gain is complete and thus the crime is consummated. ART.6- Stages of execution - Crime of theft; attempted; consummated (2000) Sunshine, a beauteous “colegiala” but a shoplifter, went to the Ever Department Store and proceeded 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
37
1. Jerry and Buddy are liable for the so-called “impossible crime” because, with intent to kill, they tried to poison Jun and thus perpetrate murder, a crime against persons. Jun was not poisoned only because the would-be killers were unaware that what they mixed with the food of Jun was powdered milk, not poison. In short, the act done with criminal intent by Jerry and Buddy, would have constituted a crime against persons were it not for the inherent inefficacy of the means employed.
Page
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
consummated, frustrated or attempted? Explain. (5%)
ART.6--Stages of execution – Frustrated murder (2009)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Delmo learned that his enemy, Oscar, was confined at the Intensive Care Unit (ICU) of the Philippine Medical Center. Intending to kill Oscar, Delmo disguised himself as a nurse, entered the ICU, and saw a man lying on the hospital bed with several lifesaving tubes attached to the body. Delmo disconnected the tubes and left. Later, the resident physician doing his rounds entered the ICU and, seeing the disconnected tubes, replaced them. The patient survived. It turned out that the patient was Larry, as Oscar had been discharged from the hospital earlier.
–
Taking into account the nature and elements of the felonies of coup d’etat and rape, may one be criminally liable for frustrated coup d'etat or frustrated rape? Explain. (2%) SUGGESTED ANSWER: No, a person may not be held liable for frustrated coup d'etat or for frustrated rape because in a frustrated felony, it is required that all acts of execution that could produce the felony as a consequence must have been performed by the offender but the felony was not produced by reason of causes independent of the will of the offender. In the said felonies, however, one cannot perform all the acts of execution without consummating the felony. The said felonies, therefore, do not admit of the frustrated stage.
SUGGESTED ANSWER: Delmo was correctly charged with the crime of frustrated murder qualified by treachery—not evident premeditation because the victim was different from the one premeditated against. Delmo has performed all the acts of execution that would produce the death of the victim but for reasons independent of the will of the perpetrator, the death of the victim was not accomplished. Treachery qualifies the crime, because the means, manner and method of committing the intended killing were consciously adopted to insure its execution without risk that may arise from the defense the victim may make. Evident premeditation is absorbed in the treachery. Art 6: Consummated theft (1998)
38
ART.6--Stages of execution Frustrated felony (2005)
Delmo was charged with frustrated murder, qualified by evident premeditation and treachery as aggravating circumstances. Discuss the propriety of the charge. (4%)
Page
The theft was consummated because the taking or asportation was complete. The asportation is 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.
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
The crime is consummated theft because the taking of the bracelets was complete after Julia succeeded in putting them in her purse. Julia acquired complete control of the bracelets after putting them in her purse; hence, the taking with intent to gain is complete and thus the crime is consummated. Art 6: Theft; attempted; consummated (2000) Sunshine, a beauteous “colegiala” but a shoplifter, went to the Ever Department Store and proceeded 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:
Art. 6 (consummated carnapping) Art. 249; Art. 263; Homicide, Serious Physical Injuries and Damage to property resulting from reckless imprudence (1993) Dodoy, possessing only a student driver's permit, found a parked car with the key left in the ignition, he proceeded to drive it away, intending to sell it. Just then Ting, the owner of the car, arrived. Failing to make Dodoy stop. Ting boarded a taxi and pursued Dodoy, who in his haste to escape, and because of his inexperience, violently collided with a jeepney full of passengers. The jeepney overturned and was wrecked. One passenger was killed: the leg of the other passenger was crushed and had to be amputated. The car of Ting was damaged to the tune of P20.000.00. What offense or offenses may Dodoy be charged with? Discuss. SUGGESTED ANSWER: Dodong may be charged with consummated carnnaping. Homicide, Serious Physical Injuries and Damage to property resulting from reckless imprudence.
39
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The theft was consummated because the taking or asportation was complete. The asportation is 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.
Page
In the jewelry section of a big department store, Julia snatched a couple of bracelets and put these in her purse. At the store's exit, however, she was arrested by the guard after being radioed by the store personnel who caught the act in the store's moving camera. Is the crime consummated, frustrated, or attempted? (5%)
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
Please take note that with respect to Espiritu Case, taking hold of the object is enough to consummate the crime: although in the Dino case, it is still frustrated because there is inability to dispose freely the object.
patient survived. It turned out that the patient was Larry, as Oscar had been discharged from the hospital earlier. Delmo was charged with frustrated murder, qualified by evident premeditation and treachery as aggravating circumstances. Discuss the propriety of the charge. (4%)
Art 6: Frustrated felony (2005) SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, a person may not be held liable for frustrated coup d'etat or for frustrated rape because in a frustrated felony, it is required that all acts of execution that could produce the felony as a consequence must have been performed by the offender but the felony was not produced by reason of causes independent of the will of the offender. In the said felonies, however, one cannot perform all the acts of execution without consummating the felony. The said felonies, therefore, do not admit of the frustrated stage. Art 6: Frustrated murder (2009) Delmo learned that his enemy, Oscar, was confined at the Intensive Care Unit (ICU) of the Philippine Medical Center. Intending to kill Oscar, Delmo disguised himself as a nurse, entered the ICU, and saw a man lying on the hospital bed with several lifesaving tubes attached to the body. Delmo disconnected the tubes and left. Later, the resident physician doing his rounds entered the ICU and, seeing the disconnected tubes, replaced them. The
LIGHT FELONIES Art 7 Light Felonies in relation to Art 16 (1988) When are light felonies punishable and who are liable in light felonies? SUGGESTED ANSWER: Light felonies, according to Article 7 of the Revised Penal Code are punishable “only when they have been consummated, with the exception of those committed against persons or property.” Article. 16 of the Revised Penal Code provides that “the following are criminally liable for light felonies: 1. Principals 2. Accomplices.
40
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Delmo was correctly charged with the crime of frustrated murder. Delmo has performed all the acts of execution that would produce the death of the victim but for reasons independent of the will of the perpetrator, the death of the victim was not accomplished.
Page
Taking into account the nature and elements of the felonies of coup d’etat and rape, may one be criminally liable for frustrated coup d'etat or frustrated rape? Explain. (2%)
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
CONSPIRACY ART. 8-[b] Wheel vs Circle and Chain (2016)
Art. 8: Conspiracy as a Felony vs as a Manner (2012)
Differentiate wheel conspiracy and chain conspiracy. (2.5%)
Distinguish by way of illustration conspiracy as a felony from conspiracy as a manner of incurring liability in relation to the crimes of rebellion and murder.
A “wheel conspiracy” occurs when there is a single person or group (the hub) dealing individually with two or more other persons or groups (spokes). The spoke typically interacts with the hub rather than with another spoke. In the event that the spoke shares a common purpose to succeed, there is a single conspiracy. However, in the instances when each spoke is unconcerned with the success of the other spokes, there are multiple conspiracies. A “chain conspiracy”, on the other hand, exists when there is successive communication and cooperation in much the same way as with legitimate business operations between manufacturer and wholesaler, then wholesaler and retailer, and then retailer and consumer (Estrada v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. 138965, 26 February 2002). Art. 8: Define conspiracy (2012) SUGGESTED ANSWER: Conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it.
Conspiracy to commit rebellion – if “A” and “B” conspired to overthrow the government, conspiracy is punishable. Conspiracy to commit rebellion is a felony. Rebellion – if they committed rebellion, they are equally liable for the crime of rebellion. However, they will not be additionally charged with conspiracy to commit rebellion. Since they committed what they conspired, conspiracy will not be considered as an independent felony but as a manner of incurring criminal responsibility. Art. 8: Conspiracy (1991) During a fiesta, Simeon Marco, brandishing a knife, asked Constancio whether he was the one who slapped his (Simeon's) son the year previous. Vicente (father of Constancio) shouted at Constancio and his other son, Bien- venido, telling them to run away. When Bienvenido passed by Rafael Marco (brother of Simeon), Rafael stabbed him. Bienvenido parried the blow but fell down, his feet entangled with some vines. While Bienvenido was lying on the ground, Rafael continued to stab him, inflicting slight injuries on the shoulder of Bienvenido, after which Rafael stood up. At that moment, Dulcisimo Beltran (no relation to the Marco brothers), came out of nowhere and, together with Simeon, stabbed Bienvenido. Both of them inflicted
41
There are two structures of multiple conspiracies, namely: wheel or circle conspiracy and chain conspiracy.
Page
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
fatal wounds resulting in the death of the victim.
the victim and hence, liable collectively. The act of one is the act of all.
Discuss the criminal liability of Dulcisimo, Simeon and Rafael.
The existence of a conspiracy among the offenders can be clearly deduced or inferred from the manner they committed the killing, demonstrating a common criminal purpose and intent. There being a conspiracy, the individual acts of each participant is not considered because their liability is collective.
SUGGESTED ANSWER: Simeon and Dulcisimo will be liable for the death of Bienvenido as the fatal injuries sustained by the victim were inflicted by the two. Rafael is not liable for slight physical injuries as conspiracy was not present, and there was no apparent intent to kill when he inflicted the slight physical injuries on the aim of the victim.
Art. 8: Conspiracy (1993) As a result of a misunderstanding during a meeting, Joe was mauled by Nestor, Jolan, Reden and Arthur. He ran towards his house but the four chased and caught him. Thereafter, they tied Joe’s hands at his back and attacked him. Nestor used a knife; Jolan, a shovel; Arthur, his fists; and Reden, a piece of wood. After killing Joe, Reden ordered the digging of a grave to bury Joe’s lifeless body. Thereafter, the four (4) left together. Convicted for the killing of Joe,
Art. 8: Conspiracy to commit robbery (1996) Jose, Domingo. Manolo, and Fernando, armed with bolos, at about one o'clock in the morning, robbed a house at a desolate place where Danilo, his wife, and three daughters were living. While the four were in the process of ransacking Danilo’s house, Fernando, noticing that one of Danilo’s daughters was trying to get away, ran after her and finally caught up with her in a thicket somewhat distant from the house. Fernando, before bringing back the daughter to the house, raped her first. Thereafter, the four carted away the belongings of Danilo and his family. What crime did Jose, Domingo. Manolo and Fernando commit? Explain.
Would you sustain his claim? Why? SUGGESTED ANSWER: No. Arthur’s claim is without merit. The offenders acted in conspiracy in killing
Jose, Domingo, and Manolo committed Robbery, while Fernando committed complex crime of Robbery with Rape. Conspiracy can be inferred from the manner the offenders committed the robbery but the rape was committed by Fernando at a place “distant from the house” where the robbery was committed, not in the presence of the other conspirators. Hence, Fernando
Page
Arthur now claims that his conviction is erroneous as it was not he who inflicted the fatal blow.
42
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
alone should answer for the rape, rendering him liable for the special complex crime. [People vs. Cardurta et at, G.R. 108490. 22 June 1995) Art. 8: Conspiracy (1994) At about 9:30 in the evening, while Dino and Raffy were walking along Padre Faura Street, Manila. Johnny hit them with a rock injuring Dino at the back. Raffy approached Dino but suddenly, Bobby, Steve, Danny and Nonoy surrounded the duo. Then Bobby stabbed Dino. Steve, Danny. Nonoy and Johnny kept on hitting Dino and Raffy with rocks. As a result, Dino died. Bobby, Steve, Danny, Nonoy and Johnny were charged with homicide.
foot to the house of F. B positioned himself at a distance as the group's lookout. C and D stood guard outside the house. Before A could enter the house, D left the scene without the knowledge of the others. A stealthily entered the house and stabbed F. F ran to the street but was blocked by C, forcing him to flee towards another direction. Immediately after A had stabbed F. A also stabbed G who was visiting F. Thereafter, A exited from the house and, together with B and C, returned to the waiting taxicab and motored away. G died, F survived. Who are liable for the death of G and the physical injuries of F? SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Is there conspiracy in this case?
Art. 8: Criminal law – Conspiracy (1997) A had a grudge against F. Deciding to kill F, A and his friends, B, C, and D, armed themselves with knives and proceeded to the house of F, taking a taxicab for the purpose. About 20 meters from their destination, the group alighted and after instructing B, the driver, to wait, traveled on
Since B, C, and D did not know of the stabbing of G by A, they cannot be held criminally therefor E. the driver, cannot be also held liable for the death of G since the former was completely unaware of said killing. For the physical injuries of A, B and C, should be held liable therefore. Even if it was only A who actually stabbed and caused physical injuries to G, B and C are nonetheless liable for conspiring with A and for contributing positive acts which led to the realization of a common criminal intent. B positioned himself as a lookout, while C blocked F's escape. D, however, although part of the conspiracy, cannot be held liable because he left the scene before A could enter the house where the stabbing
43
Yes, there is conspiracy among the offenders, as manifested by their concerted actions against the victims, demonstrating a common felonious purpose of assaulting the victims. The existence of the conspiracy can be inferred or deduced from the manner the offenders acted in commonly attacking Dino and Raffy with rocks, thereby demonstrating a unity of criminal design to inflict harm on their victims.
Page
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
A alone should be held liable for the death of G. The object of the conspiracy of A B, C, and D was to kill F only.
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
occurred. Although he was earlier part of the conspiracy, he did not personally participate in the execution of the crime by acts which directly tended toward the same end (People vs. Tamaro. et al, 44 Phil. 38). In the same breath, E, the driver, cannot be also held liable for the infliction of physical injuries upon F because there is no showing that he had knowledge of the plan to kill F. Art. 8: Implied conspiracy (1998) What is the doctrine of implied conspiracy? [3%] SUGGESTED ANSWER: The doctrine of conspiracy holds two or more persons participating in the commission of a crime collectively responsible and liable as coconspirators although absent any agreement to that effect, when they act in concert, demonstrating unity of criminal intent and a common purpose or objective. The existence of a conspiracy shall be inferred or deduced from their criminal participation in pursuing the crime and thus the act of one shall be deemed the act of all. Art. 8: Implied conspiracy (2003) State the concept of “implied conspiracy” and give its legal effects.
concert in the commission of the crime, meaning that their acts are coordinated or synchronized in a way indicative that they are pursuing a common criminal objective, they shall be deemed to be acting in conspiracy and their criminal liability shall be collective, not individual. The legal effects conspiracy” are:
of
an
“implied
1. Not all those who are present at the scene of the crime will be considered conspirators; 2. Only those who participated by criminal acts in the commission of the crime will be considered as coconspirators; and 3. Mere acquiescence to or approval of the commission of the crime, without any act of criminal participation, shall not render one criminally liable as coconspirator. Art. 8: Conspiracy (1988) In the course of funeral procession, a young mourner who was marching in front of the funeral hearse, momentarily stooped down to tie her shoelaces which had become untied. The driver of the hearse, who was driving at 5 miles an hour, was then looking at the stores by the roadside and did not see her. He continued to drive on and ran over the girl. When the people around shouted and gestured, he backed up and ran over the girl a second time, killing her.
Page
(a) An “implied conspiracy” is one which is only inferred or deduced from the manner the participants in the commission of crime carried out its execution. Where the offenders acted in
If you were the-parent of the girl-victim, what crime would you charge, if you think a crime had been committed, and against whom? Explain your answer briefly.
44
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
At a pre-wedding celebration where plenty of people were milling and walking about or standing close together, a mad killer shot up the wedding party. The three appellants were convicted by the owner court as coconspirators of the killer because they were allegedly with him before, during, and after the shooting. It was proven conclusively that the appellant were friends of the killer; that they went together with the killer to the celebration; and that they left at the same time with the killer, after the shooting. However, the appellants had no guns and passively witnessed the without intervening in the killing in any way nor shielding killer. Is there conspiracy among them? Why?
implementation of the Land Reform Law in Cotabato Province. Jose and Pedro promised to finance the group and to buy firearms for the purpose. The former soldiers agreed. After Jose and Pedro left, A, the leader of the former soldiers, said that in the meanwhile he needed money to support his family. D suggested that they rob a bank and agreed to carry out the plan on the 15 th day of the month. Unknown to all of them, as they were conferring with Jose and Pedro and as they were planning to rob the bank, Rosauro, a house boy, was within hearing distance. On the pretext of buying cigarettes, Ro6auro instead went directly to the Police and told them what transpired. All the former soldiers, as well as Jose and Pedro, were arrested.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Art. 8: Conspiracy to commit sedition (1987) A, B, C, D, and E were former soldiers who deserted their command in Mindanao. Jose and Pedro, two big landowners, called A. B, C, D, and E to a conference. Jose and Pedro proposed to these former soldiers that they recruit their comrades and organize a group of 100 for the purpose of challenging the government by force of arms in order to prevent the enforcement or
B.
What about Jose and Pedro?
SUGGESTED ANSWER: A. The former soldiers committed the crime of conspiracy to commit sedition. What Jose and Pedro proposed to the soldiers that they recruit their comrades and organize a group of 100 for the purpose of challenging the government by force of arms in order to prevent the implementation of the Land Reform Law in Cotabato Province is to commit sedition. Proposal to commit sedition is not punished. But since the soldiers agreed, a conspiracy to commit sedition resulted which is now punishable. Conspiracy arises on the very moment the plotters agree (People vs. Peralta 25 SCRA 759; People vs. Tiongson 12 SCRA 402).
45
There is no conspiracy among them because as the problem has stated, they passively witnessed the shooting. No overt act was committed therefore the element that the conspiracy must be proved as the essence of the crime itself is not present.
A. What crime, if any, did the former soldiers commit?
Page
Only the driver could be charged of homicide thru reckless imprudence or homicide thru simple negligence which preclude conspiracy against those who shouted and gestured.
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
A. BB and CC, both armed with knives, attacked FT. The victim’s son, ST, upon seeing the attack, drew his gun but was prevented from shooting the attackers by AA, who grappled with him for possession of the gun. FT died from knife wounds. AA, BB and CC were charged with murder. In his defense, AA invoked the justifying circumstance of avoidance of greater evil or injury, contending that by preventing ST from shooting BB and CC, he merely avoided a greater evil. Will AA’s defense prosper? Reason briefly. (5%) SUGGESTED ANSWER: A. No, AA’s defense will not prosper because obviously there was a conspiracy among BB, CC and AA, such that the principle that when there is a conspiracy, the act of one is the act of all, shall govern. The act of ST, the victim’s son, appears to be a legitimate defense of relatives; hence, justified as a defense of his father against the unlawful aggression by BB and CC. ST’s act to defend his father’s life, cannot be regarded as an evil inasmuch as it is, in the eyes of the law, a lawful act.
Art. 8: Conspiracy to commit robbery (2005) Jose employed Mario as gardener and Henry as cook. They learned that Jose won P5, 000,000.00 in the-lotto, and decided to rob him. Mario positioned himself about 30 meters away from Jose's house and acted as lookout. For his part. Henry surreptitiously gained entry into the house and killed Jose who was then having his dinner. Henry found the P5,000,000.00 and took it. Henry then took a can of gasoline from the garage and burned the house to conceal the acts. Mario and Henry fled, but were arrested around 200 meters away from the house by alert barangay tanods. The tanods recovered the P500,000.00. Mario and Henry were charged with and convicted of robbery with homicide, with the aggravating circumstances of arson, dwelling, and nighttime. Mario moved to reconsider the decision maintaining that he was not at the scene of the crime and was not aware that Henry killed the victim; hence, he was guilty only of robber, as an accomplice. Mario also claimed that he conspired with Hemy to commit robbery but not to kill Jose. Henry, likewise, moved to reconsider the decision, asserting that he is liable only for attempted robbery with homicide with no aggravating circumstance; dwelling is not aggravating in attempted robbery with homicide; and nighttime is not aggravating because the house of Jose was lighted at the time he was killed.
46
Art. 8: Act of one is the act of all (2004)
What AA did was to stop a lawful defense, not greater evil, to allow BB and CC achieve their criminal objective of stabbing FT.
Page
B. Jose and Pedro will also be liable for conspiracy to commit sedition since they are members of the conspiracy where the act of one is the act of all. If the soldiers did not agree to their proposal, they would not incur any criminal liability because there is no pro-posal to commit sedition.
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
The motion of Mario contending that he should be liable only as an accomplice is without merit. There was conspiracy to commit the robbery between him and Henry. Thus, the act of one is the act of all. Since the conspiracy was only to commit robbery, Mario should be liable only for robbery as a co-principal, not for the composite crime of robbery with homicide. Mario, being 30 meters away from the victim's house, could not have known what Henry was doing inside the victim’s (Jose's) house, so much so that he was not in a position to stop the same. Mario, therefore, cannot properly be made answerable for what Henry did inside Jose's house which was not agreed upon. Applying the subjective test to his participation as a coconspirator to the robbery, Mario’s criminal liability should be aggravated by nighttime but not by dwelling or arson. Henry's motion to reconsider the decision is, likewise, without merit and should be denied. He is criminally liable for robbery with homicide. His contention that he is only liable for attempted robbery with homicide is not correct because the unlawful taking of the P500,000.00 is deemed complete from the moment he gained control of the money even if he had no opportunity to dispose of the same. The killing of Jose, having been committed on the occasion of a robbery, becomes a component of the robbery,
The burning of the house or arson accompanying the robbery is only a component of the robbery under Article 294 (1), Revised Penal Code. Such burning does not constitute a separate crime from robbery with homicide. Nighttime is aggravating, applying the subjective test, unless the house of Jose was indeed well-lighted during the commission of the crime. Art. 8: Conspiracy; Special complex crime of robbery with serious physical injuries (1992) Efren, Greggy and Hilario, wearing fatigues and carrying unlicensed firearms, barged into the residence of Amulfo Dilat at Scout Lazcano St. (Before making their entrance, they gave instructions to their companion Sakay to stand watch outside). Once inside, they announced that they were members of the Philippine National Police (PNP) on an official mission. Inside the master bedroom, they demanded from Luningning, the wife of Amulfo, cash and jewelries. After receiving the jewelries but before the money could be handed to them, they heard their companion Sakay shouting: “Pulis! Pulis!" Panic-stricken, Efren shot Amulfo who was seriously injured. Greggy and Hilarto picked up the jewelry box whose contents spilled all over the floor as they rushed out. Before they
47
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
giving rise to the special complex crime of robbery with homicide. Since Henry alone committed the killing of Jose a fact unknown to Mario, Henry alone should be convicted for said crime. Dwelling, although not aggravating in robbery with force upon things where the circumstance is inherent, is aggravating in robbery with violence against or with intimidation of persons.
Page
Resolve with reasons the respective motions of Mario and Henry. (7%)
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
could make good their escape, however, the police blocked their way, one of them clutching Sakay by the collar. They were forthwith brought to the Police Headquarters nearby.
What crime or crimes did XA, YB and ZC commit, and what is the criminal liability of each? Explain briefly. (5%)
Discuss the individual and collective criminal liabilities of Efren, Greggy, Hilario and Sakay.
B. The crime committed by XA, YB and ZC is the composite crime of Robbery with Rape, a single, indivisible offense under Art. 294(1) of the Revised Penal Code.
Sakay, who seems to have participated only as lookout, still will be liable as principal because of the conspiracy. Even if there is none, he is criminally liable as a principal by indispensable cooperation. Art. 8: Conspiracy - Special complex crime of robbery with rape (Art 294) (2004) B. Together XA, YB and ZC planned to rob Miss OD. They entered her house by breaking one of the windows in her house. After taking her personal properties and as they were about to leave, XA decided on impulse to rape OD. As XA was molesting her, YB and ZC stood outside the door of her bedroom and did nothing to prevent XA from raping OD.
Although the conspiracy among the offenders was only to commit robbery and only XA raped CD, the other robbers, YB and ZC, were present and aware of the rape being committed by their co-conspirator. Having done nothing to stop XA from committing the rape, YB and ZC thereby concurred in the commission of the rape by their coconspirator XA. The criminal liability of all, XA, YZ and ZC, shall be the same, as principals in the special complex crime of robbery with rape which is a single, indivisible offense where the rape accompanying the robbery is just a component. Art. 8 Criminal law – Conspiracy In relation to Special complex crime of robbery with homicide (2003) A and B, both store janitors, planned to kill their employer C at midnight and take the money kept in the cash register. A and B together drew the sketch of the store, where they knew C would be sleeping, and planned the sequence of their attack. Shortly before midnight, A and B were ready to carry out the plan. When A was about to lift C's mosquito net to thrust his dagger, a police car with sirens blaring passed by. Scared, B ran out of the store and fled, while A went on to stab C to death,
48
There appears to be conspiracy amongst the four offenders; in which case the act of one becomes the act of all. Ergo, they are all liable for the consequent crime, which is robbery under Art. 299, special complex crime of robbery with serious physical injuries, committed in an inhabited house, by pretending to be persons in authority. There is no band as only three are armed.
Page
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
There was an expressed conspiracy between A and B to kill C and take the latter’s money. The planned killing and taking of the money appears to be intimately related as component crimes, hence a special complex crime of robbery with homicide. The conspiracy being expressed, not just implied, A and B are bound as co-conspirators after they have planned and agreed on the sequence of their attack even before they committed the crime. Therefore, the principle in law that when there is a conspiracy, the act of one is the act of all, already governs them, in fact, A and B were already in the store to carry out their criminal plan. That B ran out of the store and fled upon hearing the sirens of the police car, is not spontaneous desistance but flight to evade apprehension. It would be different if B then tried to stop A from continuing with the commission of the crime; he did not. So the act of A in pursuing the commission of the crime which both he and B designed, planned, and commenced to commit, would also be the act of B because of their expressed conspiracy. Both are liable for the composite crime of robbery with homicide. Art. 8 Conspiracy and proposal in relation to Special complex crime of robbery with homicide (2007)
What crime or crimes did Jervis, Marlon and Jonathan commit? Explain your answer. SUGGESTED ANSWER: Jervis and Marlon committed the crime of robbery, while Jonathan committed the special complex crime of robbery with homicide. Jervis and Marlon are criminally liable for the robbery only, because that was the crime conspired upon and actually committed by them, assuming that the taking of the cellphones and the cash from the bank's customers was effected with intimidation. They will not incur liability for the death of the pedestrian because they have nothing to do with it. Only Jonathan will incur liability for the death of the pedestrian, aside from the robbery, because he alone brought about such death. Although the death caused was not intentional but accidental, it shall be a component of the special complex crime of robbery with homicide because it was committed in the course of the commission of the robbery.
49
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Jervis and Marlon asked their friend, Jonathan, to help them rob a bank. Jervis and Marlon went inside the bank, but were unable to get any money from the vault because the same was protected by a time-delay mechanism. They contented themselves with the customers' cellphones and a total of P5,000 in cash. After they dashed out of the bank and rushed into the car, Jonathan pulled the car out of the curb, hitting a pedestrian which resulted in the latter's death.
Page
put the money in the bag, and ran outside to look for B. The latter was nowhere in sight. Unknown to him, B had already left the place. What was the participation and corresponding criminal liability of each, if any? Reasons.
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
What crime or crimes were committed by Job and Nonoy? 2.5% What penalties should be imposed on them? 2.5% SUGGESTED ANSWER: Because of obvious conspiracy, each of the culprits should be punished not only for the rape he committed but also for the rape committed by the other; hence, for as many counts of rape committed by him plus those committed by the other culprit against each of the victims. Although the penalty for the crime of rape with homicide was death at the time the accused committed them, and the law (Rep. Act No. 9346) prohibiting the imposition of the death penalty took effect only this year (2006), said new law
Art. 8. Conspiracy and proposal (2008) Ricky was reviewing for the bar exam when the commander of a vigilante group came to him and showed him a list of five policemen to be liquidated by them for graft and corruption. He was further asked if any of them is innocent. After going over the list, Ricky pointed to two of the policemen as honest. Later, the vigilante group liquidated the three other policemen in the list. The commander of the vigilante group reported the liquidation to Ricky. Is Ricky criminally liable? Explain. (7%) SUGGESTED ANSWER: No, Ricky is not criminally liable because he has not done any overt act that the law punishes as a crime. He did not conspire with the vigilante group. Although his act of pointing out two policemen as honest men may imply his acquiescence to the vigilante's conclusion that the others were corrupt and deserved to be killed, mere acquiescence to a crime, absent any criminal participation, does not make one a coconspirator. Art. 8: Conspiracy and proposal (2008)
50
Dang was a beauty queen in a university. Job, a rich classmate, was so enamored with her that he persistently wooed and pursued her. Dang, being in love with another man, rejected him. This angered Job. Sometime in September 2003, while Dang and her sister Lyn were on their way home, Job and his minor friend Nonoy grabbed them and pushed them inside a white van. They brought them in an abandoned warehouse where they forced them to dance naked. Thereafter, they brought them to a hill in a nearby barangay where they took turns raping them. After satisfying their lust, Job ordered Nonoy to push Dang down a ravine, resulting in her death. Lyn ran away but Job and Nonoy chased her and pushed her inside the van. Then the duo drove away. Lyn was never seen again.
should be given retroactive effect because it is favorable to the culprits who are not habitual delinquents and there being no provision of law to the contrary. Hence, reclusion perpetua for each count of rape with homicide. The accessory penalty under Art. 40 of the Revised Penal Code will not follow because RA 9346, Sec. 2 does not so provide: it is the accessory penalty for reclusion perpetua that shall now adhere to the principal penalty.
Page
Art. 8: Conspiracy and proposal In relation to PENALTIES (2006)
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
a) What is the criminal liability of Eman, if any? Explain. (3%) SUGGESTED ANSWER: a) Eman has no criminal liability, unless he received part of the proceeds of the pawned ring. The facts do not state that Eman received any part of the P50,000.00 proceeds of the ring pledged. The facts state that after turning over the bag to P01 Melvin, Eman never saw P01 Melvin again. The proposal Eman made to P01 Melvin is not a crime as to bring about criminal liability. Art. 8 Conspiracy In relation to Art. 294 robbery with rape (1999) Two young men, A and B, conspired to rob a residential house of things of value. They succeeded in the commission of their original plan to simply rob. A, however, was sexually aroused when he saw the lady owner of the house and so, raped her. The lady victim testified that B did not in any way participate in the rape but B watched
Is B as criminally liable as A for robbery with rape? Explain. (4%) (1999 Bar Question) SUGGESTED ANSWER: Yes, B is as criminally liable as A for the composite crime of robbery with rape under Art. 294 (1). Although the conspiracy of A and B was only to rob, B was present when the rape was being committed which gave rise to a composite crime, a single indivisible offense of robbery with rape. B would not have been liable had he endeavored to prevent the commission of the rape. But since he did not when he could have done so, he in effect acquiesced with the rape as a component of the robbery and so he is also liable for robbery with rape. ART.8-Define conspiracy. (2012) SUGGESTED ANSWER: Conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it. ART.8--Distinguish by way of illustration conspiracy as a felony from conspiracy as a manner of incurring liability in relation to the crimes of rebellion and murder. Conspiracy to commit rebellion – if “A” and “B” conspired to overthrow the government, conspiracy is punishable. Conspiracy to commit rebellion is a felony. Rebellion – if they committed rebellion, they are equally liable for the crime of rebellion. However, they will
51
Knowing that it was not his, he went to the nearest police station to seek help in finding the owner of the bag. At the precinct P01 Melvin attended to him. In the investigation Eman proposed to P01 Melvin, "in case you don't find the owner let's just pawn the ring and split the proceeds fifty-fifty (50/50)." P01 Melvin then went straight to the pawnshop and pawned the ring for P50,000. Eman never saw P01 Melvin again.
the happening from a window and did nothing to stop the rape.
Page
Eman, a vagrant, found a bag containing identification cards and a diamond ring along Roxas Blvd.
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
ART.8-- Conspiracy (1991) During a fiesta, Simeon Marco, brandishing a knife, asked Constancio whether he was the one who slapped his (Simeon's) son the year previous. Vicente (father of Constancio) shouted at Constancio and his other son, Bien- venido, telling them to run away. When Bienvenido passed by Rafael Marco (brother of Simeon), Rafael stabbed him. Bienvenido parried the blow but fell down, his feet entangled with some vines. While Bienvenido was lying on the ground, Rafael continued to stab him, inflicting slight injuries on the shoulder of Bienvenido, after which Rafael stood up. At that moment, Dulcisimo Beltran (no relation to the Marco brothers), came out of nowhere and, together with Simeon, stabbed Bienvenido. Both of them inflicted fatal wounds resulting in the death of the victim. Discuss the criminal liability of Dulcisimo, Simeon and Rafael.
Simeon and Dulcisimo will be liable for the death of Bienvenido as the fatal injuries sustained by the victim were inflicted by the two. Rafael is not liable for slight physical injuries as conspiracy was not present, and there was no apparent intent to kill when he inflicted the slight physical injuries on the aim of the victim. ART.8-- Conspiracy; murder (1993) As a result of a misunderstanding during a meeting, Joe was mauled by Nestor, Jolan, Reden and Arthur. He ran towards his house but the four chased and caught him. Thereafter, they tied Joe’s hands at his back and attacked him. Nestor used a knife; Jolan, a shovel; Arthur, his fists; and Reden, a piece of wood. After killing Joe, Reden ordered the digging of a grave to bury Joe’s lifeless body. Thereafter, the four (4) left together. Convicted for the killing of Joe, Arthur now claims that his conviction is erroneous as it was not he who inflicted the fatal blow. Would you sustain his claim? Why? What was the crime committed by the four assailants? Discuss with reasons. SUGGESTED ANSWER: No. Arthur’s claim is without merit. The offenders acted in conspiracy in killing the victim and hence, liable collectively. The act of one is the act of all.
52
Conspiracy to commit homicide, not punishable – if “A” and “B” conspire to kill “X”, conspiracy is not punishable. The law provides no penalty for conspiracy to be commit homicide. Homicide – if pursuant to conspiracy to commit homicide, “A” embraced “X” and then “B” stabbed and killed “X”, the conspirators are equally liable for homicide. Conspirators are equally liable for homicide. Conspiracy in this case will be considered as a manner of incurring liability.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Page
not be additionally charged with conspiracy to commit rebellion. Since they committed what they conspired, conspiracy will not be considered as an independent felony but as a manner of incurring criminal responsibility.
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
ART.8-Conspiracy to commit robbery (1996) Jose, Domingo. Manolo, and Fernando, armed with bolos, at about one o'clock in the morning, robbed a house at a desolate place where Danilo, his wife, and three daughters were living. While the four were in the process of ransacking Danilo’s house, Fernando, noticing that one of Danilo’s daughters was trying to get away, ran after her and finally caught up with her in a thicket somewhat distant from the house. Fernando, before bringing back the daughter to the house, raped her first. Thereafter, the four carted away the belongings of Danilo and his family. What crime did Jose, Domingo. Manolo and Fernando commit? Explain. SUGGESTED ANSWER: Jose, Domingo, and Manolo committed Robbery, while Fernando committed
ART.8- Felonies – Proposal to commit kidnapping (1996) Edgardo induced his friend Vicente, in consideration of money, to kidnap a girl he is courting so that he may succeed in raping her and eventually making her accede to marry him. Vicente asked for more money which Edgardo failed to put up. Angered because Edgardo did not put up the money he required, he reported. Edgardo to the police. May Edgardo be charged with attempted kidnapping? Explain. SUGGESTED ANSWER: No, Edgardo may not be charged with attempted kidnapping inasmuch as no overtact to kidnap or restrain the liberty of the girl had been commenced. At most, what Edgardo has done in the premises was a proposal to Vicente to kidnap the girl, which is only a preparatory act and not an overt act. The attempt to commit a felony commences with the commission of overt act, not preparatory act. Proposal to commit kidnapping is not a crime. ART.8--Conspiracy (1994)
53
The crime committed is murder, qualified by treachery because the offenders, taking advantage of their superiority in number, rendered the victim defenseless and without any chance to retaliate, by tying his hands at his back before attacking him. Treachery exists at least in the second and final stage of the attack, after the offenders caught up with the victim.
complex crime of Robbery with Rape. Conspiracy can be inferred from the manner the offenders committed the robbery but the rape was committed by Fernando at a place “distant from the house” where the robbery was committed, not in the presence of the other conspirators. Hence, Fernando alone should answer for the rape, rendering him liable for the special complex crime. [People vs. Cardurta et at, G.R. 108490. 22 June 1995)
Page
The existence of a conspiracy among the offenders can be clearly deduced or inferred from the manner they committed the killing, demonstrating a common criminal purpose and intent. There being a conspiracy, the individual acts of each participant is not considered because their liability is collective.
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
At about 9:30 in the evening, while Dino and Raffy were walking along Padre Faura Street, Manila. Johnny hit them with a rock injuring Dino at the back. Raffy approached Dino but suddenly, Bobby, Steve, Danny and Nonoy surrounded the duo. Then Bobby stabbed Dino. Steve, Danny. Nonoy and Johnny kept on hitting Dino and Raffy with rocks. As a result, Dino died. Bobby, Steve, Danny, Nonoy and Johnny were charged with homicide.
forcing him to flee towards another direction. Immediately after A had stabbed F. A also stabbed G who was visiting F. Thereafter, A exited from the house and, together with B and C, returned to the waiting taxicab and motored away. G died, F survived. Who are liable for the death of G and the physical injuries of F? SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Is there conspiracy in this case?
ART.8-- Conspiracy – Who are liable (1997) A had a grudge against F. Deciding to kill F, A and his friends, B, C, and D, armed themselves with knives and proceeded to the house of F, taking a taxicab for the purpose. About 20 meters from their destination, the group alighted and after instructing B, the driver, to wait, traveled on foot to the house of F. B positioned himself at a distance as the group's lookout. C and D stood guard outside the house. Before A could enter the house, D left the scene without the knowledge of the others. A stealthily entered the house and stabbed F. F ran to the street but was blocked by C,
Since B, C, and D did not know of the stabbing of G by A, they cannot be held criminally therefor E. the driver, cannot be also held liable for the death of G since the former was completely unaware of said killing. For the physical injuries of A, B and C, should be held liable therefore. Even if it was only A who actually stabbed and caused physical injuries to G, B and C are nonetheless liable for conspiring with A and for contributing positive acts which led to the realization of a common criminal intent. B positioned himself as a lookout, while C blocked F's escape. D, however, although part of the conspiracy, cannot be held liable because he left the scene before A could enter the house where the stabbing occurred. Although he was earlier part of the conspiracy, he did not personally participate in the execution of the crime by acts which directly tended toward the same end (People vs. Tamaro. et al, 44 Phil. 38).
54
Yes, there is conspiracy among the offenders, as manifested by their concerted actions against the victims, demonstrating a common felonious purpose of assaulting the victims. The existence of the conspiracy can be inferred or deduced from themannerthe offenders acted in commonly attacking Dino and Raffy with rocks, thereby demonstrating a unity of criminal design to inflict harm on their victims.
A alone should be held liable for the death of G. The object of the conspiracy of A B, C, and D was to kill F only
Page
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
What is the doctrine of implied conspiracy? [3%] (Distinguish between recidivism and quasi-recidivism. (2%) SUGGESTED ANSWER: The doctrine of conspiracy holds two or more persons participating in the commission of a crime collectively responsible and liable as coconspirators although absent any agreement to that effect, when they act in concert, demonstrating unity of criminal intent and a common purpose or objective. The existence of a conspiracy shall be inferred or deduced from their criminal participation in pursuing the crime and thus the act of one shall be deemed the act of all.
The legal effects of an “implied conspiracy” are: Not all those who are present at the scene of the crime will be considered conspirators; 1. Only those who participated by criminal acts in the commission of the crime will be considered as coconspirators; and 2. Mere acquiescence to or approval of the commission of the crime, without any act of criminal participation, shall not render one criminally liable as coconspirator. Art. 8: Proposal (1996)
ART.8- “Implied conspiracy” (2003)
Edgardo induced his friend Vicente, in consideration of money, to kidnap a girl he is courting so that he may succeed in raping her and eventually making her accede to marry him. Vicente asked for more money which Edgardo failed to put up. Angered because Edgardo did not put up the money he required, he reported. Edgardo to the police.
State the concept of “implied conspiracy” and give its legal effects.
May Edgardo be charged with attempted kidnapping? Explain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
(a) An “implied conspiracy” is one which is only inferred or deduced from the manner the participants in the commission of crime carried out its execution. Where the offenders acted in concert in the commission of the crime, meaning that their acts are coordinated or synchronized in a way indicative that they are pursuing a common criminal objective, they shall be deemed to be
No, Edgardo may not be charged with attempted kidnapping inasmuch as no overt act to kidnap or restrain the liberty of the girl had been commenced. At most, what Edgardo has done in the premises was a proposal to Vicente to kidnap the girl, which is only a preparatory act and not an overt act. The attempt to commit a felony commences with the commission of overt act, not
55
ART.8- Conspiracy - Implied conspiracy (1998)
acting in conspiracy and their criminal liability shall be collective, not individual.
Page
In the same breath, E, the driver, cannot be also held liable for the infliction of physical injuries upon F because there is no showing that he had knowledge of the plan to kill F.
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
Art.11 Defense Of Relative And Stranger (2016) Pedro is married to Tessie. Juan is the first cousin of Tessie. While in the market, Pedro saw a man stabbing Juan. Seeing the attack on Juan, Pedro picked up a spade nearby and hit the attacker on his head which caused the latter's death. Can Pedro be absolved of the killing on the ground that it is in defense of a relative? Explain. (5%) SUGGESTED ANSWER No. the relatives of the accused for purpose of defense of relative under Article 11 (2) of the Revised Penal Code are his spouse, ascendants, descendants, or legitimate, natural or adopted brothers or sisters, or of his relatives by affinity in the same degrees, and those by consanguinity within the fourth civil degree. Relative by affinity within the same degree includes the ascendant, descendant, brother or sister of the spouse of the accused. In this case, Juan is not the ascendant, descendant, brother or sister of Tessie, the spouse of Pedro. Relative by consanguinity within the fourth civil degree includes first cousin. But in this case Juan is the cousin of Pedro by affinity but not by consanguinity. Juan, therefore is not a relative of Pedro for purpose of applying the provision on defense of relative. Pedro, however can invoke defense of stranger. Under the Revised
Art. 11: Self-Defense (1987) Pedro confronted Jose one morning near the letter's house and angrily inquired why he let loose his carabaos which destroyed his plants. Pedro saw that Jose was aimed with a dagger tucked on his waist and thinking that Jose would react violently. Pedro immediately drew his revolver. Instinctively, Jose grabbed the gun from Pedro’s hand and a struggle for possession of the gun ensued, as a result of which the gun was thrown one meter away. Pedro jumped for the gun, and Jose unsheathed his dagger and stabbed Pedro at the base of his neck, causing the latter to fall down. Jose ran away as he was afraid Pedro’s relatives might kill him. He was apprehended three days later in another barrio. Fortunately, Pedro survived after 40 days of hospitalization. The gun turned out to be without live bullets. During the trial for frustrated homicide against Jose, Pedro testified that he drew his gun even while he knew it had no bullets, merely to scare Jose, and he jumped for it when it was thrown away for the same purpose. Jose pleaded self-defense. The Fiscal argued that Jose’s act of running away is evidence of guilt and negates self-defense. He also said that, in any event, there was no reasonable necessity of the means employed — namely, stabbing with a dagger — because Pedro’s gun had no bullets.
56
JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES
Penal Code, a person who defends a person who is not his relative may invoke the defense of a stranger provided that all its elements exist, to wit: (a) unlawful aggression, (b) reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel the attack; and (c) the person defending be not induced by revenge, resentment, or other evil motive.
Page
preparatory act. Proposal to commit kidnapping is not a crime.
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
Jose is entitled to self-defense. Considering the circumstance of the case, unlawful aggression, the first element of self-defense is present. Pedro loose his carabaos which destroyed his plants and he then loose his carabaos whicn destroyed his plants and then immediately drew his revolver which Jose instinctively grabbed from Pedro’s hand. In the struggle for the possession for the revolver, it was thrown one meter away, and when Pedro jumped for the gun, Jose unsheathed his dagger and stabbed Pedro who fell down. Jose ran away. The intimidating attitude of Pedro when he drew his revolver constitutes imminent unlawful aggression. Jose did not give any provocation to Pedro. Pedro was in a violent mood and in the mind of Jose, was armed, with revolver, in hand, and what Jose did in grabbing the gun was to prevent an aggression that is expected (People vs. Domingo CA 13 Rep. 1355). Stabbing Pedro with a dagger was the only available means to prevent the expected aggression considering that Jose acted by following his instinct of selfpreservation. The flight of Jose after stabbing Pedro cannot be considered as evidence of guilt because he did so as he was afraid the relatives of Pedro might kill him. Art. 11: Self-Defense (1993) Pat. Negre saw Filemon, an inmate, escaping from jail and ordered the latter to surrender. Instead of doing so, Filemon
Can Pat. Negre claim self defense? Explain. Suppose Pat Negre missed in his shot, and Filemon ran away without parting with his weapon. Pat Negre pursued Filemon but the latter was running so fast that Pat Negre fired warning shots into the air shouting for Filemon to stop. Inasmuch as Filemon continued running Pat. Negre fired at him hitting and killing him. Is the plea of self-defense sustainable? Why would you then hold Pat. Negre criminally liable? Discuss. (1993 Bar Question) SUGGESTED ANSWER: Yes, self-defense can be claimed as there is an imminent and great peril on the life of Negre; No, self-defense is no longer sustainable as there is no more peril on his life; Yes, excessive force is used. Art. 11: Avoid Greater Evil (1990) A. In mercy killing, is the attending physician criminally liable for deliberately turning off the life support system consequently costing the life of the patient? State reasons. (1990 Bar Question) B. How about in an instance when in saving the life of the mother, the doctor sacrificed the life of the unborn child? Explain your answer.
57
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Page
Decide the case.
attacked Pat. Negre with a bamboo spear. Filemon missed in his first attempt to hit Pat. Negre, and before he could strike again, Pat. Negre shot and killed him.
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
b. There is no criminal liability on the part of the doctor because his acts are justified under Article 11(4) of the Revised Penal Code which provides that: "The following do not incur any criminal liability: x x x 4) any person, who in order to avoid an evil or injury, does an act which causes damage to another, provided that the following requisites are present: First: That the evil sought to be avoided actually exists; Second. That the injury feared be greater than that done to avoid it; Third. That there be no other practical and less harmful means of preventing it." Art 11 Lawful Defense Of Property (2008) While Carlos was approaching his car, he saw it being driven away by Paolo, a thief. Carlos tried to stop Paolo by shouting at him, but Paolo ignored him. To prevent his car from being carnapped, Carlos drew his gun, aimed at the rear wheel of the car and fired. The shot blew the tire which caused the car to veer out of control and collide with an oncoming tricycle, killing the tricycle driver. SUGGESTED ANSWER: Carlos did not incur criminal liability because his act of firing at the rear wheel of the car to stop the vehicle and prevent Paolo from taking away his (Carlos') car is neither done with dolo nor culpa. The act does not constitute a crime; it is a reasonable exercise of his
Art. 11 Defense Of Property Rights (1990) In the middle of the night, Enyong heard the footsteps of an intruder inside their house. Enyong picked up his rifle and saw a man, Gorio, with a pistol ransacking Enyong’s personal effects in his study. He shot and killed Gorio. Is Enyong criminally liable for killing the robber Gorio? State your reasons. SUGGESTED ANSWER: Enyong is not criminally liable because he was acting in defense of property rights. Under the case of People v. Narvaez (G.R. Nos. L-33466-67. April 20, 1983, 121 SCRA 389) defense of property need not necessarily be coupled with aggression against persons. Art. 11: Defense Of Honor – When Not Sustained (2000) Osang, a married woman in her early twenties, was sleeping on a banig on the floor of their nipa hut beside the seashore when she was awakened by the act of a man mounting her. Thinking that it was her husband, Gardo, who had returned from fishing in the sea, Osang continued her sleep but allowed the man, who was actually their neighbor, Julio, to have sexual intercourse with her. After Julio satisfied himself, he said “Salamat Osang" as he turned to leave. Only then did Osang realize that the man was not her husband. Enraged, Osang grabbed a balisong from
58
a. The attending physician is criminally liable. Euthanasia is not a justifying circumstance in Philippine jurisdiction.
right to prevent or repel an actual unlawful physical invasion or usurpation of his property pursuant to Art. 429 of the Civil Code.
Page
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
the wall and stabbed Julio to death. When tried for homicide, Osang claimed defense of honor. Should the claim be sustained? Why? (5%) SUGGESTED ANSWER: No, Osang's claim of defense of honor should not be sustained because the aggression on her honor had ceased when she stabbed the aggressor. In defense of rights under paragraph 1, Art. 11 of the RPC, it is required inter alia that there be (1) unlawful aggression, and (2) reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it. The unlawful aggression must be continuing when the aggressor was injured or disabled by the person making a defense.
did." Not recognizing the voice, it dawned upon Lina that the man was not Tito, her husband. Furious. Una took out Tito's gun and shot the man. Charged with homicide Una denies culpability on the ground of defense of honor. Is her claim tenable? 15%. SUGGESTED ANSWER: No, Lina's claim that she acted in defense of honor, is not tenable because the unlawful aggression on her honor had already ceased. Defense of honor as included in self-defense, must have been done to prevent or repel an unlawful aggression. There is no defense to speak of where the unlawful aggression no longer exists. Art. 11: Defense Of Property (2003)
Art. 11: Defense Of Honor; When Untenable (1998) One night, Lina, a young married woman, was sound asleep in her bedroom when she felt a man on top of her. Thinking it was her husband Tito, who came home a day early from his business trip, Una let him have sex with her. After the act, the man said, “I hope you enjoyed it as much as I
SUGGESTED ANSWER: The accused should be convicted because, even assuming the facts to be true in his belief, his act of shooting a burglar when there is no unlawful aggression on his
59
Hence, Osang's act of stabbing Julio to death after the sexual intercourse was finished, is not defense of honor but an immediate vindication of a grave offense committed against her, which is only mitigating.
The accused lived with his family in a neighborhood that often was the scene of frequent robberies. At one time, past midnight, the accused went downstairs with a loaded gun to investigate he thought were footsteps of an uninvited guest. After seeing what appeared to him an armed stranger looking around and out to rob the house, he fired his gun seriously injuring the man. When the lights were turned on, the unfortunate victim turned out to be a brotherin-law on his way to the kitchen to get some light snacks. The accused was indicted for serious physical injuries. Should the accused, given the circumstances, be convicted or acquitted? Why?
Page
But if the aggression that was begun by the injured or disabled party already ceased to exist when the accused attacked him, as in the case at bar, the attack made is a retaliation, and not a defense. Paragraph 1, Article 11 of the Code does not govern.
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
A chanced upon three men who were attacking B with fist blows. C, one of the men, was about to stab B with a knife. Not knowing that B was actually the aggressor because he had earlier challenged the three men to a fight, A shot C as the latter was about to stab B. May A invoke the defense of a stranger as a justifying circumstance in his favor? Why? (2%) SUGGESTED ANSWER: Yes. A may invoke the justifying circumstance of defense of stranger since he was not involved in the fight and he shot C when the latter was about to stab B. There being no indication that A was induced by revenge, resentment, or any other evil motive in shooting C, his act is justified under par. 3, Article 11 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended. Art. 11: Battered Woman Syndrome (2014, 2010) Ms. A had been married to Mr. B for 10 years. Since their marriage, Mr. B had been jobless and a drunkard, preferring to stay with his "barkadas" until the wee hours of the morning. Ms. A was the breadwinner and attended to the needs of their three (3) growing children. Many times, when Mr. B was drunk, he would beat Ms. A and their three (3) children, and shout invectives against them. In fact, in one of the beating
SUGGESTED ANSWER: Yes, Ms. A can put up the defense of battered woman syndrome. It appears that she is suffering from physical and psychological or emotional distress resulting from cumulative abuse by her husband. Under Sec. 3 of R.A. 9262, “victim survivors who are found by courts to be suffering from battered woman syndrome do not incur any criminal and civil liability notwithstanding the absence of any of the elements for justifying circumstances of self defense under the RPC.” Art. 11: Battered Woman Syndrome (2015) Dion and Talia were spouses. Dion always came home drunk since he lost his job a couple of months ago. Talia had gotten used to the verbal abuse from Dion. One night, in addition to the usual verbal abuse, Dion beat up Talia. The next morning, Dion saw the injury that he had inflicted upon
60
Art. 11: Defense of a stranger (2002)
incidents, Ms. A suffered a deep stab wound on her tummy that required a prolonged stay in the hospital. Due to the beatings and verbal abuses committed against her, she consulted a psychologist several times, as she was slowly beginning to lose her mind. One night, when Mr. B arrived dead drunk, he suddenly stabbed Ms. A several times while shouting invectives against her. Defending herself from the attack, Ms. A grappled for the possession of a knife and she succeeded. She then stabbed Mr. B several times which caused his instantaneous death. Medico-Legal Report showed that the husband suffered three (3) stab wounds. Can Ms. A validly put up a defense? Explain.
Page
person is not justified. Defense of property or property right does not justify the act of firing a gun at a burglar unless the life and limb of the accused is already in imminent and immediate danger. Although the accused acted out of a misapprehension of the facts, he is not absolved from criminal liability.
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
SUGGESTED ANSWER: No, a single act of battery or physical harm committed by Dion against Talia resulting to the physical and psychological or emotional distress on her part is not sufficient to avail of the benefit of the justifying circumstance of “Battered Woman Syndrome”. The defense of Battered Woman Syndrome can be invoked if the woman with marital relationship with the victim is subjected to cumulative abuse or battery involving the infliction of physical harm resulting to the physical and psychological or emotional distress. Cumulative means resulting from successive addition. In sum, there must be “at least two battering episodes” between the accused and her intimate partner and such final episode produced in the battered person’s mind an actual fear of an imminent harm from her batterer and an honest belief that she needed to use force in order to save her life (People v. Genosa, G.R. No. 135981, January 15, 2004). b) Will your answer be the same, assuming that Talia killed Dion after being beaten up after a second time? Explain.
Yes, Talia can invoke the defense of Battered Woman Syndrome to free herself from criminal liability for killing her husband since she suffered physical and emotional distress arising from cumulative abuse or battery. Under Section 26 of RA 9262, victim survivors of Battered Woman Syndrome do not incur any criminal or civil liability despite the absence of the requisites of self-defense. Art. 11: Justifying CircumstanceBattered Woman Syndrome (2010) Jack and Jill have been married for seven years. One night, Jack came home drunk. Finding no food on the table, Jack started hitting Jill only to apologize the following day. A week later, the same episode occurred Jack came home drunk and started hitting Jill. Fearing for her life, Jill left and stayed with her sister. To woo Jill back, Jack sent her floral arrangements of spotted lilies and confectioneries. Two days later, Jill returned home and decided to give Jack another chance. After several days, however, Jack again came home drunk. The following day, he was found dead. Jill was charged with parricide but raised the defense of "battered woman syndrome." A. Define "Battered Woman Syndrome? (2%) B. What are the three phases of the "Battered Woman Syndrome"? (3%)
61
a) May Talia invoke the defense of Battered Woman Syndrome to free herself from criminal liability? Explain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Page
Talia and promised her that he would stop drinking and never beat her again. However, Dion did not make good on his promise. Just after one week, he started drinking again. Talia once more endured the usual verbal abuse. Afraid that he might beat her up again, Talia stabbed Dion with a kitchen knife while he was passed out from imbibing too much alcohol. Talia was charged with the crime of parricide.
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
A. "Battered Woman Syndrome" refers to a scientifically defined pattern of psychological and behavioral symptoms found in women living in battering relationships as a result of cumulative abuse (Section 31dj, Rep. Act No. 9262). B. The three (3) phases of the "Battered Woman Syndrome" are: (1) the tensionbuilding phase; (2) the acute battering incident; and (3) the tranquil, loving, or nonviolent phase (People v. Genosa, G.R. No. 135981, January 15, 2004). C. Yes. Section 26 of Rep. Act No. 9262 provides that victim-survivors who are found by the courts to be suffering from battered woman syndrome do not incur any criminal and civil liability notwithstanding the absence of any of the elements for justifying circumstances of self-defense under the Revised Penal Code.
Art 11: Justifying Circumstances in relation to Art 12: Exempting Circumstances Distinction (2004) Distinguish clearly but briefly: (10%) Between justifying and exempting circumstances in criminal law. SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Art. 11; Art 12: Exempting circumstances – in comparison with justifying circumstances; illustration of exempting circumstances; minor below nine (9) years old; (1998) A. Distinguish between justifying and exempting circumstances. [3%] (1998 Bar Question) B. John, an eight-year old boy, is fond of watching the television program "Zeo Rangers." One evening while he was engrossed watching his favorite television show. Petra, a maid changed the channel to enable her to watch “Home Along the Riles." This enraged John who got his father's revolver, and without warning, shot Petra at the back of her head causing her instantaneous death. is John criminally liable? (2%) SUGGESTED ANSWER: A. In justifying circumstances: 1. The circumstance affects the act, not the actor; 2. The act is done within legal bounds, hence considered as not a crime; 3. Since the act is not a crime, there is no criminal;
62
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
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 is incurred; while in exempting circumstance, civil liability is generally incurred although there is no criminal liability
Page
C. Would the defense prosper despite the absence of any of the elements for justifying circumstances of self-defense under the Revised Penal Code? Explain. (2%)
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
4. There being no crime nor criminal, there is no criminal nor civil liability.
to be accidental, the requisites of exempting circumstance of accident are not all present. Said requisites are:
Whereas, in an exempting circumstances:
EXEMPTING CIRCUMSTANCES Art. 12: Exempting circumstances; when not appreciated (1989) Nicandro borrowed Valeriano’s, gun, a high-powered M-16 rifle, to hunt wild pigs. Nicandro was accompanied by his friend, Felix. On their way to the hunting ground, Nicandro and Felix met Pedro near a hut. Pedro told them where to hunt. Later, Nicandro saw a pig and then shot and killed it. The same bullet, however, that killed the pig struck a stone and ricocheted hitting Pedro on his breast. Pedro later died. May Nicandro be held liable for the death of Pedro? Explain. SUGGESTED ANSWER: Nicandro may be held liable for the death of Pedro. While Pedro’s death would seem
Furthermore, considering that the M-16 is a high- powered gun. Nicandro was negligent in not foreseeing that bullets fired from said gun may ricochet. Two separate crimes of serious physical injuries (against the first neighbor whose injuries requires 35 days of medical attendance), and slight physical injuries (against the second neighbor), both through reckless imprudence, were committed by Rodolfo. Although both of these offenses were the result of one single act, a complex crime is not committed because it is only when a single act constitutes two or more grave or less grave felonies that a complex crime may be committed under the first clause of article 48, RPC. Slight physical injuries is not a grave or less grave felonies
Art. 12: Insanity (1991)
63
B. No, John is not criminally liable for killing Petra because he is only 8 years old when he committed the killing. A minor below nine (9) years old is absolutely exempt from criminal liability although not from civil liability. (Art. 12, par. 2, RPC).
When Nicandro borrowed Valeriano’s high powered M-16 rifle and used it for hunting wild pigs, he committed the crime of illegal possession of firearms, as he does not appear to have either a license to possess a high-powered gun or to carry the same outside of his residence. At the time he shot at the wild pig, therefore, Nicandro was not performing a lawful act.
Page
1. The circumstance affects the actor, not the act; 2. The act is felonious and hence a crime but the actor acted without voluntariness; 3. Although there is a crime, there is no criminal because the actor is regarded only as an instrument of the crime; 4. There being a wrong done but no criminal, there is civil liability but no criminal liability.
a. A person is performing a lawful act; b. With due care; c. He causes an injury to another by mere accident; d. Without fault or intention of causing it (Art. 12, par. 4, RPC).
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
SUGGESTED ANSWER: Yes, the court is correct in ruling out insanity as an exempting circumstance. While there was testimony that A was suffering from a mental disorder, the testimony of A’s father disclosed that A had lucid intervals. Because what is presumed is sanity, not insanity, it is to be presumed that A was sane when he committed the crime. Consequently, evidence being wanting that A is completely deprived of reason at the moment of committing the crime, he should be liable. Besides, the
The sentence of “life imprisonment" is not a correct imposition of penalty for the rape: it should be reclusion perpetua, the technical designation of the penalty for the crime under the Revised Penal Code. It is not correct to use the term “life imprisonment” because the accessory penalties to reclusion perpetua does not follow the penalty of “life imprisonment". Furthermore, in reclusion perpetua the duration is stated to be for 30 years. Art. 12: Insanity (2010) While he was on a 2-year scholarship abroad, Romeo was having an affair with his maid Dulcinea. Realizing that the affair was going nowhere, Dulcinea told Romeo that she was going back to the province to marry her childhood sweetheart. Clouded by anger and jealousy, Romeo strangled Dulcinea to death while she was sleeping in the maid’s quarters. The following day, Romeo was found catatonic inside the maid’s quarters. He was brought to the National Center for Mental health (NCMH) where he was diagnosed to be mentally unstable. Charged with murder, Romeo pleaded insanity as a defense. Will Romeo’s defense prosper? Explain. (2%) SUGGESTED ANSWER: No, Romeo’s defense of insanity will not prosper because, even assuming that
64
Given the conflicting testimonies as to sanity of the accused, was the trial court correct in ruling out insanity as an exempting circumstances in this case? Is the sentence of “life imprisonment” a correct imposition of penalty?
crime committed and the acts done by the accused in the commission of the crime hardly reconciles with insanity of the offender, as rape presupposes evident premeditation.
Page
A raped X. In the process, X resisted and slapped A Angered. A grabbed a stone and hit X. She was dying when A consummated the sexual attack. A psychiatrist from the National Center for Mental Health testified that he conducted physical, mental and psychological examinations on A and found him to be suffering from a mental disorder classified under organic mental disorder with psychosis. A's father testified that A was playful but cruel to his brothers and sisters, stole his mother’s jewelry which he sold for low sums, wandered naked sometimes, and oftentimes did not come home for extended periods of time. The prosecution on the other hand, presented an array of witnesses to prove A that was lucid before and after the crime was committed and that he acted with discernment. After trial, the court convicted the accused and sentenced him to “life imprisonment" considering that under the Constitution death penalty could no longer be imposed.
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
Romeo was “insane” when diagnosed after he committed the crime, insanity as a defense to the commission of a crime must have existed and proven to be existing at the precise moment when the crime was being committed. The facts of the case indicate that Romeo committed the crime with discernment. What is the effect of the diagnosis of the NCMH on the case (2%)
from criminal liability under Art. 12, par. 7, as his failure to report can be considered as due to “insuperable cause", as this involves the sanctity and inviolability of a confession. Conspiracy to commit rebellion results in criminal liability to the co-conspirators, but not to a person who learned of such and did not report to the proper authorities (US vs. Vergara, 3 Phil. 432; People vs. Atienza, 56 Phil. 353).
SUGGESTED ANSWER The effect of the diagnosis made by NCMH is possibly a suspension of the proceedings against Romeo and his commitment to appropriate institution for treatment until he could already understand the proceedings. Art.12:Insuperable cause (1994) VC, JG, GG and JG conspired to overthrow the Philippine Government. VG was recognized as the titular head of the conspiracy. Several meetings were held and the plan was finalized. JJ, bothered by his conscience, confessed to Father Abraham that he, VG, JG and GG have conspired to overthrow the government. Father Abraham did not report this information to the proper authorities. Did Father Abraham commit a crime? If so, what crime was committed? What is his criminal liability?
Art. 12: Exempting CircumstanceSuspended sentence under The Child and Youth Welfare Code; when not applicable (2013) Michael was 17 years old when he was charged for violation of Sec. 5 of R.A. 9165 (illegal sale of prohibited drug). By the time he was convicted and sentenced, he was already 21 years old. The court sentenced him to suffer an indeterminate penalty of imprisonment of six (6) years and one (1) day of prision mayor, as minimum, to seventeen (17) years and four (4) months of reclusion temporal, as maximum, and a fine of P500,000. Michael applied for probation but his application was denied because the probation law does not apply to drug offenders under R.A. 9165. Michael then sought the suspension of his sentence under R.A. 9344 or the Juvenile Justice and Youth Welfare Code. Can Michael avail of the suspension of his sentence provided under this law?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Page
The benefits of a suspended sentence can no longer apply to Michael. The suspension of sentence lasts only until the law reaches the maximum age and thus, could no longer be considered a child for purposes of applying R.A. 9344. However, he shall
65
SUGGESTED ANSWER: No, Father Abraham did not commit a crime because the conspiracy involved is one to commit rebellion, not a conspiracy to commit treason which makes a person criminally liable under Art. 116, RPC. And even assuming that it will fall as misprision of treason. Father Abraham is exempted
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
be entitled to the right of restoration, rehabilitation and reintegration in accordance with the law to give him the chance to live a normal life and become a productive member of the community. Accordingly, Michael may be confined in an agricultural camp and other training facility in accordance with Sec. 51 of R.A. 9344 (People v. Jacinto, G.R. No. 182239, March 16, 2011). Art. 12: Suspended sentence under The Child and Youth Welfare Code; when not applicable (1995) Victor, Ricky, Rod and Ronnie went to the store of Mang Pandoy. Victor and Ricky entered the store while Rod and Ronnie posted themselves at the door. After ordering beer Ricky complained that he was shortchanged although Mang Pandoy vehemently denied it. Suddenly Ricky whipped out a knife as he announced “Hold-up ito!" and stabbed Mang Pandoy to death. Rod boxed the store’s salesgirl Lucy to prevent her from helping Mang Pandoy. When Lucy ran out of the store to seek help from people next door she was chased by Ronnie. As soon as Ricky had stabbed Mang Pandoy, Victor scooped up the money from the cash box. Then Victor and Ricky dashed to the street and shouted, “Tumakbo na kayo!” Rod was 14 and Ronnie was 17. The money and other articles looted from the store of Mang Pandoy were later found in the houses of Victor and Ricky.
SUGGESTED ANSWER: Although Rod is only 14years old, his act of boxing Lucy to prevent her from helping Mang Pandoy is a clear sign of discernment, thus he cannot invoke exemption from crimi-nal liability under Art. 12, par. 3, RPC. Rod and Ronnie are, however, entitled to two and one degrees lower, respectively from the penalty of the principal under Art. 68. RPC. No, because the benefits of suspension of sentence is not available where the youthful offender has been convicted of an offense punishable by life imprisonment or death, pursuant to P.D. No. 603, Art. 192. The complex crime of robbery with homicide is punishable by reclusion perpetua to death under Art. 294 (1), RPC (People vs. Galit, 230 SCRA 486). Art. 12: Suspended sentence under The Child and Youth Welfare Code; when not applicable (2003) A was 2 months below 18 years of age when he committed the crime. He was charged with the crime 3 months later. He was 23 when he was finally convicted and sentenced. Instead of preparing to serve a jail term, he sought a suspension of the sentence on the ground that he was a juvenile offender. Should he be entitled to a suspension of sentence? Reasons. (2003 Bar Question) (a) Can juvenile offenders, who are recidivists, validly ask for suspension of sentence? Explain.
a. No, A is not entitled to a suspension of the sentence because he is no longer a minor at the time of promulgation of the
Page
Are the minors Rod and Ronnie entitled to suspended sentence under The Child and Youth Welfare Code? Explain.
66
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
sentence. For purposes of suspension of sentence, the offender’s age at the time of promulgation of the sentence is the one considered, not his age when he committed the crime. So although A was below 18 years old when he committed the crime, but he was already 23 years old when sentenced, he is no longer eligible for suspension of the sentence.
satisfying their lust, Job ordered Nonoy to push Dang down a ravine, resulting in her death. Lyn ran away but Job and Nonoy chased her and pushed her inside the van. Then the duo drove away. Lyn was never seen again. Will Nonoy’s minority exculpate him? 2.5% SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Dang was a beauty queen in a university. Job, a rich classmate, was so enamored with her that he persistently wooed and pursued her. Dang, being in love with another man, rejected him. This angered Job. Sometime in September 2003, while Dang and her sister Lyn were on their way home, Job and his minor friend Nonoy grabbed them and pushed them inside a white van. They brought them in an abandoned warehouse where they forced them to dance naked. Thereafter, they brought them to a hill in a nearby barangay where they took turns raping them. After
Art 12: Persons exempt from criminal liability In relation to Art 332 (2008) Dennis leased his apartment to Myla for P10,000 a month. Myla failed to pay the rent for 3 months. Gabriel, the son of Dennis, prepared a demand letter falsely alleging that his father had authorized him to collect the unpaid rentals. Myla paid the unpaid rentals to Gabriel who kept the payment. Can Gabriel invoke his relationship with Dennis to avoid criminal liability? Explain. (3%) SUGGESTED ANSWER: If Gabriel would be made criminally liable for falsification of a private document, he cannot invoke his relationship with Dennis, his father, to avoid criminal liability because Art. 332 of the Revised Penal Code provides exemption from criminal liability in crimes against property only for theft,
67
Art. 12: RA 9344) – When applicable (2006)
Nonoy’s minority will exculpate him under Rep. Act 9344, referred to as the “Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of 2006”, if he was 15 years old or less: otherwise he will be criminally and civilly liable considering that he acted with discernment when he also raped the victims. At most, his minority will be appreciated as privileged mitigating circumstance.
Page
b. Yes, so long as the offender is still a minor at the time of the promulgation of the sentence. The law establishing Family Courts, Rep. Act 8369, provides to this effect: that if the minor is found guilty, the court should promulgate the sentence and ascertain any civil liability which the accused may have incurred. However, the sentence shall be suspended without the need of application pursuant to PD 603, otherwise known as the “Child and Youth Welfare Code” (RA 8369, Sec. 5a). It is under PD 603 that an application for suspension of the sentence is required and thereunder it is one of the conditions for suspension of sentence that the offender be a first time convict: this has been displaced by RA 8369.
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
swindling or malicious mischief but not for falsification of documents.
upon the prosecution to prove that the accused acted with discernment.
If he would be made criminally liable for swindling, he can invoke his relationship with Dennis because this crime cannot be complexed with falsification of a private document. The charge could, therefore, stand alone. The exemption in Art. 332 will obtain.
The presumption is that such minor acted without discernment and this is strengthened by the fact that Katreena only reacted with a ballpen which she must be using in class at the time, and only to stop Pomping’s vexatious act of repeatedly pulling her ponytail. In other words, the injury was accidental.
Mitigating
The attendant circumstances which may be considered are:
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.
1. Minority of the accused as an exempting circumstance 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;
Discuss the attendant circumstances and effects thereof. (2%) SUGGESTED ANSWER: 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
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. 8369otherwise known as the “Family Courts Act of 1997"; 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 The ordinary mitigating circumstance of sufficient provocation on the part of the offended party immediately preceded the act.
68
13:
Page
Art 12: Minority; In relation to Art circumstances (2000)
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
Victor, Ricky, Rod and Ronnie went to the store of Mang Pandoy. Victor and Ricky entered the store while Rod and Ronnie posted themselves at the door. After ordering beer Ricky complained that he was shortchanged although Mang Pandoy vehemently denied it. Suddenly Ricky whipped out a knife as he announced “Hold-up ito!" and stabbed Mang Pandoy to death. Rod boxed the store’s salesgirl Lucy to prevent her from helping Mang Pandoy. When Lucy ran out of the store to seek help from people next door she was chased by Ronnie. As soon as Ricky had stabbed Mang Pandoy, Victor scooped up the money from the cash box. Then Victor and Ricky dashed to the street and shouted, “Tumakbo na kayo!” Rod was 14 and Ronnie was 17. The money and other articles looted from the store of Mang Pandoy were later found in the houses of Victor and Ricky.
SUGGESTED ANSWER: All are liable for the special complex crime of robbery with homicide. The acts of Ricky in stabbing Mang Pandoy to death, of Rod in boxing the salesgirl to prevent her from helping Mang Pandoy, of Ronnie in chasing the salesgirl to prevent her in seeking help, of Victor in scooping up money from the cash box, and of Ricky and Victor in dashing to the street and announcing the escape, are all indicative of conspiracy. The rule is settled that when homicide takes place as a consequence or on the occasion of a robbery, all those who took part in the robbery are guilty as principals of the crime of robbery with homicide, unless the accused tried to prevent the killing {People vs. BaeUo, 224 SCRA 218). Although Rod is only 14 years old, his act of boxing Lucy to prevent her from helping Mang Pandoy is a clear sign of discernment, thus he cannot invoke exemption from criminal liability.
ART. 12 Warrantless arrest; entrapment; in relation to prohibited drugs (1992) Members of the Narcotics Command, upon learning from an informer that Tee Moy, notorious drug lord was plying his trade and selling methamphetamine hydrocholide (popularly known as shabu) in a motel at Bambang St, planned a buy-bust operation to capture him. Camotes was to enter the lobby of the motel where Tee Mqy hangs around and pose as buyer. The moment the drug vendor hands the drug to him. Camotes would scratch his ear as a signal
69
Art. 12 Minority In relation to robbery with homicide (1995)
Discuss fully the criminal liability of Victor, Ricky, Rod and Ronnie.
Page
(i) Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of 2006 (R.A. No. 9344); also refer to Child and Youth Welfare Code (P.D. 603, as amended) (a) Definition of child in conflict with the law (b) Minimum age of criminal responsibility (c) Determination of age (d) Exemption from criminal liability (e) Treatment of child below age of responsibility (f) Status offenses under Sec. 57 of R.A. No. 9344 Offenses not applicable to children under Sec. 58 of R.A. No. 9344
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
In the course of time, Tee Moy was prosecuted for the crimes of possession and sale of prohibited drugs under the Dangerous Drugs Act. During the trial, his counsel interposed the following defenses: a) The arrest, having been effected without a warrant of arrest, was violative of Tee Moy’s constitutional rights. b) Accused was the victim of a frameup instigated by the law enforcement officers, such that he was practically forced to sell his goods to a total stranger which was abnormal and unrealistic for one in the kind of business he is in. c) The prosecution deliberately failed to present the informer as a witness so that he could have been subjected to crossexamination by the counsel for the accused. d) Tee Moy cannot be prosecuted for the separate offenses of possession and sale of prohibited drugs but of only one criminal offense. e) Tee Moy was made to sign a Confiscation Receipt at NARCOM headquarters which has been admitted as evidence against him, thus violating his constitutional right against selfincrimination.
SUGGESTED ANSWER: a. There is no need for a warrant of arrest, as this falls under the instances of warrantless airest sanctioned by law, where a public officer or private individual may arrest a person if, in his personal presence, the person arrested is actually committing, is about to commit, or has just committed a crime. b. This is a pure case of entrapment as Tee Moy has already decided to commit a crime and the agents of persons in authority merely devised ways and means to entrap him. There was no inducement of Tee Moy as the latter precisely decided to make a “score” or sale. No pressure or investigation was applied on him. c. Failure to present the informer is not fatal to the cause of the prosecution as the testimony of the latter will be merely corroborative to the testimony of the other witnesses who were eye-witnesses to the commission of the crime. There are sufficient evidence to convict the accused beyond reasonable doubt. d. While as a general rule the offense of possession is integrated in selling prohibited drugs, in this case, I will argue that, the quantity of the drugs confiscated from Tee Moy was so large that it cannot be deemed absorbed in the crime of “pushing”. Besides, I will contend that the matchbox with shabu inside, was not the only evidence taken from the accused. The Confiscation Receipt signed by Tee Moy was merely presented as part of the testimony of the prosecution witnesses and such evidence is not material to the
70
So Camotes, upon espying Tee Moy near the registration desk, approached the latter. When asked if he would like a “score”, he answered in the affirmative. He was then handed a matchbox with the assurance that it contained the drug, for which he gave a P100.00 marked bill. Upon giving the pre-arranged signal, the NARCOM agents rushed inside and arrested Tee Moy.
If you were the prosecutor, how would you traverse the above arguments of counsel for the accused? Take up each number separately.
Page
to his companions deployed near the motel entrance.
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
conviction of the accused. Again, overwhelming evidence are presented that inevitably supports conviction ART. 12--Entrapment and instigation (1990) Rodolfo is an informer who told the police authorities that Aldo is a drug pusher. Policeman Taba then posed as a buyer and persuaded Aldo to sell marijuana worth P10.00 to the former. Aldo agreed. He delivered the goods and so was apprehended with the marked money. He is now prosecuted for violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act. Aldo’s defense is that he1 was the victim of an instigation of the police who persuaded him to sell the goods to him. Decide the case with reasons.
the mall. After fifteen minutes, Juan returned with ten sticks of marijuana cigarettes which he gave to SP02 Mercado who thereupon placed Juan under arrest and charged him with violation of The Dangerous Drugs Law by selling marijuana cigarettes. Is Juan guilty of any ofense punishable under The Dangerous Drugs Act? Discuss fully. SUGGESTED ANSWER: A. In instigation, the instigator practically induces the prospective accused into commission of the offense and himself becomes co-principal. In entrapment, ways and means are resorted to for the purpose of trapping and capturing the lawbreaker while executing his criminal plan,
SUGGESTED ANSWER: Aldo’s defense in untenable as what happened here was entrapment. With or without the act of Policemen Taba, Aldo would have went on selling the marijuana to another buyer. The finding, it must be noted, was that Aldo was continously engaged in the act of pushing drugs. (People v. Tia, 51 O.G. 1863). ART.12 Entrapment and instigation; illustration of instigation (1995)
B. Juan cannot be charged of any offense punishable under The Dangerous Drugs Act Although Juan is a suspected drug pusher, he cannot be charged on the basis of a mere suspicion. By providing the money with which to buy marijuana cigarettes, SP02 Mercado practically induced and prodded Juan to commit the offense of illegal possession of marijuana. Set against the facts instigation is a valid defense available to Juan. ART.12 Entrapment and instigation
from
SUGGESTED ANSWER: In entrapment a. the criminal design originates from and is already in the mind of the lawbreaker even before entrapment;
71
B. Suspecting that Juan was a drug pusher, SP02 Mercado, leader of the Narcom team, gave Juan a P 100-bill and asked him to buy some marijuana cigarettes. Desirous of pleasing SP02 Mercado, Juan went inside the shopping mall while the officer waited at the comer of
Distinguish fully between entrapment and instigation in Criminal Law. Exemplify each.
Page
A. Distinguished entrapment instigation. Discuss fully.
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
Example of entrapment: A, an anti-narcotic agent of the Government acted as a poseur buyer of shabu and negotiated with B, a suspected drug pusher who is unaware that A is a police officer. A then issued marked money to B who handed a sachet of shabu to B. Thereupon, A signalled his anti-narcotic team to close-in and arrest B. This is a case of entrapment because the criminal mind is in B already when A transacted with him. Example of instigation: Because the members of an anti-narcotic team are already known to drug pushers, A, the team leader, money to be used in buying shabu from C. After C handed the sachet of shabu to B and the latter handed the marked money to C, the team closed-in and placed B and C under arrest. Under the facts, B is not criminally liable for his participation in the transaction because he was acting only under instigation by the law enforcers.
Art 13 Incomplete self-defense (1990) In the middle of the night, Enyong heard the footsteps of an intruder inside their house. Enyong picked up his rifle and saw a man, Gorio, with a pistol ransacking Enyong’s personal effects in his study. Suppose Enyong shot Gorio while he was running away from Enyong’s house with his television set, what is Enyong liable for? Explain your answer. SUGGESTED ANSWER: There is criminal liability this time with the mitigating circumstance of incomplete selfdefense. Under the case of People v. Narvaez, defense of property can be availed of even when there is no assault against a person. It is recognized as an unlawful aggression.
Art. 13: Intoxication (2002) A was invited to a drinking spree by friends. After having had a drink too many, A and B had a heated argument, during which A stabbed B. Asa result, B suffered serious physical injuries. May the intoxication of A be considered aggravating or mitigating? (5%) SUGGESTED ANSWER: The intoxication of A may be prima facie considered mitigating since it was merely incidental to the commission of the crime. It may not be considered aggravating as there is no clear indication from the facts of the case that it was habitual or intentional on the part of A. Aggravating circumstances are not to be presumed;
72
In instigation a. the idea and design to bring about the commission of the crime originated and developed in the mind of the law enforcers; b. the law enforcers induce, lure, or incite a person who is not minded to commit a crime and would not otherwise commit it, into committing the crime; and c. this circumstance absolves the accused from criminal liability (People v. Dante Marcos, 185 SCRA154. [1990]).
MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES
Page
b. the law enforcers resort to ways and means for the purpose of capturing the lawbreaker in flagrante delicto; and c. this circumstance is no bar to prosecution and conviction of the lawbreaker.
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
they should be proved beyond reasonable doubt
Privileged mitigating circumstances are not subject to the offset rule.
Art. 13: Mitigating Circumstance – Privileged In relation to Penalties (2012)
Art. 13: Mitigating Circumstance In relation to Penalties (2014)
What is a privileged mitigating circumstance? Distinguish a privileged mitigating circumstance from an ordinary mitigating circumstance as to reduction of penalty and offsetting against aggravating circumstance/s.
A, a young boy aged sixteen (16) at the time of the commission of the crime, was convicted when he was already seventeen (17) years of age for violation of Section 11 of R.A. 9165 or Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs for which the imposable penalty is life imprisonment and a fine. Section 98 of the same law provides that if the penalty imposed is life imprisonment to death on minor offenders, the penalty shall be reclusion perpetua to death. Under R.A. 9344, a minor offender is entitled to a privileged mitigating circumstance.
The distinctions between ordinary and privileged mitigating circumstances are as follows: i. Under the rules for application of divisible penalties (RPC, Art. 64), the presence of a mitigating circumstance, if not off-set by aggravating circumstance, has the effect of applying the divisible penalty in its minimum period. Under the rules on graduation of penalty (RPC, Art. 68, 69), the presence of privileged mitigating circumstance has the effect of reducing the penalty one to two degrees lower; Ordinary mitigating circumstances can be off-set by aggravating circumstances.
(A) May the privileged mitigating circumstance of minority be appreciated considering that the penalty imposed by law is life imprisonment and fine? (B) Is the Indeterminate Sentence Law applicable considering that life imprisonment has no fixed duration and the Dangerous Drugs Law is malum prohibitum? (C) If the penalty imposed is more than six (6) years and a notice of appeal was filed by A and given due course by the court, may A still file an application for probation? (D) If probation is not allowed by the court, how will A serve his sentence? SUGGESTED ANSWER: (A) Yes. As stated above, under Section 98, RA 9165, if the offender is a minor, the penalty of life imprisonment shall be considered as reclusion perpetua. Now that it has the nomenclature of penalties under the RPC, the modifying circumstances therein may also be applied. Even if
73
Privileged mitigating circumstances are those that mitigate the criminal liability of the accused by graduating the imposable penalty for the crime being modified to one or two degrees lower. These circumstances cannot be offset by aggravating circumstance. The circumstance of incomplete justification or exemption (when majority of the conditions are present), and the circumstance of minority (if the child above 15 years of age acted with discernment) are privileged mitigating circumstance.
Page
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
The victim Dario went to the Civil Service Commission at about 11:00 a.m. to have some documents signed, and because his efforts were frustrated, he angrily remarked in the presence of the accused Benito that the Civil Service Commission is a hang-out of thieves. The accused felt alluded to because he was then facing criminal and administrative charges on several counts involving his honesty and integrity, and pulling out a gun from his desk, he shot Dario, inflicting a fatal wound. Benito is now invoking the mitigating circumstances of immediate vindication of grave offense. Decide the case. (1988 Bar Question) SUGGESTED ANSWER: The mitigating circumstances of immediate vindication of grave offense cannot be considered because to be applicable, Article 13 par. 5 requires that: “Mitigating circumstances.— xxxx 5. That the act was committed in the immediate vindication of a grave offense to the one committing the felony (delito) his spouse, ascendants, descendants, legitimate, natural or adopted brothers or sisters or relatives by affinity within the same degrees.” Instead, the circumstances of passion or obfuscation should be considered. Benito should be charged with frustrated homicide with the mitigating circumstances of passion. Art. 13: Voluntary surrender (1996) Hilario, upon seeing his son engaged in a scuffle with Rene, stabbed and killed the latter. After the stabbing, he brought his son home. The Chief of Police of the town,
74
The phrase “at any time” mentioned in Section 42 means that the child in conflict with the law may file an application for probation at any time, even beyond the period for perfecting an appeal and even if the child has perfected the appeal from the judgment of conviction. (D) If probation is not allowed by the court, the minor offender shall serve his sentence in agricultural camp or other training facility in accordance with Section 51 of RA 9344 as amended.
Art. 13 Immediate Vindication (1988)
Page
reclusion perpetua is a single indivisible penalty, the privileged mitigating circumstance of minority would still be considered to lower the imposable penalty. The rule in Article 63, RPC that if the penalty prescribed by law is a single indivisible penalty, it shall be imposed regardless of mitigating and aggravating circumstance refers only to ordinary mitigating circumstances. (B) Yes. The Indeterminate Sentence Law is applicable even to special penal laws. Since life imprisonment was converted into reclusion perpetua, which in turn was graduated to reclusion temporal because of the privileged mitigating circumstance of minority, the Indeterminate Sentence Law is applicable. (People vs. Mantalaba, GR 186227, July 20, 2011) (C) Yes. A may still file an application for probation even if he filed a notice of appeal. Section 42, RA 9344 provides: “The court may, after it shall have convicted and sentenced a child in conflict with the law, and upon application at any time, place the child on probation in lieu of service of his/her sentence taking into account the best interest of the child. For this purpose, Section 4 of PD 968, otherwise known as the Probation Law of 1976, is hereby amended accordingly.”
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
SUGGESTED ANSWER: Yes, Hilario is entitled to the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender. The crux of the issue is whether the fact that Hilario went home after the incident, but came down and met the police officers and went with them is considered “voluntary surrender." The voluntariness of surrender is tested if the same is spontaneous showing the intent of the accused to submit himself unconditionally to the authorities. This must be either (a) because he acknowledges his guilt, or (b) because he wishes to save them the trouble and expenses necessarily incurred in his search and capture. (Reyes’ Commentaries, p. 303). Thus, the act of the accused in hiding after commission of the crime, but voluntarily went with the policemen who had gone to his hiding place to investigate, was held to be mitigating circumstance.[People vs. Dayrit, cited in Reyes’ Commentaries, p. 299) Art. 13: Voluntary surrender and plea of guilty; when not considered (1992) Upon learning that the police wanted him for the killing of Polistico. Jeprox decided to
SUGGESTED ANSWER: Jeprox is not entitled to the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender as his going to the police station was only for the purpose of verification of the news that he is wanted by the authorities. In order to be mitigating, surrender must be spontaneous and that he acknowledges his guilt. Neither is plea of guilty a mitigating circumstances because it was qualified plea; besides. Art. 13, par. 7 provides that confession of guilt must be done before the prosecution had started to present evidence. Art. 13: Voluntary surrender; plea of guilty (1997) After killing the victim, the accused absconded. He succeeded in eluding the police until he surfaced and surrendered to the authorities about two years later. Charged with murder, he pleaded not guilty but, after the prosecution had presented two witnesses implicating him to the crime, he changed his plea to that of guilty. Should the mitigating circumstances of voluntary surrender and plea of guilty be considered in favor of the accused? SUGGESTED ANSWER:
75
Hilario, upon seeing the approaching policemen, came down from his house to meet them and voluntarily went with them to the Police Station to be investigated in connection with the killing. When eventually charged with and convicted of homicide, Hilario, on appeal, faulted the trial court for not appreciating in his favor the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender. Is he entitled to such a mitigating circumstance? Explain.
visit the police station to make inquiries. On his way, he met a policeman who immediately served upon him the warrant for his arrest. During the trial, in the course of the presentation of the prosecution’s evidence. Jeprox withdrew his plea of not guilty and entered a plea of guilty. Can he invoke the mitigating circumstances of voluntary surrender and plea of guilty? Explain.
Page
accompanied by several policemen, went to Hilario’s house.
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
A. In order that the plea of guilty may be mitigating, what requisites must be complied with? (2%) B. An accused charged with the crime of homicide pleaded “not guilty" during the preliminary investigation before the Municipal Court. Upon the elevation of the case to the Regional Trial Court the Court of competent jurisdiction, he pleaded guilty freely and voluntarily upon arraignment. Can his plea of guilty before the RTC be considered spontaneous and thus entitle him to the mitigating circumstance of spontaneous plea of guilty under Art. 13(7), RPC? (3%)
Art. 13: Voluntary surrender (1999) When is surrender by an accused considered voluntarily, and constitutive of the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender? (3%) SUGGESTED ANSWER: A surrender by an offender is considered voluntary when it is spontaneous, indicative of an intent to submit unconditionally to the authorities. To be mitigating, the surrender must be: spontaneous, i.e., indicative of acknowledgment of guilt and not for convenience nor conditional; made before the government incurs expenses, time and effort in tracking down the offender's whereabouts; and made to a person in authority or the letter's agents.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Art. 13: Voluntary surrender (2009)
A. For plea of guilty to be mitigating, the requisites are: 1. That the accused spontaneously pleaded guilty to the crime charged; 2. That such plea was made before the court competent to try the case and render judgment; and 3. That such plea was made prior to the presentation of evidence for the prosecution.
TRUE or FALSE. Answer TRUE if the statement is true, or FALSE if the statement is false. Explain your answer in not more than two (2) sentences. (5%) Voluntary surrender is a mitigating circumstance in all acts and omissions punishable under the Revised Penal Code. SUGGESTED ANSWER:
76
Art 13 Plea of Guilty (1999)
B. Yes, his plea of guilty before the Regional Trial Court can be considered spontaneous, for which he is entitled to the mitigating circumstance of plea of guilty. His plea of not guilty before the Municipal Court is immaterial as it was made during preliminary investigation only and before a court not competent to render judgment.
Page
1. Voluntary surrender should be considered as a mitigating circumstance. After two years, the police were still unaware of the whereabouts of the accused and the latter could have continued to elude arrest. Accordingly, the surrender of the accused should be considered mitigating because it was done spontaneously, indicative of the remorse or repentance on the part of said accused and therefore, by his surrender, the accused saved the Government expenses, efforts, and time.
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
Despite the massive advertising campaign in media against firecrackers and gun-firing during the New Year's celebrations. Jonas and Jaja bought ten boxes of super lolo and pla-pla in Bocaue, Bulacan. Before midnight of December 31,1999, Jonas and Jaja started their celebration by having a drinking spree at Jona's place by exploding their high-powered firecrackers in their neighborhood. In the course of their conversation, Jonas confided to Jaja that he has been keeping a long-time grudge against his neighbor Jepoy in view of the tatter's refusal to lend him some money. While under the influence of liquor, Jonas started throwing lighted super lolos inside Jepoy's fence to irritate him and the same exploded inside the tatter's yard. Upon knowing that the throwing of the super lolo was deliberate, Jepoy became furious and sternly warned Jonas to stop his malicious act or he would get what he wanted. A heated argument between Jonas and Jepoy ensued but Jaja tried to calm down his friend. At midnight, Jonas convinced Jaja to lend him his .45 caliber pistol so that he could use it to knock down Jepoy and to end his arrogance. Jonas thought that after all, explosions were everywhere and nobody would know who shot Jepoy. After Jaja lent his firearm to Jonas, the latter again started started throwing lighted super lolos and pla-plas at Jepoy’s yard in order to provoke him so that he would come out
SUGGESTED ANSWER: If I were Jonas' and Jaja's lawyer, I will use the following defenses: (1) That the accused had no intention to commit so grave a wrong as that committed as they merely intended to frighten Jepoy; (2) That Jonas committed the crime in a state of intoxication thereby impairing his will power or capacity to understand the wrongfulness of his act. Non-intentional intoxication is a mitigating circumstance [People us. Forttch, 281 SCRA 600 [1997]: Art 15, RFC). Art. 13: No intention to commit so grave a wrong as that which was committed (2001) Maryjane had two suitors - Felipe and Cesar. She did not openly show her preference but on two occasions, accepted Cesar’s invitation to concerts by Regine and Pops. Felipe was a working student and could only ask Mary to see a movie which was declined. Felipe felt insulted and made plans to get even with Cesar by scaring him off somehow. One day, he entered Cesar’s room in their boarding house and placed a rubber snake which appeared to be real in Cesar’s backpack. Because Cesar had a weak heart, he suffered a heart attack upon opening his backpack and seeing the snake. Cesar
77
Art. 13: No intention to commit so grave a wrong as that committed; intoxication (2000)
of his house. When Jepoy came out, Jonas immediately shot him with Jaja’s .45 caliber gun but missed his target. Instead, the bullet hit Jepoy's five year old son who was following behind him, killing the boy instantaneously.If you were Jonas' and Jaja’s lawyer, what possible defenses would you set up in favor of your clients? Explain. (2%)
Page
False. Voluntary surrender may not be appreciated in cases of criminal negligence under Art. 365 since in such cases, the courts are authorized to impose a penalty without considering Art. 62 regarding mitigating and aggravating circumstances.
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
died without regaining consciousness. The police investigation resulted in pinpointing Felipe as the culprit and he was charged with homicide for Cesar’s death. In his defense, Felipe claimed that he did not know about Cesar’s weak heart and that he only intended to play a practical joke on Cesar. Is Felipe liable for the death of Cesar or will his defense prosper? Why? (5%) SUGGESTED ANSWER: Yes, Felipe is liable for the death of Cesar but he shall be given the benefit of the mitigating circumstance that he did not intend to commit so grave a wrong as that which was committed (Art. 13, par. 3, RPC). When Felipe intruded into Cesar’s room without the letter's consent and took liberty with the letter's backpack where he placed the rubber snake, Felipe was already committing a felony. And any act done by him while committing a felony is no less wrongful, considering that they were part of "plans to get even with Cesar1'. Felipe's claim that he intended only "to play a practical joke on Cesar" does not persuade, considering that they are not friends but in fact rivals in courting Maryjane. This case is parallel to the case of People vs. Pugay, et al.
any mitigating circumstance or circumstances? (3%) (2002 Bar Question) SUGGESTED ANSWER: No, A cannot validly invoke defense of his daughter’s honor in having killed B since the rape was already consummated; moreover, B already ran away, hence, there was no aggression to defend against and no defense to speak of. A may, however, invoke the benefit of the mitigating circumstance of having acted in immediate vindication of a grave offense to a descendant, his daughter, under par. 5, Article 13 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended. Art. 13: Lack of intention to commit so grave a wrong as that committed (2005) Belle saw Gaston stealing the prized cock of a neighbor and reported him to the police. Thereafter, Gaston, while driving a car saw Belle crossing the street. Incensed that Belle had reported him, Gaston decided to scare her by trying to make it appear that he was about to run her over. He rewed the engine of his car and drove towards her but he applied the brakes. Since the road was slippery at that time, the vehicle skidded and hit Belle causing her death. What is the liability of Gaston? Why? (4%)
Page
When A arrived home, he found B raping his daughter. Upon seeing A, B ran away. A took his gun and shot B, killing him. Charged with homicide, A claimed he acted in defense of his daughter's honor. Is A correct? If not, can A claim the benefit of
Gaston is criminally liable for homicide in doing the felonious act which caused Belle’s death, although the penalty therefor shall be mitigated by lack of intention to commit so grave a wrong as that committed (Art. 13 (3), RPC). The act, having been deliberately done with malice, is felonious and being the proximate cause of Belle’s
78
SUGGESTED ANSWER: Art. 13: Immediate vindication of a grave offense to a descendant (2002)
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
14:
B, who is blind in one eye, conspired with M, a sixteen year old boy, with C, who had been previously convicted of Serious Physical Injuries, and with R, whose sister was raped by X a day before, to kill the latter. B, C and R were armed with .38 caliber revolvers, while M carried no weapon and acted only as a look out. They proceeded to the house of X riding in a motorized tricycle. Thereupon, C, on instruction of B to give X no chance, shot X who was then sleeping. Indicted for Homicide, as the information alleges no qualifying circumstance, specify the mitigating and aggravating circumstances present, and explain in whose favor, and against whom, must they be considered. SUGGESTED ANSWER:
AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES Art 14: Cruelty (1988) The robbers killed a mother and her baby, then threw the body of the baby outside the window. Can the aggravating circumstances of “cruelty” be considered in this case? Reasons. (1988 Bar Question) (a) Cruelty cannot be considered in this case because the aggravating circumstance of cruelty requires deliberates prolongation of the suffering of the victim. In this case, the baby was dead already so that there is no more prolongation to speak of.
1. Mitigating circumstances: a) B is entitled to the mitigating circumstance under paragraph 8 of Article 13 of the Revised Penal Code; b) M is entitled to the privileged mitigating circumstances of minority under Article 68 of the Revised Penal Code; c) Vindication of a grave offense in favor of R because his sister was raped by X a day before the shooting, and even if there was an interval of one (1) day between the rape and the killing.
Art. 14 Recidivism In relation to Art. 62 Habitual Delinquency (2012)
2. Aggravating circumstances: a) The aggravating circumstance of recidivism under paragraph 9. Article 14 should be considered against C if alleged in the Information (People vs. Peter
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Who is a habitual delinquent? Distinguish habitual delinquency from recidivism as to the crimes committed, the period of time the crimes are committed, the number of crimes committed and their effects in relation to the penalty to be imposed on a convict.
79
Art. 13: Mitigating and Art; aggravating circumstances (1993)
Cadevida, et al, G.R. No. L-94528, March 1. 1993). b) The aggravating circumstance of motor vehicle under paragraph 20 of Article 14 of the Code, all the accused having used a motorized tricyle; c) Treachery should be aggravating against all of the accused including M who acted as a lookout because all of them were present when X was shot (Article 62. paragraph 4 of the Revised Penal Code). X was sleeping when shot to death.
Page
death, brings about criminal liability although the wrong done was different from what was intended (Art. 4, [1], RPC).
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
Nature of crime
First crime and the aggravated second crime are embraced in the same Title of the RPC.
Accused was convicted of the first crime by final judgment at the time of the trial of the second crime. Time element
Number of Crimes
First, second and third crimes must be a habitual delinquency crime, that is, serious or less serious physical injuries, theft, robbery, estafa or falsification of document. The accused was convicted of first habitual delinquency crime; within ten years after conviction or release, he was found guilty or habitualdelinquency crime for the second time; within 10 years after conviction or release, he was found guilty of habitualdelinquency crime for the third time or oftener.
At least two crimes At least three crimes committed committed
Ordinary aggravating circumstance the presence of any of Nature which will trigger of the the application of aggravat the penalty for the ing second crime circumst committed in its ance maximum period unless it is off-set by a mitigating circumstance
Extraordinary or special aggravating circumstance, the presence of which will trigger the imposition of additional penalty for the third or subsequent crime. This is not subject of the off-set rule.
During trial for theft in 2014, the prosecution managed to show that accused AA has also been convicted by final judgment for robbery in 2003, but she eluded capture. A subsequent verification showed that AA had several convictions, to wit: 1. In 1998, she was convicted of estafa; 2. In 2002, she was convicted of theft; 3. In 2004, she was convicted of frustrated homicide; The judge trying the theft case in 2014 is about to convict AA. What circumstances affecting the liability or penalty may the judge appreciate against AA? SUGGESTED ANSWER: The judge may appreciate the aggravating circumstance of recidivism. A recidivist is one who, at the time of his trial for one crime, shall have been previously convicted by final judgment of another crime embraced in the same title of the RPC. Robbery, theft, estafa are crimes against property embraced in Title Ten of the RPC. The judge may also appreciate the aggravating circumstance of habituality or reiteracion, because there have been two or more crimes committed for which she has been published, regardless of the degree of penalty. Art. 14. Recidivist (2009) TRUE or FALSE. Answer TRUE if the statement is true, or FALSE if the statement is false. Explain your answer in not more than two (2) sentences. (5%) [a] Amado, convicted of rape but granted an absolute pardon by the President, and
80
The following are the differences between recidivism and habitual delinquency:
Art. 14: Recidivism (2014)
Page
A person shall be deemed to be habitual delinquent, if within a period of ten years from the date of his release or last conviction of the crimes of serious or less serious physical injuries, robo, hurto estafa or falsification, he is found guilty of any of said crimes a third time or oftener (Art. 62, RPC).
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
one year thereafter, convicted of homicide, is a recidivist. SUGGESTED ANSWER: True. Rape is now a crime against persons and, like the crime of homicide, is embraced in the same Title of the Revised Penal Code under which Amado had been previously convicted by final judgment. The absolute pardon granted him for rape, only excused him from serving the sentence for rape but did not erase the effects of the conviction therefore unless expressly remitted by the pardon. Arti. 14 Recidivism In relation to Art. 62 reiteracion (1989) Andres was earlier convicted of adultery and served an indeterminate penalty, the maximum term of which did not exceed two (2) years, four (4) months and one (1) day of prision correctional. A month after his release from prison, he was charge with the crime of serious physical injuries. Later, Andres was again charged with homicide punishable by re-clusion temporal. He entered a plea of guilty in the homicide case. May the aggravating circumstances of recidivism and/or habituality (reiteracion) be appreciated against Andres? Explain.
c. Both the first and second offenses are embraced in the same title of the Code; and d. The offender is convicted of the new offense (Art. 14, par. 9 RPC). At the time of his trial for homicide, Andres was not previously convicted by final judgment of another crime embraced in the same title of the Revised Penal Code. Adultery, which is his only previous conviction by final judgment is a crime against chastity, and therefore is not embraced in the same title of the Code as homicide, which is a crime against person. As for the charge of serious physical injuries, although serious physical is also a crime against person, it appears that he had not as yet been conviced, much less by final judgment, of the charge at the time that he was facing trial for homicide. The aggravating circumstance of habitually or reiteracion can likewise not be taken against Andres because in order that this circumstance can exist, it is necessary that he was facing trial for homicide. The aggravating circumstance of habituality or reiteracion can likewise not be taken against Andres because in order for this circumstance to exist, it is necessary that—
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
In the case at bar, Andres had previously served sentence only for one offense that
81
a. The offender is on trial for an offense; b. He was previously convicted by final judgment of another crime;
Page
The aggravating circumstance of recidivism cannot be taken against Andres. For this circumstance to exist, it is necessary that —
a. The accused is on trial for an offense; b. He previously served sentence for another offense to which the law attaches an equal or greater penalty, or for two or more crimes to which it attaches a lighter penalty than that for the new offense; c. He is convicted of the new offense.
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
of adultery, but the penalty for adultery (prison correctional) is lighter than then penalty for homicide (reclusion-temporal). Consequently, there is no aggravating circumstance of habituality or reiteracion.
convictions by final judgment for theft and again convicted for Robbery With Homicide. And the crimes specified as basis for habitual delinquency includes, inter alia, theft and robbery.
Art. 14. Recidivism; In relation to Art. 62 habitual delinquency (2001)
No, the appeal is not meritorious. Recidivism and habitual delinquency are correctly considered in this case because the basis of recidivism is different from that of habitual delinquency. Juan is a recidivist because he had been previously convicted by final judgment for theft and again found guilty for Robbery with Homicide, which are both crimes against property, embraced under the same Title (Title Ten, Book Two) of the Revised Penal Code. The implication is that he is specializing in the commission of crimes against property, hence aggravating in the conviction for Robbery with Homicide. Habitual delinquency, which brings about an additional penalty when an offender is convicted a third time or more for specified crimes, is correctly considered because Juan had already three (3) previous
SUGGESTED ANSWER: In recidivism a. The convictions of the offender are for crimes embraced in the same Title of the Revised Penal Code; and b. This circumstance is generic aggravating and therefore can be offset by an ordinary mitigating circumstance. Whereas in quasi-recidivism a. The convictions are not for crimes embraced in the same Title of the Revised Penal Code, provided that it is a felony that was committed by the offender before serving sentence by final judgment for another crime or while serving sentence for another crime; and b. This circumstance is a special aggravating circumstance which cannot be offset by any mitigating circumstance. Art. 14. Quasi recidivism – Art 160 (1991) During a fiesta, Simeon Marco, brandishing a knife, asked Constancio whether he was the one who slapped his (Simeon's) son the year previous. Vicente (father of
82
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Distinguish between recidivism and quasirecidivism. (2%)
Page
Juan de Castro already had three (3) previous convictions by final judgment for theft when he was found guilty of Robbery with Homicide. In the last case, the trial judge considered against the accused both recidivism and habitual delinquency. The accused appealed and contended that in his last conviction, the trial court cannot consider against him a finding of recidivism and, again, of habitual delinquency. Is the appeal meritorious? Explain. (5%)
Art. 14 Recidivism And Art. 160. Quasirecidivism (1998)
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
SUGGESTED ANSWER: No, because quasi-recidivism under Art. 160, RPC occurs when the accused commits a felony while serving or about to serve sentence (or if he escapes from prison). A parolee who commits a felony cannot be a quasi-recidivist. Art. 14 Treachery (2008) Roger, the leader of a crime syndicate in Malate, Manila, demanded the payment by Antonio, the owner of a motel in that area, of P10,000 a month as “protection money". With the monthly payments, Roger assured, the syndicate would provide protection to Antonio, his business, and his employees. Should Antonio refuse, Roger warned, the motel owner would either be killed or his establishment destroyed. Antonio refused to pay the protection money. Days later, at around 3:00 in the morning, Mauro, a member of the criminal
State, with reasons, the crime or crimes that had been committed as well as the aggravating circumstances, if any, attendant thereto. (7%) SUGGESTED ANSWER: Roger & Mauro conspired to commit the crime of murder qualified by treachery, with the use of means involving great waste and ruin. In this case, Mauro is liable as a principal by direct participation by using a grenade and hurled into an open window of the victim‟s bedroom. Killing the victims while they were sleeping and in no position to defend themselves, is a treacherous act (People v. Aguilar, 88 Phil 693, 1951). The following are the aggravating circumstances: 1. Sec. 3, R.A. 8294 – when a person commits any of the crime under the RPC or special laws with the use of explosive, etc. and alike incendiary devices which resulted in the death of any person. 2. Art. 23, R.A. 7659 – organized/syndicated crime group. Art. 14: Treachery; when not considered (1992) As Sergio, Yoyong, Zoilo and Warlilo engaged in a drinking spree at Heartthrob Disco, Special Police Officer 3 (SPO 3) Manolo Yabang suddenly approached them, aimed his revolver at Sergio whom he recognized as a wanted killer and fatally shot the latter. Whereupon, Yoyong.Zoilo and Warlito ganged up on Yabang. Warlito,
83
Supposing Dulcisimo is a convict out on parole, will the aggravating circumstances of quasi-recidivism be appreciated against him?
syndicate, arrived at Antonio's home and hurled a grenade into an open window of the bedroom where Antonio, his wife and their three year-old daughter were sleeping. All three of them were killed instantly when the grenade exploded.
Page
Constancio) shouted at Constancio and his other son, Bien- venido, telling them to run away. When Bienvenido passed by Rafael Marco (brother of Simeon), Rafael stabbed him. Bienvenido parried the blow but fell down, his feet entangled with some vines. While Bienvenido was lying on the ground, Rafael continued to stab him, inflicting slight injuries on the shoulder of Bienvenido, after which Rafael stood up. At that moment, Dulcisimo Beltran (no relation to the Marco brothers), came out of nowhere and, together with Simeon, stabbed Bienvenido. Both of them inflicted fatal wounds resulting in the death of the victim.
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
using his own pistol, shot and wounded Yabang. B. Was there conspiracy and treachery? Explain.
the prosecution, without objection from the de officio counsel for the accused, proved evident premeditation. It likewise successfully proved the qualifying and the generic aggravating circumstances alleged in the information.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
SUGGESTED ANSWER: Yabang is liable for Homicide for the killing of Sergio as the attack was frontal Sergio, being a suspected killer, is no jurisdiction to be killed by Yabang (People vs. Oanis). Art. 14: Evident Treachery (1991)
Premeditation,
In an information for Murder against A. B, and C, the prosecution alleges Treachery as the qualifying circumstance and the following generic aggravating circumstances: (1) noctumity, (2) abuse of superior strength, and (3) employing means to weaken the defense. At the trial,
C. If the prosecution failed to prove treachery and did not offer any evidence to prove evident premeditation, does acquittal of the accused follow? SUGGESTED ANSWER: A. Yes, as far as evident premeditation is concerned, but only as a generic a gravating circumstance. Since treachery absorbs nocturnity, abuse of superior strength and employing means to weaken the defense, they can no longer be considered as additional circumstances. B. No, since it was not alleged in the information; qualifying circumstances not alleged if proved during trial will only be considered as generic. C. No, but liability will only be for homicide, as there is no circumstances to qualify it to murder. Art. 14: Nighttime (1994)
84
In turn, is yabang criminally liable for the death of Sergio?
B. Supposing that treachery was not proved, may evident premeditation, which was duly proved, be considered as the qualifying circumstances?
Page
The acts of Yoyong, Zoilo and Warlito are justified under pars. 1 and 2 of Article 11, RPG, that is, self-defense or defense of a stranger, as they have reason to suspect that Yabang might not be satisfied in killing Sergio ONLY, the three being friends and companions of the victim. Hence, they are entitled to protect their own lives and limbs from the unlawful aggression of Yabang. Alternatively they have the justified right to defend a stranger (Sergio) whose life at that moment might still be saved by ganging up on Yabang to prevent the latter from any further attack by the latter. In either case reasonable necessity of the means employed and lack of sufficient provocation are present.
A. For the purpose of determining the appropriate penalty to be imposed upon the accused, may the court take into account evident premeditation and the other generic aggravating circumstances?
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
At about 9:30 in the evening, while Dino and Raffy were walking along Padre Faura Street, Manila. Johnny hit them with a rock injuring Dino at the back. Raffy approached Dino but suddenly, Bobby, Steve, Danny and Nonoy surrounded the duo. Then Bobby stabbed Dino. Steve, Danny. Nonoy and Johnny kept on hitting Dino and Raffy with rocks. As a result, Dino died.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Bobby, Steve, Danny, Nonoy and Johnny were charged with homicide.
Relationship, because the offended party is a descendant (daughter) of the offender and considering that the crime is one against chastity.
No, nighttime cannot be appreciated as an aggravating circumstance because there is no indication that the offenders deliberately sought the cover of darkness to facilitate the commission of the crime or that they took advantage of nighttime (People vs. De los Reyes, 203 SCRA 707). Besides, judicial notice can be taken of the fact that Padre Faura Street is well-lighted. However, band should be considered as the crime was committed by more than three armed malefactors; in a recent Supreme Court decision, stones or rocks are considered deadly weapons. Art. 14: Cruelty; Relationship (1994) Ben, a widower, driven by bestial desire, poked a gun on his daughter Zeny, forcibly undressed her and tied her legs to the bed. He also burned her face with a lighted cigarrete. Like a madman, he laughed while raping her. What aggravating circumstances are present in this case? (1994 Bar Question)
Art. 14: Band, Nocturnity, Dwelling, Uninhabitted Place (1996) Jose, Domingo. Manolo, and Fernando, armed with bolos, at about one o'clock in the morning, robbed a house at a desolate place where Danilo, his wife, and three daughters were living. While the four were in the process of ransacking Danilo’s house, Fernando, noticing that one of Danilo’s daughters was trying to get away, ran after her and finally caught up with her in a thicket somewhat distant from the house. Fernando, before bringing back the daughter to the house, raped her first. Thereafter, the four carted away the belongings of Danilo and his family. Under the facts of the case, what aggravating circumstances may be appreciated against the four? Explain. SUGGESTED ANSWER: The aggravating circumstances which may be considered in the premises are: i) Band because all the four offenders are armed: ii) Nocturnity because evidently the offenders took advantage of night time;
85
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Page
Can the court appreciate the aggravating circumstances of nighttime and band?
Cruelty, for burning the victim’s face with a lighted cigarrete, thereby deliberately augmenting the victim’s suffering by acts clearly unnecessary to the rape, while the offender delighted and enjoyed seeing the victim suffer in pain (People vs. Lucas, 181 SCRA 316).
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
The accused and the victim occupied adjacent apartments, each being a separate dwelling unit of one big house. The accused suspected his wife of having an illicit relation with the victim. One afternoon, he saw the victim and his wife together on board a vehicle. In the evening of that day, the accused went to bed early and tried to sleep, but being so annoyed over the suspected relation between his wife and the victim, he could not sleep. Later in the night, he resolved to kill the victim. He rose from bed and took hold of a knife. He entered the apartment of the victim through an unlocked window. Inside, he saw the victim soundly asleep. He thereupon stabbed the victim, inflicting several wounds, which caused his death within a few hours. Would you say that the killing was attended by the qualifying or aggravating circumstances of evident premeditation, treachery, nighttime and unlawful entry? SUGGESTED ANSWER: Evident premeditation cannot be considered against the accused because he resolved to kill the victim 'later in the night" and there was no sufficient lapse of time between the determination and execution, to allow his conscience to overcome the resolution of his will.
Nighttime cannot be appreciated because there is no showing that the accused deliberately sought or availed of nighttime to insure the success of his act The Intention to commit the crime was conceived shortly before its commission (People vs. Pardo. 79 Phil. 568). Moreover, nighttime is absorbed in treachery. Unlawful entry may be appreciated as an aggravating circumstance, Inasmuch as the accused entered the room of the victim through the window, which is not the proper place for entrance into the house (Art. 14, par. 18, Revised Penal Code. People vs. Baruga. 61 Phil. 318). Art. 14: Aggravating circumstances Four Kinds; Generic vs Qualifying (1999) A. Name the four (4) kinds of aggravating circumstances and state their effect on the penalty of crimes and nature thereof. (3%) B. Distinguish generic aggravating circumstance from qualifying aggravating circumstance. SUGGESTED ANSWER: A. The four (4) kinds of aggravating circumstances are: 1. Generic aggravating or those that can generally apply to all crimes, and can
86
Art. 14: Evident premeditation, treachery, night time and unlawful entry (1997)
Treachery may be present because the accused stabbed the victim while the latter was sound asleep. Accordingly, he employed means and methods which directly and specially insured the execution of the act without risk himself arising from the defense which the victim might have made (People us. Dequifto. 60 Phil. 279 People vs. Miranda, et aL, 90 Phil. 91).
Page
iii) dwelling: and iv) Uninhabited place because the house where the crimes were committed was “at a desolate place" and obviously the offenders took advantage of this circumstance in committing the crime.
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
Generic aggravating circumstances:
1. affects the nature of the crime or brings about a penalty higher in degree than that ordinarily prescribed. 2. Can be offset by ordinary mitigating circumstances; 3. need not be alleged in the Information as long as proven during the trial, the same shall be considered in imposing the sentence. Qualifying circumstances: 1. must be alleged In the Information and proven during trial; 2. cannot be offset by mitigating circumstances; 3. affects the nature of the crime or brings about a penalty higher in degree than that ordinarily prescribed. Art. 14: Explosive, Treachery (2008) Roger, the leader of a crime syndicate in Malate, Manila, demanded the payment by Antonio, the owner of a motel in that area, of P10,000 a month as 'protection money". With the monthly payments, Roger assured, the syndicate would provide protection to Antonio, his business, and his
State, with reasons, the crime or crimes that had been committed as well as the aggravating circumstances, if any, attendant thereto. (7%) SUGGESTED ANSWER: The killing is qualified by the use of an explosive (hand grenade). The treachery attending the killing shall be separately appreciated as another aggravating circumstance aside from the use of explosive as the qualifying circumstance. Other aggravating circumstances which may be appreciated are: 1. Dwelling, because the killings were committed in the home of the victims who had not given any provocation; 2. Nocturnity, considering that the offenders carried out the killing at around 3:00 AM, indicative of a deliberate choice of night time for the commission of the crime; 3. Treachery, under Art. 14, par. 16, RPC, mentioned above, considering that victims were all asleep when killed; and 4. The offense was committed by a person who belongs to an organized/syndicated crime group under the Heinous Crimes Law (Sec. 23 R.A.
87
B.
employees. Should Antonio refuse, Roger warned, the motel owner would either be killed or his establishment destroyed. Antonio refused to pay the protection money. Days later, at around 3:00 in the morning, Mauro, a member of the criminal syndicate, arrived at Antonio's home and hurled a grenade into an open window of the bedroom where Antonio, his wife and their three year-old daughter were sleeping. All three of them were killed instantly when the grenade exploded.
Page
be offset by mitigating circumstances, but if not offset, would affect only the maximum of the penalty prescribed by law; 2. Specific aggravating or those that apply only to particular crimes and cannot be offset by mitigating circumstances; 3. Qualifying circumstances or those that change the nature of the crime to a graver one, or brings about a penalty next higher in degree, and cannot be offset by mitigating circumstances; 4. Inherent aggravating or those that essentially accompany the commission of the crime and does not affect the penalty whatsoever.
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
7659), amending for this purpose Art. 62(1) of the Revised Penal Code.
picklocks is equivalent to force upon things in robbery with force upon things.
Art. 14: Dwelling, Nighttime (2009)
Art. 14: Qualifying circumstance in rape cases (2004)
SUGGESTED ANSWER: Dwelling is aggravating because the crimes were committed in the privacy of Loretta's room which in law is considered as her dwelling. It is well settled that "dwelling" includes a room in a boarding house being occupied by the offended party where she enjoys privacy, peace of mind and sanctity of an abode. Nocturnity or nighttime is also aggravating because although it was not purposely or especially sought for by Wenceslao, nighttime was obviously taken advantaged of by him in committing the other crimes. Under the objective test, nocturnity is aggravating when taken advantaged of by the offender during the commission of the crime thus facilitating the same. The use of a picklock to enter the room of the victim is not an aggravating circumstance under Art. 14 of the Code but punished as a crime by itself where the offender has no lawful cause for possessing it. The use of
On automatic review before the Supreme Court, accused- appellant contends that capital punishment could not be imposed on him because of the inadequacy of the charges and the insufficiency of the evidence to prove all the elements of the heinous crime of rape beyond reasonable doubt. Is appellant’s contention correct? Reason briefly. (5%) SUGGESTED ANSWER: Yes, appellant's contention is correct insofar as the age of the victim is concerned. The age of the victim raped has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt to constitute the crime as qualified rape and deserving of the death penalty. The guidelines in appreciating age as a qualifying circumstance in rape cases have not been met, to wit: 1. The primary evidence of the age of the victim is her birth certificate; 2. In the absence of the birth certificate, age of the victim may be proven
88
[b] Discuss the applicability of the relevant aggravating circumstances of dwelling, nocturnity and the use of the picklock to enter the room of the victim. (3%)
GV was convicted of raping TC, his niece, and he was sentenced to death. It was alleged in the information that the victim was a minor below seven years old, and her mother testified that she was only six years and ten months old, which her aunt corroborated on the witness stand. The information also alleged that the accused was the victim’s uncle, a fact proved by the prosecution.
Page
Wenceslao and Loretta were staying in the same boarding house, occupying different rooms. One late evening, when everyone in the house was asleep, Wenceslao entered Loretta's room with the use of a picklock. Then, with force and violence, Wenceslao ravished Loretta. After he had satisfied his lust, Wenceslao stabbed Loretta to death and, before leaving the room, took her jewelry.
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
Aggravating
When qualifying circumstances would be deemed, if at all, elements of a crime? SUGGESTED ANSWER: A qualifying circumstance would be deemed an element of a crime when 1) it changes the nature of the crime, bringing about a more serious crime and a heavier penalty;
Art. 14: Special aggravating circumstance Use of an unlicensed firearm in the commission of a crime (2004) A. PH killed OJ, his political rival in the election campaign for Mayor of their town. The Information against PH alleged that he used an unlicensed firearm in the killing of the victim, and this was proved beyond reasonable doubt by the prosecution. The trial court convicted PH of two crimes: murder and illegal possession of firearms. Is the conviction correct? Reason briefly. (5%) SUGGESTED ANSWER: A. No, the conviction of PH for two crimes, murder and illegal possession of firearm is not correct. Under the new law on illegal possession of firearms and explosives, Rep. Act No. 8294, a person may only be criminally liable for illegal possession of firearm if no other crime is committed therewith; if a homicide or murder is committed with the use of an unlicensed firearm, such use shall be considered as an aggravating circumstance. PH therefore may only be convicted of murder and the use of an unlicensed firearm in its commission may only be appreciated as a special aggravating circumstance, provided that such use is alleged specifically in the information for Murder.
89
Art. 14: Qualifying circumstances (2003)
2) it is essential to the crime involved, otherwise some other crime is committed; and 3) it is specifically alleged in the Information and proven during the trial.
Page
by authentic document, such as baptismal certificate and school records; 3. If the aforesaid documents are shown to have been lost or destroyed or otherwise unavailable, the testimony, if clear and credible of the victim’s mother or any member of the family, by consanguinity or affinity, who is qualified to testify on matters respecting pedigree such as the exact age or date of birth of the offended party pursuant to Section 40, Rule 130 of the Rules on Evidence shall be sufficient but only under the following circumstances: (a) If the victim is alleged to be below 3 years of age and what is sought to be proved is that she is less than 7 years old; (b) If the victim is alleged to be below 7 years of age and what is sought to be proved is that she is less than 12 years old; 4. If the victim is alleged to be below 12 years of age and what is sought to be proved is that she is less than 18 years old. 5. In the absence of a certificate of live birth, authentic document, or the testimony of the victim's mother or relatives concerning the victim's age under the circumstances above-stated, complainant’s sole testimony can suffice, provided that it is expressly and clearly admitted by the accused (People vs. Pruna, 390 SCRA 577 [2002D])
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
[c] The use of an unlicensed firearm in homicide is considered a generic aggravating circumstance which can be offset by an ordinary mitigating circumstance. SUGGESTED ANSWER: False. Offsetting may not take place because the use of an unlicensed firearm in homicide or murder is a specific aggravating circumstance provided for by Rep. Act No. 8294. It is not one of the generic aggravating circumstances under Art.14 of the Revised Penal Code (People v. Avecilla, 351 SCRA 635 [20011). Article 14 Treachery (1993) As a result of a misunderstanding during a meeting, Joe was mauled by Nestor, Jolan, Reden and Arthur. He ran towards his house but the four chased and caught him. Thereafter, they tied Joe’s hands at his back and attacked him. Nestor used a knife; Jolan, a shovel; Arthur, his fists; and Reden, a piece of wood. After killing Joe, Reden ordered the digging of a grave to bury Joe’s lifeless body. Thereafter, the four (4) left together. Convicted for the killing of Joe, What was the crime committed by the four assailants? Discuss with reasons The crime committed is murder, qualified by treachery because the offenders, taking advantage of their superiority in number,
PERSONS CRIMINALLY LIABLE FOR FELONIES ART. 17Principals Participation
By
Direct
Mr. Red was drinking with his buddies, Mr. White and Mr. Blue when he saw Mr. Green with his former girlfriend, Ms. Yellow. Already drunk, Mr. Red declared in a loud voice that if he could not have Ms. Yellow, no one can. He then proceeded to the men’s room but told Mr. White and Mr. Blue to take care of Mr. Green. Mr. Blue and Mr. White asked Mr. Red what he meant but Mr. Red simply said, "You already know what I want," and then left. Mr. Blue and Mr. White proceeded to kill Mr. Green and hurt Ms. Yellow. (2014 BAR) A. What, if any, are the respective liabilities of Mr. Red, Mr. White and Mr. Blue for the death of Mr. Green? B. What, if any, are the respective liabilities of Mr. Red, Mr. White and Mr. Blue for the injuries of Ms. Yellow? SUGGESTED ANSWER A. Mr. Blue and Mr. White are liable for the death of Mr. Green as principals by direct participation. They were the ones who participated in the criminal resolution and who carried out their plan and personally took part in its execution by acts which directly tended to the same end. Mr. Red cannot be held criminally liable as principal by inducement because his
90
TRUE or FALSE. Answer TRUE if the statement is true, or FALSE if the statement is false. Explain your answer in not more than two (2) sentences. (5%)
rendered the victim defenseless and without any chance to retaliate, by tying his hands at his back before attacking him. Treachery exists at least in the second and final stage of the attack, after the offenders caught up with the victim.
Page
Art. 14: Use of an unlicensed firearm in homicide or murder (2009)
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
ART. 17Principals by direct participation and co-principal by indispensable cooperation (2000) Despite the massive advertising campaign in media against firecrackers and gun-firing during the New Year's celebrations. Jonas and Jaja bought ten boxes of super lolo and pla-pla in Bocaue, Bulacan. Before midnight of December 31,1999, Jonas and Jaja started their celebration by having a drinking spree at Jona's place by exploding their high-powered firecrackers in their neighborhood. In the course of their conversation, Jonas confided to Jaja that he has been keeping a long-time grudge against his neighbor Jepoy in view of the tatter's refusal to lend him some money. While under the influence of liquor, Jonas started throwing lighted super lolos inside Jepoy's fence to irritate him and the same exploded inside the tatter's yard. Upon knowing that the throwing of the super lolo was deliberate, Jepoy became furious and
If you were the judge, how would you decide the case? Explain. (1%) SUGGESTED ANSWER: I would convict Jonas as principal by direct participation and Jaja as co-principal by indispensable cooperation for the complex crime of murder with homicide. Jaja should be held liable as co-principal and not only as an accomplice because he knew of Jonas' criminal design even before he lent his firearm to Jonas and still he concurred in that criminal design by providing the firearm. ART. 17 Principal Accessory (1987)
by
inducement;
Juan had a land dispute with Pedro for a number of years. As Juan was earning down his house, he saw his brother, Rodolfo attack Pedro with a bolo from behind. Rodolfo was about to hit Pedro a second time while the latter was prostrate
91
B. Mr. Blue and Mr. White are liable as principals by direct participation for the crime of physical injuries for hurting Ms. Yellow to the extent of the injuries inflicted. Having no participation in the attack upon Ms. Yellow, Mr. Red would have no criminal liability therefor.
sternly warned Jonas to stop his malicious act or he would get what he wanted. A heated argument between Jonas and Jepoy ensued but Jaja tried to calm down his friend. At midnight, Jonas convinced Jaja to lend him his .45 caliber pistol so that he could use it to knock down Jepoy and to end his arrogance. Jonas thought that after all, explosions were everywhere and nobody would know who shot Jepoy. After Jaja lent his firearm to Jonas, the latter again started started throwing lighted super lolos and pla-plas at Jepoy’s yard in order to provoke him so that he would come out of his house. When Jepoy came out, Jonas immediately shot him with Jaja’s .45 caliber gun but missed his target. Instead, the bullet hit Jepoy's five year old son who was following behind him, killing the boy instantaneously.
Page
statement that Mr. Blue and Mr. White are to take care of Mr. Green was not made directly with the intention of procuring the commission of the crime. There is no showing that the words uttered by him may be considered as so efficacious and powerful so as to amount to physical or moral coercion (People v. Assad, G.R. No. L-33673, February 24, 1931). Neither is there evidence to show that Mr. Red has an ascendancy or influence over Mr. White and Mr. Blue (People v. Abarri, F.R. No. 90815, March 1, 1995).
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
SUGGESTED ANSWER: Jose, father of Juan and Rodolfo, is an accessory to the crime of murder committed by Rodolfo because he assisted him to escape to Manila. But he is not criminally liable because of his relationship to Rodolfo (Article 20). He is not an accessory to the crime of homicide, because this crime is not included in treason, parricide, muraer, attempt against the life of the Chief Executive or the principal is known to be habitually guilty of some other crime if the accessory is a private person. However, this is moot and academic because of the relationship of Jose to Rodolfo.
by
inducement;
Nel learned that Elgar, the owner of the biggest house in the place, would be out of town for three days with no one left to watch the house. He called his friends Ben, Ardo and Gorio and they planned to take the valuables in the house while Elgar was away. Nel and Ben would go inside the house, Ardo would serve as the lookout, while Gorio would stay in the getaway car. When Elgar left, they carried out their plan to the letter. Nel and Ben went inside the house through the backdoor which was left unlocked. None of the rooms and drawers inside were locked. They took the money, jewelry and other valuables therefrom and immediately left using the getaway car. After driving for about one kilometer, Nel realized he left his bag and wallet with IDs in the house and so he instructed Gorio to drive back to the house. Nel just went in thinking that the house was still empty. But to his surprise, Nel found Fermin seated on a bench with Nel's bag and wallet beside him and appeared to be texting using his smart phone. Nel took a golf club near him and hit Fermin with it. Fermin shouted for help, but Nel kept hitting him until he stopped making noise. The noise alerted the neighbor who called the police. Nel, Ben, Ardo and Gorio were caught. Fermin died. What is the criminal liability of Nel, Ben, Ardo and Gorio? Explain. SUGGESTED ANSWER: Nel, Ben, Ardo and Gorio are criminally liable as principals for the crime of Theft. They conspired to take Elgar’s personal properties without his knowledge, with intent to gain, and without violence against or intimidation of persons or force upon things (Art. 308, RPC) Nel and Ben entered the house through an unlocked backdoor
92
What crimes, if any, did (a) Rodolfo, (b) Juan and Jose commit? Explain your answer and state whether the acts committed are accompanied by circumstances affecting criminal liability.
ART. 17 Principal Accessory (2015)
Page
on the ground, when Carling, Pedro’s son, shouted, “I’ll kill you.” This distracted Rodolfo who then turned ter Carling. Rodolfo and Carling fought with their bolos. While the two were fighting, Juan shouted to his brother Rodolfo: “Kill them both, they are our enemies.” Calling suffered a number of wounds and died on the spot, Pedro who was in serious condition was rushed to the hospital. He died five days later for loss of blood because the blood purchased from Manila which could have saved him, according to the doctor, did not arrive on time, Jose, father of Juan and Rodolfo, told his sons to hide in Manila and he gave them money for the purpose. When the police investigators saw Jose, he told the police investigators that Juan and Rodolfo went to Mindanao.
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
ART. 17 Principal Accessory (1989)
by
inducement;
Mario, a law student, wanted to avenge the death of his brother, Jose, in the hands of Pedro and his gang. So, Mario talked to Dalmacio, known tough guy, to kill Pedro by promising him P50,000 to be paid after he had accomplished the killing. Dalmacio agreed. Since Pedro was to appear in court the following day at 9:00 a.m. at the city hall to attend the hearing involving the death of Jose, Mario told Dalmacio to carry out the plan at that exact time in the court room, to which Dalmacio assented. At 8:50 a.m., Mario went to see Captain Malonso of the Police Department and told him that Dalmacio would kill Pedro at 9:00 a.m. at the city hall. He asked Captain Malonso to prevent it and so the latter rushed to the city hall but arrived at 9:05 a.m. when Dalmacio had already killed Pedro. Is Mario liable as
SUGGESTED ANSWER: Mario is a principal by inducement. By promising to give P50,000.00 to Dalmacio, which is an agreement for a consideration for the purpose of avenging his brother's death the inducement was made directly with the intention of procuring the commission of the crime. Furthermore, the facts show that Dalmacio has no personal reason to kill Pedro except the inducement, which is therefore the determining cause for the commission of the crime by Dalmacio. Mario's change of mind and heart at the last minute, which did not, after all, prevent the consummation of the crime, because it was too late, does not alter the course of his criminal liability as a co-principal by inducement. Desistance from carrying out a criminal design is no defense if such desistance has not actually and successfully prevented the commission of the crime. ART. 17 Principal Accessory (2002)
by
inducement;
A asked B to kill C because of a grave injustice done to A by C. A promised B a reward. B was willing to kill C, not so much because of the reward promised to him but because he also had his own long-standing grudge against C, who had wronged him in the past. If C is killed by B, would A be liable as a principal by inducement? (5%) SUGGESTED ANSWER: No. A would not be liable as a principal by inducement because the reward he promised S is not the sole impelling reason which made B to kill C. To bring about
93
Nel, however, is also liable for the separate crime of Homicide for the death of Fermin. The killing of Fermin was a separate act and was not a necessary means for committing Theft (Art. 48, RPC) because the latter crime was already consummated. Nel killed Fermin for a different reason perhaps because of his anger that Fermin was in possession of his bag and wallet and appeared to be using his smart phone to contact the police.
co-principal with Dalmacio for the killing of Pedro? Give your reasons.
Page
and took the valuables from the rooms and drawers that wer likewise left unlocked. Nel and Ben are liable as principals by direct participation while Ardo and Gorio are principals by indispensable cooperation because they have concurred in the criminal resolution and cooperated by performing another act as lookout and driver of a getaway car, respectively, which were indispensable for the commission of the crime (Art. 17, RPC).
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
To secure a release of his brother Willy, a detention prisoner, and his cousin Vincent, who is serving sentence for homicide, Chito asked the RTC Branch Clerk of Court to issue an Order which would allow the two prisoners to be brought out of jail. At first, the Clerk refused, but when Chita gave her P50,000.00, she consented. She then prepared an Order requiring the appearance in court of Willy and Vincent, ostensibly as witnesses in a pending case. She forged the judge's signature, and delivered the Order to the jail warden who, in turn, allowed Willy and Vincent to go out of jail in the company of an armed escort, Edwin. Chito also gave Edwin P50,000.00 to leave the two inmates unguarded for three minutes and provide them with an opportunity to escape. Thus, Willy and Vincent were able to escape. What crime or crimes, if any, had been committed by Chito, Willy, Vincent, the Branch Clerk of court, Edwin, and the jail warden? Explain your answer. (5%) SUGGESTED ANSWER: The crimes committed in this case are as follows:
Willy committed the crime of Delivery of Prisoners from Jail (Art. 156, RPC) as a principal by indispensable cooperation if he was aware of the criminal plan of Chito to have them escape from prison and he did escape pursuant to such criminal plan; otherwise he would not be liable for said crime if he escaped pursuant to human instinct only. Vincent, being a prisoner serving sentence by final judgment, committed the crime of Evasion of Service of Sentence (Art. 157, RPC) for escaping during the term of his imprisonment. The Branch Clerk of Court committed the crimes of: 1. Direct Bribery (Art. 210, RPC) for accepting the P50,000.00 - in consideration of the order she issued to enable the prisoners to get out of jail; 2. Falsification of Public Document for forging the judge's signature on said Order (Art. 171, RPC); 3. Delivery of Prisoners from Jail (Art. 156, RPC), as a co-principal of Chito by indispensable cooperation for making the false Order and forging the judge's signature thereon, to enable the prisoners to get out of jail; 4. 4. Evasion of Service of Sentence (Art. 157, RPC); as a co-principal of Vincent by indispensable cooperation for
94
ART 17- Principal by indispensable cooperation; principal by inducement (2009)
Chito committed the crimes of Delivery of Prisoners from Jail (Art. 156, RPC) for working out the escape of prisoners Willy and Vincent; Two counts of Corruption of Public Officials (Art. 212, RPC); and 3. Falsification of Public Documents, as a principal by inducement (Art. 172 [1], RPC).
Page
criminal liability of a co-principal, the inducement made by the inducer must be the sole consideration which caused the person induced to commit the crime and without which the crime would not have been committed. The facts of the case indicate that B, the killer supposedly induced by A, had his own reason to kill C out of a long standing grudge.
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
1. Infidelity in the Custody of Prisoners, specifically conniving with or consenting to Evasion for leaving unguarded the prisoners escorted by him and provide them an opportunity to escape (Art. 223, RPC); 2. Direct Bribery for receiving the P50,000.00 as consideration for leaving the prisoners unguarded and allowing them the opportunity to escape (Art. 210, RPC); The jail warden did not commit nor incur a crime there being no showing that he was aware of what his subordinates had done nor of any negligence on his part that would amount to infidelity in the custody of prisoners.
ACCOMPLICES ART. 18- Who is an accomplice? (2012) A: Accomplices are those persons who, not being the principal, cooperate in the execution of the offense by previous or simultaneous acts (Art. 18, RPC). ART. 18 Accomplice vs Conspirator: Distinctions (2007, 2012) Distinguish between an accomplice and a conspirator. SUGGESTED ANSWER: The distinctions between an accomplice and a conspirator are: 1. An accomplice incurs criminal liability by merely cooperating in the
Accomplice (1) Community of criminal design; that is, knowing the criminal design of the principal by direct participation, he concurs with the latter in his purpose; (2) the performance of the previous or simultaneous acts that are not indispensible to the commission of the crime Conspirator (1) that the agreement concerned the commission of a crime; (2) that two or more persons come to an agreement; (3) that the execution of the felony was decided upon.
95
Edwin, the jail guard who escorted the prisoners in getting out of jail, committed the crimes of –
execution of the crime without participating as a principal, by prior or simultaneous acts; whereas a conspirator participates in the commission of a crime as a coprincipal. 2. An accomplice incurs criminal liability in an individual capacity by his act alone of cooperating in the execution of the crime; while a conspirator incurs criminal liability not only for his individual acts in the execution of the crime but also for the acts of the other participants in the commission of the crime collectively. The acts of the other participants in the execution of the crime are considered also as acts of a conspirator for purposes of collective criminal responsibility. 3. An accomplice participates in the execution of a crime when the criminal design or plan is already in place; whereas a conspirator participates in the adoption or making of the criminal design. 4. An accomplice is subjected to a penalty one degree lower than that of a principal; whereas a conspirator incurs the penalty of a principal. 5. As to Requisites
Page
making the false Order that enabled Vincent to evade service of his sentence;
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
ART. 18 Accomplice vs Conspirator (1998)
ACCESSORIES
Juan and Arturo devised a plan to murder Joel. In a narrow alley near Joel's house, Juan will hide behind the big lamppost and shoot Joel where the latter passes through on his way to work. Arturo will come from the other end of the alley and simultaneously shoot Joel from behind. On the appointed day, Arturo was apprehended by the authorities before reaching the alley. When Juan shot Joel as planned, he was unaware that Arturo was arrested earlier. Discuss the criminal liability of Arturo, if any. 15%
Art. 19. Accessories And Art. 20 Accessories who are exempt; In relation to Composite crime of rape with homicide; theft (1998)
Later, King gave Jose, his legitimate brother, one piece of jewelry belonging to Laura. Jose knew that the jewelry was taken from Laura but nonetheless he sold it for P2.000. What crime or crimes did King, Doming and Jose commit? Discuss their criminal liabilities. (10% SUGGESTED ANSWER: King committed the composite crime of Rape with homicide as a single indivisible offense, not a complex crime, and Theft. The taking of Laura's jewelry when she is already dead is only theft. Doming's acts, having been done with knowledge of the commission of the crime and obviously to conceal the body of the crime to prevent its discovery, makes him an accessory to the crime of rape with homicide under Art. 19, par. 2 of the Rev. Penal Code, but he is exempt from criminal liability therefor under Article 20 of the
96
Arturo, being one of the two who devised the plan to murder Joel, thereby becomes a co-principal by direct conspiracy. What is needed only is an overt act and both will incur criminal liability. Arturo's liability as a conspirator arose from his participation in jointly devising the criminal plan with Juan, to kill Jose. And it was pursuant to that conspiracy that Juan killed Joel. The conspiracy here is actual, not by inference only. The overt act was done pursuant to that conspiracy whereof Arturo is coconspirator. There being a conspiracy, the act of one is the act of all. Arturo, therefore, should be liable as a co-conspirator but the penalty on him may be that of an accomplice only (People vs. Nierra, 96 SCRA1; People vs. Medrano, 114 SCRA 335) because he was not able to actually participate in the shooting of Joel, having been apprehended before reaching the place where the crime was committed.
Doming, King's adopted brother, learned about the incident. He went to Laura's house, hid her body, cleaned everything and washed the bloodstains inside the room.
Page
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
King went to the house of Laura who was alone. Laura offered him a drink and after consuming three bottles of beer. King made advances to her and with force and violence, ravished her. Then King killed Laura and took her jewelry.
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
ART 19- Accessories (2013) Modesto and Abelardo are brothers. Sometime in August 1998 while Abelardo was in his office, Modesto, together with two other men in police uniform, came with two heavy bags. Modesto asked Abelardo to keep the two bags in his vault until he comes back to get them. When Abelardo later examined the two bags, he saw bundles of money that, in his rough count, could not be less than P5 Million. He kept the money inside the vault and soon he heard the news that a gang that included Modesto had been engaged in bank robberies. Abelardo, unsure of what to do under the circumstances, kept quiet about the two bags in his vault. Soon after, the police captured, and secured a confession from, Modesto who admitted that their loot had been deposited with Abelardo. What is Abelardo's liability? SUGGESTED ANSWER Abelardo is not criminally liable. To be criminally liable as an accessory under Art. 19, such person must have knowledge of the commission of the crime. The term
ART 19- Accessories (2009) Ponciano borrowed Ruben's gun, saying that he would use it to kill Freddie. Because Ruben also resented Freddie, he readily lent his gun, but told Ponciano: "0, pagkabaril mo kay Freddie, isauli mo kaagad, ha." Later, Ponciano killed Freddie, but used a knife because he did not want Freddie's neighbors to hear the gunshot. A. What, if any, is the liability of Ruben? Explain. (3%) B. Would your answer be the same if, instead of Freddie, it was Manuel, a relative of Ruben, who was killed by Ponciano using Ruben's gun? Explain. (3%) SUGGESTED ANSWER: A. Ruben's liability is that of an accomplice only because he merely cooperated in Ponciano's determination to kill Freddie. Such cooperation is not indispensable to the killing, as in fact the killing was carried out without the use of Ruben's gun. Neither may Ruben be regarded as a co-conspirator since he was not a participant in the decisionmaking of Ponciano to kill Freddie; he merely cooperated in carrying out the criminal plan which was already in place (Art. 18, RPC). B. No. The answer would not be the same because Ruben lent his gun purposely for the killing of Freddie only, not
97
Jose incurs criminal liability either as an accessory to the crime of theft committed by King, or as fence. Although he is a legitimate brother of King, the exemption under Article 20 does not include the participation he did, because he profited from the effects of such theft by selling the jewelry knowing that the same was taken from Laura. Or Jose may be prosecuted for fencing under the Anti-Fencing Law of 1979 (PD No. 1612) since the jewelry was the proceeds of theft and with intent to gain, he received it from King and sold it.
“knowledge “under the law is not synonymous with suspicion. Mere suspicion that the crime has been committed is not sufficient. Even if he can be considered as an accessory under Art. 19(2) of RPC, Abelardo is not liable, being the brother of Modesto under Art. 20, RPC.
Page
Code, being an adopted brother of the principal.
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
A. Did Juanito commit any crime? B. Would the situation be different if at the time Ricardo secured the professional services of Juanito, ABC Insurance Company had already paid Sing Hua the insurance and the latter had in turn paid Ricardo 10% thereof?
ART. 19- Accessories (1987)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Ricardo secured the services of Atty. Juanito to defend him in an arson case pending in court. Juanito asked his client what actually happened. Ricardo informed his lawyer that Sing Hua, owner of a department store, hired him to bum the store because Sing Hua was losing heavily and wanted to get the insurance on the store. Ricardo said that Sing Hua paid him P5,000.00, and promised an additional 10% of the proceeds of the PI0,000,000.00 lire insurance once this was collected from the insurance company. He further said that Sing Hna’s claim for payment of the fire insurance was still pending and its approval depended on the outcome of the arson case. This meant that the ABC Insurance Company would pay the claim should Ricardo be acquitted in the arson case. Then he would also get the 10% share of the fire insurance proceeds. He told lawyer Juanito that by depending him in the arson case, the latter would be helping collect the 10% which would amount of P1,000,000.00. After hearing Ricardo’s story, Atty. Juanito told him he could not further give him professional advice or services and so Ricardo left That same
A. Juanito did not commit any crime. By telling Ricardo that he could not give him professional advice or services, after being informed that the owner of the department store hired him to bum the store because it was losing heavily and wanted to get the insurance on the store, and that he was paid already P5,000 with a promise of an additional 10% of the proceeds of the PI0,000,000 fire insurance once collected from the insurance company, Atty. Juanito complied with his obligation as a lawyer to report to the authorities whatever knowledge he has regarding the commission of a crime. B. Juanito will be liable as an accessory because by accepting 10% of the insurance proceeds even in payment of the professional services, he profited or assisted the principal, Ricardo, to profit from the proceeds of the commission of the crime. ART. 19- Accessories (1989) Emilio and Andres were walking home from the farm at 8:00 o’clock in the evening
98
It has been ruled that when the owner of the gun knew that it would be used to kill a particular person, but the offender used it to kill another person, the owner of the gun is not an accomplice as to the killing of the other person. While there was community of design to kill Freddie between Ponciano and Ruben, there was none with respect to the killing of Manuel.
day, Juanito went to the NBI and told the NBI what Ricardo narrated him. The NBI alerted ABC Insurance Company, which immediately denied the daim for payment of insurance and filed a complaint for attempted estafa through arson against Sing Hua and Ricardo.
Page
for any other killing. Ponciano's using Ruben's gun in killing a person other than Freddie is beyond Ruben's criminal intent and willing involvement. Only Ponciano will answer for the crime against Manuel.
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
If I were the fiscal, I would file two separate informations against Emilio and Andres, one for homicide with Emilio as principal and Andres as accessory, and another for theft against both Emilio and Andres as principals. This is so because of the following reasons: 1. The killing of Asiong by Emilio is homicide. It is not attended by any qualifying circumstance of murder. It was a killing at the spur of the moment, in the course of a bolo fight, as an aftermath of a heated discussion. 2. Neither was the killing by reason of or on the occasion of a robbery. There was no intention of either Emilio or Andres to rob Asiong either prior to or in the course of the killing. The taking of Asiong’s P600.00 was only an AFTERTHOUGHT, after the killing was already perpetrated. There is no
With respect to the taking of the P600.00 which Emilio and Andres divided between themselves, they committed the crime of theft as co-principals. Theft because with intent to gain but without violence against or intimidation of persons no force upon things, they took personal property of another without the latter’s consent. They acted with unity of purposes and intention, thus making them co-principals by direct participation. ART. 19- Accessories (2004) B. DCB, the daughter of MCB, stole the earrings of XYZ, a stranger. MCB pawned the earrings with TBI Pawnshop as a pledge for P500 loan. During the trial, MCB raised the defense that being the mother of DCB, she cannot be held liable as an accessory. Will MCB’s defense prosper? Reason briefly. (5%) SUGGESTED ANSWER: B. No, MCB’s defense will not prosper because the exemption from criminal liability of an accessory by virtue of
99
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
causal or other connection between the act of killing and the act of taking the money. 3. Andres is liable as an accessory in the homicide case because he had no participation either as co-principal or accomplice in the killing of Asiong who died solely because of the wounds inflicted on him in his bolo-fight with Emilio, the principal. However, when Andres agreed to help Emilio carry the body of Asiong and bury it behind the bushes, thus concealing or destroying the body of the crime (corpus delicti) to prevent its discovery, he became an accessory to the crime of homicide (Art. 19, RPC).
Page
when they met Asiong whom Emilio suspected as the one who stole his fighting cock two (2) days before; Emilio confronted Asiong and after a heated discussion, a bolo fight between the two (2) ensued. Asiong sustained fatal wounds and died. Emilio asked Andres to help him carry the body of Asiong and bury it behind the bushes. After burying Asiong, Emilio picked up the jute bag Asiong was then holding and found inside P600 which Emilio and Andres divided each getting P300. A week after the investigation by the police, a complaint was filed in the Office of Provincial Fiscal against Emilio and Andres for robbery with homicide with the aggravating circumstances of nighttime and uninhabited place. If you were the fiscal, what information or information will you file against Emilio and Andres? What are their respective criminal liabilities?
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
Immediately after murdering Bob, Jake went to his mother to seek refuge. His mother told him to hide in the maid's quarters until she finds a better place for him to hide. After two days, Jake transferred to his aunt's house. A week later, Jake was apprehended by the police. Can Jake's mother and aunt be made criminally liable as accessories to the crime of murder? Explain. (3%) SUGGESTED ANSWER: Obviously, Jake's mother was aware of her son's having committed a felony, such that her act of harboring and concealing him renders her liable as an accessory. But being an ascendant of Jake, she is exempt from criminal liability by express provision of Article 20 of the Revised Penal Code. On the other hand, the criminal liability of Jake's aunt depends on her knowledge of the felony committed by Jake. If she had knowledge of his commission of the felony, her act of harboring and concealing Jake would render her criminally liable as accessory to the crime of murder; otherwise without knowledge of Jake's commission of the felony, she would not be liable. ART. 19- Accessories (2008)
a) Can he be held liable for the charge? Explain. (4%) (2008 Bar Question) SUGGESTED ANSWER: a) Giving Domeng the benefit of a milder criminal responsibility of an accomplice, not of a co-principal by indispensable cooperation of Manolo, Mayor Tan could not be liable as an accessory to Cece's murder. To incur criminal liability of an accessory for helping or assisting in the escape of an offender, he must be a principal of the crime committed. Unless Domeng would be considered as a coprincipal by indispensable cooperation in the commission of the murder, the Mayor, by assisting him to escape, would be an accessory to the felony. a) Decree Penalizing Obstruction of Apprehension and Prosecution of Criminal Offenders (P.D.1829) (i) Punishable acts (ii) Compare with Art. 20, RPC (accessories exempt from criminal liability) ART. 19- Accessories (2008) Mancolo revealed to his friend Domeng his desire to kill Cece. He likewise confided to Domeng his desire to borrow his revolver. Domeng lent it. Manolo shot Cece in Manila
100
ART. 19- Accessories (2010)
Mancolo revealed to his friend Domeng his desire to kill Cece. He likewise confided to Domeng his desire to borrow his revolver. Domeng lent it. Manolo shot Cece in Manila with Domeng's revolver. As his gun was used in the killing, Domeng asked Mayor Tan to help him escape. The mayor gave Domeng P5,000 and told him to proceed to Mindanao to hide. Domeng went to Mindanao. The mayor was later charged as an accessory to Cece's murder.
Page
relationship with the principal does not cover accessories who themselves profited from or assisted the offender to profit by the effects or proceeds of the crime. This nonexemption of an accessory, though related to the principal of the crime, is expressly provided in Art. 20 of the Revised Penal Code.
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
SUGGESTED ANSWER: b) Although the Mayor may not be held liable as an accessory to the killing of Cece, he may be held liable for obstruction of justice under Presidential Decree No. 1829 for assisting Domeng, who was involved in the commission of a crime, to escape from Manila to Mindanao. PENALTIES ART 25- PENALTIES WHICH MAY BE IMPOSED A. State the two classes of penalties under the revised Penal Code. Define each. (1988 Bar Question) B. May censure be included in a sentence of acquittal? Why or why not? (1988 Bar Question) C. What offenses, if any, may be punished with the death penalty in our jurisdiction at present? Explain. (1988 Bar Question) SUGGESTED ANSWER: A. The two classes of penalties under Article 25 of the Revise Penal Code are as follows: Principal Accessory
B. Censure may not be included in a sentence of acquittal, because a censure is a penalty. Censure is repugnant and is essentially inconsistent and contrary to an acquittal (People vs. Abellera, 69 Phil. 623.) C. At present, no offense may be punished with the death penalty in our jurisdiction at present. The 1987 Constitution has abolished the death penalty and the abolition affects even those who has already been sentenced to death penalty. Therefore, unless Congress enacts a law, no offense may be punished with the death penalty at present. But until today, Congress has not yet passed a law to this effect. Duration and Effect Imposition (1991)
of
Penalties,
Imagine that you are a Judge trying a case, and based on the evidence presented and the applicable law, you have decided on the guilt of two (2) accused. Indicate the five (5) steps you would follow to determine the exact penalty to be imposed. Stated differently, what are the factors you must consider to arrive at the correct penalty? (1991 Bar Question) SUGGESTED ANSWER: 1. Determine the crime committed; 2. Stage of execution and degree of participation; 3. Determine the penalty;
101
Can he be held liable for any other offense? Explain fully. (3%)
A principal penalty is defined as that provided for a felony and which is imposed by court expressly upon conviction. An accessory penalty is defined as that deemed included in the imposition of the principal penalty.
Page
with Domeng's revolver. As his gun was used in the killing, Domeng asked Mayor Tan to help him escape. The mayor gave Domeng P5,000 and told him to proceed to Mindanao to hide. Domeng went to Mindanao. The mayor was later charged as an accessory to Cece's murder.
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
4. Consider the modifying circumstances; 5. Determine whether Indeterminate Sentence Law is applicable or not. Penalties,
A and B pleaded guilty to the crime of parricide. The court found three mitigating circumstances, namely, plea of guilty, lack of instruction and lack of intent to commit so grave a wrong as that committed. The prescribed penalty for parricide is reclusion perpetua to death. Impose the proper principal penalty. (1997 Bar Question) SUGGESTED ANSWER: The proper penalty is reclusion perpetua. Even if there are two or more mitigating circumstances, a court cannot lower the penalty by one degree (Art. 63. par. 3, Revised Penal Code; People vs. Formigones, 87 Phil. 685). In U.S. vs. Relador, 60 Phil. 593, where the crime committed was parricide with the two (2) mitigating circumstances of illiteracy and lack of intention to commit so grave a wrong, and with no aggravating circumstance, the Supreme Court held that the proper penalty to be imposed is reclusion perpetua. Duration and Effect of Penalties, Imposition (1997) A was convicted of the complex crime of death through falsification of public document. Since the amount involved did not exceed P200.00, the penalty prescribed by law for estafa is arresto mayor in its medium and maximum periods. The penalty prescribed by law for
SUGGESTED ANSWER: The proper penalty is ANY RANGE WITHIN prision correccional (six (6) months and one (1) day to six (6) years) as MINIMUM, to ANY RANGE within prision mayor maximum (ten (10) years and one (1) day to twelve (12) years) as MAXIMUM. This is in accordance with People vs. Gonzales, 73 Phil. 549. where it was ruled that for the purpose of determining the penalty next lower in degree, the penalty that should be considered as a starting point is the whole of prision mayor, it being the penalty prescribed by law, and not prision mayor in its maximum period, which is only the penalty actually applied because of Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code. The penalty next lower in degree therefor is prision correctional and it is within the range of this penalty that the minimum should be taken. Duration and Effect Imposition (1997)
of
Penalties,
Assume In the preceding problem that there were two mitigating circumstances and no aggravating circumstance. Impose the proper prison penalty. (1997 Bar Question) SUGGESTED ANSWER: There being two (2) mitigating circumstances without any aggravating circumstance, the proper prison penalty is arresto mayor (in any of Its periods, le. ranging from one (1) month and one (1) day to six (6) months) as MINIMUM to prision
102
of
Impose the proper prison penalty. (1997 Bar Question)
Page
Duration and Effect Imposition (1997)
falsification of public document is prision mayor plus fine not to exceed P5.000.00.
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
correctional in its maximum period four (4) years, two (2) months, and one (1) day to six (6) years as MAXIMUM. Under Art. 64, par. 5 of the Revised Penal Code, when a penalty contains three periods, each one of which forms a period In accordance with Article 76 and 77 of the same Code, and there are two or more mitigating circumstances and no aggravating circumstances, the penalty next lower in degree should be Imposed. For purposes of the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the penalty next lower In degree should be determined without regard as to whether the basic penalty provided by the Revised Penal Code should be applied In its maximum or minimum period as circumstances modifying liability may require. The penalty next lower In degree to priskm correctional Therefore, as previously stated, the minimum should be within the range of arresto mayor and the maximum is within the range of prision correccional maltnits maximum period.
accused who is insolvent and unable to pay the fine, shall serve the subsidiary imprisonment. b) The judge may not validly impose an alternative penalty. Although the law may prescribe an alternative penalty for a crime, it does not mean that the court may impose the alternative penalties at the same time. The sentence must be definite, otherwise the judgment cannot attain finality. Civil Indemnity The accused was found guilty of 10 counts of rape for having carnal knowledge with the same woman. In addition to the penalty of imprisonment, he was ordered to pay indemnity in the amount of P50,000.00 for each count. On appeal, the accused questions the award of civil indemnity for each count, considering that the victim is the same woman. How would you rule on the contention of the accused? Explain. (3%) (2005 Bar Question)
Alternative Penalty SUGGESTED ANSWER:
SUGGESTED ANSWER: a) Imposing the penalty of fine jointly and severally on the two convicted accused is not proper. The penalty should be imposed individually on every person accused of the crime. Any of the convicted
Reclusion Perpetua Imprisonment (1994)
vs
Life
Differentiate reclusion perpetua from life imprisonment. SUGGESTED ANSWER:
103
a) Is the penalty proper? Explain. b) May the judge impose an alternative penalty of fine or imprisonment? Explain. (4%) (2005 Bar Question)
The contention of the accused is without merit. Each count of rape is a violation of the person of the victim and thus gives rise to corresponding criminal and civil liabilities. The trial court is correct in imposing a penalty for each rape and awarding corresponding civil indemnity for each count even though the victim is the same woman. Rape is not a continued crime.
Page
E and M are convicted of a penal law that imposes a penalty of fine or imprisonment or both fine and imprisonment. The judge sentenced them to pay the fine, jointly and severally, with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency.
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
vs
Life
After trial. Judge Juan Laya of the Manila RTC found Benjamin Garcia guilty of Murder, the victim having sustained several bullet wounds In his body so that he died despite medical assistance given in the Ospital ng Maynlla Because the weapon usfed by Benjamin was unlicensed and the qualifying circumstance of treachery was found to be present, Judge Laya rendered his decision convicting Benjamin and sentencing him to "reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment". Are "reclusion perpetua" and life imprisonment the same and can be imposed interchangeably as in the foregoing sentence? Or are they totally different? State your reasons. (3%)
Life imprisonment, on the other hand, is a penalty prescribed by special laws, with no fixed duration of imprisonment and without any accessory penalty. Reclusion Perpetua Imprisonment (2009)
vs
Life
TRUE or FALSE. Answer TRUE if the statement is true, or FALSE if the statement is false. Explain your answer in not more than two (2) sentences. (5%) (2009 Bar Question) Life imprisonment is a penalty more favorable to the convict than reclusion perpetua. SUGGESTED ANSWER: False. Life imprisonment is unfavorable to a convict because the penalty is without a fixed duration, unlike the penalty of reclusion perpetua which has a fixed duration of 40 years and the convict may be eligible for pardon after 30 years of imprisonment (People v. Penillos, 205 SCRA 546 (1992). ART 27 – Penalties – perpetua; pecuniary pecuniary liabilities
Reclusion penalties;
SUGGESTED ANSWER: Under Article 27 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act (RA)
104
Reclusion Perpetua Imprisonment (2001)
Reclusion perpetua is a penalty prescribed by the Revised Penal Code, with a fixed duration of imprisonment from 20 years and 1 day to 40 years, and carries it with accessory penalties.
Page
Reclusion perpetua is that penalty provided for in the Revised Penal Code for crimes defined in and penalized therein except for some crimes defined by special laws which impose reclusion perpetua, such as violations of Republic Act 6425, as amended by Republic Act 7659 or of PD 1860; while life imprisonment is a penalty usually provided for in special laws. Reclusion perpetua has a duration of twenty (20) years and one (1) day to forty (40) years under Republic Act 7659, while life imprisonment has no duration; reclusion perpetua maybe reduced by one or two degrees; reclusion perpetua has accessory penalties while life imprisonment does not have any accessory penalties (People vs. Baguio. 196 SCRA 459, People vs. Panellos, 205 SCRA 546).
The penalty of reclusion perpetua and the penalty of life imprisonment are totally different from each other and therefore, should not he used interchangeably.
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
No. 7659, reclusion perpetua shall be from 20 years and 1 day to 40 years. Does this mean that reclusion perpetua is now a divisible penalty? Explain. (2%) (2005 Bar Question)
The first two liabilities (nos. 1 and 2) are payable as civil indemnity to the private parties offended by the crime; while the last two (nos. 3 and 4) are payable to the Government.
SUGGESTED ANSWER: ART 39-SUBSIDIARY PENALTY
Distinguish pecuniary penalties from pecuniary liabilities. (2%) (2005 Bar Question) SUGGESTED ANSWER: Pecuniary penalties are those which a convicted offender may be required to pay in money to the Government. These are: -
fine; and costs of the proceedings.
Pecuniary liabilities, on the other hand, are those which a convicted offender is required to pay in money to the offended party and to the Government. They are: reparation of the damage caused; indemnification of consequential damages; fine; and costs of the proceedings (Art. 38, RPC)
SUGGESTED ANSWER: The petition for habeas corpus will prosper. Subsidiary penalty is not an accessory penalty which inheres to a principal penalty and may therefore be imposed even if it is not expressly provided in the sentence. It is a penalty in lieu of the penalty imposed in the sentence. Hence, unless the judgment or sentence expressly provides for subsidiary imprisonment, the culprit cannot be made to undergo the same (People vs. Fajardo, 65 Phil. 639). In this case, the court merely sentenced Pedro to pay a P3,000.00 fine. It was only LATER that the Court ordered the incarceration of Pedro to serve subsidiary imprisonment AFTER Pedro failed to pay the amount of the fine. Subsidiary imprisonment cannot be imposed unless it is expressly provided in the sentence.
105
ART 38- PECUNIARY LIABILITIES
Pedro was convicted of the crime of damage to property through reckless imprudence for bumping the car of Jose and the court of sentenced him to pay a fine of P3,Q00. Pedro failed to pay die amount of the fine for he was insolvent. Later, the court ordered the incarceration of Pedro so that the latter could serve subsidiary imprisonment to satisfy the fine. Pedro filed a petition for habeas corpus alleging that his confinement is illegal. Will the petition prosper? Give your reasons. (1989 Bar Question)
Page
No, reclusion perpetua is still an indivisible penalty although it has been given a fixed duration by R.A. No. 7659 (an act to impose the Death Penalty on certain Heinous crimes). In an en banc ruling of the Supreme Court in People v. Conrado Lucas 240 SCRA 66 (1995), it was held that reclusion perpetua has remained an indivisible penalty as there is no clear legislative intention to make the penalty divisible.
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
What are the instances when the death penalty could not be imposed, although it should otherwise ordinarily be meted out? (1997 Bar Question) ANSWER: 1. When the guilty party is below 18 years of age at the time of the commission of the crime or when the offender is more than 70 years of age. 2. When upon appeal or automatic review of the case by the Supreme Court, the required majorityvoteisnot obtained for the imposition of the penalty, in which case the penalty shall be reclusion perpetua. Proscription on Death Penalty A. When was the constitutional proscription against the imposition of the death penalty lifted? (1995 Bar Question) B. When is the execution of the death penalty suspended under the Revised Penal Code? (1995 Bar Question) C. When is the death penalty commuted under the same Code? (1995 Bar Question) SUGGESTED ANSWER: A. The constitutional proscription against the imposition of the death penalty was lifted with the enactment of RA 7659, otherwise known as the Heinous Crimes Law, which took effect fifteen (15) days after publication on December 16,1993,thatisonDecember31,1993 {People vs. Martin Simon, 234 SCRA 555). B. Death penalty shall not be executed (a) upon a woman within three years after
Death Penalty The death penalty cannot be inflicted under which of the following circumstances: 1. When the guilty person is at least 18 years of age at the time of the commission of the crime. 2. When the guilty person is more than 70 years of age. 3. When, upon appeal to or automatic review by the Supreme Court, the required majority for the imposition of the death penalty is not obtained. 4. When the person is convicted of a capital crime but before execution becomes insane. 5. When the accused is a woman while she is pregnant or within one year after delivery. Explain your answer or choice briefly. (5%) (2004 Bar Question) SUGGESTED ANSWER: Understanding the word “inflicted" to mean the imposition of the death penalty, not its execution, the circumstance in which the death penalty cannot be inflicted is no. 2: “when the guilty person is more than 70 years of age” (Art. 47, Revised Penal Code). Instead, the penalty shall be commuted to reclusion perpetua, with the accessory penalties provided in Article 40, RPC.
106
(Note: no longer of any force or effect because of the substantive provisions thereof being inconsistent with RA 9346)
date of the sentence, (b) while she is pregnant, (c) upon a person over 70 years old (Art. 83 RPC), or (d) upon a convict who becomes insane after final sentence (Art. 79. RPC). C. When the convict reaches the age of 70 years the death sentence is commuted to reclusion perpetua (Art. 83, RPC).
Page
ART 47- CASES WHEREIN THE DEATH PENALTY SHALL NOT BE IMPOSED
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
In circumtances nos. 4 & 5, the death penalty can be imposed if prescribed by the law violated although its execution shall be suspended when the convict becomes insane before it could be executed and while he is insane. Likewise, the death penalty can be imposed upon a woman but its execution shall be suspended during her pregnancy and for one year after her delivery.
ART.48- Special Complex Crime (2016) A, an OFW, worked in Kuwait for several years as a chief accountant, religiously sending to his wife, B, 80% of all his earnings. After his stint abroad, he was shocked to know that B became the paramour of a married man, C, and that all the monies he sent to B were given by her to C. To avenge his honor, A hired X, Y and Z and told them to kidnap C and his wife, D, so that he can inflict injuries on C to make him suffer, and humiliate him in front of his wife. X, Y and Z were paid P20,000.00 each and were promised a
At midnight, A, with the fully armed X, Y and Z, forcibly opened the door and gained entrance to the house of C and D. C put up a struggle before he was subdued by A's group. They boarded C and D in a van and brought the two to a small hut in a farm outside Metro Manila. Both hands of C and D were tied. With the help of X, Y and Z, A raped D in front of C. X, Y and Z then took turns in raping D, and subjected C to torture until he was black and blue and bleeding profusely from several stab wounds. A and his group set the hut on fire before leaving, killing both C and D. X, Y and Z were paid their reward. Bothered by his conscience, A surrendered the next day to the police, admitting the crimes he committed. As the RTC judge, decide what crime or crimes were committed by A, X, Y and Z, and what mitigating and aggravating circumstances will be applied in imposing the penalty. Explain. (5%) A, X, Y and Z are liable for two counts of kidnapping with murder qualified by means of fire, since C and D were killed in the course of the detention. In a special complex crime of kidnapping with murder, it is immaterial that other crimes were committed such as multiple rapes and arson. Since multiple rapes and arson are committed by reason or on occasion of kidnapping, they shall be integrated into one and indivisible felony of kidnapping with murder (People v. Larranaga, 13887475, 31 January 2004). The mitigating circumstances of passion and voluntary surrender can be appreciated in favor of A. The aggravating circumstances of unlawful entry, by means
107
Circumstance no. 3 no longer operates, considering the decision of the Supreme Court in People vs. Etfren Mateo (G.R. 147678-87, July 7, 2004) providing an intermediate review for such cases where the penalty imposed is death, reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment before they are elevated to the Supreme Court.
reward of P50,000.00 each once the job is done.
Page
In circumstance no. I when the guilty person is at least 18 years of age at the time of the commission of the crime, the death penalty can be imposed since the offender is already of legal age when he committed the crime.
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
Pedro, Pablito, Juan and Julio, all armed with bolos, robbed the house where Antonio, his wife, and three (3) daughters were residing. While the four were ransacking Antonio's house, Julio noticed that one of Antonio's daughters was trying to escape. He chased and caught up with her at a thicket somewhat distant from the house, but before bringing her back, raped her. [a] What crime or crimes, if any, did Pedro, Pablito, Juan and Julio commit? Explain. (2.5%) Julio is liable for special complex crime of robbery with rape since he raped the daughter of Antonio on occasion or by reason of robbery. Even if the place of robbery is different from that of rape, the crime is still robbery with rape since what is important is the direct connection between the two crimes (People v. Canastre, GR No. L-2055, 24 December 1948). Rape was not separated by distance and time from the robbery. Pedro, Pablito and Juan are liable for robbery by band. There is band in this case since more than three armed malefactors took part in the commission of robbery. Under Art. 296 of the RPC, any member of a band, who is present at the commission of a robbery by the band, shall be punished as principal of any of the assaults committed by the band unless it be shown that he attempted to prevent the same. The assault mentioned in Art. 296 includes rape (People v. Hamiana, GR Nos. L-3491094, 30 May 1971). They are not liable,
[b] Suppose, after the robbery, the four took turns in raping the three daughters inside the house, and, to prevent identification, killed the whole family just before they left. What crime or crimes, if any, did the four malefactors commit? (2.5%) ( 2016 BAR) They are liable for a special complex crime of robbery with homicide. In this special complex crime, it is immaterial that several persons are killed. It is also immaterial that aside from the homicides, rapes are committed by reason or on the occasion of the crime. Since homicides are committed by or on the occasion of the robbery, the multiple rapes shall be integrated into one and indivisible felony of robbery with homicide (People v. Diu, GR No. 201449, 3 April 2013). Art. 48. Complex Crimes In relation to Art. 294 (1) Robbery with homicide; direct assault with multiple attempted homicide While Alfredo, Braulio, Ciriaco, and 'Domingo were robbing a bank, policemen arrived. A firefight ensued between the bank robbers and the responding policemen, and one of the policemen was killed. What crime or crimes, if any, had been committed? Explain. (3%) (2009 Bar Question) SUGGESTED ANSWER:
108
ART. 48 in rel ART. 296 (2016)
however, for rape under Art. 296 since they were not present when the victim was raped and thus, they had no opportunity to prevent the same. They are only liable for robbery by band (People v. Anticamaray, GR No. 178771, 8 June 2011).
Page
of fire, and treachery can be appreciated against A, X, Y and Z.
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
Art 48 Complex Crimes, Art 294 Robbery, Art 249 Homicide, Art 320 Arson Criminal law – Felonies - Complex crime of arson with quadruple homicide and robbery; improper charge of offense Harry, an overseas contract worker, arrived from Saudi Arabia with considerable savings. Knowing him to be “loaded", his friends Jason, Manuel and Dave invited him to poker session at a rented beach cottage. When he was losing almost all his money which to him was his savings of a lifetime, he discovered that he was being cheated by his friends. Angered by the betrayal he decided to take revenge on the three cheats. Harry ordered several bottles of Tanduay Rhum and gave them to his companions to drink, as they did, until they all fell asleep. When Harry saw his companions already sound asleep he hacked all of them to
After preliminary investigation, the Provincial Prosecutor charged Harry with the complex crime of arson with quadruple homicide and robbery. Was Harry properly charged? Discuss fully. (1995 Bar Question) SUGGESTED ANSWER: No, Harry was not properly charged. Harry should have been charged with three (3) separate crimes, namely: murder, theft and arson. Harry killed Jason, Manuel and Dave with evident premeditation, as there was considerable lapse of time before he decided to commit the crime and the actual commission of the crime. In addition, Harry employed means which weakened the defense of Jason, Manuel and Dave. Harry gave them the liquor to drink until they were drunk and fell asleep. This gave Harry the opportunity to cany out his plan of murder with impunity. The taking of the money from the victims was a mere afterthought of the killings. Hence, Harry committed the separate crime of theft and not the complex crime of robbery with homicide. Although theft was committed against dead persons, it is still legally possible as the offended party are the estates of the victims.
109
Robbery with Homicide was committed because one of the responding policemen was killed by reason or on occasion of the robbery being committed. The complex crime of Direct Assault with Multiple Attempted Homicide was committed in respect of the offender's firing guns at the responding policemen who are agents of person in authority performing their duty when fired at to frustrate such performance. (People vs. Ladjaalam, G.R. Nos. 136149-51, Sept 19, 2000)
death. Then he remembered his losses. He rifled through the pockets of his victims and got back all the money he lost. He then ran away but not before burning the cottage to hide his misdeed. The following day police investigators found among the debris the charred bodies of Jason, Manuel, Dave and the caretaker of the resort.
Page
The crimes committed are Robbery with homicide (Art. 294(1], RPC), a single indivisible offense, and Direct Assault with Multiple Attempted Homicide, a complex crime (Art. 48, Art. 148 and Art. 249, RPC; People v. Gayrama, 60 Phil. 796 (1934]).
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
Art. 48: Complex crime of Murder, qualified by explosion, with direct assault
Aldrich was dismissed from his job by his employer. Upon reaching home, his pregnant wife, Carmi, nagged him about money for her medicines. Depressed by his dismissal and angered by the nagging of his wife, Aldrich struck Carmi with his fist. She fell to the ground. As a result, she and her unborn baby died.
Two (2) Philippine National Police (PNP) officers, X and Y, on board on motorboat with Z, a civilian as motorman, arrested A and B who were in a banca, for dynamite fishing. The latter’s banca was towed towards the municipality. On the way, the PNP motorboat was intercepted by a third banca whose occupants, C, D. and E, tried to negotiate for the release of A and B and their banca. The PNP officers refused and instead shouted at C, D, and E that they are all under arrest. Thereupon, C, D, and E simultaneously threw dynamite sticks at the PNP motorboats. The first explosion killed X. A and B also reacted by throwing dynamite at the PNP motorboat: its explosion killed Y and Z.
What crime was committed by Aldrich? (1994 Bar Question)
What crime or crimes did A, B, C, D and E commit? (1991 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Aldrich committed the crime of parricide with unintentional abortion. When Aldrich struck his wife, Carmi with his fist, he committed the crime of maltreatment under Art. 266, par. 3 of the Revised Penal Code. Since Carmi died because of the felonious act of Aldrich, he is criminally liable of parricide under Art. 246, RPC in relation to Art. 4, par. 1 of the same Code. Since the unborn baby of Carmi died in the process, but Aldrich had no intention to cause the abortion of his wife, Aldrich committed unintentional abortion as defined in Art.
C, D and E are liable for the complex crime of Murder, qualified by explosion, with direct assault for the death of X. A and B are liable for the complex crime of Murder Qualified by explosion as to death of Y, and simple Murder qualified by explosion for the death of Z.
Art. 48: Complex crime of parricide with unintentional abortion
No crime of direct assault can be filed insofar as the death of Z is concerned, he being a civilian.
110
Hence, Harry was improperly charged with the complex crime of arson with quadruple homicide and robbery. Harry should have been charged with three (3) separate crimes, murder, theft and arson.
257, RPC. Inasmuch as the single act of Aldrich produced two grave or less grave felonies, he falls under Art 48, RPC, i.e. a complex crime [People vs. Salufrancia, 159 SCRA 401).
Page
In burning the cottage to hide his misdeed. Harry became liable for another separate crime, arson. This act of burning was not necessary for the consummation of the two (2) previous offenses he committed. The fact that the caretaker died from the blaze did not qualify Harry’s crime into a complex crime of arson with homicide for there is no such crime.
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
Diego and Pablo were both farmers residing in Barangay Damayan. On one occasion, Diego called Pablo to come down from his house in order to ask him why he got his (Diego’s) plow without permission. One word led to another. Diego, in a fit of anger, unsheathed his bolo and hacked Pablo to death. Pablo’s 9-year old son, Mario, who was inside the house, saw the killing of his father. Afraid that he might also be killed by Diego, Mario covered himself with a blanket and hid in a comer of the house. To conceal the killing of Pablo, Diego brought Pablo’s body inside the house and burned it. Mario was also burned to death. What crime or crimes did Diego commit? (1989 Bar Question) SUGGESTED ANSWER: Diego committed two crimes (1) homicide for the death of Pablo and (2) the special complex crime of arson with homicide as provided in PD 1613 for the burning of the house and the death of Mario. The hacking of Pablo to death is homicide, the killing not being attended by any of the qualifying circumstances of murder. It was killing in the course of a quarrel. The burning of the house to conceal the killing of Pablo is a separate crime. Were it not for the death of Mario, this separate offense would have been arson. But inside
If Diego knew that Mario was house when he set it on fire, committed, instead of arson, MURDER, with fire as the circumstance.
inside the the crime would be qualifying
Art. 48 Special Complex crime of Robbery with Rape After raping the complainant in her house, the accused struck a match to smoke a cigarette before departing from the scene. The brief light from the match allowed him to notice a watch in her wrist. He demanded that she hand over the watch. When she refused, he forcibly grabbed it from her. The accused was charged with and convicted of the special complex crime of robbery with rape. Was the Question)
court
correct?
(1997
Bar
SUGGESTED ANSWER: No, the court erred in convicting the accused of the special complex crime of robbery with rape. The accused should instead be held liable for two (2) separate crimes of robbery and rape, since the primary intent or objective of the accused was only to rape the complainant, and his commission of the robbery was merely an afterthought. The robbery must precede the rape, in order to give rise to the special
111
Art 48: Special Complex Crime In relation to Art. 14: Qualifying Aggravating Circumstance
the house was unknown to Diego, the resulting crime is under PD No. 1613, because the death resulted from the arson. If by reason or on the occasion of the arson, death results, the offense is the special complex or arson with homicide (Sec. 5, PD 1613, which expressly repealed Art. 320 and consequently the ruling case therein, People v. Paterno (L-2665, March 6, 1950).
Page
This, of course, assumes that there is no conspiracy among A, B, C, D and E, otherwise all would have the same criminal liability as the act of one becomes the act of all.
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
court
Art. 48 – Continuing crimes in relation to BP 22
Art. 48 Criminal law – Complex crimes Robbery with Homicide in relation to Art. 297
Angelo devised a Ponzi Scheme in which 500 persons were deceived into investing their money upon a promise of a capital return of 25%, computed monthly, and guaranteed by post-dated checks. During the first two months following the investment, the investors received their profits, but thereafter, Angelo vanished.
Jose, Domingo. Manolo, and Fernando, armed with bolos, at about one o'clock in the morning, robbed a house at a desolate place where Danilo, his wife, and three daughters were living. While the four were in the process of ransacking Danilo’s house, Fernando, noticing that one of Danilo’s daughters was trying to get away, ran after her and finally caught up with her in a thicket somewhat distant from the house. Fernando, before bringing back the daughter to the house, raped her first. Thereafter, the four carted away the belongings of Danilo and his family. Suppose, after the robbery, the four took turns in raping the three daughters of Danilo inside the latter's house, but before they left, they killed the whole family to prevent identification, what crime did the four commit? Explain. (1996 Bar Question) SUGGESTED ANSWER: The crime would be Robbery with Homicide because the killings were by reason (to prevent identification) and on the occasion of the robbery. The multiple rapes committed and the fact that several persons were killed (homicide), would be considered as aggravating circumstances. The rapes are synonymous with ignominy and the additional killing synonymous with cruelty. [People vs. Solis, 182 SCRA: People vs. Plagcu 202 SCRA 531)
Angelo was charged with 500 counts of estafa and 2,000 counts of violation of Batas Pambansa (BP) 22. In his motion to quash, Angelo contends that he committed a continued crime, or delito continuado, hence, he committed only one count of estafa and one count of violation of BP 22. [a] What is delito continuado? (1%) (2009 Bar Question) SUGGESTED ANSWER: Delito continuado refers to a crime constituted by several overt acts committed by the offender in one place, at about the same time, and all such overt acts violate one and the same provision of penal law, thus demonstrating that all such acts are the product of a single indivisible criminal resolution. Hence, all said acts are considered as one crime only. [b] Is Angelo's contention tenable? Explain. (4%) (2009 Bar Question) SUGGESTED ANSWER: No. His contention is not tenable. He committed as many counts of estafa against the 500 victims and 2000 counts of violation of BP 22, since each swindling is achieved through distinct fraudulent machinations contrived at different times or dates, and in different amounts. Moreover,
112
the
Page
complex crime for which convicted the accused.
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
his drawing separate checks payable to each payee is a separate criminal resolution, as they must be of different amounts and of different dates. He acted with separate fraudulent intent against each swindling victim and had distinct criminal intent in drawing and issuing each check. It cannot be maintained that his acts are the product of one criminal resolution only. Art 48 - Complex crime; requirement of two or more grave or less grave felonies as a result of single act Rodolfo, a policeman, was cleaning his service pistol inside his house when it fell from his hand and fired. The bullet hit a neighbor on the stomach and a second neighbor on the leg. The injuries sustained by the two neighbors required thirty-five (35) days and nine (9) days of medical attendance, respectively. The investigating fiscal later filed an information for frustrated homicide and slight physical injuries through reckless imprudence against Rodolfo. Is the charge correct? Explain. (1989 Bar Question)
latter a check in the said amount. The following day, Pedro deposited the check, but it was returned dishonored because it was drawn against a closed account. Notwithstanding written demands, Jose failed to make good said check. Atty. Saavedra, counsel for Pedro, filed two complaints against Jose with the Office of the Provincial Fiscal, one for estafa under Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code and another for violation of Batas Pambansa Big. 22. Atty. San Pascual, counsel for Jose, claimed that if his client was at all liable, he could only be liable for violation of Batas Pambansa Big. 22 and not for estafa under Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code because one precludes the other and because Batas Pambansa Big. 22 is more favorable to the accused as it carries a lighter penalty. The investigating fiscal, on his resolution, stated that only one crime was committed, namely, the complex crime of estafa under Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code and violation of Batas Pambansa Big. 22 because the single act of issuing the bouncing check constitutes two offenses, one under Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code and another under Batas Pambansa Big. 22.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Art 48 – Complex crimes; when proper Jose purchased roofing materials worth P20,000.00 from PY & Sons Construction Company owned by Pedro, and paid the
SUGGESTED ANSWER: The resolution of the investigating fiscal is erroneous. There is no complex crime of estafa under Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code and the violation of BP 22. A complex crime refers only to felonies which are punished in the Revised Penal Code. Batas 22 which punishes the offense of issuing a worthless check is a special law. The contention of Atty. San Pascuai, counsel of Jose that his client should be
113
One single act of accidental shooting cannot give rise to two felonies. One of which is intentional and the other negligent. Frustrated homicide presupposes intent to kill. The facts do not show any intent to kill on the part of Rodolfo. At most, he was careless, and therefore only negligent.
Page
The charge is not correct.
If you were the Provincial Fiscal asked to review the matter, how would you resolve it? (1987 Bar Question)
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
crimes,
what
1. A, actuated by malice and with the use of a fully automatic M-14 submachine gun, shot a group of persons who were seated in a cockpit with one burst of successive, continuous, automatic fire. Four (4) persons were killed thereby, each having hit by different bullets coming from the submachine gun of A. Four (4) cases of murder were filed against A. The trial court ruled that there was only one crime committed by A for the reason that, since A performed only one act, he having pressed the trigger of his gun only once, the crime committed was murder. Consequently, the trial judge sentenced A to just one penalty of reclusion perpetua. Was the decision of the trial judge correct? Explain. (4%) (1999 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER: 1. The decision of the trial judge is not correct. When the offender made use of an automatic firearm, the acts committed are determined by the number of bullets discharged inasmuch as the firearm being automatic, the offender need only press the trigger once and it would fire continually. For each death caused by a distinct and separate bullet, the accused incurs distinct criminal liability. Hence, it is not the act of pressing the trigger which should be considered as producing the several felonies, but the number of bullets which actually produced them. 2. A complex crime is constituted when a single act caused two or more grave or less grave felonies or when an offense is committed as a necessary means to commit another offense (Art. 48, RPC). At least two (2) crimes are involved in a complex crime; either two or more grave or less grave felonies resulted from a single act, or an offense is committed as a necessary means for committing another. The penalty for the more serious crime shall be imposed and in its maximum period. (Art. 48, RPC) Art. 48 Complex crime; Special complex crime; complex crime of coup d’etat with rebellion; complex crime of coup d'etat with sedition A. Distinguish between an ordinary complex crime and a special complex crime as to their concepts and as to the
114
Art 48 –Complex constitutes, penalty
2. What constitutes a complex crime? How many crimes maybe involved in a complex crime? What is the penalty therefor? (4%) (1999 Bar Question)
Page
liable only for Batas 22 and for estafa under the Revised Penal Code because one precludes the other and because Batas 22 is more favorable to the accused as it carries a lighter penalty cannot also be sustained. Batas 22 specifically provides that liability under said act is without prejudice to any liability for estafa under the Revised Penal Code. The check issued by Jose in payment of roofing materials from PY and Sons was worthless. Said bouncing check having been issued in payment of a simultaneous obligation constitutes estafa under the Revised Penal Code and also the offense punished under Batas 22. There is no identity of offenses. Damage is not an element of the offense punished in Batas 22 whereas in estafa damage is an element. Estafa is an act mala in se in which requires intent as an element while the offense punished in Batas 22 is an act mala prohibita where intent is not an element.
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
(a) In conceptAn ordinary complex crime is made up of two or more crimes being punished in distinct provisions of the Revised Penal Code but alleged in one Information either because they were brought about by a single felonious act or because one offense is a necessary means for committing the other offense or offenses. They are alleged in one Information so that only one penalty shall be imposed. A special complex crime, on the other hand, is made up of two or more crimes which are considered only as components of a single indivisible offense being punished in one provision of the Revised Penal Code. As to penalties In ordinary complex crime, the penalty for the most serious crime shall be imposed and in its maximum period. In special complex crime, only one penalty is specifically prescribed for all the component crimes which are regarded as one indivisible offense. The component crimes are not regarded as distinct crimes and so the penalty for the most serious crime is not the penalty to be imposed nor in its maximum period. It is the penalty specifically provided for the special
B. Yes, if there was conspiracy between the offender/ offenders committing the coup d’etat and the offenders committing the rebellion. By conspiracy, the crime of one would be the crime of the other and vice versa. This is possible because the offender in coup d'etat may be any person or persons belonging to the military or the national police or a public officer, whereas rebellion does not so require. Moreover, the crime of coup d’etat may be committed singly, whereas rebellion requires a public uprising and taking up arms to overthrow the duly constituted government. Since the two crimes are essentially different and punished with distinct penalties, there is no legal impediment to the application of Art. 48 of the Revised Penal Code. C. Yes, coup d’etat can be complexed with sedition because the two crimes are essentially different and distinctly punished under the Revised Penal Code. Sedition may not be directed against the Government or non-political in objective, whereas coup d’etat is always political in objective as it is directed against the Government and led by persons or public officer holding public office belonging to the military or national police. Art. 48 of the Code may apply under the conditions therein provided. Art. 48 Compound and complex crimes Distinguish clearly but briefly: (10%) (2004 Bar Question) Between compound and complex crimes as concepts in the Penal Code. SUGGESTED ANSWER:
115
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
complex crime that shall be applied according to the rules on imposition of the penalty.
Page
imposition of penalties. (2003 Bar Question) B. Can there be a complex crime of coup d’etat with rebellion? (2003 Bar Question) C. Can there be a complex crime of coup d'etat with sedition? (2003 Bar Question)
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
Art 48 Complex crime of estafa thru falsification of a commercial document In relation to Art 315 Swindling (2) DD purchased a television set for P50,000.00 with the use of a counterfeit credit card. The owner of the establishment had no inkling that the credit card used by DD was counterfeit. What crime or crimes did DD commit? Explain. (5%) (2005 Bar Question) SUGGESTED ANSWER: (2) DD committed a complex crime of estafa thru falsification of a commercial document. As a user of a false or fake credit card, a commercial document, DD is presumed to have falsified the same; Hence he does not only commit the crime of using a false document but also the crime of falsification. Since he used such false or fake credit card to defraud the owner of the store from whom he purchased the television set, the crime of swindling or estafa was perpetrated thru the falsification of said commercial
Distinguish the following from each other: 1. Complex crime under Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code; 2. Special complex crime; and 3. Delito continuado. (3%) (2005 Bar Question) SUGGESTED ANSWER: 1. a) In a complex crime, the component crimes are defined and penalized under separate and distinct Articles of the Revised Penal Code but are allowed to be alleged in one Information as an exception to Sec. 13, Rule 110 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure, because they are committed under the circumstances provided in Article 48 of same Code, i.e., two or more grave or less grave felonies resulted from a single act, or one offense was a necessary means for committing the other offense. In a special complex crime, also known as composite crime, the component crimes constitute a single indivisible offense and are thus penalized as one crime under one Article of the Revised Penal Code, such as robbery with homicide under Art. 294 of the Code. Delito continuado, also known as continued crime, is constituted by a series of overt acts committed by the offender in one place a penal law, and therefore regarded as impelled by a single, indivisible criminal resolution; hence, punished as one crime offense
116
Complex crimes result when the offender has to commit an offense as a necessary means for committing another offense. Only one information shall be filed and if proven, the penalty for the more serious crime shall be imposed
Art. 48 – Complex crime; Special complex crime; Delito continuado
Page
Compound crimes result when the offender committed only a single felonious act from which two or more crimes resulted. This is provided for in modified form in the first part of Article 48, Revised Penal Code, limiting the resulting crimes to only grave and/or less grave felonies. Hence, light felonies are excluded even though resulting from the same single act.
document. He, therefore, committed the complex crime of estafa thru falsification of a commercial document.
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
b) What is the criminal liability of Paolo, if any? Explain. (4%) (2008 Bar Question) SUGGESTED ANSWER: b) Paolo is liable for the complex crime of frustrated robbery, with homicide and damage to property (tricycle) in trying to rob the car. This resulted in the shooting of the car by Carlos and the subsequent collision destroying the tricycle and the death of the driver. Art. 48 - Complex crime of attempted murder with homicide Despite the massive advertising campaign in media against firecrackers and gun-firing during the New Year's celebrations. Jonas and Jaja bought ten boxes of super lolo and pla-pla in Bocaue, Bulacan. Before midnight of December 31,1999, Jonas and Jaja started their celebration by having a drinking spree at Jona's place by exploding their high-powered firecrackers in their neighborhood. In the course of their conversation, Jonas confided to Jaja that he has been keeping a long-time grudge against his neighbor Jepoy in view of the tatter's refusal to lend him some money.
a) What crime or crimes can Jonas and Jaja be charged with? Explain. (2%) (2000 Bar Question) SUGGESTED ANSWER: a) Jonas and Jaja, can be charged with the complex crime of attempted murder with homicide because a single act caused a less grave and a grave felony (Art. 48, RPC). Attempted murder is a less grave felony, while consummated homicide is a grave felony: both are punishable by afflictive penalties.
117
While Carlos was approaching his car, he saw it being driven away by Paolo, a thief. Carlos tried to stop Paolo by shouting at him, but Paolo ignored him. To prevent his car from being carnapped, Carlos drew his gun, aimed at the rear wheel of the car and fired. The shot blew the tire which caused the car to veer out of control and collide with an oncoming tricycle, killing the tricycle driver.
Page
Art. 48 – Complex crimes - Frustrated robbery, with homicide and damage to property
While under the influence of liquor, Jonas started throwing lighted super lolos inside Jepoy's fence to irritate him and the same exploded inside the tatter's yard. Upon knowing that the throwing of the super lolo was deliberate, Jepoy became furious and sternly warned Jonas to stop his malicious act or he would get what he wanted. A heated argument between Jonas and Jepoy ensued but Jaja tried to calm down his friend. At midnight, Jonas convinced Jaja to lend him his .45 caliber pistol so that he could use it to knock down Jepoy and to end his arrogance. Jonas thought that after all, explosions were everywhere and nobody would know who shot Jepoy. After Jaja lent his firearm to Jonas, the latter again started started throwing lighted super lolos and pla-plas at Jepoy’s yard in order to provoke him so that he would come out of his house. When Jepoy came out, Jonas immediately shot him with Jaja’s .45 caliber gun but missed his target. Instead, the bullet hit Jepoy's five year old son who was following behind him, killing the boy instantaneously.
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
Art. 48 – Complex crimes - Malversation through falsification Roger and Jessie, Municipal Mayor and Treasurer, respectively, of San Rafael, Leyte, caused the disbursement of public funds allocated for their local development programs for 2008. Records show that the amount of P2-million was purportedly used as financial assistance for a rice production livelihood project. Upon investigation, however, it was found that Roger and Jessie falsified the disbursement vouchers and supporting documents in order to make it appear that qualified recipients who, in fact, are non-existent individuals, received the money.
daughter working in the United States. With the intention of robbing B of those dollars, A entered B’s house at midnight, armed with a knife which he used to gain entry, and began quietly searching the drawers, shelves, and other likely receptacles of the cash. While doing that, B awoke, rushed out from the bedroom, and grappled with A for the possession of the knife which A was then holding. After stabbing B to death, A turned over B’s pillow and found the latter’s wallet underneath the pillow, which was bulging with the dollar bills he was looking for A took the bills and left the house.' What crime or crimes were committed? (2003 Bar Question) SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The charge of malversation through falsification is not correct because the falsifications of several documents were not necessary means to obtain the money that were malversed. The falsifications were committed to cover up or hide the malversation and therefore, should be separately treated from malversation. The given facts state that Roger and Jessie falsified disbursement vouchers and supporting documents "in order to make it appear" that qualified recipients received the money. Art. 48, RPC on complex crimes is not applicable.
Art. 48: Special complex crime of Robbery with homicide
Art 48 Special Complex Crimes Robbery with homicide
A, B, C and D all armed, robbed a bank, and when they were about to get out of the bank, policemen came and ordered them to surrender but they fired on the police officers who fired back and shot it out with them.
A learned two days ago that B had received dollar bills amounting to $10,000 from his
A. Suppose a bank employee was killed and the bullet which killed him came
118
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The crime committed is robbery with homicide, a composite crime. This is so because A’s primordial criminal intent is to commit a robbery and in the course of the robbery, the killing of B took place. Both the robbery and the killing were consummated, thus giving rise to the special complex crime of robbery with homicide. The primary criminal intent being to commit a robbery, any killing on the “occasion” of the robbery, though not by reason thereof, is considered a component of the crime of robbery with homicide as a single indivisible offense.
Page
Roger and Jessie are charged with malversation through falsification. Discuss the propriety of the charge filed against Roger and Jessie. Explain. (4%) (2009 Bar Question)
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
SUGGESTED ANSWER: A. A, B. C and D should be charged with the crime of robbery with homicide because the death of the bank employee was brought about by the acts of said offenders on the occasion of the robbery. They shot it out with the policeman, thereby causing such death by reason or on the occasion of a robbery; hence, the composite crime of robbery with homicide. The argument is valid, considering that a separate charge for Homicide was filed. It would be different if the charge filed was for the composite crime of robbery with homicide, which is a single, indivisible offense. SUGGESTED ANSWER: B. The argument raised by A. B and C is not correct because their liability is not only for Robbery but for the special complex crime of Robbery with homicide. But the facts stated impresses that separate crimes of Robbery “and" Homicide were charged, which is not correct. What was committed was a single indivisible offense of Robbery with homicide, not two crimes.
crimes-
Christopher, John, Richard, and Luke are fraternity brothers. To protect themselves from rival fraternities, they all carry guns wherever they go. One night, after attending a party, they boarded a taxicab, held the driver at gunpoint and took the latter's earnings. What crime, if any, did the four commit if they killed the driver? Explain. (2%) (2010 Bar Question) SUGGESTED ANSWER: No, the crime becomes robbery with homicide and all the fraternity brothers are liable. The existence of a band shall be appreciated only as generic aggravating circumstance. Also, if the firearms used were unlicensed, the same would only be taken as generic aggravating circumstance as provided by the Rep. Act No. 8294 (People v. Bolinget, G.R. Nos. 137949-52, December 11, 2003). Art. 48 Special Complex Crime In relation to Art 267 Serious illegal detention with homicide Paz Masipag worked as a housemaid and yaya of the one-week old son of the spouses Martin and Pops Kuripot. When Paz learned that her 70 year-old mother was seriously ill, she asked Martin for a cash advance of PI,000.00 but Martin refused. One morning, Paz gagged the mouth of Martin's son with stockings; placed the child in a box; sealed it with masking tape and placed the box in the attic. Later in the afternoon, she demanded P5.000.00 as ransom for the release of his son. Martin did not pay the ransom. Subsequently, Paz disappeared.
119
B. Suppose it was robber D who was killed by the policemen and the prosecutor charged A. B and C with Robbery and Homicide. They demurred arguing that they (A, B and C were not the ones who killed robber D, hence, the charge should only be Robbery. How would you resolve their argument? (2%) (1998 Bar Question)
Art. 48: Special complex Robbery with homicide
Page
from the firearm of the police officers, with what crime shall you charge A, B, C and D? [3%] (1998 Bar Question)
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
Paz committed the crime of serious illegal detention because the victim is a minor and because the victim died as a consequence of the detention, the special complex crime of serious illegal detention with homicide under the last paragraph of Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code is committed. Art 48Special complex crime In relation to Art. 266 - B rape through sexual assault with homicide On July 1, 2004, Jet Matulis, a pedophile, gave P1,000.00 to Sherly, an orphan and a prostitute and brought her to a motel. He inserted a rusty and oversized vibrator into her vagina with such force that she bled profusely. Jet panicked and fled. Sherly was brought to the hospital and died a few days later because of shock caused by hemorrhage.
Art 48 Special Crime In relation to Art. 266 - B - of rape with homicide, Penalties Dang was a beauty queen in a university. Job, a rich classmate, was so enamored with her that he persistently wooed and pursued her. Dang, being in love with another man, rejected him. This angered Job. Sometime in September 2003, while Dang and her sister Lyn were on their way home, Job and his minor friend Nonoy grabbed them and pushed them inside a white van. They brought them in an abandoned warehouse where they forced them to dance naked. Thereafter, they brought them to a hill in a nearby barangay where they took turns raping them. After satisfying their lust, Job ordered Nonoy to push Dang down a ravine, resulting in her death. Lyn ran away but Job and Nonoy chased her and pushed her inside the van. Then the duo drove away. Lyn was never seen again. What crime or crimes were committed by Job and Nonoy? 2.5% (2006 Bar Question)
If Sherly were a minor when she died, would your answer be the same? Explain. (5%) (2005 Bar Question)
PENALTIES: What penalties should be imposed on them? 2.5% (2006 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
If Sherly were a minor when she died, the crimes of homicide and child abuse in violation of Rep. Act 7610 (Special Protection of Children against abuse, exploitation, discrimination and for other purposes), are committed by Jet Matulis, provided Sherly is not less than 12 years
Job and Nonoy each committed two (2) counts of the special complex crime of rape with homicide under Art. 266-B for the rapes respectively committed on Dang and on Lyn. Their felonious acts of grabbing and pushing the victims inside their van and later forcing them to dance naked may
120
What crime or crimes did Paz commit? Explain. (5%) (2005 Bar Question) SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Page
After a couple of days, Martin discovered the box in the attic with his child already dead. According to the autopsy report, the child died of asphyxiation barely three minutes after the box was sealed.
old. If Sherly was less than 12 years old then, the crime committed by Matulis is rape (through sexual assault) with Homicide, a special complex crime under Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code.
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
Although the penalty for the crime of rape with homicide was death at the time the accused committed them, and the law (Rep. Act No. 9346) prohibiting the imposition of the death penalty took effect only this year (2006), said new law should be given retroactive effect because it is favorable to the culprits who are not habitual delinquents and there being no provision of law to the contrary. Hence, reclusion perpetua for each count of rape with homicide. The accessory penalty under Art. 40 of the Revised Penal Code will not follow because RA 9346 Art. 48 Special Complex Crime In relation to Art 267. Kidnapping for ransom with homicide Jaime, Andy and Jimmy, laborers in the noodles in the noodles factory of Luke Tan, agreed to kill him due to his arrogance and miserliness. One afternoon, they seized him and loaded him in a taxi driven by Mario. They told Mario they will only teach Luke a lesson in Christian humility. Mario drove them to-a fishpond in Navotas where
What crime or crimes did the 6 suspects commit? 5% (2006 Bar Question) SUGGESTED ANSWER: Jaime, Andy and Jimmy committed the special complex crime of kidnapping for ransom with homicide because their purpose was to kill Luke when they seized him. Mario, the taxi driver, does not incur criminal liability for the acts of Jaime, Andy and Jimmy because he had no participation therein. Emil and Louie should be liable only for murder for killing Luke in a defenseless position, but not for keeping Luke since it was not their intention to detain him.
121
Although, there is no indication that the same culprits killed Lyn who was never seen again, it is reasonable to assume from what the culprits did to Dang, and from the acts of violence they employed on Lyn, that they are answerable also for the presumed death of Lyn whom the culprits took with them by force and was never seen again. Hence, the rape committed against her is attended by homicide giving rise to the special complex crime of rape with homicide also. It would be different if Lyn was not subjected to physical violence. (R.A. 7659)
Luke was entrusted to Emil and Louie, the fishpond caretakers, asking them to hide Luke in their shack because he was running from the NBI. The trio then left in Mario’s car for Manila where they called up Luke’s family and threatened them to kill Luke unless they give a ransom within 24 hours. Unknown to them, because of a leak, the kidnapping was announced over the radio and TV. Emil and Louie heard the broadcast and panicked, especially when the announcer stated that there is a shootto-kill order for the kidnappers. Emil and Louie took Luke to the seashore of Dagatdagatan where they smashed his head with a shovel and buried him in the sand. However, they were seen by a barangay kagawad who arrested them and brought them to the police station. Upon interrogation they confessed and pointed to Jaime, Andy, Jimmy and Mario as those responsible for the kidnapping. Later, the 4 were arrested and charged.
Page
only be appreciated as part of the violence and lewd desires attending the rape, and are therefore absorbed by the rape.
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
Art 48 Special Complex Crime in relation to Art. 304 Rape with homicide Wenceslao and Loretta were staying in the same boarding house, occupying different rooms. One late evening, when everyone in the house was asleep, Wenceslao entered Loretta's room with the use of a picklock. Then, with force and violence, Wenceslao ravished Loretta. After he had satisfied his lust, Wenceslao stabbed Loretta to death and, before leaving the room, took her jewelry. [a] What crime or crimes, if any, did Wenceslao commit? Explain. (4%) (2009 Bar Question)
No, the answer will be different. In that case, the crimes committed would be four separate crimes of (1) rape (2) frustrated homicide or 'murder (3) theft and (4) unlawful possession and use of picklocks under Art. 304, RPC. The special complex crime of rape with homicide is constituted only when both the rape and the killing are consummated; when one or both of them are not consummated, they are to be charged and punished separately. In any event, the possession of the picklock "without lawful cause", more so its use in an unlawful entry is punished as a crime by itself. Penalties – Disqualified offenders for parole; heinous crimes Because of the barbarity and the hideousness of the acts committed by the suspects/ respondents in cutting off their victims’ appendages, stuffing their torsos, legs, body parts into oil drums and bulletriddled vehicles and later on burying these oil drums, vehicles with the use of backhoes and other earthmoving machinery, the Commission on Human Rights (CHR) investigating team recommended to the panel of public prosecutors that all respondents be charged with violation of the Heinous Crimes Law. The prosecution panel agreed with the CHR. As the chief prosecutor tasked with approving the filing of the information, how will you pass upon the recommendation? Explain? (5%) (2010 Bar Question)
[c] Would your answer to [a] be the same if, despite the serious stab wounds she sustained, Loretta survived? Explain. (3%) (2009 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The CHR is correct in describing the crimes committed as “heinous crimes”, as defined in the preamble of the “Heinous Crimes Law” (Rep. Act No. 7659), despite the
Page
Wenceslao committed the following crimes: (1) the special complex crime of rape with homicide (2) theft and (3) unlawful possession of picklocks and similar tools under Art. 304, RPC. His act of having carnal knowledge of Loretta against her will and with the use of force and violence constituted rape, plus the killing of Loretta by reason or on the occasion of the rape, gave rise to the special complex crime of rape with homicide. Since the taking of the jewelry was an afterthought as it was done only when he was about to leave the room and when Loretta was already dead, the same constitutes theft. His possession and use ofthe picklock "without lawful cause" is by itself punishable under Art. 304, RPC.
122
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
ART. 48--Delito continuing offense
continuado
and
Differentiate delito continuado from a continuing offense. (1994 Bar Question) SUGGESTED ANSWER: Delito continuado or continuous crime, is a term used to denote as only one crime a series of felonious acts arising from a single criminal resolution, not susceptible of division, which are carried out in the same place and at about the same time, and violating one and the same penal provision. The acts done must be impelled by one criminal intent or purpose, such that each act merely constitutes a partial execution of a particular crime, violating one and the same penal provision. It involves a concurrence of felonious acts violating a common right, a common penal provision, and impelled by a single criminal impulse (People vs, Ledesma, 73 SCRA 77).
The term “continued crime" or delito continuado mandates that only one information should be filed against the offender although a series of felonious acts were performed; the term “continuing crime" is more pertinently used with reference to the venue where the criminal action may be instituted. ART. 48--Doctrine of aberratio ictus At the height of an altercation, Pedrito shot Paulo but missed, hitting Tiburcio instead, resulting in the death of the latter. Pedrito, invoking the doctrine of aberratio ictus, claims exemption from criminal liability. If you were the judge, how would you decide the case? (1996 Bar Question) SUGGESTED ANSWER: If I were the judge, I will convict Pedrito and find him guilty of the complex crime of Homicide with Attempted Homicide. The single act of firing at Paulo resulted in the commission of two felonies, one grave (homicide) and the other less grave (attempted homicide) thus falling squarely under Art. 48, RPC; hence, the penalty would be for the more serious crime (homicide) in its maximum period (17 years 4 months and 1 day to 20 years). Aberratio ictus (mistake in the blow) could not be used as a defense as it is not an exempting circumstance. Pedrito is liable
123
However, the “Heinous Crimes Law” does not define crimes; it is only an amendatory law increasing the penalty for the crimes specified therein as heinous, to a maximum of death. Thus, the heinous crimes committed shall be prosecuted under the penal law they are respectively defined and penalized, such as the Revised Penal Code as the case may be. The circumstances making the crimes heinous may be alleged as qualifying or generic aggravating, if proper. The crime shall be designated as defined and punished under the penal law violated and the penalty shall be reclusion perpetua without the benefit of parole or life imprisonment without the benefit of parole, as the case maybe in lieu of the death penalty.
On the other hand, a continuing offense is one whose essential Ingredients took place in more than one municipality or city, so much so that the criminal prosecution may be instituted and the case tried in the competent court of any one of such municipality or city.
Page
passage of Rep. Act No. 9346 prohibiting the imposition of the death penalty.
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
under the principle of Art. 4, RPC. which makes a person criminally liable for all the natural and logical consequences of his felonious act.
homicide, which is a single, indivisible offense.
Art. 48: Special complex crime of Robbery with homicide
2. The argument raised by A. B and C is not correct because their liability is not only for Robbery but for the special complex crime of Robbery with homicide. But the facts stated impresses that separate crimes of Robbery “and" Homicide were charged, which is not correct. What was committed was a single indivisible offense of Robbery with homicide, not two crimes.
Suppose it was robber D who was killed by the policemen and the prosecutor charged A. B and C with Robbery and Homicide. They demurred arguing that they (A, B and C were not the ones who killed robber D, hence, the charge should only be Robbery. How would you resolve their argument? (2%) (1998 Bar Question)
Art. 48: Special complex crimes- Robbery with homicide Christopher, John, Richard, and Luke are fraternity brothers. To protect themselves from rival fraternities, they all carry guns wherever they go. One night, after attending a party, they boarded a taxicab, held the driver at gunpoint and took the latter's earnings. What crime, if any, did the four commit if they killed the driver? Explain. (2%) (2010 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
A, B. C and D should be charged with the crime of robbery with homicide because the death of the bank employee was brought about by the acts of said offenders on the occasion of the robbery. They shot it out with the policeman, thereby causing such death by reason or on the occasion of a robbery; hence, the composite crime of robbery with homicide.
No, the crime becomes robbery with homicide and all the fraternity brothers are liable. The existence of a band shall be appreciated only as generic aggravating circumstance. Also, if the firearms used were unlicensed, the same would only be taken as generic aggravating circumstance as provided by the Rep. Act No. 8294 (People v. Bolinget, G.R. Nos. 137949-52, December 11, 2003).
The argument is valid, considering that a separate charge for Homicide was filed. It would be different if the charge filed was for the composite crime of robbery with
Art. 6 (consummated carnapping) Art. 249; Art. 263; Homicide, Serious Physical
124
Suppose a bank employee was killed and the bullet which killed him came from the firearm of the police officers, with what crime shall you charge A, B, C and D? [3%] (1998 Bar Question)
Page
A, B, C and D all armed, robbed a bank, and when they were about to get out of the bank, policemen came and ordered them to surrender but they fired on the police officers who fired back and shot it out with them.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
Injuries and Damage to property resulting from reckless imprudence.
Dodoy, possessing only a student driver's permit, found a parked car with the key left in the ignition, he proceeded to drive it away, intending to sell it. Just then Ting, the owner of the car, arrived. Failing to make Dodoy stop. Ting boarded a taxi and pursued Dodoy, who in his haste to escape, and because of his inexperience, violently collided with a jeepney full of passengers. The jeepney overturned and was wrecked. One passenger was killed: the leg of the other passenger was crushed and had to be amputated. The car of Ting was damaged to the tune of P20.000.00. What offense or offenses may Dodoy be charged with? Discuss. (1993 Bar Question)
guilty of vagrancy and imprisoned for ten (10) days of arresto menor and fined fifty pesos (P50.00). Is he eligible for probation? Why? (3%) (2002 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER: No, he is not eligible. The benefits of the Probation Law (PD 968, as amended) does not extend to those sentenced to serve a maximum term of imprisonment of more than six years (Sec. 9a). It is of no moment that in his previous conviction A was given a penalty of only ten (10) days of arresto mayor and a fine of P50.00. Special law – Probation law – Period; termination
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
1. A was charged with homicide. After trial, he was found guilty and sentenced to six years and one (1) day in prision mayor, as minimum, to twelve (12) years and one (1) day of reclusion temporal, as maximum. Prior to his conviction, he had been found
1. What is the proper period of probation?
125
Please take note that with respect to Espiritu Case, taking hold of the object is enough to consummate the crime: although in the Dino case, it is still frustrated because there is inability to dispose freely the object. Criminal law – Execution and service – Probation Law (PD 968, as amended); Disqualified offenders
Page
Consummated carnnaping. Homicide, Serious Physical Injuries and Damage to property resulting from reckless imprudence.
(1) Maganda was charged with violation of Bouncing Checks Law (BP 22) punishable by imprisonment of not less than 30 days but not more than 1 year or a fine of not less than but not more than double the amount of the check, which fine shall not exceed P200.000.00, or both. The court convicted her of the crime and sentenced her to pay a fine of P50,000.00 with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, and to pay the private complainant the amount of the check. Maganda was unable to pay the fine but filed a petition for probation. The court granted the petition subject to the condition, among others, that she should not change her residence without the court’s prior approval.
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
2. Supposing before the Order of Discharge was issued by the court but after the lapse of the period of probation, Maganda transferred residence without prior approval of the court. May the court revoke the Order of Probation and order her to serve the subsidiary imprisonment? Explain. (5%) (2005 Bar Question) SUGGESTED ANSWER: 1. The period of probation shall not be less than the total number of days of subsidiary imprisonment or more than twice the said number of days as computed at the rate established under the Revised Penal Code, which is one (1) day imprisonment for every P8.00 fine but not to exceed six (6) months. (P.D. 968, Sec. 14[b] (establishing a Probation System) in correlation with Art. 39, RPC) 2. Yes, the court may revoke the Order of Probation and order the convicted accused to serve the subsidiary imprisonment, because she violated the condition of her probation before the Order of Discharge was issued by the court. The conditions of probation are not coterminous with the period of probation; such conditions continue even after the period of probation had ended and thus requires faithful compliance or fulfillment, for as long as the court which placed the convict on probation has not issued the Order of Discharge that would release her from probation. {Bala v. Martinez, 181 SCRA 459 [1990D
applied in imposing a sentence? (2012 BAR) Answer: The fundamental principle in interpreting and applying penal laws is the principle of pro reo. The phrase “in dubio pro reo” means “when in doubt, for the accused.” (Intestate Estate of Gonzales v. People, G.R. No. 181409, February 11, 2010). In dubio pro reo, is in consonance with the constitutional guarantee that the accused ought to be presumed innocent until and unless his guilt is established beyond reasonable doubt (People v. Temporada, G.R. No. 173473, December 17, 2008). If crime is punishable under the RPC, the court shall sentence the accused to an indeterminate sentence the maximum term of which shall be that which, in view of the attending circumstance, could be properly imposed under the rules of the said Code, and the minimum of which shall be within the range of the penalty next lower to that prescribed by the Code for the offense. If the offense is punishable under a special law, the court shall sentence the accused to an indeterminate sentence, the maximum term of which shall not exceed the maximum fixed by said law, and the minimum shall not be less than the minimum term prescribed in the same (R.A. 4103, Sec. 1). QUESTION: A. Under what circumstances is the Indeterminate Sentence Law not applicable? (2%) (1999 Bar Question) B. A was convicted of illegal possession of grease guns and two Thompson sub-machine guns punishable under the old law (RA No.4) with imprisonment of from five (5) to ten (10)
Page
What is the fundamental principle in applying and interpreting criminal laws, including the Indeterminate Sentence Law? How is the Indeterminate Sentence Law
126
INDETERMINATE SENTENCE LAW
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
SUGGESTED ANSWER: Indeterminate Sentence Law does not apply to: 1. Persons convicted of offenses punished with death penalty or life imprisonment* 2. Those convicted of treason, conspiracy or proposal to commit treason; 3. Those convicted of misprision of treason, rebellion, sedition or espionage; 4. Those convicted of piracy; 5. Those who are habitual delinquents; 6. Those who shall have escaped from confinement or evaded sentence; 7. Those who violated the terms of conditional pardon granted to them by the Chief Executive; 8. Those whose maximum term of imprisonment does not exceed one year; 9. Those who, upon the approval of the law (December 5, 1933), had been sentenced by final judgment; 10. Those sentenced to the penalty of destierro or suspension. The penalty imposed, being only a straight penalty, is not correct because it does not comply with the Indeterminate Sentence Law which applies to this case. Said law requires that if the offense is punished by any law other than the Revised Penal Code, the court shall sentence the accused to an indeterminate sentence, the maximum term of which shall not exceed the maximum penalty fixed by the law and the minimum shall not be less than the minimum prescribed by the same.
State the application of the Indeterminate Sentence Law. (1988 Bar Question) SUGGESTED ANSWER: The Indeterminate Sentence Law applies in cases where the penalty imposed is more than one year and the ISL shall apply where there is a minimum penalty which is not lower than the penalty next lower in degree provided by law and the maximum not higher than the maximum penalty provided by law in cases of felonies but when it comes to statutory offenses it must be lower than the minimum penalty provided by law and not higher than the maximum penalty provided by law except in the following cases as provided by section 2 of Art. 4103: 1. life imprisonment 2. those convicted of treason, conspiracy or proposal to commit treason 3. to those convicted of misprision of treason, rebellion, sedition or espionage 4. to those convicted of piracy 5. those who are habitual delinquents 6. to those who shall have escaped from confinement or evaded sentence 7. to those who having been granted conditional pardon by the Chief Executive shall have violated the terms thereof 8. to those whose maximum term of imprisonment does not exceed one year, not to those already sentenced by final judgment at the time of approval of this Act, except as provided in Section 5 hereof. QUESTION: Andres is charged with an offense defined by a special law. The penalty prescribed for the offense is imprisonment of not less than five (5) years but not more than ten (10) years. Upon arraignment, he entered the
127
Is the penalty thus imposed correct? Explain. (3%) (1999 Bar Question)
QUESTION:
Page
years. The trial court sentenced the accused to suffer imprisonment of five (5) years and one (1) day.
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
The Indeterminate Sentence Law should be applied in this case. By express provision of said law (section 1) it is applicable to offenses punished by special laws. The indeter-minate sentence in such cases shall consist of a maximum term which shall not exceed the maximum fixed by the special law and a minimum term which shall not be less than the minimum term pescribed by the same. If I were the judge trying the case, I would impose a penalty consisting of any duration not less than 5 years as minimum term and any duration not more than 10 years as maximum term. It could be five years and 1 day to 7 years; 7 years, six months and 1 day to 9 years; or any other sentence where the minimum term is not less than 5 years and the maximum term not more than 10 years. The plea of guilty cannot be considered as a mitigating circumstance in this case. The imposition of the indeterminate penalty in a special law rests upon the discretion of the court. Also, the pleas of guilty as a mitigating circumstance under the Revised Penal Code is appre-ciated only in a divisible penalty. It cannot be applied to a penalty which is not divisible into periods of fixed duration, like the penalty provided in special laws. QUESTION:
SUGGESTED ANSWER: I would take the maximum term of the indeterminate sentence from the range of prision mayor in its minimum period. This is so because while there are two ordinary mitigating circumstances present, one of them is offset by an aggravating circumstance. Consequently, it is as if the crime is attended by only one ordinary circumstance and this will result in the imposition of the minimum period of the penalty prescribed by law. The presence of two or more ordinary mitigating circumstances will give rise to a privileged mitigating circumstance only if there is no aggravating circumstance present and the penalty prescribed by law is divisible. In this case, while the penalty of prision mayor is divisible, and while there are two ordinary mitigating circumstances present, there is an aggravating circumstance. This precludes the reduction of the penalty by one degree lower inasmuch as the two ordinary mitigating circumstances cannot be considered as a privileged mitigating circumstance. QUESTION:
128
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Jose is charged with bigamy. The Revised Penal Code prescribes the penalty of prision mayor for this offense. The information filed against Jose alleged one aggravating cir-cumstance. Upon being arraigned, he entered the plea of guilty and invoked the additional mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender which the trial fiscal admitted. If you were the judge trying the case, from what range of the prescribed penalty would you determine the proper penalty (to constitute the maximum term of an indeterminate sentence) to be imposed on Jose? (1989 Bar Question)
Page
plea of guilty. In the imposition of the proper penalty, should the Indeterminate Sentence Law be applied? If you were the judge trying the case, what penalty would you impose on Andres? (1989 Bar Question)
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
A was charged with homicide. During the trial, uncontradicted evidence consisting of medical certificates were presented showing that the accused had sustained injuries in ten (10) previous occasions while engaged in fisticuffs with different persons. He was also confined at the National Mental Hospital for mental ailment diagnosed as “homicidal and suicidal instincts.” During his second confinement thereat, he escaped. Upon conviction, the prosecutor objected to the application of the Indeterminate Sentence Law contending that the accused is a habitual delinquent and an escapee from the National Mental Hospital.
3. those convicted of misprision of treason, rebellion, sedition or espionage; 4. those convicted of piracy; 5. those who are habitual delinquents; 6. those who shall have escaped from confinement or evaded sentence; 7. those who having been granted conditional pardon by the Chief Executive shall have violated the terms thereof; 8. those whose maximum term of imprisonment does not exceed one year; 9. those already sentenced by final judgment at the time of approval of this Act; and 10. those whose sentence imposes penalties which do not involve imprisonment, like distierro.
If you are the Judge, rule on the objection. (1991 Bar Question)
QUESTION:
Being an escapee from the Mental Hospital will not disqualify him from the application of the ISL as Section 2 thereof contemplates having escaped from confinement or evaded sentence. Confinement presupposes imprisonment by virtue of a final judgment.
Carlos was charged and convicted of murder. He was sentenced to life imprisonment and to indemnify the offended party in the amount of P30.000. He sought a reconsideration of the penalty on the ground that he should be entitled to the benefits of the Indeterminate Sentence Law. Decide with reasons. (1990 Bar Question)
QUESTION:
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
When would the Indeterminate Sentence Law be inapplicable? (2003 Bar Question)
Carlos is not entitled to avail of the Indeterminate Sentence Law because Section 2 of said law specifically disqualifies and disallows application thereof to persons sentenced to life imprisonment.
The Indeterminate Sentence Law is not applicable to: 1. those persons convicted of offenses punished with death penalty or lifeimprisonment or reclusion perpetua; 2. those convicted of treason, conspiracy or proposal to commit treason;
QUESTION: Macky, a security guard, arrived home late one night after rendering overtime. He was shocked to see Joy, his wife, and Ken, his best friend, in the act of having sexual
129
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Page
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
While serving his sentence, Macky entered the prohibited area and had a pot session with Ivy, (Joy's sister). Is Macky entitled to an indeterminate sentence in case he is found guilty of use of prohibited substances? Explain your answer. (2007 Bar Question) SUGGESTED ANSWER: No, Macky is not entitled to the benefit of the Indeterminate Sentence Law (Act 4103, as amended) for having evaded the sentence which banished or placed him on destierrro. Sec. 2 of the said law expressly provides that the law shall not apply to those who shall have "evaded sentence".
Special law - Indeterminate Sentence Law – application on the imposed sentence Itos was convicted of an offense penalized by a special law. The penalty prescribed is not less than six years but not more than twelve years. No modifying circumstance attended the commission of the crime. If you were the judge, will you apply the Indeterminate Sentence Law? (1994 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER: If I were the judge, I will apply the provisions of the Indeterminate Sentence Law, as the last sentence of Section I Act 4103, specifically provides the application thereof for violations of special laws. Under the same provision, the minimum must not be less than the minimum provided therein (six years and one day) and the maximum shall not be more than the maximum provided therein, i.e. twelve years. (People vs. Rosalind Reyes, 186 SCRA 184) Special law - Indeterminate Sentence Law – Application on the imposed sentence Harold was convicted of a crime defined and penalized by a special penal law where the imposable penalty is from 6 months, as minimum, to 3 years, as maximum. State with reasons whether the court may correctly impose the following penalties: a. a straight penalty of 10 months; b. 6 months, as minimum, to 11 months, as maximum; c. a straight penalty of 2 years. (5%) (2005 Bar Question) SUGGESTED ANSWER: a) The court may validly impose a straight penalty of 10 months imprisonment because the penalty prescribed by law is imprisonment of 6 months to 3 years, and the Indeterminate Sentence Law does not apply when the penalty imposed is imprisonment which does not exceed one year.
130
The court found that Ken died under exceptional circumstances and exonerated Macky of murder but sentenced him to destierro, conformably with Article 247 of the Revised Penal Code. The court also ordered Macky to pay indemnity to the heirs of the victim in the amount of P50,000.
If so, how will you apply it? (1994 Bar Question)
Page
intercourse. Macky pulled out his service gun and shot and killed Ken. Macky was charged with murder for the death of Ken.
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
b) A prison term of 6 months as minimum, to 11 months, as maximum may not be imposed by the court because the Indeterminate Sentence Law does not apply when the penalty imposed as maximum of the sentence is imprisonment which does not exceed one (1) year. Obviously the Indeterminate Sentence Law has been applied where the sentence imposed reflects a minimum and a maximum. c) The court may not validly impose a straight penalty of two years because the Indeterminate Sentence Law requires the court to set a minimum and a maximum of the sentence where the imprisonment to be imposed already exceeds one (1) year, unless the offender is disqualified from the benefits of the said Law.
by law and the minimum shall not be less than the minimum penalty prescribed by the same. I have the discretion to impose the penalty within the said minimum and maximum.
Special law - Indeterminate Sentence Law – Application on the imposed sentence as defined by special law
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes, the Indeterminate Sentence Law should be applied because the minimum imprisonment is more than one (I) year. If I were the Judge, I will impose an indeterminate sentence, the maximum of which shall not exceed the maximum fixed
Under the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the minimum of the sentence shall be anywhere within the range of 6 years and 1 day to 12 years imprisonment while the maximum of the sentence shall be anywhere within the range of Reclusion Temporal minimum i.e., not lower than 12 yrs. and 1 day to not more than 14 yrs. and 8 months. [b] Will your answer be the same if it is a conviction for illegal possession of drugs under R.A. 9165 (Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002), the prescribed penalty of which is also imprisonment for a term of twelve (12) years and one (1) day to twenty (20) years? Why or why not? (3%) (2009 Bar Question) SUGGESTED ANSWER: No. My answer will not be the same because violations of Rep. Act 9165 are mala prohibita in which mitigating and
131
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
[a] In a conviction for homicide, the trial court appreciated two (2) mitigating circumstances and one (1) aggravating circumstance. Homicide under Article 249 of the Revised Penal Code is punishable by reclusion temporal, an imprisonment term of twelve (12) years and one (1) day to twenty (20) years. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, determine the appropriate penalty to be imposed. Explain. (3%) (2009 Bar Question)
Page
Andres is charged with an offense defined by a special law. The penalty prescribed for the offense is imprisonment of not less than five (5) years but not more than ten (10) years. Upon arraignment, he entered a plea of guilty. In the imposition of the proper penalty, should the Indeterminate Sentence Law be applied? If you were the judge trying the case, what penalty would you impose on Andres? (4%) (1999 Bar Question)
Special law - Indeterminate Sentence Law – Application on the imposed sentence
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
How are the maximum and the minimum terms of the indeterminate sentence for offenses punishable under the Revised Penal Code determined? (3%) (2002 Bar Question) SUGGESTED ANSWER: For crimes punished under the Revised Penal Code, the maximum term of the indeterminate sentence shall be the penalty properly imposable under the same Code after considering the attending mitigating and/or aggravating circumstances according to Art. 64 of said Code. The minimum term of the same sentence shall be fixed within the range of the penalty next lower in degree to that prescribed for the crime under the said Code.
Special law- Indeterminate Sentence Law (R.A. No. 4103, as amended) – Penalty imposable for the crime of homicide
The public prosecutor objected to the sentence on the ground that the proper penalty should have been TWELVE (12) YEARS and ONE (1) DAY of reclusion temporal. The defense counsel chimed in, contending that application of the Indeterminate Sentence Law should lead to the imposition of a straight penalty of SIX (6) months and ONE (1) day of prision correccional only. Who of the three is on the right track? Explain (3%) (2010 Bar Question) SUGGESTED ANSWER: None of the contentions is correct because the Indeterminate Sentence Law (Act 4103, as amended) has not been followed. The imposition of penalty for the crime of homicide, which is penalized by imprisonment exceeding one (1) year and is divisible, is covered by the Indeterminate Sentence Law. The said law requires that the sentence in this case should reflect a minimum term for purposes of parole, and a maximum term fixing the limit of the imprisonment. Imposing a straight penalty is incorrect.
Roman and Wendy are neighbors. On Valentine's Day, without prior notice, Roman visited Wendy at her condo to invite her to dinner, but Wendy turned him down and abruptly left, leaving her condo door
132
Special law – Penalties – Indeterminate Sentence Law (RA 4103); Maximum and the minimum terms of the indeterminate sentence
An agonizing and protracted trial having come to a close, the judge found A guilty beyond reasonable doubt of homicide and imposed on him a straight penalty of SIX (6) YEARS and ONE (1) day of prision mayor.
Page
aggravating circumstances are not appreciated. Although in People v. Simon (234 SCRA 555 [1994]), it was held that Art. 64 can be applied if the special law adopted the nomenclature of penalties provided under the RPC, such pronouncement cannot be applied in the instant case because the penalties for illegal possession of drugs under RA 9165 do not follow the technical nomenclature of penalties in the RPC and thus, cannot be divided into periods. Hence, the existence of mitigating and aggravating circumstances cannot be appreciated.
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
unlocked. Roman attempted to follow, but appeared to have second thoughts; he simply went back to Wendy's condo, let himself in, and waited for her return. On Wendy's arrival later that evening, Roman grabbed her from behind and, with a knife in hand, forced her to undress. Wendy had no choice but to comply. Roman then tied Wendy's hands to her bed and sexually assaulted her five (5) times that night. Roman was charged with, and was convicted of, five (5) counts of rape, but the judge did not impose the penalty of reclusion perpetua for each count. Instead, the judge sentenced Roman to 40 years of imprisonment on the basis of the three-fold rule. Was the judge correct? (2013 BAR) Answer: No, the three-fold rule is applicable only in connection with the service of the sentence not in the imposition of the proper penalties. The court must impose all penalties for all the crimes for which the accused have been found guilty. Thus, the court should not make a computation in it decision and sentence the accused to not more than the threefold of the most severe of the penalties imposable. The computation under the threefold rule is for the prison authorities to make.
order of probation directed him to pay in installment, at the rate of P1,000.00 a month, the damages awarded to the offended party. Jose was able to pay only three (3) monthly installments. Because of such failure, the offended party filed a motion for the execution of the civil aspect of the decision. Is the order directing the payment of the damages in installment valid? Did it not modify the decision after it had become final? (1991 Bar Question) SUGGESTED ANSWER: Yes, the order directing payment in installment is proper. It did not modify the final decision but only in the manner of its execution. (Similarly situated in the case of Agustin vs. Court of Appeals). Should the motion for execution be granted? (1991 Bar Question) SUGGESTED ANSWER: Execution should be granted as the decision is final and executory, following the dissenting opinion of Justice I. Cruz in said case. ART 78-88 – EXECUTION OF PENALTIES – Simultaneous service of penalties
SUGGESTED ANSWER: The penalties that may be served simultaneously are imprisonment/ destierro and: 1. Perpetual absolute disqualification; 2. Perpetual special disqualification; 3. Temporary absolute disqualification;
133
Jose Lopez was convicted for the crime of serious physical injuries and, taking into account two (2) mitigating circumstances, was sentenced to suffer imprisonment of four (4) months and twenty (20) days, and to indemnify the victim in the amount of P25,000.00 as actual and compensatory damages. He applied for probation, which was granted by the court; however, the
What are the penalties that may be served simultaneously? (2007 Bar Question)
Page
Criminal law – Penalties - Execution of the civil aspect of the decision.
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
Under which of the following circumstances is probation not applicable? (2012 BAR) a) Probation is not applicable when the accused is sentenced to serve a maximum of six (6) years. b) Probation is not applicable when the accused has been convicted by final judgment of an offense punished by imprisonment of less than one (1) month and/or fine of less than P200.00. c) Probation is not applicable when accused is convicted of indirect assault. d) Probation is not applicable when accused is convicted of indirect bribery. ** No correct answer. In 2012 when this exam was given, the correct answer is “c” because Indirect Assault is a Crime against Public Order. Under Section 9 of the Probation Law, PD 968 as amended, probation shall not extend to those
However, The Probation Law has been recently amended by RA 10707, which was approve last Nov. 26, 2015. Under RA 10707, those “offenders convicted of any crime against th public order” have been excluded from the list of disqualified offenders to avail of probation. The period of probation of the offender sentenced to a term of one (1) year shall not exceed: (2012 BAR) a) two (2) years; b) six (6) years; c) one (1) year; d) three (3) years. Andres was convicted of frustrated homicide and was sentenced to 6 years and 1 day as minimum, to 8 years of prision mayor as maximum. Andres appealed his conviction to the Court of Appeals, which convicted him of attempted homicide, and sentenced him to 6 months of arresto mayor as minimum, to 4 years of prision correccional as maximum. Instead of appealing his conviction, Andres filed an application for probation with the Regional Trial Court. Is Andres qualified to avail of the benefits of the probation law? (2013 BAR) (A) No, because when he filed a notice of appeal with the Court of Appeals, he waived his right under the probation law. (B) Yes, because after his appeal, he qualified for probation as the sentence imposed on him was less than 6 years. (Colinares vs. People, GR 182748, December 13, 2011) (C) Yes, because the probation law is meant to favor the accused. (D) No, because his previous sentence of more than 6 years disqualified him so
134
(i) Probation Law (P.D. 968, as amended by R.A. No. 10707) (a) Definition of terms (b) Purpose (c) Grant of probation, manner and conditions (d) Criteria of placing an offender on probation (e) Disqualified offenders (f) Period of probation (g) Arrest of probationer (h) Termination of probation; exception see also: The Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002 (R.A. No. 9165) PROBATION LAW OF 1976
offenders convicted of any crime against the national security and the public order.
Page
4. Temporary special disqualification; 5. Suspension from public office, the right to vote and be voted for, and the right to follow a profession or calling; 6. Fine; and any principal penalty with its accessory penalties.
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
that he can no longer avail of probation as an alternative remedy. (E) None of the above.
Special law – Probation law - Legal effect of application for probation on the judgment of conviction
Juancho owns a small piggery in Malolos, Bulacan. One Saturday afternoon, he discovered that all his pigs had died. Suspecting that one of his neighbours had poisoned the pigs, Juancho went home, took his rifle, went around the neighbourhood, and fired his rifle in the air while shouting, "makakatikim sa akin ang naglason ng mga baboy ko." Barangay officials requested police assistance and Juancho was apprehended. Juancho was charged with and convicted of the crime of alarms and scandals. Juancho did not appeal his conviction. Is Juancho qualified for probation? (2013 BAR) (A) Yes, because the penalty for alarms and scandals is less than six (6) years. (B) Yes, because Juancho did not appeal his conviction. (C) No, because the crime of alarms and scandals carries with it a fine ofP200. (D) No, because the crime of alarms and scandals affects public order. (E) None of the above. ** In 2013 when this exam was given, the correct answer was “D” because Alarms and Scandal is a Crime against Public Order. Under Section 9 of the Probation Law, PD 968 as amended, probation shall not extend to those offenders convicted of any crime against the national security and the public order. However, The Probation Law has been recently amended by RA 10707, which was approved last Nov. 26, 2015. Under RA 10707, those “offenders convicted of any crime against the public order” have been excluded from the list of disqualified offenders to avail of probation.
Johnny Gitara was convicted of the crime of estafa by the Regional Trial Court of Manila. He was imposed the indeterminate penalty of imprisonment of 3 years, 2 months and 1 day as minimum and six years as maximum, both of prision correccional and was ordered to imdemnify the offended party in the amount of P3.000.00. He filed an application for probation upon the promulgation of the judgment. What is the legal effect of his application for probation on the judgment of conviction? Does said application interrupt the running of the period of appeal? (1992 Bar Question) SUGGESTED ANSWER: The filing of the application for probation is considered as a waiver of the right of the accused to appeal; the decision has become final. In view of the finality of the decision there is no period of appeal to speak of.
Page
“A” was charged with theft and upon arraignment, pleaded guilty to the charge. He was detained for failure to post bail. After “two (2) months, a decision was rendered, sentencing “A” to an indeterminate sentence of six (6) months and one (1) day as a minimum, to one (1) year and one (1) month as maximum, and to pay the offended party the amount of P700. On January 16, 1985, the very day the sentence was read to “A,” the Judge
135
Special law – Probation law – Purpose of probation law
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
issued a Commitment Order addressed to the Provincial Jail Warden. On January 28, 1985, “A applied for probation but his application was denied on the ground that the sentence of conviction became final and executory on January 16, 1985, when “A” commence to serve his sentence, a) Is “A” eligible for probation? b) What is the purpose of the probation law? (1989 Bar Question)
prison terms, the totality of the prison terms should not be taken into account for the purposes of determining the eligibility of the accused for the probation. The law uses the word "maximum term", and not total term. It is enough that each of the prison terms does not exceed six years. The number of offenses is immaterial for as long as the penalties imposed, when taken individually and separately, are within the probationable period.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The accused was found guilty of grave oral defamation in sixteen (16) Informations which were tried jointly and was sentenced in one decision to suffer in each case a prison term of one (1) year and one (1) day to one (1) year and eight (8) months of prision correccional. Within the period to appeal, he filed an application for probation under the Probation Law of 1976, as amended. Could he possibly qualify for probation? (1997 Bar Question) SUGGESTED ANSWER: Yes. In Francisco vs. Court of Appeals, 243 SCRA 384, the Supreme Court held that in case of one decision imposing multiple
SUGGESTED ANSWER: No. Under Section 4 of the Probation Law, as amended, an order granting or denying probation is not appealable. Special law – Probation law – improper denial thereof Boyet Mar was charged with consented abduction by a 17-year old complainant. The accused made wedding arrangements with the girl, but her parents insisted on the prosecution of the case. To avoid further embarrassment of a court trial for him and the girl, the accused entered a plea of guilty. He then filed a petition for probation before serving sentence, but the court denied the petition on the ground that “it would be better for the accused to serve sentence so that he would reform himself and avoid the scandal in the community that would be caused by the grant of the petition."
136
Special law - Probation Law of 1976 - Grant of probation
May a probationer appeal from the decision revoking the grant of probation or modifying the terms and conditions thereof? (2%) (2002 Bar Question)
Page
The purposes of the Probation Law are: 1. to promote the correction and rehabilitation of an offender by providing him with individualized treatment; 2. to provide an opportunity for the reformation of a penitent offender which might be less probable if he were to serve a prison sentence; and 3. to prevent the commission of offenses.
Special law –Execution and service – Probation Law (PD 968, as amended); grant of probation, manner and conditions
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
SUGGESTED ANSWER: The trial court acted incorrectly. In Balleta vs. Leviste, 92 SCRA 719, the Judge precisely denied the petition for probation on the same excuse stated in the problem. The Supreme Court held that an accused must fall within any one of the disqualifications stated in Section 9 of P.D. 960 in order to be denied probation. Special law – Probation law – Criteria of placing an offender on probation PX was convicted and sentenced to imprisonment of thirty days and a fine of one hundred pesos. Previously, PX was convicted of another crime for which the penalty imposed on him was thirty days only. Is PX entitled to probation? Explain briefly. (5%) (2004 Bar Question) SUGGESTED ANSWER: Tes, PX may apply for probation. His previous conviction for another crime with a penalty of thirty days imprisonment or not exceeding one (1) month does not disqualify him from applying for probation; the penalty for his present conviction does not disqualify him either from applying for probation, since the imprisonment does not exceed six (6) years (Sec. 9, Pres. Decree No. 968).
SUGGESTED ANSWER: A is still eligible for probation since he filed his application for probation within 15 days from the promulgation of the judgment. Under the Probation Law; the accused may apply for probation WITHIN THE PERIOD FOR PERFECTING AN APPEAL which is 15 days from promulgation or notice thereof. The judge committed an error in issuing a Commitment Order on the same day of promulgation. A commitment order for the convict to begin serving his sentence can be validly issued only if the period for perfecting an appeal has expired with no appeal being taken. The fact that in compliance with such-order, which is void, the accused commenced to serve his
137
Did the trial court act correctly in denying the petition for probation? (1991 Bar Question)
“A” was charged with theft and upon arraignment, pleaded guilty to the charge. He was detained for failure to post bail. After “two (2) months, a decision was rendered, sentencing “A” to an indeterminate sentence of six (6) months and one (1) day as a minimum, to one (1) year and one (1) month as maximum, and to pay the offended party the amount of P700. On January 16, 1985, the very day the sentence was read to “A,” the Judge issued a Commitment Order addressed to the Provincial Jail Warden. On January 28, 1985, “A applied for probation but his application was denied on the ground that the sentence of conviction became final and executory on January 16, 1985, when “A” commence to serve his sentence, a) Is “A” eligible for probation? b) What is the purpose of the probation law? (1989 Bar Question)
Page
The accused served sentence but he brought the matter to the Supreme Court in a petition for certiorari.
Special law – Probation law - Eligibility for probation
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
sentence does not bar him from availing himself of the benefits of the Probation Law. It is true that under the new Rules on Criminal Procedure it is provided that a judgment in a criminal case becomes final after the lapse of the period for perfecting an appeal, or when the sentence has been partially or totally satisfied or served, or the accused has applied for probation (Sec. 7, Rule 120). But Section 9 of the same Rule provides that “nothing in this Rule shall be construed as affecting any existing provision in the law governing suspension of sentence, probation or parole.”
charged in May 2007. Since Republic Act 9344 (Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of 2006) was already in effect, Joe moved to avail of the process of intervention or diversion. [e] Suppose Joe was convicted of attempted murder with a special aggravating circumstance and was denied suspension of sentence, would he be eligible for probation under Presidential Decree (PD) 968, considering that the death penalty is imposable for the consummated felony? Explain. (2%) (2009 Bar Question) SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Special law – Probation law – Eligibility for probation Joe was 17 years old when he committed homicide in 2005. The crime is punishable by reclusion temporal. After two years in hiding, he was arrested and appropriately
Special law – Probation Law – Disqualified offenders Carlos was charged and convicted of murder. He was sentenced to life imprisonment and to indemnify the
138
What the Probation Law provides is that no application for probation shall be entertained or granted if the defendant has perfected an appeal from the judgment or conviction. It does not say that no application shall be entertained if the judgment has become final because the convict has commenced to serve his sentence.
Yes. He would be eligible for probation because the penalty imposable on Joe will not exceed 6 years imprisonment. Even if it would be considered that the crime committed was punishable by death, the penalty as far as Joe is concerned can only be reclusion perpetua because Rep. Act 9344 forbids the imposition of the capital punishment upon offenders thereunder. The murder being attempted only, the prescribed penalty is two degree lower than reclusion perpetua; hence, prision mayor. Because Joe was 17 years old when he committed the crime, the penalty of prision mayor should be lowered further by one degree because his minority is a privileged mitigating circumstance; hence, prision correccional or imprisonment within the range of six months and 1 day to 6 years is the imposable.
Page
The probation law does not speak of filing an application for probation BEFORE judgment has become final. It only speaks of filing the application WITHIN THE PERIOD FOR PERFECTING AN APPEAL. There is nothing in the Probation Law that bars an accused who has commenced to serve his sentence from filing an application for probation provided he does so WITHIN THE PERIOD FOR PERFECTING AN APPEAL.
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
Criminal law – Probation law – Disqualified offenders Who are the offenders disqualified from availing themselves of the benefits of the probation law (P.D. 968, as amended)? (1988 Bar Question) SUGGESTED ANSWER: The following offenders are disqualified from availing of the benefits of the Probation Law: • those sentenced to serve maximum term of imprisonment of more than six years; • those convicted of subversion or any crime against the national security of the public order; • those who have previously been convicted by final judgment of an offense punished by imprisonment of not less than one month and one day and or a fine of not less than two hundred pesos; • those who have been once on probation under the provisions of this decree; and • those who are already serving sentence at the time the substantive
Special law – Probation law – Disqualified offenders On February 3, 1986, Roberto was convicted of arson through reckless imprudence and sentenced to pay a fine of P15,000.00, with subsidiary imprisonment in case of in-solvency By the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City. On February 10, 1986, he appealed to the Court of Appeals. Several months later, he filed a motion to withdraw the appeal on the ground that he is applying for probation. On May 7, 1987, the Court of Appeals granted the motion and considered the appeal withdrawn. On June 10, 1987, the records of the case were remanded to the trial court. Roberto filed a “Motion for Probation" praying that execution of his sentence be suspended, and that a probation officer be ordered to conduct an investigation and to submit a report on his probation. The judge denied the motion on the ground that pursuant to Presidential Decree No. 1990, which took effect on July 16, 1986, no application for probation shall be entertained or granted if the defendant has perfected an appeal from the judgment of conviction. Is the denial of Roberto’s motion correct? (1994 Bar Question) SUGGESTED ANSWER: Yes. Even if at the time of his conviction Roberto was qualified for probation but that at the time of his application for probation, he is no longer qualified, he is not entitled to probation. The qualification for probation must be determined as of the time the
139
SUGGESTED ANSWER: I will not grant the application for probation as it is clear in the Probation Law that the benefits thereof shall not apply to those sentenced to serve a maximum term of imprisonment of more than six (6) years. (P.D. 1990).
provisions of this decree applicable pursuant to Section 33 of P.D. 968.
Page
offended party in the amount of P30.000. And instead of filing a motion for reconsideration he applies for probation. If you were the judge, will you grant the same? Explain your answer. (1990 Bar Question)
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
Juanito was found guilty of Robbery by the RTC of Manila and sentenced to four (4) Years, two (2) months and one (1) day of prision correctional as minimum to eight (o) years and twenty (20) days of prision mayor as maximum. Juanito appealed to the Court of Appeals which found him guilty only of Theft and sentenced him to a straight penalty of one (1J Year. The decision of the appellate court was promulgated in May, 1993. 1. Is Juanito entitled to the benefits of the Probation Law which became effective on Jan. 3, 1978? Why? 2. Suppose the prison term imposed by the RTC in the above example is only two (2) years as minimum to six (6) years as maximum and Juanito did not appeal. When he applied for probation, it was discovered that in March, 1960, a Municipal Court has sentenced him to a six-month imprisonment for less serious physical injuries which he fully served. May his application for probation be granted? Reason out.(1993 Bar Question) SUGGESTED ANSWER: 1. Juanito is not entitled to probation because the law, as amended, requires the filing of the application within the period for perfecting an appeal.
Special law – Probation law – Disqualified offenders In a case for violation of Sec. 8, RA 6425, otherwise known as the Dangerous Drugs Act, accused Vincent was given the benefit of the mitigating circumstances of voluntary plea of guilt and drunkenness not otherwise habitual. He was sentenced to suffer a penalty of six (6) years and one (1) day and to pay a fine of P6.000.00 with the accessory penalties provided by law, plus costs. Vincent applied for probation. The probation officer favorably recommended his application. If you were the judge, what action will you take on the application? Discuss fully. (1995 Bar Question) Suppose that Vincent was convicted of a crime for which he was sentenced to a maximum penalty of ten (10) years. Under the law, he is not eligible for probation. He seasonably appealed his conviction. While affirming the judgment of conviction, the appellate court reduced the penalty to a maximum of four (4) years and four (4) months taking into consideration certain modifying circumstances. Vincent now applies for probation. How will you rule on his application? Discuss fully. (1995 Bar Question) SUGGESTED ANSWER:
140
Special law – Probation Law – Disqualified offenders
2. He is not entitled to the Probation Law because Section 9 (c) provides that probation shall not be extended to those "who have previously been convicted by final judgment of an offense punishable by imprisonment of not less than one (1) month and one (1) day or a fine of not more than P200.00."
Page
application is filed in Court (Ber-nardo vs. Judge. etal, GRNo. L86561, Nov. 10, 1992; Edwtn de la Cruz vs. Judge CaUejo, et al, SP-19655, April 18, 1990, citing Llamado vs. CA, et al., GR No. 84859, June 28. 1989; Bernardo vs. Judge Balagot, et aL GR 86561, Nov. 10.1992
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
N.B to No. 2 This Is the second consecutive year that this question was asked. It is the sincere belief of the Committee that there is a need to re-examine the doctrine. Firstly, much as the accused wanted to apply for probation he is proscribed from doing so as the maximum penalty is NOT PROBATIONABLE. Secondly, when the maximum penalty was reduced to one which aUows probation it is but fair and j ust to grant him that right because it is apparent that the trial judge committed an error and for which the accused should not be made to suffer. Judicial tribunals in this jurisdiction are not only courts of law but also of equity. Thirdly, the judgment of the appellate court should be considered a new decision as the trial court’s decision was vacated: hence, he could take advantage of the law when the decision is remanded to the trial court for execution (Please see Dissenting opinion in Francisco us. CA). It is suggested, therefore, that an examinee answering in this tenor should be credited with some points.
A, a subdivision developer, was convicted by the RTC of Makati for failure to issue the subdivision title to a lot buyer despite full payment of the lot, and sentenced to suffer one year imprisonment. A appealed the decision of the RTC to the Court of Appeals but his appeal was dismissed. May A still apply for probation? Explain. (5%) (2001 Bar Question) SUGGESTED ANSWER: No. A is no longer qualified to apply for probation after he appealed from the judgment of conviction by the RTC. The probation law (PD 968. as amended by PD1990) now provides that no application for probation shall be entertained or granted if the accused has perfected an appeal from the judgment of conviction (Sec. 4. PD 968). Special law – Probation Law – Disqualified offenders Juan was convicted of the Regional Trial Court of a crime and sentenced to suffer the penalty of imprisonment for a minimum of eight years. He appealed both his conviction and the penalty imposed upon him to the Court of Appeals. The appellate court ultimately sustained Juan's conviction but reduced his sentence to a maximum of four years and eight months imprisonment. Could Juan forthwith file an application for probation? Explain. (2003 Bar Question) SUGGESTED ANSWER:
141
The law and jurisprudence are to the effect that appeal by the accused from a sentence of conviction forfeits his right to probation.(Sec. 4. PD No. 968, as amended by PD 1990; Bernardo vs. Balagot; Francisco vs. CA; Llamado vs. CA; De la Cruz vs. Judge Callejo. CA case).
Special law – Probation Law – Disqualified offenders
Page
If I were the judge, I will deny the application for probation. The accused is not entitled to probation as Sec. 9 of the Probation Law. PD NO. 968, as amended, specifically mentions that those who “are sentenced to serve a maximum term of imprisonment of more than six years" are not entitled to the benefits of the law.
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
SUGGESTED ANSWER: Instances when sentence may suspended are: (at least 7 instances)
be
1. where the accused became insane before sentence could be promulgated (Art. 79, RPC); 2. where the offender, upon conviction by the trial court, filed an application for probation which has been granted (Baclayon v. Mutia, 129 SCRA 148119841); 3. where the offender needs to be confined in a rehabilitation center because of drug-dependency although convicted of the crime charged; 4. where the offender is a youthful offender under Art. 192, PD 603, otherwise referred to as the Child and Youth Welfare Code; and 5. where the, crime was committed when the offender is under 18 years of age and he is found guilty thereof in accordance with Rep. Act 9344, otherwise known as the "Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of 2006", but the trial court subjects him to
SECTION 66. Suspension of Sentence of a First-Time Minor Offender. - An accused who is over fifteen (15) years of age at the time of the commission of the offense mentioned in Section 11 of this Act, but not more than eighteen (18) years of age at the time when judgment should have been promulgated after having been found guilty of said offense, may be given the benefits of a suspended sentence, subject to the following conditions: a. He/she has not been previously convicted of violating any provision of this Act, or of the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972, as amended; or of the Revised Penal Code; or of any special penal laws; b. He/she has not been previously committed to a Center or to the care of a DOH-accredited physician; and c. The, Board favorably recommends that his/her sentence be suspended xxx" "SECTION 66. Suspension of Sentence of a First-Time Minor Offender. - An accused 8. When the sentence is death, its execution may be suspended or postponed by the Supreme Court, through the issuance of a RO upon the ground of supervening events (Echegaray v. Secretary of Justice, 301 SCRA 96 [19991).
142
There are at least 7 instances or situations in criminal cases wherein the accused, either as an adult or as a minor, can apply for and/or be granted a suspended sentence. Enumerate at least 5 of them. 5% (2006 Bar Question)
appropriate disposition measures as prescribed by the Supreme Court in the Rule on Juveniles in Conflict with the Law. 6. the death sentence shall be suspended upon a woman while she is pregnant or within one year after delivery. (Art. 83, Revised Penal Code) 7. Section 66 of RA 9165 (Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002)
Page
No, Juan can no longer avail of the probation because he appealed from the judgment of conviction of the trial court, and therefore, cannot apply for probation anymore. Section 4 of the Probation Law, as amended, mandates that no application for probation shall be entertained or granted if the accused has perfected an appeal from the judgment of conviction. ART.7-Execution and service – Application for suspended sentence
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
Explain the application of the Indeterminate Sentence Law (ISL). (5%)
contending that the accused is a habitual delinquent and an escapee from the National Mental Hospital. If you are the Judge, rule on the objection.
A was charged with homicide. During the trial, uncontradicted evidence consisting of medical certificates were presented showing that the accused had sustained injuries in ten (10) previous occasions while engaged in fisticuffs with different persons. He was also confined at the National Mental Hospital for mental ailment diagnosed as “homicidal and suicidal instincts.” During his second confinement thereat, he escaped. Upon conviction, the prosecutor objected to the application of the Indeterminate Sentence Law
The objection should be overruled. A could not be legally considered a habitual delinquent. Habitual delinquency cannot be validly invoked without being alleged in the Information and proven during the trial. Besides there is no indication that A was convicted within ten (10) years from last conviction or release, three times or oftener of the crimes of robbery, theft, estafa, physical injuries or falsification.
ART 62 – EFFECTS OF THE ATTENDANCE OF MITIGATING OR AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANES AND OF HABITUAL DELINQUENCY Homer was convicted of homicide. The trial court appreciated the following modifying circumstances: the aggravating circumstance of nocturnity and the mitigating circumstances of passion and obfuscation, no intent to commit so grave a wrong, illiteracy and voluntary surrender. The imposable penalty for homicide is reclusion temporal the range of which is twelve (12) years and one (1) day to twenty (20) years. Taking into account the attendant aggravating and mitigating circumstances, and applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, determine the proper penalty to be imposed on the accused. (1995 Bar Question) SUGGESTED ANSWER:
143
Art. 62 Habitual delinquency (1991)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Page
Suggested answer The court shall sentence the accused to an indeterminate sentence the maximum term of which shall be that which, in view of the attending circumstances, could be properly imposed under the rules of the Revised Penal Code, and the minimum of which shall be within the range of the penalty next lower to that prescribed by the Code for the offense; and if the offense Is punished by any other law (special law), the court shall sentence the accused to an indeterminate sentence, the maximum term of which shall not exceed the maximum fixed by said law and the minimum shall not be less than the minimum term prescribed by the same, (Sec. 1, ISL., Act No. 4103 as amended by Act No. 4225) The court must instead of a single fixed penalty, except where the imposable penalty is one (1) year or less, determine two penalties, referred to in the Indeterminate Sentence Law as the “maximum” and “minimum” terms.
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
Since the crime committed is Homicide and the penalty therefor is reclusion temporal, the MAXIMUM sentence under the Indeterminate Sentence Law should be the minimum of the penalty, which is 12 years and 1 day to 14 years and 8 months. The MINIMUM penalty will thus be the penalty next lower in degree, which is prision mayor in its full extent (6 years and 1 day to 12 years). Ergo, the proper penalty would be 6 years and 1 day, as minimum, to 12 years and 1 day, as maximum. I believe that because of the remaining mitigating circumstances after the off-setting it would be very logical to impose the minimum of the MINIMUM sentence under the ISL and the minimum of the MAXIMUM sentence.
Bruno was charged with homicide for killing the 75-year old owner of his rooming house. The prosecution proved that Bruno stabbed the owner causing his death; and that the killing happened at 10 in the evening in the house where the victim and Bruno lived. Bruno, on the other hand, successfully proved that he voluntarily surrendered to the authorities; that he pleaded guilty to the crime charged; that it was the victim who first attacked and did so without any provocation on his (Bruno's) part, but he prevailed because he managed to draw his knife with which he stabbed the victim. The penalty for homicide is reclusion temporal. Assuming a judgment of conviction and after considering the attendant circumstances, what penalty should the judge impose? (2013 BAR) ANSWER Bruno should be sentenced to an indeterminate sentence penalty of arresto mayor in any of its period to prision correccional in its medium period as maximum. Bruno was entitled to two privileged mitigating circumstances of incomplete self-defense and the presence of at least two ordinary mitigating circumstances (voluntary surrender and plea of guilt) without any aggravating circumstance under Art. 69 and 64(5) of the RPC respectively, which lowers the prescribed penalty for homicide which is reclusion temporal to prision correccional.
144
The existence of an aggravating circumstance, albeit there are four aggravating, will not justify the lowering of the penalty to the next lower degree under paragraph 5 of said Article, as this is applicable only if THERE IS NO AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCE present.
ART 62 – EFFECTS OF THE ATTENDANCE OF MITIGATING OR AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANES AND OF HABITUAL DELINQUENCY
Page
It appears that there is one aggravating circumstance (noctumity), and four mitigating circumstances (passion and obfuscation, no intent to commit so grave a wrong as that committed and voluntary surrender). Par. 4, Art. 64 should be applied. Hence there will be off-setting of modifying circumstances, which will now result in the excess of three mitigating circumstances. This will therefore justify in reducing the penalty to the minimum period.
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
Taylor was convicted of a violation of the Election Code, and was sentenced to suffer imprisonment of one year as minimum, to three years as maximum. The decision of the trial court was affirmed on appeal and became final and executory. Taylor failed to appear when summoned for execution of judgment, prompting the judge to issue an order for his arrest. Taylor was able to use the backdoor and left for the United States. Fifteen years later, Taylor returned to the Philippines and filed a Motion to Quash the warrant of arrest against him, on the ground that the penalty imposed against him had already prescribed. (2015 BAR) a) If you were the judge, would you grant Taylor's Motion to Quash? Explain. Answer: If I were the judge, I will deny the motion to quash. Article 93 of the Revised Penal Code provides when the prescription of penalties shall commence to run. Under said provision, it shall commence to run from the date the felon evades the service of his sentence. Pursuant to Article 157 of the same Code, evasion of service of sentence can be committed only by those who have been convicted by final judgment by escaping during the term of his sentence. Taylor never served a single minute of his sentence, and thus, prescription never started to run in his favor. Clearly, one who has not been committed to prison cannot be said to have escaped therefrom (Del Castillo v. Torrecampo, G.R. No. 139033, December 18, 2002).
Answer: Even if Taylor was able to go to another country which the Philippines had no extradition treaty, I will deny the motion to quash. Going to a foreign country with which this Government has no extradition treaty to interrupt the running of prescription is not applicable nor even material because the period of prescription is not applicable nor even material because the period of prescription had not commenced to run in the first place; hence, there is nothing to interrupt. ART. 89-93 Extinction of criminal liability- prescription of crimes (1993 Bar Question) B imitated the signature of A, registered owner of a lot, in special power of attorney naming him (B) as the attorneyin-fact of A On February 13, 1964, B mortgaged the lot to a bank using the special power of attorney to obtain a loan of P8.500.00. On the same day, both the special power of attorney and the mortgage contract were duly registered in the Registry of Deeds. Because of B’s failure to pay. The bank foreclosed the mortgage and the lot was sold to X in whose name a new title was issued. In March, 1974, A discovered that the property was already registered in the name of X because of an ejectment case filed against him by X. If you were the lawyer of A, with what crime or crimes would you charge B? Explain.
145
Art. 93 in relation to Art 157
b) Assuming that instead of the United States, Taylor was able to go to another country with which the Philippines had no extradition treaty, will your answer be the same? Explain.
Page
EXTINCTION OF CRIMINAL LIABILITY
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
which is in the name of his wife and children? Reason out.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The crime committed is estafa thru falsification of public document.
A. Andy will not be criminally liable because Section 6 of RA 7080 provides that the crime punishable under this Act shall prescribe in twenty years and the problem asked whether Andy can still be charged with the crime of plunder after 20 years.
A. May Andy still be held criminally liable? Why? B. Can the State still recover the properties and assets that he illegally acquired, the bulk of
B. Yes, because Section 6 provides that recovery of properties unlawfully acquired by public officers from them or their nominees or transferees shall not be barred by prescription, laches or estoppel. (1995 Bar Question) Joe and Marcy were married in Batanes in 1955. After two years, Joe left Marcy and settled in Mindanao where he later met and married Linda on 12 June 1960. The second marriage was registered in the civil registry of Davao City three days after its celebration. On 10 October 1975 Marcy who remained in Batanes discovered the marriage of Joe to Linda. On 1 March 1976 Marcy filed a complaint for bigamy against Joe. The crime of bigamy prescribed in fifteen years computed from the day the crime is discovered by the offended party, the authorities or their agents. Joe raised the defense of prescription of the crime, more than fifteen years having elapsed from the celebration of the bigamous marriage up to the filing of Marcy’s complaint. He contended that the registration of his second marriage in the civil registry of Davao City was constructive notice to the whole world of the celebration thereof thus binding upon Marcy.
146
My defense will be prescription because the crime was committed in 1964 and almost twenty nine years had already elapsed since then. Even if we take Falsification and Estafa individually, they have already prescribed. It is to be noted that when it comes to discovery, the fact that the crime was discovered in 1964 will be of no moment because the offended party is considered to have constructive notice on the forgery after the Deed of Sale where his signature had been falsified was registered in the office of the Register of Deeds (Cabral vs. Pu.no, 70 SCRA 606) (1993 Bar Question) Through kickbacks, percentages or commissions and other fraudulent schemes/conveyances and taking advantage of his position, Andy, a former mayor of a suburban town, acquired assets amounting to P10 billion which is grossly disproportionate to his lawful income. Due to his influence and connections and despite knowledge by the authorities of his ill-gotten wealth, he was charged with the crime of plunder only after twenty (20) years from his defeat in the last elections he participated in.
Page
If you were the counsel of B. what would be your defense? Discuss.
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
Resolve the motion for reconsideration.
No. The prescriptive period for the crime of bigamy is computed from the time the crime was discovered by the offended party, the authorities or their agents. The principle of constructive notice which ordinarily applies to land or property disputes should not be applied to the crime of bigamy, as marriage is not property. Thus when Marcy filed a complaint for bigamy on 7 March 1976, it was well within the reglamentary period as it was barely a few months from the time of discovery on 10 October 1975. (Sermonia vs. CA, 233 SCRA 155) (1997 Bar Question) A was charged in an information with the crime of grave oral defamation but after trial, the court found him guilty only of the offense of simple slander. He filed a motion for reconsideration contending that, under the law, the crime of simple slander would have prescribed in two months from commission, and since the information against him was filed more than four months after the alleged commission of the crime, the same had already prescribed. The Solicitor General opposed the motion on two grounds: first, in determining the prescriptive period, the nature of the offense charged in the information should be considered, not the crime proved; second, assuming that the offense had already prescribed, the defense was waived by the failure of A to raise it in a motion to quash.
The motion for reconsideration should be granted. The accused cannot be convicted of the offense of simple slander although it is necessarily included in the offense of grave slander charged in the information, because, the lesser offense had already prescribed at the time the information was filed (People vs. Rarang, (CA) 62 O.G. 6468; Francisco vs. CA, 122 SCRA 538; Magat vs. People, 201SCRA 21) otherwise prosecutors can easily circumvent the rule of prescription in light offenses by the simple expediment of filing a graver offense which includes such light offense. While the general rule is the failure of an accused to file a motion to quash before he pleads to the complaint or information, shall be deemed a waiver of the grounds of a motion to quash, the exceptions to this are: (1) no offense was charged in the complaint or information; (2) lack of jurisdiction; (3) extinction of the offense or penalty; and (4) double jeopardy. Since the ground invoked by the accused in his motion for reconsideration is extinction of the offense, then it can be raised even after plea. In fact, it may even be invoked on appeal (People vs. Balagtas) (2000 Bar Question) One fateful night in January 1990, while 5-year old Albert was urinating at the back of their house, he heard a strange noise coming from the kitchen of their neighbor and playmate, Ara. When he peeped inside, he saw Mina, Ara’s stepmother, very angry and strangling the 5-year old Ara to death. Albert saw Mina carry the dead body of Ara, place it inside the trunk of her car and drive away. The dead body of Ara was never
147
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Page
Has the crime of bigamy charged against Joe already prescribed? Discuss fully.
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
Yes, the State can still prosecute Mina for the death of Ara despite the lapse of 20 & 1/2 years. Under Article 91. RPC, the period of prescription commences to run from the day on which the crime is discovered by the offended party, the authorities or their agents. In the case at bar, the commission of the crime was known only to Albert, who was not the offended party nor an authority or an agent of an authority. It was discovered by the NBI authorities only when Albert revealed to them the commission of the crime. Hence, the period of prescription of 20years for homicide commenced to run only from the time Albert revealed the same to the NBI authorities. (2001 Bar Question) On June 1, 1988, a complaint for concubinage committed in February 1987 was filed against Roberto in the Municipal Trial Court of Tanza, Cavite for purposes of preliminary investigation. For various reasons, it was only on July 3, 1998 when the Judge of said court decided the case by dismissing it for lack of jurisdiction since the crime was committed in
Was the dismissal by the fiscal correct? Explain. (5%) SUGGESTED ANSWER: No, the Fiscals dismissal of the case on alleged prescription is not correct. The filing of the complaint with the Municipal Trial Court, although only for preliminary investigation, interrupted and suspended the period of prescription in as much as the jurisdiction of a court in a criminal case is determined by the allegations in the complaint or information, not by the result of proof. (People vs. Galano, 75 SCRA 193) (2004 Bar Question) OW is a private person engaged in cattle ranching. One night, he saw AM stabbed CV treacherously, then throw the dead man’s body into a ravine. For 25 years, CVs body was never seen nor found; and OW told no one what he had witnessed. Yesterday after consulting the parish priest, OW decided to tell the authorities what he witnessed, and revealed that AM had killed CV 25 years ago. Can AM be prosecuted for murder despite the lapse of 25 years? Reason briefly. (5%) SUGGESTED ANSWER: A. Yes, AM can be prosecuted for murder despite the lapse of 25 years, because the
148
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Manila. The case was subsequently filed with the City Fiscal of Manila but it was dismissed on the ground that the crime had already prescribed. The law provides that the crime of concubinage prescribes in ten (10) years.
Page
found. Mina spread the news in the neighborhood that Ara went to live with her grandparents in Ormoc City. For fear of his life, Albert did not tell anyone, even his parents and relatives, about what he witnessed. Twenty and a half (20 & 1/2) years after the incident, and right after his graduation in Criminology, Albert reported the crime to NBI authorities. The crime of homicide prescribes in 20 years. Can the state still prosecute Mina for the death of Ara despite the lapse of 20 & 1/2 years? Explain. (5%)
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
(2009 Bar Question) Baldo killed Conrad in a dark corner, at midnight, on January 2, 1960. Dominador witnessed the entire incident, but he was so scared to tell the authorities about it. On January 2, 1970, Dominador, bothered by his conscience, reported the matter to the police. After investigation, the police finally arrested Baldo on January 6, 1980. Charged in court, Baldo claims that the crime he committed had already prescribed. Is Baldo's contention correct? Explain. (3%) SUGGESTED ANSWER: No, Baldo's contention is not correct because the crime committed has not yet prescribed. The prescriptive period of the crime committed commenced to run only after it was reported to the police on January 2, 1970, not on the date it was clandestinely committed on January 2, 1960. Under the discovery rule, which governs when a crime is not publicly committed, the prescriptive period of a crime commences to run only from the day on which the crime is discovered by the
(2010 Bar Question) A killed his wife and buried her in their backyard. He immediately went into hiding in the mountains. Three years later, the bones of A's wife were discovered by X, the gardener. Since X had a standing warrant of arrest, he hid the bones in an old clay jar and kept quiet about it. After two years, Z, the caretaker, found the bones and reported the matter to the police. After 15 years of hiding, A left the country but returned three years later to take care of his ailing sibling. Six years thereafter, he was charged with parricide but raised the defense of prescription. A. Under the Revised Penal Code, when does the period of prescription of a crime commence to run? (1%) B. When is it interrupted? (1%) C. Is A's defense tenable? Explain. (3%) SUGGESTED ANSWER: A. Generally, the period of prescription of a crime commences to run from the date it was committed; but if the crime was committed clandestinely, the period of prescription of the crimes under the Revised Penal Code commence to run from the day on which the crime was
149
The period of prescription of a crime shall commence to run only from the day on which the crime has been discovered by the offended party, the authorities or their agents (Art. 91, Revised Penal Code). OW, a private person who saw the killing but never disclosed it, is not the offended party nor has the crime been discovered by the authorities or their agents.
offended party, the authorities or their agents: in this case, from January 2, 1970 when it was made known to the police authorities until January 6, 1980, when Baldo was arrested and charged. The killing committed, whether it be homicide or murder, is punishable by an afflictive penalty which prescribes in twenty (20) years, whereas only around ten (10) years had lapsed from January 2, 1970 (when the authorities discovered the commission of the crime) to January 6, 1920 (when the accused was charged in court).
Page
crime has not yet prescribed and legally, its prescriptive period has not even commenced to run.
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
discovered by the offended party, the authorities or their agents (Art 91, RPC).
prescriptive period had lapsed. Hence the crime has not yet prescribed
B. The running of the prescriptive period of the crime is interrupted when "any kind of investigative proceeding is instituted against the guilty person which may ultimately lead to his prosecution" (Panaguiton, Jr. v. Dept. of Justice, G.R. No. 167571, Nov. 25, 2008).
ART.89/ART. 94 Total and partial extinguishment – Acquittal in relation to civil liability (1988 Bar Question) a) How is criminal liability totally extinguished? b) How is criminal liability extinguished partially? c) If an accused is acquitted, does it necessarily follows that no civil liability arising from the acts complained of may be awarded in the same judgment?
Since A had been in hiding for 15 years after the commission of the crime and the prescriptive period started running only after 5 years from such commission when the crime was discovered, only 10 years lapsed and 3 years thereof should be deducted when the prescriptive period was interrupted and suspended. Hence, the 3 years when A was out of the Philippines should be deducted from the 10 years after the prescription starts running. Adding the 7 years of prescription and the 6 years that lapsed before the case was filed, only a total of thirteen (13) years of the
SUGGESTED ANSWER a) Article 89 of the Revised Penal Code provides for the following causes of total extinction of criminal liability: 1. Death of the convict as to personal penalties, as to the pecuniary liabilities, liability therefore is extinguished only when death occurs before final judgment. 2. Service of Sentence 3. Amnesty 4. Absolute pardon 5. Prescription of the crime 6. Prescription of the penalty 7. Marriage of the offended woman as provided in Article 344. b) Article 94 of the Revised Penal Code provides for the following causes of partial extinction of criminal liability: 1. Condition pardon 2. Communication of sentence 3. Good conduct allowances during confinement 4. Parole 5. Probation
150
When A left the country and returned only after three (3) years, the running of the prescriptive period of the crime is interrupted and suspended because prescription shall not run when the offender is absent from the Philippine Archipelago (Art. 91, RPC).
Explain briefly.
Page
C. No, the defense of prescription of the crime is not tenable. The crime committed is parricide which prescribes in twenty (20) years (Art 90, RPC). It was only when the care-taker, Z, found the victim's bones and reported the matter to the police that the crime is deemed legally discovered by the authorities or their agents and thus the prescriptive period of the crime commenced to run.
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
For defrauding Loma, Alma was charged before the Municipal Trial Court of Malolos, Bulacan. After a protracted trial, Alma was convicted. While the case was pending appeal in the Regional Trial Court of the same province, Loma who was then suffering from breast cancer, died. Alma manifested to the court that with Loma's death, her (Alma's) criminal and civil liabilities are now extinguished. Is Alma’s contention correct? What if it were Alma who died, would it affect her criminal and civil liabilities? Explain. (3%) (2000 Bar Question) a. Name at least two exceptions to the general rule that in case of acquittal of the accused in a criminal case, his civil liability is likewise extinguished. (2%) (2000 Bar Question) SUGGESTED ANSWER: No. Alma's contention is not correct. The death of the offended party does not extinguish the criminal liability of the offender, because the offense is committed against the State (People vs. Misola, 87 Phil. 830, 833). Hence, it follows that the civil liability of Alma based on the offense committed by her is not extinguished. The estate of Loma can continue the case.
b. Exceptions to the rule that acquittal from a criminal case extinguishes civil liability, are: 1. When the civil action is based on obligations not arising from the act complained of as a felony; 2. When acquittal is based on reasonable doubt or acquittal is on the ground that guilt has not been proven beyond reasonable doubt (Art. 29, New Civil Code); 3. Acquittal due to an exempting circumstance, like insanity; 4. Where the court states in its judgment that the case merely involves a civil obligation; 5. Where there was a proper reservation forthe filing of a separate civil action; 6. In cases of independent civil actions provided for in Arts. 31,32,33 and 34 of the New Civil Code; 7. When the judgment of acquittal includes a declaration that the fact from which the civil liability might arise did not exist (Saplera vs. CA. 314 SCRA370); 8. Where the civil liability is not derived or based on the criminal act of which the accused is acquitted (Saplera vs. CA, 314 SCRA 370). Note : Only two (2) exceptions are asked.
151
ART. 89--Extinguishment of criminal liability; civil liability
On the other hand, if it were Alma who died pending appeal of her conviction, her criminal liability shall be extinguished and therewith the civil liability under the Revised Penal Code (Art. 89, par. 1, RPC). However, the claim for civil indemnity may be instituted under the Civil Code (Art. 1157) if predicated on a source of obligation other than delict, such as law, contracts, quasi-contracts and quasidelicts (People vs. Bayotas 236 SCRA 239, G.R. 152007, September 2, 1994).
Page
If an accused acquitted, it does not necessarily follow that no civil liability arising from the acts complained of may be awarded in the same judgment except: If there is an express waiver of the liability; and if there is a reservation of file a separate civil action (Rule 107; Padilla vs. CA People vs. Jalandoni).
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
Court, PM died. The defense counsel manifested that PM’s death extinguished not only the criminal liability but also the pecuniary liability because the death occurred before the final judgment, since the case was pending appeal. He invoked Art. 89 of the Revised Penal Code which provides that “criminal liability is totally extinguished: 1. By the death of the convict, as to the personal penalties; and as to pecuniary penalties, liability therefor is extinguished only when the death of the offender occurs before the final judgment*’ As a Solicitor in the Office of the Solicitor General, do you agree with the defense counsel’s argument? (1987 Bar Question) SUGGESTED ANSWER: As Solicitor General, I will not agree to the argument of the defense counsel that the death of PM while his appeal was pending extinguished not only his criminal liability but also his pecuniary liability Article 89 of the Revised Penal Code which provides that the “pecuniary liability of the accused is extinguished only when the death of the offender occurred before the final judgment”, refers to his liability to pay the fine. (People vs. Sendaydiego, 81 SCRA 120). The civil liability, however, survives the death of the offender because death is not a valid cause of the extinguishment of
Rico was convicted of raping Letty, his former sweetheart by the Regional Trial Court of Manila and he was ordered to serve the penalty of life imprisonment, to indemnify Letty in the amount of P30.000.00 and to support their offspring. Pending appeal in the Supreme Court. Rico died. His widow, Bemie, moved for a dismissal of the case A. What is the legal effect of Rico’s death on his criminal liability? Explain your answer. (1990 Bar Question) B. How about on his civil liability? State your reasons. (1990 Bar Question) SUGGESTED ANSWER: A. The criminal liability of Rico is extinguished on the basis of Article 89 of the Revised Penal Code which provides that: “ How criminal liability is extinguished - Criminal liability is totally extiguished: 1. By the death of the convict, as to the personal penalties; and as to pecuniary penalties, liability therefor is extinguished only when the death of the offender occurs before final judgement. B. The civil liability of Rico survives. (People v. Sen- davdiego, January 20, 1978, 74 O.G. 4371; People v. Tirol G.R. No. L-30588, January 31, 1981; People v. Naboa, et, al.,132 SCRA 410).
152
PM, a rich businessman, was convicted of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment by the Regional Trial Court, and to pay the heirs of the victim the total amount of P250,000.00. While his appeal was pending before the Supreme
ART. 89/ART. 112--Effect of death of accused on criminal and civil liability
Page
ART. 89--Effect of death of the accused on civil liability
civil obligation. (Tonijos vs. Court of Appeals 67 SCRA 394).
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
ART. 89--effect death of the accused pending appeal on his criminal and pecuniary liabilities Librado was convicted of malversation for which he has imposed the indeterminate penalty of imprisonment with the following accessory penalties provided by law - a fine of P6.000.00 without subsidiary imprisonment in case of in-solvency; perpetual special disqualification; indemnification to the government in the amount of P6.000.00 and to pay the costs. If he dies pending appeal, what is the legal effect of his death on his criminal and pecuniary liabilities? (1992 Bar Question) SUGGESTED ANSWER: Under Art. 89. RPC and jurisprudence (People vs. Jose. 71 SCRA 273, People vs. Alison. 44 SCRA 523; etc.) death of the accused pending appeal extinguishes his criminal and civil liabilities. Civil liability includes pecuniary liabilities, such as fine. Hence, the same, together with the disqualification and the costs are extinguished.
TRY was sentenced to death by final judgment. But subsequently he was granted pardon by the President. The pardon was silent on the perpetual disqualification of TRY to hold any public office.
liability;
AX was convicted of reckless imprudence resulting in homicide. The trial court sentenced him to a prison term as well as to pay P150.000 as civil indemnity and damages. While his appeal was pending, AX met a fatal accident. He left a young widow, 2 children, and a million-peso estate. What is the effect, if any, of his death on his criminal as well as civil liability? Explain briefly. (5%) (2004 Bar Question) SUGGESTED ANSWER:
ART. 89 Criminal law – Modification and extinction of criminal liability – Pardon and Amnesty
After his pardon, TRY ran for office as Mayor of APP, his hometown. His opponent sought to disqualify him. TRY contended he is not disqualified because he was already pardoned by the President unconditionally. Is TRY’S contention correct? Reason briefly. (5%) (2004 Bar Question) SUGGESTED ANSWER: No, TRY's contention is not correct. Article 40 of the Revised Penal Code expressly provides that when the death penalty is not
153
civil
Civil indemnity and damages under the Revised Penal Code are recoverable only if the accused had been convicted with finality before he died.
Page
ART.89--Criminal and when extinguished
The death of AX while his appeal from the judgment of the trial court is pending, extinguishes his criminal liability. The civil liability insofar as it arises from the crime and recoverable under the Revised Penal Code is also extinguished; but indemnity and damages may be recovered in a civil action if predicated on a source of obligation under Art. 1157, Civil Code, such as law, contracts, quasi-contracts and quasi-delicts, but not on the basis of delicts. (People v. Bayotas, 236SCRA 239 11994B.
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
SUGGESTED ANSWER: A. The differences between pardon and amnesty: In pardon: The convict is excused from serving the sentence but the effects of conviction remain unless expressly remitted by the
In amnesty; The criminal complexion of the act constituting the crime is erased, as though such act was innocent when committed; hence, the effects of the conviction are obliterated. Amnesty is granted is in favor of a class of convicted offenders, not to individual convicted offenders; and the crimes involved are generally political offenses, not common crimes. Amnesty is a public act that requires the conformity or concurrence of the Philippine Senate. B. Crimes covered by the grant of amnesty, under Presidential Proclamation No. 724: (at least 5)
a. Rebellion or insurrection b. Coup d'etat c. Conspiracy and proposal to commit rebellion, insurrection or coup d'etat d. Disloyalty' of public officers or employs e. Inciting to rebellion or insurrection f. Sedition g. Conspiracy to commit sedition h. Inciting to sedition i. Illegal assembly j. Illegal association k. Direct Assault l. Indirect Assault
154
Pardon vs Amnesty A. Enumerate the differences between pardon and amnesty. 2.5% (2006 Bar Question) B. Under Presidential Proclamation No. 724, amending Presidential Proclamation No. 347, certain crimes are covered by the grant of amnesty. Name at least 5 of these crimes. 2.5% C. Can former DSWD Secretary Dinky Soliman apply for amnesty? How about columnist Randy David? (You are supposed to know the crimes or offenses ascribed to them as published in almost all newspapers for the past several months.) 2.5% (2006 Bar Question) D. General Lim and General Querubin of the Scout Rangers and Philippine Marines, respectively, were charged with conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentleman under the Articles of War. Can they apply for amnesty? 2.5% (2006 Bar Question)
pardon; hence, for pardon to be valid there must be a sentence already final and executory at the time the same is granted. Moreover, the grant is in favor of individual convicted offenders, not to a class of convicted offenders; and the crimes subject of the grant may be common crimes or political crimes. Finally, the grant is a private act of the Chief Executive which does not require the concurrence of any other public officer or office.
Page
executed by reason of commutation or pardon, the accessory penalties of perpetual absolute disqualification and civil interdiction during thirty (30) years from the date of the sentence shall remain as effects thereof, unless such accessory penalties have been expressly remitted in the pardon. This is because pardon only excuses the convict from serving the sentence but does not relieve him of the effects of the conviction unless expressly remitted in the pardon.
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
D. Yes. General Lim and General Querubin of the Scout Rangers and Philippine Marines can apply for amnesty. Violation of conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentleman under Article 96 of the Articles of War is explicitly enumerated in Section 1 of Presidential Proclamation No 724 as one of the crimes that are covered by the grant of amnesty. Pardon: Reinstatement Rina, who was a suspended Clerk of Court, was convicted of malversation and was sentenced to imprisonment, to pay a fine of P5.000.00 and to indemnify the government in the same amount. Pending appeal in the Court of Appeals, she was
Decide the issue with reasons. (1990 Bar Question) SUGGESTED ANSWER: Rina cannot apply for reinstatement, etc. as there was no effective pardon by the President. It is basic that pardon can only be granted after final conviction (Barrioquinto v. Fernandez, 85 Phil. 642 Modification and extinction of criminal liability – Pardon by the Chief Executive Linda was convicted by the Sandiganbayan of estafa through falsification of public document. She was sentenced accordingly and ordered to pay, among others, P5,000.00 representing the balance of the amount defrauded. The case reached the Supreme Court which affirmed the judgment of conviction. During the pendency of Linda’s motion for reconsideration in the said Court, the President extended to her an absolute pardon which she accepted. By reason of such pardon, she wrote the Department of Finance requesting that she be restored to her former post as assistant treasurer, which is still vacant. The Department ruled that Linda may be reinstated to her former position without the necessity of a new appointment and directed the City Treasurer to see to it that the sum of P5.000.00 be satisfied.
155
C. Both Dinky Soliman and Randy David may apply for amnesty because the crime respectively imputed to them are crimes against public order which are among the crimes covered by amnesty.
extended an absolute pardon by the President. Thus, she applied for reinstatement, payment of backwages, and absolution from payment of the One and indemnify.
Page
m. Resistance and disobedience to a person in authority or agents of such persons n. Tumults and other disturbances of public order o. Unlawful use of means of publication and unlawful utterances p. Alarms and scandals q. Illegal poSsession of firearms, ammunitions, and explosives, committed in furtherance of, incident to, or in connection with the crimes of rebellion and insurrection r. Violations of Articles of War: r.1. Art. 59 (Desertion) r.2. Art. 62 (Absence without Leave) r.3. Art. 67 (Mutiny or Sedition) r.4. Art. 68 (Failure to Suppress Mutiny or Sedition) r.5. Art. 94 (Various Crimes) r.6. Art. 96 (Conduct unbecoming an officer and gentleman) r.7. Art. 97 (General Article)
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
IS Linda entitled to reinstatement? (1994 Bar Question) SUGGESTED ANSWER: No, Linda is not entitled to reinstatement to her former position inasmuch as her right thereto had been relinquished or forfeited by reason of her conviction. The absolute pardon merely extinguished her criminal liability, removed her disqualification, and restored her eligibility for appointment to that office. She has to reapply for such position and under the usual procedure required for a new appointment. Moreover, the pardon does not extinguish the civil liability arising from the crime. (Monsanto vs. Factoran, Jr., 170 SCRA 191); see Art. 36. RPC) Amnesty Antero Makabayan was convicted of the crime of Rebellion. While serving sentence, he escaped from jail. Captured, he was charged with, and convicted of, Evasion of Service of Sentence. Thereafter, the President of the Philippines issued an amnesty proclamation for the offense of Rebellion. Antero applied for and was granted the benefit of the amnesty proclamation. Antero then filed a petition for habeas corpus, praying for his immediate release
SUGGESTED ANSWER: Yes, I will grant the petition because the sentence that was evaded proceeded from the crime of Rebellion which has been obliterated by the grant of amnesty to the offender (Art. 89 [3], RPC). Since the amnesty erased the criminal complexion of the act committed by the offender as a crime of rebellion and rendered such act as though innocent, the sentence lost its legal basis. The purported evasion thereof therefore cannot subsist (People v. Patriarca, 341 SCRA 464[2000]). Amnesty obliterates, not only the basis of conviction, but also all the legal effects thereof. Modification and extinction of criminal liability – Amnesty Senator Adamos was convicted of plunder. About one year after beginning to serve his sentence, the President of the Philippines granted him absolute pardon. The signed pardon states: "In view hereof, and in pursuance of the authority vested upon me by the Constitution, I hereby grant absolute pardon unto Adamos, who was convicted of plunder in Criminal Case No. XV32 and upon whom the penalty of reclusion perpetua was imposed." He now comes to you for advice. He wants to know if he could run for senator in the next election. (2015 BAR)
156
The Office of the President dismissed the appeal and held that acquittal, not absolute pardon, is the only ground for reinstatement to one's former position and that the absolute pardon does not exempt the culprit from payment of civil liability.
from confinement. He claims that the amnesty extends to the offense of evasion of Service of Sentence. As judge, will you grant the petition? Discuss fully. (4%) (2009 Bar Question)
Page
Claiming that she should not be made to pay P5,000.00, Linda appealed to the Office of the President.
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
If I were the counsel of Senator Adamos, I will give him the advice that he cannot run in the Senatorial race since the terms of the pardon has not expressly restored his right to hold public office or remitted the accessory penalty of perpetual absolute disqualification. Under Article 36 of the Revised Penal Code, a pardon shall not work the restoration of the right to hold public office unless such right be expressly restored by terms of the pardon. Under Article 41, the penalty of reclusion perpetua shall carry with it perpetual absolute disqualification which the offender shall suffer even though pardoned as to the principal penalty, unless the same shall have been expressly remitted in the pardon (Risos-Vidal v. Lim, G.R. No. 206666, January 21, 2015). b) Assuming that what Adamos committed was heading a rebellion for which he was imposed the same penalty of reclusion perpetua, and what he received was amnesty from the government, will your answer be the same? Explain. Answer: If Senator Adamos was convicted of rebellion and he received amnesty, I will give him the advice that he can run in the Senatorial race. Under Article 89 of the Revised Penal Code, criminal liability is totally extinguished by amnesty, which completely extinguishes the penalty and all its effects. Thus, the amnesty extinguishes not only the principal penalty of reclusion perpetua but also its effects such as the accessory penalty of perpetual absolute disqualification. Amnesty looks backward
CIVIL LIABILITY ART. 103--Execution of the employer’s subsidiary liability Juan Cruz, driver of a cargo truck owned and operated by VICMICO a sugar central, while driving recklessly caused Jorge Abad to fall from the truck resulting in injuries which caused his death. Juan Cruz was convicted of homicide thru reckless imprudence and was ordered to pay the heirs of the deceased Ahad P12,000.00. The respondent judge issued an order granting a motion for execution of the civil service liability of the accused Juan Cruz, but the return of the Sheriff showed that the accused was insolvent. Petitioners, heirs of the deceased Abad, now filed a motion for execution of the employers subsidiary liability under Art. 103 of the Revised Penal Code. Respondent judge denied the motion, stating that the employer VICMICO, not having been notified that his driver was facmg a criminal charge, a separate action had to be filed. Hence, a petition for mandamus was filed. Decide the case. (1988 Bar Question) SUGGESTED ANSWER: Mandamus will lie. There is no need for a separate civil action because the driver was convicted (Martinez vs. Barredo). All you need is a motion for execution with a notice to the employer that states compliance with the requisites imposed by
157
Answer:
and abolishes and puts into oblivion the offense itself, it so overlooks and obliterates the offense with which he is charged, so that the person released by amnesty stands before the law precisely as though he had committed no offense (Barrioquinto v. Fernandez, G.R. No. L1278, January 21, 1949).
Page
a) What advice will you give Adamos? Explain.
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
Guy, while driving a passenger jeepney owned and operated by Max, bumped Demy, a pedestrian crossing the street. Demy sustained injuries, which required medical attendance for three months. Guy was charged with reckless imprudence resulting to physical injuries. Convicted by the Metropolitan Trial Court, Guy was sentenced to suffer a straight penalty of three months of arresto mayor and ordered to indemnify Demy in the sum of P5.000 and to pay PI,000 as attorney's fees. Upon finality of the decision, a writ of execution was served upon Guy, but was returned unsatisfied due to his insolvency. Demy moved for a subsidiary writ of execution against Max. The latter opposed the motion on the ground that the decision made no mention of his subsidiary liability and that he was not impleaded in the case. How will you resolve the motion? [5%] (1998 Bar Question) SUGGESTED ANSWER: The motion is to be granted. Max as an employer of Guy and engaged in an industry (transportation business) where said employee is utilized, is subsidiarily civilly liable under Article 103 of the Revised Penal Code. Even though the decision made no mention of his subsidiary liability, the law violated (Revised Penal Code) itself mandates for such liability and Max is deemed to know it because ignorance of the law is never excused. And
Art. 104-Civil reparation
liability
-Restitution;
Allan, the Municipal Treasurer of the Municipality of Gerona, was in a hurry to return to his office after a day-long official conference. He alighted from the government car which was officially assigned to him, leaving the ignition key and the car unlocked, and rushed to his office. Jules, a bystander, drove off with the car and later sold the same to his brother, Danny for P20.000.00, although the car was worth P800,000.00. What, if any, are their respective civil liabilities? Explain. (5%) (2005 Bar Question) SUGGESTED ANSWER: Allan, Jules and Danny are all civilly liable for restitution of the car to the government, or if no longer possible, reparation of the damages caused by payment of the replacement cost of the car minus allowance for depreciation, and to indemnify consequential damages. Criminal law –Civil liability - Indemnity Macky, a security guard, arrived home late one night after rendering overtime. He was shocked to see Joy, his wife, and Ken, his best friend, in the act of having sexual intercourse. Macky pulled out his service gun and shot and killed Ken. Macky was charged with murder for the death of Ken.
158
Art. 103--Civil liability – Subsidiary liability of the employer
since his liability is not primary but only subsidiary in case his employee cannot pay, he need not be impleaded in the in the criminal case. It suffices that he was duly notified of the motion for issuance of a subsidiary writ of execution and thus given the opportunity to be heard.
Page
Article 103 of the Revised Penal Code (that there is employer-employee relationship, that the employer is engaged in an industry and that the driver is insolvent).
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
The court found that Ken died under exceptional circumstances and exonerated Macky of murder but sentenced him to destierro, conformably with Article 247 of the Revised Penal Code. The court also ordered Macky to pay indemnity to the heirs of the victim in the amount of P50,000. Did the court correctly order Macky to pay indemnity even though he was exonerated of murder? Explain your answer. (2007 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER: The damages that the trial court may award are: a. civil indemnity for the loss of life of the victim which jurisprudence has set at P50,000.00; b. Moderate/temperate damages for the expenses incurred for the wake and burial of the victim as the trial court may consider reasonable; and c. Moral damages for the sufferings of the family of the victim emotionally and mentally.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
In a crime of homicide, the prosecution failed to present any receipt to substantiate the heirs’ claim for an award of actual damages, such as expenses for the wake and burial.
A was a 17-year old working student who was earning his keep as a cigarette vendor. B was driving a car along busy Espana Street at about 7:00 p.m. Beside B was C. The car stopped at an intersection because of the red signal of the traffic light While waiting for the green signal, C beckoned A to buy some cigarettes. A approached the car and handed two sticks of cigarettes to C. While the transaction was taking place, the traffic light changed to green and the car immediately sped off. As the car continued to speed towards Qulapo, A clung to the window of the car but lost his grip and fell down on the pavement. The car did not stop. A suffered serious injuries which eventually caused his death. C was charged with ROBBERY with HOMICIDE. In the end, the Court was not convinced with moral certainty that the guilt of C has been established beyond reasonable doubt and, thus, acquitted him on the ground of reasonable doubt.
What kind of damages may the trial court award to them and how much? 5% (2006 Bar Question)
Can the family of the victim still recover civil damages in view of the acquittal of C? Explain. (5%) (2000 Bar Question)
ART. 104--Civil liability - Damages
159
ART. 104--Acquittal in a criminal prosecution; Institution of civil action
Page
No, the court did not act correctly in ordering the accused to indemnify the victim. Since the killing of Ken was committed under the exceptional circumstances in Article 247, Revised Penal Code, it is the consensus that no crime was committed in the light of the pronouncement in People v. Cosicor (79 Phil. 672 [1947]) that banishment (destierro) is intended more for the protection of the offender rather than as a penalty. Since the civil liability under the Revised Penal Code is the consequence of criminal liability, there would be no legal basis for the award of indemnity when there is no criminal liability.
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
If A’s family can prove the negligence of B by preponderance of evidence, the civil action for damages against B will prosper based on quasi-delict. Whoever by act or omission causes damage to another, there being fault or negligence, is obliged to pay for the damage done. Such fault or negligence, about pre-existing contractual relation between the parties, is called a quasi-delict (Art. 2176, CC). This is entirely separate and distinct from civil liability arising from negligence under the Penal Code (Arts. 31, 2176. 2177, CC). Civil action for recovery of property not subject to confiscation; jurisdiction Jose. Pedro and Juan, robbed ABC Bank of P200,000.00 and using a stolen car, immediately proceeded to Quezon City. The police recovered the money and the car. After the trial, during which the bank lawyer intervened as private prosecutor, the court convicted Jose, Pedro and Juan of robbery and ordered the forfeiture of the money (P200,000.00) and the car in favor of the government as proceeds and instrument of the crime, respectively. The bank lawyer received copy of the judgment, but did not do anything. Jose, Pedro and Juan did not appeal the judgment, and began service of sentence. Two months later, realizing that the court did not order the return of the money to the bank, the
A. As legal counsel, what will you tell him? Explain briefly. (1987 Bar Question) B. Under the facts given, would the bank be entitled to the return of the money? Why? (1987 Bar Question) SUGGESTED ANSWER: A. As legal counsel, I would advise Armando to file a civil action for the recovery of his car against its legal custodian. The car was stolen and therefore it belonged to Armando, an innocent party, who has not participated in the commission of the robbery by Jose, Pedro and Juan. The car, is therefore, not subject to confiscation. B. The motion of the bank lawyer for the modification of the judgment with the prayer that the money be ordered returned to the bank must be denied. The judgment is already final and so the court has no more “jurisdiction” over the case (People vs. Velez 15 SCRA 26). (2015 BAR) The Regional Trial Court (RTC) found Tiburcio guilty of frustrated homicide and sentenced him to an indeterminate penalty of four years and one day of prision correccional as minimum, to eight years of prision mayor as maximum, and ordered him to pay actual damages in the amount of P25,000.00. Tiburcio appealed to the Court of Appeals which sustained his
160
Yes, as against C, A's family can still recover civil damages despite C's acquittal. When the accused in a criminal prosecution is acquitted on the ground that his guilt has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt, a civil action for damages for the same act or omission may be instituted. Such action requires only a preponderance of evidence (Art. 29, CC).
bank lawyer filed a motion for modification of the judgment and prayed that the money be ordered returned to the bank. Two months later, Armando, the owner of the stolen car, learned of the judgment even much later. He comes to you seeking your well considered opinion on whether it is still possible to recover his car.
Page
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
Answer: The RTC may not grant the motion to dismiss because the Court of Appeals, having issued an Entry of Judgment, the decision has become final and executory. However, the pecuniary penalty, such as the civil liability arising from the crime consisting of actual damages of P25,000 survives the death of Tiburcio. b) Assuming that Tiburcio's death occurred before the Court of Appeals rendered its decision, will you give a different answer? Answer: Yes. The RTC decision must be set aside and the case against Tiburcio must consequently be dismissed. The demise of Tiburcio which occurred before the Court of Appeals rendered its decision causes his criminal liability, as well as his civil liability ex delicto, to be totally extinguished inasmuch as there is no longer a defendant to stand as the accused, the civil action is instituted therein for recovery of civil liability ex delicto is ipso facto extinguished, grounded as it is on criminal case.
ART. 116 Crimes against National Security – Misprision of treason Because peace negotiations on the Spratlys situation had failed, the People's Republic of China declared war against the Philippines. Myra, a Filipina who lives with her Italian expatriate boyfriend, discovered e-mail correspondence between him and a certain General Tung Kat Su of China. On March 12, 2010, Myra discovered that on even date her boyfriend had sent an email to General Tung Kat Su, in which he agreed to provide vital information on the military defense of the Philippines to the Chinese government in exchange for P1 million and his safe return to Italy. Two weeks later, Myra decided to report the matter to the proper authorities. Did Myra commit a crime? Explain. (3%) (2010 Bar Question) SUGGESTED ANSWER: Yes, Myra committed the crime of Misprision of Treason under Art. 116 of the Revised Penal Code, for failing to report or make known "as soon as possible" to the governor or provincial fiscal or to the mayor or fiscal of the City where she resides, the conspiracy between her Italian boyfriend and the Chinese General to commit treason against the Philippine Government in time of war. She decided to report the matter to the proper authorities only after two (2) weeks. ART. 123-Qualified Piracy The Royal S.S. Maru, a vessel registered in Panama, was 300 nautical miles from
161
a) Should the RTC grant the Motion to Dismiss the case? Explain.
CRIMES AGAINST NATIONAL SECURITY AND THE LAW OF NATIONS
Page
conviction as well as the penalty imposed by the court a quo. After sixty days, the Court of Appeals issued an Entry of Judgment and remanded the records of the case to the RTC. Three days thereafter, Tiburcio died of heart attack. Atty. Abdul, Tiburcio's counsel, filed before the RTC a Manifestation with Motion to Dismiss, informing the court that Tiburcio died already, and claiming that his criminal liability had been extinguished by his demise.
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
national
The inter-island vessel M/ V Viva Lines I, while cruising off Batanes, was forced to seek shelter at the harbor of Kaoshiung, Taiwan because of a strong typhoon. While anchored in said harbor, Max, Baldo and Bogart arrived in a speedboat, fired a bazooka at the bow of the vessel, boarded it and divested the passengers of their money and jewelry. A passenger of M/ V Viva Lines I, Dodong, took advantage of the confusion to settle an old grudge with another passenger, and killed him. After their apprehension, all four were charged with qualified piracy before a Philippine court. a) Was the charge of qualified piracy against the three persons (Max, Baldo and Bogart) who boarded the inter-island vessel correct? Explain. (4%) (2008 Bar Question) SUGGESTED ANSWER: a) The charge is correct. Qualified Piracy was committed when the offenders seized the vessel by firing on or boarding the same. In the problem, they even went further by divesting the passengers of their money and jewelry. The vessel was anchored in the harbor of Kaoshiung, Taiwan and it is submitted that the crime was committed within the territorial jurisdiction of another country. The Supreme Court has ruled that the high seas contemplated under Art. 122 of the Revised Penal Code includes the three-mile limit of any state (People v. Lol-lo, et al., 43 Phil. 1911922]). Moreover, piracy is an offense that can be tried anywhere because it is a crime against the Law of Nations.
162
What crime or crimes, if any, were committed? Explain. (5%) (2016 BAR) SUGGESTED ANSWER The crime of Qualified Piracy under Art. 123 of the Revised Penal Code has been committed, the elements of piracy being present, namely; (1) that the vessel is on the high seas; (2) that the offenders are not members of its complement or passenger of the vessel; and (3) that the offenders (a) attack or seize that vessel or (b) seize the whole or part of the cargo of said vessel, its equipment or personal belongings of its complement or passengers. The latter act is committed when the offenders took away several crates containing valuable items and loaded them in their own motorboat. The crime of piracy is qualified because: (1) the offenders have seized the vessel by boarding; and (2) the crime of piracy was accompanied by murder and physical injuries. The facts show that the offenders planted an explosive in the vessel which they detonated from a safe distance and the explosion killed ten (10) crewmen and injured fifteen (15) others. The number of persons killed on the occasion of piracy is not material. The law considers qualified piracy as a special complex crime regardless of the number of victims (People v. Siyoh, GR No. L-57292, 18 February 1986).
ART. 123 Crimes against security – Qualified piracy
Page
Aparri, Cagayan when its engines malfunctioned. The Captain ordered his men to drop anchor and repair the ship. While the officers and crew were asleep, armed men boarded the vessel and took away several crates containing valuable items and loaded them in their own motorboat. Before the band left, they planted an explosive which they detonated from a safe distance. The explosion damaged the hull of the ship, killed ten (10) crewmen, and injured fifteen (15) others.
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
a. If you were the public prosecutor, would you charge the ten (10) men who hijacked the postal van with violation of Presidential Decree No. 532, otherwise known as the Anti-Piracy and Anti Highway Robbery Law of 1974? Explain your answer. Answer: No, I would not charge the 10 men with the crime of highway robbery. The mere fact that the offense charged was committed on a highway would not be the determinant for the application of P.D. 532. If a motor vehicle, either stationary or moving on a highway, is forcibly taken at gun point by the accused who happened to take a fancy thereto, the location of the vehicle at the time of the unlawful taking would not necessarily put the offense within the ambit of P.D. 532. In this case, the crime committed is violation of the AntiCarnapping Act of 1972 (People v. Puno, G.R. No. 97471, February 17, 1993). Moreover, there is no showing that the 10 men were a band of outlaws organized for the purpose of depredation upon the persons and properties of innocent and defenseless inhabitants who travel from one place to another. What was shown is one isolated hijacking of a postal van. It
b. If you were the defense counsel, what are the elements of the crime of highway robbery that the prosecution should prove to sustain a conviction? Answer: Under Section 2 of P.D. 532, highway robbery is defined as “the seizure of any person for ransom, extortion or other unlawful purposes, or the taking away of the property of another by means of violence against or intimidation of person or force upon things or other unlawful means, committed by any person on any Philippine highway.” Hence, the elements of highway robbery are: 1. intent to gain; 2. unlawful taking of the property of another; 3. violence against or intimidation of any person; 4. committed on a Philippine highway 5. indiscrimate victim; To obtain a conviction for highway robbery, the prosecution must prove that the accused were organized for the purpose of committing robbery indiscriminately. If the purpose is only particular robbery, the crime is only robbery, or robbery in band if there are at least four armed participants. (See People v. Mendoza, G.R. No. 104461, February 23, 1996) ART.122, 123--Crimes against National Security and Law of Nations – Piracy; Qualified piracy
163
A postal van containing mail matters, including checks and treasury warrants, was hijacked along a national highway by ten (10) men, two (2) of whom were armed. They used force, violence and intimidation against three (3) postal employees who were occupants of the van, resulting in the unlawful taking and transportation of the entire van and its contents. (2012 BAR)
was not stated in the facts given that the 10 men previously attempted similar robberies by them to establish “indiscriminate” commission thereof (Filoteo Jr. v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 79543, October 16, 1993).
Page
a) Anti-Piracy and Anti-Highway Robbery (P.D. 532) (i) Definition of terms (ii) Punishable acts
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
2. Supposing that while the robbery was taking place, the culprits stabbed a member of the crew while sleeping. What crime was committed? Explain. 2.5% (2006 Bar Question) SUGGESTED ANSWER: 1. The crime committed was piracy under Art. 122, Revised Penal Code, the essence of which is robbery directed against a vessel and/or its cargoes. The taking of the several heavy crates of electrical equipment from a vessel at sea, was effected by force and undoubtedly with intent to gain. It is of no moment that the vessel was anchored when depredated so long as it was at sea.
CRIMES AGAINST THE FUNDAMENTAL LAW OF THE STATE ART. 128Criminal law – Crimes against the fundamental law of the State - Violation of domicile Alberto, Bernado and Carlos were looking for a person named Virgilio whom Carlos suspected of stealing his fighting cock. Alberto and Bernardo were policemen, while Carlos was a caretaker of fighting cocks. Carlos requested Alberto and Bernardo, then in uniform, to accompany him to Virgilio’s house to look for the fighting cock. Alberto, Bernardo and Carlos went to Virgilio’s house. When the policemen knocked on the door, Virgilio’s wife, Maria, opened it. The policemen told Maria that they came to inquire about a lost fighting cock. Before Maria could utter a word, the trio barged inside, the house. Once inside, the policemen told Maria that Carlos was suspecting her husband, Virgilio, to have stolen his fighting cock. Maria protested and immediately required the three to leave. The policemen refused. Instead, they started searching the house for the fighting cock over the objections of Maria who said that she would file a complaint against them after her husband comes from work. As they did not see any fighting cock, the three left. What crimes, if any, did Alberto, Bernardo and Carlos commit? (1989 Bar Question) SUGGESTED ANSWER:
2. The crime was qualified piracy under Art. 123 of the Revised Penal Code because it was attended by a killing
Alberto and Bernardo, being policemen, committed the crime of VIOLATION OF
164
What crime was committed? Explain. 2.5% (2006 Bar Question)
committed by the same culprits against a member of the crew of the vessel.
Page
1. While SS Nagoya Mani was negotiating the sea route from Hongkong towards Manila, and while still 300 miles from Aparri, Cagayan, its engine malfunctioned. The Captain ordered the ship to stop for emergency repairs lasting for almost 15 hours. Due to exhaustion, the officers and crew fell asleep. While the ship was anchored, a motorboat manned by renegade Ybanags from Claveria, Cagayan, passed by and took advantage of the situation. They cut the ship's engines and took away several heavy crates of electrical equipment and loaded them in their motorboat. Then they left hurriedly towards Aparri. At daybreak, the crew found that a robbery took place. They radioed the Aparri Port Authorities resulting in the apprehension of the culprits.
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
Insofar as Carlos is concerned, not being a public officer or employee, he cannot commit the crime of VIOLATION OF DOMICILE. He is not guilty of trespass to dwelling, either because he did not enter the dwelling AGAINST THE WILL of the owner, which is the essential element of Trespass. What is the difference between violation of domicile and trespass to dwelling? (2%) (2002 Bar Question) SUGGESTED ANSWER:
of
The offender in violation of domicile is a public officer acting under color of authority; in trespass to dwelling, the offender is a private person or public officer acting in a private capacity. Violation of domicile is committed in 3 different ways: (1) by entering the dwelling of another against the will of the latter; (2) searching papers and other effects inside the dwelling without the previous consent of the owner; or (3) refusing to leave the premises which he entered surreptitiously, after being required to leave the premises. Trespass to dwelling is committed only in one way; that is, by entering the dwelling of another against the express or implied will of the latter. TRUE or FALSE. Answer TRUE if the statement is true, or FALSE if the statement is false. Explain your answer in not more than two (2) sentences. (5%) (2009 Bar Question) [e] A policeman who, without a judicial order, enters a private house over the owner's opposition is guilty of trespass to dwelling. SUGGESTED ANSWER: False. The crime committed by the policeman in this case is violation of domicile because the official duties of a policeman carry with it an authority to make searches and seizure upon judicial order. He is therefore acting under color of his official authority (Art. 128, RPC). ART. 125 Criminal law – Crimes against fundamental law of the State - Delay on the
165
a. By entering any dwelling against the will of the owner. The door having been opened by Maria, although Alberto, Bernardo and Carlos barged inside the house before Maria could utter a word, they did not enter against Maria’s will, there being no opposition or prohibition against entrance whether express or implied. Without the consent is not against the will (People vs. Sane, CA 40 OG Supp 5, 113). b. By searching papers or other effects found therein without the previous consent of such owner. Maria had objected to the search for the fighting cock inside her dwelling, but despite said objection, the policemen searched the house. This makes them criminally liable for the second way of committing the crime of VIOLATING OF DOMICILE. c. By refusing to leave the premises, after having surreptitiously entered said dwelling and after having been required to leave the same. Although the policemen were ordered to leave the house, they did not enter it surreptitiously, meaning clandestinely or secretly.
The differences between violation domicile and trespass to dwelling are:
Page
DOMICILE (Art. 128, RPC). There are three ways by which a public officer or employee may commit this crime, namely:
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
Delivery of Detained Persons to the Proper Judicial Authorities; in relation with Slight disobedience which is a crime against public order
When is an arrest by a peace officer or by a private person considered lawful? Explain. 5% (2006 Bar Question) SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Amy was apprehended and arrested by Patrolman Bart for illegal parking. She was detained at the police precint, underwent investigation, and released only after hours. 1. Patrolman Bart liable for any offense? Explain your answer. (1990 Bar Question) 2. Suppose Amy resisted the arrest and grappled with patrolman Bart, is she criminally liable thereby? State your reasons. (1990 Bar Question)
1. Three (3) ways of committing arbitrary detention are: a. by detaining or locking up a person without any legal cause or ground therefor purposely to restrain his liberty (RPC, Art. 124); b. by delaying delivery to the proper judicial authority of a person lawfully arrested without a warrant (RPC, Art. 125); and c. by delaying release of a prisoner whose release has been ordered by competent authority (RPC, Art. 126).
SUGGESTED ANSWER: 1. Patrolman Bart is liable for violation of Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code Delay on the Delivery of Detained Persons to the Proper Judicial Authorities. 2. She is criminally liable for slight disobedience under Article 151 of the Revised Penal Code - Resistance and disobedience to a person in authority or the agents of such person.
In all the above-stated ways, the principal offender should be a public officer acting under color of his authority. SUGGESTED ANSWER: The legal grounds for detention are; 1. commission of a crime; 2. violent insanity or other ailment requiring compulsory confinement in an institution established for such purpose. SUGGESTED ANSWER:
What are the legal grounds for detention? 2.5% (2006 Bar Question)
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 just been committed and he has probable, cause to believe based on personal knowledge of
166
What are the 3 ways of committing arbitrary detention? Explain each. 2.5% (2006 Bar Question)
Arrest by a peace officer or by a private person is lawful –
Page
ART. 124 Criminal law – Crimes against the Fundamental Law of the State – Arbitrary detention
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
b) Anti-Torture Act of 2009 (R.A. No. 9745) (i) Punishable acts (ii) Who are liable
CRIMES AGAINST PUBLIC ORDER ART 148: DIRECT ASSAULTS QUESTION
ART. 148: DIRECT ASSAULTS QUESTION
Because of the approaching town fiesta in San Miguel, Bulacan, a dance was held in Barangay Camias. A, the Barangay Captain, was invited to deliver a speech to start the dance. While A was delivering his speech, B, one of the guests, went to the middle of the dance floor making obscene dance movements, brandishing a knife and challenging everyone present to a fight. A approached B and admonished him to keep quiet and not to disturb the dance and peace of the occasion. B, instead of heeding the advice of A, stabbed the latter at his back twice when A turned his back to proceed to the microphone to continue his speech. A fell to the ground and died. At the time of the incident A was not armed. What crime was committed? Explain. (2%) (2000 Bar Question)
Rigoberto gate-crashed the 71st birthday party of Judge Lorenzo. Armed with a piece of wood commonly known as dos por dos, Rigoberto hit Judge Lorenzo on the back, causing the latter's hospitalization for 30 days. Upon investigation, it appeared that Rigoberto had a grudge against Judge Lorenzo who, two years earlier, had cited Rigoberto in contempt and ordered his imprisonment for three (3) days. [a] Is Rigoberto guilty of Direct Assault? Why or why not? (3%) (2009 Bar Question) SUGGESTED ANSWER: No, Rigoberto is not guilty of Direct Assault because Judge Lorenzo has ceased to be
167
a) Human Security Act of 2007 (R.A. No. 9372) (i) Period of detention
SUGGESTED ANSWER: The complex crime of direct assault with murder was committed. A, as a Barangay Captain, is a person in authority and was acting in an official capacity when he tried to maintain peace and order during the public dance in the Barangay, by admonishing B to keep quiet and not to disturb the dance and peace of the occasion. When B, instead of heeding A's advice, attacked the latter, B acted in contempt and lawless defiance of authority constituting the crime of direct assault, which characterized the stabbing of A And since A was stabbed at the back when he was not in a position to defend himself nor retaliate, there was treachery in the stabbing. Hence, the death caused by such stabbing was murder and having been committed with direct assault a complex crime of direct assault with murder was committed by B.
Page
facts or 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 penal establishment or place where he is serving sentence or is temporarily confined while his case is pending, or has escaped while being transferred from one confinement to another (Rules on Criminal Procedure, Rule 113, Sec. 5).
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
SUGGESTED ANSWER: Yes. Rigoberto is guilty of Direct Assault because the employment of violence was by reason of an actual performance of a duty by the offended party acting as a practicing lawyer. Lawyers are considered persons in authority by virtue of Batas Pambansa Big. 873, which states that lawyers in the actual performance of their professional duties or on the occasion of such performance shall be deemed persons in authority. But the crime having been committed 10 years ago, may have already prescribed because it is punishable by a correctional penalty. ART 152. PERSONS IN AUTHORITY AND AGENTS OF PERSONS IN AUTHORITY Who are deemed to be persons in authority and agents of persons in authority? (3%) (2000 Bar Question) SUGGESTED ANSWER: B. Persons in authority are persons directly vested with jurisdiction, whether as an individual or as a member of some court or government corporation, board, or commission. Barrio captains and barangay
Agents of persons in authority are persons who by direct provision of law or by election or by appointment by competent authority, are charged with maintenance of public order, the protection and security of life and property, such as barrio councilman, barrio policeman, barangay leader and any person who comes to the aid of persons in authority (Art.. 152, RPC). In applying the provisions of Articles 148 and 151 of the Rev Penal Code, teachers, professors and persons charged with the supervision of public or duly recognized private schools, colleges and universities, and lawyers in the actual performance of their professional duties or on the occasion on such performance, shall be deemed persons in authority. (P.D. No. 299, and Batas Pambansa Big. 873). Service of Sentence; Delivery of Prisoners from Jail; Falsification of Public Document Art 156: Delivering Prisoners from Jail; Art 157: Evasion of Service of Sentence; 171: Falsification by public officer, employee, or notary or ecclesiastical officer; 210: Direct Bribery; 223: Coniving with or consenting to evasion
Art 156: Delivering Prisoners from Jail; 171: Falsification by public officer, employee, or notary or ecclesiastical officer; 172: Falsification by private individuals and use of falsified documents; 210: Direct Bribery; 212: Corrution of Public officials
Filthy, a very rich businessman, convinced Loko, a clerk of court, to issue an order of release for Takas, Filthy’s cousin, who was
168
Would your answer be the same if the reason for the attack was that when Judge Lorenzo was still a practicing lawyer ten years ago, he prosecuted Rigoberto and succeeded in sending him to jail for one year? Explain your answer. (3%) (2009 Bar Question)
chairmen are also deemed persons in authority. (Article 152, RPC)
Page
a judge when he was attacked. He has retired (71 yrs. old) from his position as a person in authority when he was attacked. Hence, the attack on him cannot be regarded as against a person in authority anymore.
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
The guard is liable of: (1) Direct Bribery, Article 210, RPC, because he agreed to open the gate and let Takas out in consideration of P10,000.00. (2) Infidelity in the Custody of Prisoners, Article 223, RPC, because he, as the custodian of Takas, connived or consented to his escape by opening the gate.
Filthy is liable of: (2) Delivery of prisoners from Jail, Article 156, RPC, because he assisted in the removal of Takas, a detention prisoner, from jail. (3) Corruption of Public Officials, Article 212, RPC, because he gave P500,000.00 to the clerk of court, under circumstances in which said public officer would be liable of direct bribery. (4) Falsification of Public Document, Article 172(1), RPC, as a principal by inducement because he gave the clerk of court P500,000.00 to induce him to forge the signature of the judge in the order of release.
ART. 147 Criminal law – Crimes against public order – Illegal association
Loko is liable of: (1) Direct Bribery, Article 210, RPC, because he accepted P500,000.00 in consideration of the execution of an act which constitutes a crime, i.e., forging the signature of the judge in the order of release that would enable Takas to get out of jail, in connection with the performance of his duty as a clerk of court. (2) Falsification of Public Document, Article 171, RPC, because he took advantage of his position as a clerk of court in forging the signature of the judge in the order of relase. (3) Delivery of Prisoners from Jail, Article 156, RPC, because he assisted in the removal of Takas from jail by forging the
If the repeal of P.D. 1835 as amended by RA 1735, is absolute, without reviving RA. 1700, the original provision on illegal associations under Art. 147 of the Revised Penal Code would be the pertinent provision to be taken into account. Hence, it must be proved that the purpose of the organization is to commit any crime punishable by the code or for some purpose contrary to public morals. ART. 157 Criminal law – Crimes against public order – Evasion of sentence
What would have been the legal effect of the repeal of P.D. No. 1835 (Codifying The Various Laws on Anti- Subversion and Increasing the Penalties For Membership in Subversive Organizations) as amended by P.D. No. 1975, if RA. No. 1700 (An Act to Outlaw The Communist Party of the Philippines and Similar Associations. Penalizing Membership Therein and For Other Purposes) were not revived? (1991 Bar Question) SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Manny killed his wife under exceptional circumstances and was sentenced by the Regional Trial Court of Dagupan City to
169
ANSWER:
signature of the judge in the in the falsified order of release.
Page
in jail for a drug charge. After receiving P500,000.00, Loko forged the signature of the judge on the order of release and accompanied Filthy to the detention center. At the jail, Loko gave the guard P10,000.00 to open the gate and let Takas out. What crime or crimes did Filthy, Loko, and the guard commit? (2014 BAR)
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
SUGGESTED ANSWER: 1. Yes, Manny committed the crime of evasion of service of sentence when he went to Dagupan City, which he was prohibited from entering under his sentence of destierro. A sentence imposing the penalty of destierro is evaded when the convict enters any of the place/places he is prohibited from entering under the sentence or come within the prohibited radius. Although destierro does not involve imprisonment, it is nonetheless a deprivation of liberty. (People vs. Abilong, 82 Phil. 172). 2. Manny maybe prosecuted in Dagupan City or in Manila where he was arrested. This is so because evasion of service of sentence is a continuing offense, as the convict is a fugitive from justice in such case. (Parulan vs. Dir. of Prisons, L28519, 17 Feb. 668) ART. 156 Criminal law – Crimes against public order - Delivery of prisoner from jail A. A, a detention prisoner, was taken to a hospital for emergency medical treatment. His followers, all of whom were armed, went to the hospital to take him away or help him escape. The prison guards, seeing that they were outnumbered and that resistance would endanger the lives of
SUGGESTED ANSWER: A’s followers shall be liable as principals in the crime of delivery of prisoner from jail (Art 156, Revised Penal Code). The felony is committed not only by removing from any jail or penal establishment any person confined therein but also by helping in the escape of such person outside of said establishments by means of violence, intimidation, bribery, or any other means. ART. 148-152 Criminal law – Crimes against public order - Direct assault upon a person in authority; direct assault with serious physical injuries Pablo, disobeying a judicial order, was punished by an RTC Judge of Manila for contempt. He waited for the judge to go out into the street. Upon seeing the judge, Pablo hurriedly approached him, and without saying a word struck him with his fist causing a slight contusion on the face of the Judge. Rex came to the rescue of the Judge but because he was taller and bigger than Pablo, the latter used a knife in attacking Rex. Pablo limited his assault to the arms of Rex inflicting lesions graves which incapacitated Rex from labor for forty five (45) days. If you were the prosecutor called to institute a criminal action against Pablo, with what crime or crimes would you charge him? Explain. (1993 Bar Question) SUGGESTED ANSWER:
170
While serving sentence, Manny went to Dagupan City to visit his mother. Later, he was arrested in Manila. 1. Did Manny commit any crime? [3%] (1998 Bar Question) 2. If so, where should he be prosecuted? [2%] (1998 Bar Question)
other patients, decided to allow the prisoner to be taken by his followers. What crime, if any, was committed by A’s followers? Why? (3%) (2002 Bar Question)
Page
suffer the penalty of destierro during which he was not to enter the city.
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
Dancio, a member of a drug syndicate, was a detention prisoner in the provincial jail of X Province. Brusco, another member of the syndicate, regularly visited Dancio. Edri, the guard in charge who had been receiving gifts from Brusco everytime he visited Dancio, became friendly with him and became relaxed in the inspection of his belongings during his jail visits. In one of Brusco's visits, he was able to smuggle in a pistol which Dancio used to disarm the guards and destroy the padlock of the main gate of the jail, enabling Dancio to escape. What crime(s) did Dancio, Brusco and Edri commit? Explain. (2015 BAR) Answer: Dancio committed the crime of direct assault under Article 148 for disarming the guards with the use of pistol while they are engaged in the performance of their duties. Using a pistol to disarm the guards manifests criminal intention to defy the law and its representative at all hazard. [Note: Illegal possession of firearms may also be considered] Edri committed infidelity in the custody of prisoner or evasion through negligence under Article 224. As the guard in charge, Edri was negligent in relaxing the inspection of the Brusco’s belongings during jail visits allowing him to smuggle a pistol to Dencio, which he subsequently used to escape. By accepting gifts from Brusco, who was part of the syndicate to
Miss Reyes, a lady professor, caught Mariano, one of her students, cheating during an examination. Aside from calling Mariano's attention, she confiscated his examination booklet and sent him out of the room, causing Mariano extreme embarrassment. In class the following day, Mariano approached Miss Reyes and without any warning, slapped her on the face. Mariano would have inflicted grave injuries on Miss Reyes had not Dencio, another student, intervened. Mariano then turned his ire on Dencio and punched him repeatedly, causing him injuries. What crime or crimes, if any, did Mariano commit? (2013, 2002, 1993) Answer: Mariano is liable for two counts of direct assault. First, when he slapped Miss Reyes, who is a person in authority expressly mentioned in Art. 152 of the RPC, who was in the performance of her duties on the day of the commission of the assault. Second, when he repeatedly punched Dencio, who became an agent of the person in authority when he came to the aid of a person in authority, Miss Reyes (Celig v. People, G.R. No. 173150, July 28, 2010).
171
Direct assault with serious physical injuries with respect to the assault on Rex.
Brusco committed delivery of prisoner from jail under Article 156, qualified by his bribery of Edri. Helping a person confined in jail to escape constitutes this crime. “Helping” means furnishing the prisoner with the material means or tools which greatly facilitate his escape; hence, providing a pistol which helped Dencio to escape is delivery of prisoner from jail.
Page
The crime of direct assault upon a person in authority with respect to the slight contusion on the face of the Judge.
which Dancio belonged, he is also guilty of indirect bribery under Article 211.
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
B committed two (2) counts of direct assault: one for slapping the professor, A, who was then conducting classes and thus exercising authority; and another one for the violence on the student C, who came to the aid of the said professor. By express provision of Article 152, in relation to Article 148 of the Revised Penal Code, teachers and professors of public or duly recognized private schools, colleges and universities in the actual performance of their professional duties or on the occasion of such performance are deemed persons in authority for purposes of the crimes of direct assault and of resistance and disobedience in Articles 148 and 151 of said Code. And any person who comes to the aid of persons in authority shall be deemed an agent of a person in authority. Accordingly, the attack on C is, in the eyes of the law, an attack on an agent of a person in authority, not just an attack on a student.
If Emilio was not aware that Edgardo was a police officer who was going serve a warrant of arrest on him, Emilio would be guilty only of slight physical injuries on two counts, one against Edgardo and the second against Florencio. If Emilio knew Edgardo as a policeman and of the latter’s purpose to serve a warrant of arrest on him, and that is why he boxed Edgardo, then he will be guilty of either DIRECT ASSAULT UPON A PERSON IN AUTHORITY or RESISTANCE OR DISOBEDIENCE TO AN AGENT OF A PERSON in authority, depending on the degree of force employed by him. A person who attacks, employs force makes a serious intimidation or makes a serious resistance against a person in authority or his agent, if at the time of the assault the latter is engaged in the actual performance of his official duties, the offended party knowing that the person he is assaulting is a person in authority or his agent, it liable for the crime of DIRECT ASSAULT. A policeman is an agent of a person in authority. As for Florencio, the crime committed by Emilio against him would be indirect Assault provided that Emilio has committed
172
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Page
A, a lady professor, was giving an examination. She noticed B, one of the students, cheating. She called the student’s attention and confiscated his examination booklet, causing embarrassment to him. The following day, while the class was going on, the student, B, approached A and, without any warning, slapped her. B would have inflicted further injuries on A had not C, another student, come to A’s rescue and prevented B from continuing his attack. B turned his ire on C and ounched the latter. What crime or crimes, if any, did B commit? Why? (5%) (2002 Bar Question)
Edgardo, a policeman, accompanied by Florencio went ' to serve a warrant of arrest on Emilio, a professional boxer, at the latter’s apartment. Upon seeing Edgardo, Emilio immediately boxed him. Edgardo fell flat on the floor. As Florencio tried to help Edgardo on his feet, Emilio also boxed Florencio. The injuries inflicted upon Edgardo and Florencio required medical attendance for nine (9) days. What crime or crimes were committed by Emilio? Give your reasons. (1989 Bar Question)
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
Y and Z so that they could be investigated in the principal’s office. Before leaving, Z passed near A and threw a small flower pot at him but it was deflected by B.
B. Would your answer be the same if B were a barangay tanod only? (4%) (2001 Bar Question) SUGGESTED ANSWER: A. X is liable for Direct Assault only, assuming the physical injuries inflicted on B, the Barangay Chairman, to be only slight and hence, would be absorbed in the direct assault. A Barangay Chairman is a person in authority (Art. 152, RPC) and in this case, was performing his duty of maintaining peace and order when attacked. T is liable for the complex crimes of Direct Assault with Less Serious Physical Injuries for the fistblow on A, the teacher, which caused the latter to fall down. For purposes of the crimes in Arts. 148 and 151 of the Revised Penal Code, a.teacher is considered a person in authority, and having been attacked by Y by reason of his performance of official duty, direct assault is committed with the resulting less serious physical injuries completed. Z, the mother of X and wife of Y may only be liable as an accomplice to the complex crimes of direct assault with less serious physical injuries committed by Y. Her participation should not be considered as that of a coprincipal, since her reactions were only incited by her relationship to X and Y, as the mother of X and the wife of Y. B. If B were a Barangay Tanod only, the act of X of laying hand on him, being an agent of a person in authority only, would constitute the crime of Resistance and Disobedience under Article 151, since X, a high school pupil, could not be considered
173
A, a teacher at Mapa High School, having gotten mad at X, one of his pupils, because of the latter’s throwing paper clips at his classmates, twisted his right ear. X went out of the classroom crying and proceeded home located at the back of the school. He reported to his parents Y and Z what A had done to him. Y and Z immediately proceeded to the school building and because they were running and talking in loud voices, they were seen by the barangay chairman, B, who followed them as he suspected that an untoward incident might happen. Upon seeing A inside the classroom, X pointed him out to his father, Y, who administered a fist blow' on A, causing him to fail down. When Y was about to kick A, B rushed towards Y and pinned both of the latter’s arms. Seeing his father being held by B, X went near and punched B on the face, which caused him to lose his grip on Y. Throughout this incident, Z shouted words of encouragement at Y, her husband, and also threatened to slap A. Some security guards of the school arrived, intervened and surrounded X,
A. What, if any, are the respective criminal liability of X, Y and Z? (6%) (2001 Bar Question)
Page
DIRECT ASSAULT against Edgardo. This is so because any person who shall make use of force or intimidation upon any person coming to the aid of the authorities or their agents on occasion of the commission of the crime of DIRECT ASSAULT, is criminally liable for the crime of INDIRECT ASSAULT. However, if Emilio is guilty only of RESISTANCE or disobedience as against Edgardo; then his crime against Florencio would only be slight physical injuries.
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
What crime or crimes did Jose commit? (1987 Bar Question) SUGGESTED ANSWER: Jose is liable for Qualified Direct Assault with Serious Physical Injuries. The throwing of the ashtray at the Judge hitting him in the eye is laying of hands on the Judge who is a person in authority while in the performance of duties. Jose is also liable for qualified direct assault when he boxed his defense lawyer, knocking him down while in the act of restraining him. Under Batas 873 a lawyer is considered a person in authority if assaulted while in the performance of duties.
A. Who are deemed to be persons in authority and agents of persons in authority? (3%) (2000 Bar Question) B. Because of the approaching town fiesta in San Miguel, Bulacan, a dance was held in Barangay Camias. A, the Barangay
SUGGESTED ANSWER: C. Persons in authority are persons directly vested with jurisdiction, whether as an individual or as a member of some court or government corporation, board, or commission. Barrio captains and barangay chairmen are also deemed persons in authority. (Article 152, RPC) Agents of persons in authority are persons who by direct provision of law or by election or by appointment by competent authority, are charged with maintenance of public order, the protection and security of life and property, such as barrio councilman, barrio policeman, barangay leader and any person who comes to the aid of persons in authority (Art.. 152, RPC). In applying the provisions of Articles 148 and 151 of the Rev Penal Code, teachers, professors and persons charged with the supervision of public or duly recognized private schools, colleges and universities, and lawyers in the actual performance of their professional duties or on the occasion on such performance, shall be deemed
174
Jose was charged with slight physical injuries before a Municipal Trial Judge. He listened attentively as the Judge read the sentence. When the Judge reached the dispositive portion and pronounced Jose guilty, the latter was enraged, got hold of an ashtray, and threw it at the Judge hitting him in the eye. As his defense lawyer Pedro attempted to restrain him, Jose boxed him and knocked him down. The judge became blind in one eye as a consequence.
Captain, was invited to deliver a speech to start the dance. While A was delivering his speech, B, one of the guests, went to the middle of the dance floor making obscene dance movements, brandishing a knife and challenging everyone present to a fight. A approached B and admonished him to keep quiet and not to disturb the dance and peace of the occasion. B, instead of heeding the advice of A, stabbed the latter at his back twice when A turned his back to proceed to the microphone to continue his speech. A fell to the ground and died. At the time of the incident A was not armed. What crime was committed? Explain. (2%) (2000 Bar Question)
Page
as having acted out of contempt for authority but more of helping his father get free from the grip of B. Laying hand on an agent of a person in authority is not ipso facto direct assault, while it would always be direct assault if done to a person in authority in defiance to the latter is exercise of authority.
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
persons in authority. (P.D. No. 299, and Batas Pambansa Big. 873).
and all other acts committed in the further of this purpose are absorbed by rebellion.
The complex crime of direct assault with murder was committed. A, as a Barangay Captain, is a person in authority and was acting in an official capacity when he tried to maintain peace and order during the public dance in the Barangay, by admonishing B to keep quiet and not to disturb the dance and peace of the occasion. When B, instead of heeding A's advice, attacked the latter, B acted in contempt and lawless defiance of authority constituting the crime of direct assault, which characterized the stabbing of A And since A was stabbed at the back when he was not in a position to defend himself nor retaliate, there was treachery in the stabbing. Hence, the death caused by such stabbing was murder and having been committed with direct assault a complex crime of direct assault with murder was committed by B.
The armed group committed the crime of kidnapping and serious illegal detention in violation of Aticle 267 of the Revised Penal Code which provides that “kidnapping and serious illegal detention.— Any private individual who shall kidnap another, or in any other manner deprive him of his liberty, shall suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death...”
What crime or crimes had been committed? Reasons. (1988 Bar Question) SUGGESTED ANSWER: Rebellion was committed because their purpose was to overthrow the government
SUGGESTED ANSWER: The charge of illegal possession of firearms and explosives is deemed absorbed in the crime of rebellion, such possession being a necessary means for the perpetration of the latter crime. [EUas v. Rodriguez, 107 Phil. 659). The charges here could not be absorbed in the separate charge of rebellion as it is clear that the act of murder, coupled with
175
An armed group, avowed to overthrow the duly constituted authorities, captured five officers and five members of the armed forces and held them in their mountain lair for seventy-five days and then voluntarily released them in consideration of the promise of medical treatment to be given to some of their comrades who were under detention by the authorities.
Suppose Ka Jacinto, using one of the unlicensed firearms, shot and killed his neighbor in an altercation. May the charge of murder and illegal possession of firearms be deemed absorbed in the separate charge of rebellion filed against him? Resolve the matter with reasons. (1990 Bar Question)
Page
ART. 134 Criminal law – Crimes against public order - Rebellion
ART.134-Rebellion- Jacinto, who is an NPA commander, was apprehended with unlicensed firearms and explosives. He was accordingly charged with illegal possession of said firearms and explosives. He now questions the filing of the charges on the ground that they are deemed absorbed in a separate charge of rebellion filed against him. Decide the issue. (1990 Bar Question)
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
SUGGESTED ANSWER: If I were the prosecutor, I would charge Joselito and Vicente with the crime of rebellion, considering that the killers were members of the liquidation squad of the New People's Army and the killing was upon orders of their commander; hence, politicallymotivated. This was the ruling in People vs. Avila, 207 SCRA 1568, involving identical facts which is a movement taken judicial notice of as engaged in rebellion against the Government.
ART. 134-A Criminal law – Crimes against public order - Coup d’etat Distinguish clearly but briefly: (10%) (2004 Bar Question) Between rebellion and coup d’etat based on their constitutive elements as criminal offenses. SUGGESTED ANSWER: Rebellion is committed when a multitude of persons rise publicly in arms for the purpose of overthrowing the duly constituted government, to be replaced by a government of the rebels. It is carried out by force and violence, but need not be participated in by any member of the military, national police or any public officer.
Alternative Answer:
Coup d’etat is committed when members of the military, Philippine National Police, or public officer, acting as principal offenders, launched a swift attack thru strategy, stealth, threat, violence or intimidation against duly constituted authorities of the Republic of the Philippines, military camp or installation, communication networks, public facilities or utilities needed for the exercise and continued possession of governmental powers, for the purpose of seizing or diminishing state powers.
If I were the prosecutor, I would charge Joselito and Vicente for the crime of murder as the purpose of the killing was because of his “corrupt practices”, which does not appear to be politically motivated. There is no indication as to how the killing would promote or further the objective of the New
Unlike rebellion which requires a public uprising, coup d’etat may be carried out singly or simultaneously and the principal offenders must be members of the military, national police or public officer, with or without civilian support. The criminal objective need not be to overthrow the
176
On May 5, 1992, at about 6:00 a.m., while Governor Alegre of Laguna was on board his car traveling along the National Highway of Laguna, Joselito and Vicente shot him on the head resulting in his instant death. At that time, Joselito and Vicente were members of the liquidation squad of the New People's Army and they killed the governor upon orders of their senior officer. Commander Tiago. According to Joselito and Vicente, they were ordered to kill Governor Alegre because of his corrupt practices. If you were the prosecutor, what crime will you charge Joselito and Vicente? [5%] (1998 Bar Question)
Peoples Army. The killing is murder because it was committed with treachery.
Page
the possession of an unlicensed firearm, was not in furtherance of the rebellion.
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
existing government but only to destabilize the existing government
are they guilty of? (3%) (2002 Bar Question) SUGGESTED ANSWER:
SUGGESTED ANSWER: The crime of coup d'etat is committed by a swift attack, accompanied by violence, intimidation, threat, strategy or stealth against the duly constituted authorities of the Republic of the Philippines, military camps and installations, communication networks, public utilities and facilities needed for the exercise and continued possession of power, carried out singly or simultaneously anywhere in the Philippines by persons belonging to the military or police or holding public office, with or without civilian support or participation, for the purpose of seizing or diminishing state power. (Art. 134-A, RPC). The public school teacher committed only coup d'etat for his participation therein. His use of an unlicensed firearm is absorbed in the coup d'etat under the hew firearms law (Rep. Act No. 8294). A prosecution for illegal possession of firearm under the new law is allowed only if the unlicensed firearm was not used in the commission of another crime. A. If a group of persons belonging to the armed forces makes a swift attack, accompanied by violence, intimidation and threat against a vital military installation for the purpose of seizing power and taking over such installation, what crime or crimes
If the attack is quelled but the leader is unknown, who shall be deemed the leader thereof? (2%) (2002 Bar Question) SUGGESTED ANSWER: The leader being unknown, any person who in fact directed the others, spoke for them, signed receipts and other documents issued in their name, or performed similar acts, on behalf of the group shall be deemed the leader of said coup d'etat (Art 135, R.P.C.)
In the early morning of 25 October 1990, the troops of the Logistics Command (LOG COM) of the AFP at Camp General Emilio Aguinaldo headed by their Operations Officer, Col.Rito Amparo, withdrew firearms and bullets and, per prior agreement, attacked, in separate teams, the offices of the Chief of Staff, the Secretary of National Defense, the Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations, the Deputy Chief of Staff for Intelligence and other offices, held hostage the Chief of Staff of LOGCOM and other officers, killed three (3) pro-Govemment soldiers, inverted the
177
Supposing a public school teacher participated in a coup d’etat using an unlicensed firearm. What crime or crimes did he commit? [2%] (1998 Bar Question)
The perpetrators, being persons belonging to the Armed Forces, would be guilty of the crime of coup d’etat, under Article 134-A of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, because their attack was against vital military installations which are essential to the continued possession and exercise of governmental powers, and their purpose is to seize power by taking over such installations.
Page
How is the crime of coup d’etat committed? [3%] (1998 Bar Question)
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
Philippine flag, barricaded all entrances and exits to the camp, and announced complete control of the camp. Because of the superiority of the proGovemment forces, Col. Amparo and his troops surrendered at 7:00 o’clock in the morning of that day. a) Did Col. Amparo and his troops commit the crime of coup d'etat (Article 134-A, Revised Penal Code or of rebellion? (1991 Bar Question) SUGGESTED ANSWER: a) Under the facts stated, the crime committed would be coup d’etat (Republic Act No. 6988 incorporating Art. 134-A). However, since the law was not yet effective as of October 25, 1990, as the effectivity thereof (Section 8) is upon its approval (which is October 24, 1990) and publication in at least two (2) newspapers of general circulation, the felony committed would be rebellion.
coup d'etat public uprising is not necessary. The essence of the crime is a swift attack, accompanied by violence, intimidation, threat, strategy or stealth, directed against duly constituted authorities of the Government, or any military camp or installation, communication networks, public utilities or facilities needed for the exercise and continued possession of government power; OBJECTIVE OR PURPOSE: In rebellion, the purpose is to remove from the allegiance of the Philippines, the whole or any part or the Philippines or any military or naval camps, deprive the Chief Executive or Congress from performing their functions. In coup d'etat the objective is to seize or diminish state powers. PARTICIPATION In rebellion, any person. In coup d'etat any person belonging to the military or police or holding public office, with or without civilian participation.
Comment: If the answer given is coup d’etat substantial credit should be given as the tenor of the question seems to indicate that coup d’etat as a felony was already existing.
ART. 142 Criminal law – Crimes against public order – Inciting to sedition What are the different acts of inciting to sedition? (2007 Bar Question) SUGGESTED ANSWER:
b) Distinguish rebellion d'etat (1991 Bar Question)
from
coup The different acts which constitute the crime of inciting to sedition are:
AS TO OVERT ACTS: In rebellion, there is public uprising and taking up arms against the Government. In
1. Inciting others through speeches, writings, banners and other media of representation to commit acts which constitute sedition; 2. Uttering seditious words, speeches or circulating scurrilous libels against the Government of the Philippines or any of its
Page
b) Rebellion distinguished from coup d’etat:
178
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
PUBLIC INTEREST ART.181-Crimes against public interest – False testimony; when incurred; when prescribed Paolo was charged with homicide before the Regional Trial Court of Manila. Andrew, a prosecution witness, testified that he saw Paolo shoot Abby during their heated argument. While the case is still pending, the City Hall of Manila burned down and the entire records of the case were destroyed. Later, the records were reconstituted. Andrew was again called to the witness stand. This time he testified that his first testimony was false and the truth was he was abroad when the crime took place. The judge immediately ordered the prosecution of Andrew for giving a false testimony favorable to the defendant in a criminal case. A. Will the case against Andrew prosper? (1994 Bar Question) B. Paolo was acquitted. The decision became final on January 10. 1987. On June 18. 1994 a case of giving false
SUGGESTED ANSWER: Yes. For one to be criminally liable under Art. 181. RPC, it is not necessary that the criminal case where Andrew testified is terminated first. It is not even required of the prosecution to prove which of the two statements of the witness is false and to prove the statement to be false by evidence other than the contradictory statements (People vs. Arazola, 13 Court of Art. 169 and Art 315. Art 169: How forgery is committed; Art 315: Swindling(estafa) Upon opening a letter containing 17 money orders, the mail carrier forged the signatures of the payees on the money orders and encashed them. What crime or crimes did the mail carrier commit? Explain briefly. (6%) (2008 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER: The mail carrier's act of forging the signatures of the payees of said money orders constitutes falsification of commercial documents. It was made to appear that the payees signed them when in fact they did not. When the mail carrier encashed the money orders, he defrauded and caused damage to the remitters who gave the cash. The mail carrier further incurred the crime of estafa through falsification of commercial documents. Criminal law – Crimes against public interest – Falsification of private document
179
CRIMES AGAINST PUBLIC INTERESTCRIMES AGAINST
testimony was filed against Andrew. As his lawyer, what legal step will you take? (1994 Bar Question)
Page
duly constituted authorities, which tend to disturb or obstruct the performance of official functions, or which tend to incite others to cabal and meet for unlawful purposes; 3. Inciting through the same media of representation rebellious conspiracies or riots; 4. Stirring people to go against lawful authorities, or disturb the peace and public order of the community or of the Government; or 5. Knowingly concealing any of the aforestated evil practices (Art. 142, Rev. Penal Code).
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
Art 172: Falsification by private individuals and use of falsified documents; Art 308: Who are liable for theft Fe is the manager of a rice mill in Bulacan. In order to support a gambling debt, Fe made it appear that the rice mill was earning less than it actually was by writing in a "talaan" or ledger a figure lower than what was collected and paid by their customers. Fe then pocketed the difference. What crime/s did Fe commit, if any? Explain your answer. (2007 Bar Question)
The mail carrier's act of forging the signatures of the payees of said money orders constitutes falsification of commercial documents. It was made to appear that the payees signed them when in fact they did not. When the mail carrier encashed the money orders, he defrauded and caused damage to the remitters who gave the cash. The mail carrier further incurred the crime of estafa through falsification of commercial documents. Art. 171. Falsification by public officer, employee ; or notary or ecclesiastical officer
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Art. 169: How forgery is committed; Art 315: swindling Upon opening a letter containing 17 money orders, the mail carrier forged the signatures of the payees on the money orders and encashed them. What crime or crimes did the mail carrier commit? Explain briefly. (6%) (2008 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Answer: Mayor Abral is liable for falsification of public document by a public officer under Article 171. Making an untruthful statement by stating in a marriage contract, a public document, that the marriage was solemnized by him, is an act of falsification. The crime of illegal marriage is not
180
Criminal law – Crimes against public interest - Falsification of commercial documents
Page
The crimes committed by Fe are theft and falsification of private document because Fe’s possession of the proceeds of the rice mill was only physical, not juridical, possession, and having committed the crimes with grave abuse of confidence, it is qualified theft. The falsification is a separate crime from the theft because it was not committed as a necessary means to commit the theft but resorted to only to hide or conceal the unlawful taking.
Erwin and Bea approached Mayor Abral and requested him to solemnize their marriage. Mayor Abral agreed. Erwin and Bea went to Mayor Abral's office on the day of the ceremony, but Mayor Abral was not there. When Erwin and Bea inquired where Mayor Abral was, his chief of staff Donato informed them that the Mayor was campaigning for the coming elections. Donato told them that the Mayor authorized him to solemnize the marriage and that Mayor Abral would just sign the documents when he arrived. Donato thereafter solemnized the marriage and later turned over the documents to Mayor Abral for his signature. In the marriage contract, it was stated that the marriage was solemnized by Mayor Abral. What crime(s) did Mayor Abral and Donato commit? Explain. (2015 BAR)
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
Art. 171. Falsification by public officer, employee ; or notary or ecclesiastical officer Andrea signed her deceased husband’s name in endorsing his three treasury warrants which were delivered to her directly by the district supervisor who knew that her husband had already died, and she used the proceeds to pay for the expenses of her husband’s last illness and his burial. She knew that her husband had accumulated vacation and sick leaves the money value of which exceeded that value of the three treasury warrants, so that the government suffered no damage. Andrea’s appeal is based on her claim of absence of criminal intent and of good faith. Should she be found guilty of falsification? Discuss briefly. SUGGESTED ANSWER: Andrea should be held guilty of falsification of public documents. Her claim of absence of criminal intent and of good faith cannot
Executive clemency can however be sought for by Andrea. Criminal law – Crimes against public interest – Falsification of a private document Art 172. Falsification by private individuals and use of falsified documents
Dennis leased his apartment to Myla for P10,000 a month. Myla failed to pay the rent for 3 months. Gabriel, the son of Dennis, prepared a demand letter falsely alleging that his father had authorized him to collect the unpaid rentals. Myla paid the unpaid rentals to Gabriel who kept the payment. a) Did Gabriel commit a crime? Explain. (4%) (2008 Bar Question) SUGGESTED ANSWER: Yes. Gabriel committed a crime; it was either the crime of falsification of a private document (if damage or at least intent to cause damage could be proved) or the crime of swindling only. It could not be both falsification and swindling or a complex crime of estafa through falsification since the document falsified is a private document. The two crimes cannot go together. ART. 172 Criminal law – Crimes against public interest - forgery of a private document; falsification of a private document
181
Donato committed the crime of usurpation of function under Article 177 of the Revised Penal Code because he performed the act of solemnizing marriage, which pertained to the mayor, a person in authority, without being lawfully entitled to do so. The crime of illegal marriage is not committed, because the element that “the offender is authorized to solemnize marriage” is lacking (Ronulo v. People, G.R. No. 182438, July 2, 2014).
be considered because she is presumed to know that her husband is dead. The element of damage required in falsification does not refer to pecuniary damage but damage to public interest.
Page
committed because element that “the offender has performed an illegal marriage ceremony” is lacking (Ronulo v. People, G.R. No. 182438, July 2, 2014).
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
SUGGESTED ANSWER: No, B should not be liable for the crime of using a falsified document, under the last paragraph of Art. 172, Revised Penal Code. He would be liable for forgery of a private document under the second mode of falsification under Art. 172, Revised Penal Code. Being the possessor and user of the falsified document he is presumed to be the forger or falsifier and the offense of introducing falsified document is already absorbed in the main offense of forgery or falsification. If he is not, what offense or offenses may he be charged with? (1991 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER: b) B should be charged for the crime of falsification of a private document, since the document falsified is a private
If he testified on the genuineness of the document, he should also be held liable under Art. 182, which is false testimony in civil cases. ART. 166-176 Criminal law – Crimes against public interest - Forgery and falsification A. How are “forging” and “falsification” committed? (3%) (1999 Bar Question) B. Is mere possession of false money bills punishable under Article 168 of the Revised Penal Code? Explain. (3%) (1999 Bar Question) C. The accused was caught in possession of 100 counterfeit P20 bills. He could not explain how and why he possessed the said bills. Neither could he explain what he intended to do with the fake bills. Can he be held criminally liable for such possession? Decide. (3%) (1999 Bar Question) D. A falsified official or public document was found in the possession of the accused. No evidence was introduced to show that the accused was the author of the falsification. As a matter of fact, the trial court convicted the accused of falsification of official or public document mainly on the proposition that “the only person who could have made the erasures and the superimposition mentioned is the one who will be benefited by the alterations thus
182
a) Is B liable for the crime of using a falsified document in a judicial proceeding (last paragraph of Article 172 of the Revised Penal Code)? (1991 Bar Question)
Additional Answer:
Page
In a civil case for recovery of a sum of money filed against him by A. B interposed the defense of payment. In support thereof, he identified and offered in evidence a receipt which appears to be signed by A On rebuttal. A denied having been paid by B and having signed the receipt. He presented a handwriting expert who testified that the alleged signature of A on the receipt is a forgery and that a comparison thereof with the specimen signatures of B clearly shows that B himself forged the signature of A.
document and done with intent to cause damage. Although there was an attempt on the part of B to defraud A thru the use of the false document, such deceit cannot give rise to estafa because this crime cannot co-exist or be complexed with the crime of falsification when the docu-ment falsified is a private document.
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
SUGGESTED ANSWER: A. Forging or forgery is committed by giving to a treasury or bank note or any instrument payable to bearer or to order the appearance of a true and genuine document; or by erasing, substituting, counterfeiting, or altering by any means the figures, letters, words or signs contained therein. Falsification, on the other hand, is committed by: 1. Counterfeiting or imitating any handwriting, signature or rubric; 2. Causing it to appear that persons have participated in any act or proceeding when they did not in fact so participate; 3. Attributing to persons who have participated in an act or proceeding statements other than those in fact made by them 4. Making untruthful statements in a narration of facts; 5. Altering true dates; 6. Making any alteration or intercalation in a genuine document which changes its meaning; 7. 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 copy a statement contrary to, or different from, that of the genuine original; or 8. Intercalating any instrument or note relative to the issuance thereof in a protocol, registry, or official book.
C. Yes. Knowledge that the note is counterfeit and intent to use it may be shown by the conduct of the accused. So, possession of 100 false bills reveal: (a) knowledge that the bills are fake; and (b) intent to utter the same. D. Yes, the conviction is proper because there is a presumption in law that the possessor and user of a falsified document is the one who falsified the same. Mr. Gray opened a savings account with Bank A with an initial deposit of P50,000.00. A few days later, he deposited a check for P200,000.00 drawn from Bank B and endorsed by Mr. White. Ten days later, Mr. Gray withdrew the P200,000.00 from his account. Mr. White later complained to Bank B when the amount of P200,000.00 was later debited to his account, as he did not issue the check and his signature thereon was forged. Mr. Gray subsequently deposited another check signed by Mr. White for P200,000.00, which amount he later withdrew. Upon receiving the amount, Mr. Gray was arrested by agents of the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI). Mr. Gray was convicted of estafa and attempted estafa, both through the use of commercial documents. (2014 BAR) (A) Mr. Gray claims as defense that, except for Mr. White’s claim of forgery, there was no evidence showing that he was the author of the forgery and Mr. White did not suffer any injuries as to the second
183
Was the conviction of the accused proper although the conviction was premised merely on the aforesaid ratiocination? Explain your answer. (3%) (1999 Bar Question)
B. No. Possession of false treasury or bank note alone without an intent to use it, is not punishable. But the circumstances of such possession may indicate intent to utter, sufficient to consummate the crime of illegal possession of false notes.
Page
made” and that “he alone could have the motive for making such alterations”.
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
check (attempted estafa). Rule on the defense of Mr. Gray. (B) Mr. Gray claims that he was entrapped illegally because there was no showing that the second check was a forgery and, therefore, his withdrawal based on the second check was a legal act. Is Mr. Gray correct?
against Oscar? Question)
ANSWER: (B) The first defense of Mr. Gray that there was no evidence showing that he was the author of the forgery has no merit. The law presumes that the possessor and user of a falsified document is the falsifier or forger thereof. Likewise, his second defense that Mr. White did not suffer any injuries as to the second check (attempted estafa) has no merit. Damage or intent to cause damage is not considered in attempted estafa. It is considered only in consummated estafa. (C) Mr. Gray is not correct. The fact that the first check is forged justifies the entrapment of Mr. Gray since there is already probable cause that the second check is also a forgery. Further, granting for the sake of argument that the entrapment was illegal, such will not validate the withdrawal based on the second check which is also forged. His criminal liability in forging the second check is not affected by the alleged illegality of the entrapment procedure.
By forging the signature of Arturo on the typewritten purchase order for two cans of car paint, Oscar committed the crime of falsification. The document falsified by him, how-ever, is a private document. A typewritten purchase order is neither a public, official or commercial document. It is a private document. Falsification of a private document, however, is not a crime unless there is' damage or intent to cause damage. When Oscar used the falsified private document to obtain the two cans of paint from the hardware store, the element of damage arose, thus consummating the crime of FALSIFICATION OF A PRIVATE DOCUMENT.
(1989
Bar
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Precisely because damage is an essential element of the crime of falsification of a private document, Oscar cannot be convicted of the complex.crime of ESTAFA THRU FALSIFICATION OF PRIVATE DOCUMENT. Only one single crime of FALSIFICATION OF PRIVTE DOCUMENT is committed here. The damage to another is caused by the commission of said crime. The intent to defraud in using falsified private document is part and parcel of said crime and cannot give rise to the crime of estafa, because damage, which is also an essential element of estafa, is caused by, and becomes the element of, the crime of falsification of private document. The crime of estafa is not committed, as it cannot exist without its own element of damage.
184
The proper charge against Oscar is Falsification of a Private Document. This is so for the following reasons:
Page
Oscar, a former welder and painter at the Caloocan Motor Works owned by Arturo, went to the Downtown Hardware Store where Arturo gets materials on credit, and presented to its manager a typewritten order for two (2) cans of “Dietsler” car paint. The signature of Arturo on the order was falsified. After receiving the paint, Oscar sold them and kept the proceeds therefrom. If you were the investigating fiscal, what charge or charges will you file
Explain.
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
If the private document in the case was falsified, not to induce the offended party to part with something of value but to cover up or conceal a defraudation previously made, then the crime committed would be ESTAFA. The falsification would be absorbed in said offense, the element of damage in one being the same as that required in the other.
three minutes and provide them with an opportunity to escape. Thus, Willy and Vincent were able to escape. What crime or crimes, if any, had been committed by the Branch Clerk of court, Edwin, and the jail warden? Explain your answer. (5%) (2009 Bar Question) SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Arts. 156, 157, 171, 210,223: To secure a release of his brother Willy, a detention prisoner, and his cousin Vincent, who is serving sentence for homicide, Chito asked the RTC Branch Clerk of Court to issue an Order which would allow the two prisoners to be brought out of jail. At first, the Clerk refused, but when Chita gave her P50,000.00, she consented. She then prepared an Order requiring the appearance in court of Willy and Vincent, ostensibly as witnesses in a pending case. She forged the judge's signature, and delivered the Order to the jail warden who, in turn, allowed Willy and Vincent to go out of jail in the company of an armed escort, Edwin. Chito also gave Edwin P50,000.00 to leave the two inmates unguarded for
Edwin, the jail guard who escorted the prisoners in getting out of jail, committed the crimes of – 1. Infidelity in the Custody of Prisoners, specifically conniving with or consenting to Evasion for leaving unguarded the prisoners escorted by him and provide them an opportunity to escape (Art. 223, RPC); 2. Direct Bribery for receiving the P50,000.00 as consideration for leaving the
185
[a] Define malfeasance, misfeasance and nonfeasance. (2.5%) (2016) Suggested answer a) Malfeasance is the doing of an act which a person ought not to do at all. Misfeasance is the improper doing of an act which a person may/might lawfully do. Nonfeasance is the omission of an act which a person ought to do.
Page
CRIMES COMITTED BY PUBLIC OFFICERS
The crimes committed in this case are as follows: The Branch Clerk of Court committed the crimes of: 1. Direct Bribery (Art. 210, RPC) for accepting the P50,000.00 - in consideration of the order she issued to enable the prisoners to get out of jail; 2. Falsification of Public Document for forging the judge's signature on said Order (Art. 171, RPC); 3. Delivery of Prisoners from Jail (Art. 156, RPC), as a co-principal of Chito by indispensable cooperation for making the false Order and forging the judge's signature thereon, to enable the prisoners to get out of jail; 4. Evasion of Service of Sentence (Art. 157, RPC); as a co-principal of Vincent by indispensable cooperation for making the false Order that enabled Vincent to evade service of his sentence;
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
During a PNP buy-bust operation, Cao Shih was arrested for selling 20 grams of methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu) to a poseur-buyer. Cao Shih, through an intermediary, paid Patrick, the Evidence Custodian of the PNP Forensic Chemistry Section, the Evidence Custodian of the PNP Forensic Chemistry Section, the amount of P500.000.00 in consideration for the destruction by Patrick of the drug. Patrick managed to destroy the drug. State with reasons whether committed the following crimes:
Patrick
Direct bribery; Indirect bribery; Section 3(e) of RA 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act); Obstruction of Justice under PD 1829; (7%) (2005 Bar Question) SUGGESTED ANSWER: Patrick committed the crimes of direct bribery under Article 210 of the Revised Penal Code, Violation of Section 3(e) of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act (R.A. 3019), and Obstruction of Justice under Section 1(b) of PD 1829.
Indirect bribery is not committed, because he received the P500,000.00 as a consideration for destroying the evidence against the offender, which was under his official custody as a public officer. The money was not delivered to him simply as a gift or present by reason of his public office. Patrick also violated Section 3(e), R.A. 3019 causing undue injury to the government through evident bad faith, giving unwarranted benefit to the offender by destroying evidence of a crime. Obstruction of justice under Section 1 (b) of P.D. 1829 is committed by destroying evidence intended to be used in official proceedings in criminal case. a) The Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002 (R.A. No. 9165) (i) Punishable acts (ii) Who are liable (iii) Attempt or conspiracy, effect on liability (iv) Immunity from prosecution and punishment (v) Custody and disposition of confiscated, seized and/or surrendered dangerous drugs (Section 21, R.A. No. 9165) Criminal law - Crimes committed by public officers – Direct bribery; indirect bribery; corruption of Public Officials Arts. 210: Direct Bribery Deputy Sheriff Ben Rivas received from the RTC Clerk of Court a Writ of Execution in the case of Ejectment filed by Mrs. Maria Estrada vs. Luis Ablan. The judgment being in favor of Estrada, Rivas went to her
186
The jail warden did not commit nor incur a crime there being no showing that he was aware of what his subordinates had done nor of any negligence on his part that would amount to infidelity in the custody of prisoners. Art. 210: Direct Bribery; Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act (R.A. 3019), and Obstruction of Justice under Section 1(b) of PD 1829.
Direct bribery was committed by Patrick when, for a consideration of P500.000.00, he committed a violation ofPD 1829 by destroying the drugs which were evidence entrusted to him in his official capacity.
Page
prisoners unguarded and allowing them the opportunity to escape (Art. 210, RPC);
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
lawyer’s office where he was given the necessary amounts constituting the sheriffs fees and expenses for execution in the total amount of P550.00, aside from P2.000.00 in consideration of prompt enforcement of the writ from Estrada and her lawyer. The writ was successfully enforced.
charged simultaneously or successively for the crime of direct bribery under Art. 210 of the Revised Penal Code, because two crimes are essentially different and are penalized under distinct legal philosophies. Whereas violation of Sec. (b) of R.A. 3019 is a malum prohibitum, the crime under Art. 210 of the Code is a malum in se.
a) Art. 210 What crime, if any, did the sheriff commit? (3%) (2001 Bar Question) Art 211-A: Qualified Bribery SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Art 210: Direct Bribery May a public officer charged under Section 3(b) of Republic Act No. 3019 [“directly or indirectly requesting or receiving any gift, present, share, percentage or benefit, for himself of 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”] also be simultaneously or successively charged with direct bribery under Article 210 of the Revised Penal Code? Explain. (4%) (2010 Bar Question)
Charina was charged with violation of Section 3 (b) of Republic Act No. 3019, prohibiting any public officer from directly or indirectly requesting or receiving any gift, present, percentage, or benefit in connection with any contract or transaction x x x wherein the public officer, in his official capacity, has to intervene under the law. While the case was being tried, the Ombudsman filed another information against Charina for Indirect Bribery under the Revised Penal Code. Charina demurred to the second information, claiming that she can no longer be charged under the Revised Penal Code having been charged for the same act under R.A. 3019. Is Charina correct? Explain. (3%) (2009 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes, a public officer charges under Sec. 3 (b) of Rep. Act 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act) may also be
No, Charina is not correct. Although the charge for violation of Rep. Act No. 3019 and the charge for Indirect Bribery (Art.
187
Criminal law – Crimes committed by public officers - direct bribery; Special penal law Republic Act No. 3019
Charina, Clerk of Court of an RTC Branch, promised the plaintiff in a case pending before the court that she would convince the Presiding Judge to decide the case in plaintiff's favor. In consideration therefor, the plaintiff gave Charina P20,000.00.
Page
a) The sheriff committed the crime of Direct Bribery under the second paragraph of Article 210, Revised Penal Code, since the P2,000.00 was received by him "in consideration" of the prompt enforcement of the writ of execution which is an official duty of the sheriff to do.
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
What is the crime of qualified bribery? (2%) (2010 Bar Question) SUGGESTED ANSWER: Qualified bribery is a crime committed by a public officer who is entrusted with law enforcement and who, in consideration of any offer, promise, gift of offer, refrains from arresting or prosecuting an offender who has committed a crime punishable by reclusion perpetua and/ or death (art. 211A, RPC) Art 211-A. Qualified Bribery May a judge be charged and prosecuted for such felony? How about a public prosecutor? A police officer? Explain (5%) (2010 Bar Question) SUGGESTED ANSWER: No, a judge may not be charged of this felony because his official duty as a public officer is not law enforcement but the determination of cases already filed in court. On the other hand, a public prosecutor may be prosecuted for this crime in respect of the bribery committed, aside from
Meanwhile, a police officer who refrains from arresting such offender for the same consideration above stated, may be prosecuted for this felony since he is a public officer entrusted with law enforcement. a) Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act (R.A. No. 3019, as amended) (i) Coverage (ii) Punishable acts (iii) Exceptions Art 211-A: Qualified Bribery Malo, a clerk of court of a trial court, promised the accused in a drug case pending before the court, that he would convince the judge to acquit him for a consideration of P5 million. The accused agreed and delivered the money, through his lawyer, to the clerk of court. The judge, not knowing of the deal, proceeded to rule on the evidence and convicted the accused. (2014 BAR) a. Art 211-A: Malo was charged with violation of Section 3(b), Republic Act (R.A.) No. 3019, which prohibits a public officer from directly or indirectly requesting or receiving any gift, present, share percentage or benefit wherein the public officer, in his official capacity, has to intervene under the law. He was later charged also with indirect bribery under the Revised Penal Code. Malo claims he can no longer be charged under the Revised Penal Code for the same act under R.A. 3019. Is he correct?
188
Art 211-A. Qualified Bribery
dereliction of duty committed in violation of Art. 208 of the Revised Penal Code, should be refrain from prosecuting an offender who has committed a crime punishable by reclusion perpetua and / or death in consideration of any offer, promise, gift or present.
Page
211, RPC) arose from the same act, the elements of the violation charged under Rep. Act No. 3019 are not the same as the felony charged for Indirect Bribery under the Rev. Penal Code (Mejia v. Pamaran, 160 SCRA 457 [1988]). Hence, the crimes charged are separate and distinct from each other, with different penalties. The two charges do not constitute a ground for a motion to dismiss or motion to quash, as there is no jeopardy against the accused.
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
Art 212: Corruption of Public officials Deputy Sheriff Ben Rivas received from the RTC Clerk of Court a Writ of Execution in the case of Ejectment filed by Mrs. Maria Estrada vs. Luis Ablan. The judgment being in favor of Estrada, Rivas went to her lawyer’s office where he was given the necessary amounts constituting the sheriffs fees and expenses for execution in the total amount of P550.00, aside from P2.000.00 in consideration of prompt enforcement of the writ from Estrada and her lawyer. The writ was successfully enforced. b) Art 212 Was there any crime committed by Estrada and her lawyer and If so, what crime? (2%) (2001 Bar Question) SUGGESTED ANSWER: b) The sheriff committed the crime of Direct Bribery under the second paragraph of Article 210, Revised Penal Code, since the P2,000.00 was received by him "in consideration" of the prompt enforcement of the writ of execution which is an official duty of the sheriff to do. c) On the part of the plaintiff and her lawyer as giver of the bribe-money, the
Don Gabito, a philanthropist, offered to fund several projects of the Mayor. He opened an account in the Mayor’s name and regularly deposited various amounts ranging from P500,000.00 to PI Million. From this account, the Mayor withdrew and used the money for constructing feeder roads, barangay clinics, repairing schools and for all other municipal projects. It was subsequently discovered that Don Gabito was actually a jueteng operator and the amounts he deposited were proceeds from his jueteng operations. What crime/s were committed? Who are criminally liable? Explain. (6%)(2005 Bar Question) SUGGESTED ANSWER: 1. Corruption of public officials under Article 212 of the Revised Penal Code for having given the amounts that were deposited in an account which he opened in the Mayor’s name for no reason but the public position or office held by the Mayor; (crime committed by Don Gabito) 2. Indirect Bribery for accepting such moneys deposited in his account by using them when they were given to him for no other reason except for his public position as a Mayor. (crime committed by the Mayor) 3. Violation of Rep. Act 6713 (Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees) for receiving such gift from someone who may be affected by
189
No. One may be charged with violation of R.A. 3019 in addition to a felony under the RPC for the same delictual act, either concurrently or subsequent to being charged with a felony under the RPC. This is very clear from Sec. 3 of R.A. 3019. Also, R.A. 3019 is a special law, the elements of the crime is not the same as those punished under the RPC.
crime is Corruption of Public Officials under Article 212, Revised Penal Code. Criminal law – Crimes committed by public officers – Malversation by abandonment or negligence
Page
Answer:
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
the functions of his office. (crime committed by the Mayor)
Art. 217: Malversation of Public Funds and Property Allan, the Municipal Treasurer of the Municipality of Gerona, was in a hurry to return to his office after a day-long official conference. He alighted from the government car which was officially assigned to him, leaving the ignition key and the car unlocked, and rushed to his office. Jules, a bystander, drove off with the car and later sold the same to his brother, Danny for P20.000.00, although the car was worth P800,000.00. A. What is the crime committed by Allan? Explain. (2005 Bar Question) SUGGESTED ANSWER: Allan committed the crime of malversation by abandonment or negligence in leaving the government car assigned to him for his official use and for which he was accountable, with the ignition key in the car unlocked.
Philippine Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), another government-owned and controlled corporation. In 1995, after the PNB management unearthed many irregularities and violations of the bank's rules and regulations, dela Renta was found to have manipulated certain accounts involving trust funds and time deposits of depositors. After investigation. he was charged with malversation of public funds before the Sandiganbayan. He filed a motion to dismiss contending he was no longer an employee of the PNB but of the PDIC. Is dela Renta's contention tenable? 2.5% (2006 Bar Question) 1. After his arraignment, the prosecution filed a motion for his suspension pendente lite, to which he filed an opposition claiming that he can no longer be suspended as he is no longer an employee of the PNB but that of the PDIC. 2. Explain whether he may or may not be suspended. 2.5% (2006 Bar Question) SUGGESTED ANSWER: 1. No, dela Renta's contention is not tenable for these reasons:
In 1982, the Philippine National Bank (PNB), then a government banking institution, hired Henry dela Renta, a CPA, as Regional Bank Auditor. In 1992, he resigned and was employed by the
2. Resignation or office is not a ground criminal liability under Revised Penal Code,
separation from for extinguishing Art. 89 of the for any crime
190
Art 217: Malversation of Public Funds and Property
1. His contention that he is no longer an employee of PNB but of PDIC has no merit since both PNB and FDIC are government institutions and the funds thereof belong to the same Government who suffers from the malversation; (Sec. 4, PD 1606, as amended).
Page
Criminal law – Crimes committed by public officers – Malversation; defenses; prescription; suspension from office
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
committed while the offender connected with the office; and
was
3. The crime of malversation was discovered only in 1995 and so, the prescriptive period of the crime only commenced to run from then. Obviously, the amount misappropriated exceeds P200.00 and so the prescribed penalty is within the range of prision mayor already. Crimes punishable by prision mayor prescribes in 15 years. From 1995 to the present is only around 11 years. Hence the crime can still be prosecuted.
satisfy the judgment against him in favor of ABC Corporation, a government-owned or controlled corporation with an original charter. However, the representative of the corporation failed to attend the auction sale. Gonzalo, the winning bidder, purchased the property for P100,000 which he paid to Eliseo. Instead of remitting the amount to the Clerk of Court as ex-officio Provincial Sheriff, Eliseo lent the amount to Myrna, his officemate, who promised to repay the amount within two months, with interest thereon. However, Myrna reneged on her promise. Despite demands of ABC Corporation, Eliseo failed to remit the said amount.
SUGGESTED ANSWER: 2. The accused may be validly suspended from office in PDIC because PDIC is a government-owned and controlled corporation; hence a public office. When the Information charges the accused with acts of fraud involving Government funds, the suspension of the accused pendente lite assumes a mandatory character and the court may order the suspension of the accused regardless of whether the prosecution files a motion for the preventive suspension of the accused, or the motion is filed by the counsel of the government agency concerned, with or without the conformity of the public prosecutor (Robles et al., v. Layosa et al., 436 SCRA 337 12 Aug 04).
State with reasons, the crime or crimes, if any, committed by Eliseo. (4%) (2008 Bar Question) SUGGESTED ANSWER: The crime committed by Eliseo is malversation since he is a public officer who received the amount in his official capacity; thus he is accountable for it. Art 217: Malversation of Public Funds and Property Would your answer to the first question be the same if ABC Corporation were a private corporation? Explain. (3%) (2008 Bar Question)
Art 217: Malversation of Public Funds and Property Eliseo, the deputy sheriff, conducted the execution sale of the property of Andres to
The crime would still be malversation even if ABC Corporation, in whose favor the judgment was rendered, were a private corporation. This is because the P100,000.00 came from the sale of property levied upon or seized upon execution ordered by the court. The property was in custodia legis. Although not
Page
Criminal law – Crimes committed by public officers - Malversation
191
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
A typhoon destroyed the houses of many of the inhabitants of X Municipality. Thereafter, X Municipality operated a shelter assistance program whereby construction materials were provided to the calamity victims, and the beneficiaries provided the labor. The construction was partially done when the beneficiaries stopped helping with the construction for the reason that they needed to earn income to provide food for their families. When informed of the situation, Mayor Maawain approved the withdrawal of ten boxes of food from X Municipality's feeding program, which were given to the families of the beneficiaries of the shelter assistance program. The appropriations for the funds pertaining to the shelter assistance program and those for the feeding program were separate items on X Municipality's annual budget. (2015 BAR) a) Art 220. What crime did Mayor Maawain commit? Explain. Answer: Mayor Maawain committed the crime of Illegal use of public funds or property punishable under Article 220 of the RPC. This offense is also known as Technical Malversation. The crime has 3 elements: a.) that the offender is an accountable
b) Art 220. May Mayor Maawain invoke the defense of good faith and that he had no evil intent when he approved the transfer of the boxes of food from the feeding program to the shelter assistance program? Explain. Answer: No. Mayor Maawain cannot invoke good faith when he approved the transfer of the boxes of food from the feeding program to the Shelter Assistance program. “Criminal intent is not an element of technical malversation. The law punishes the act of diverting public property earmarked by law or ordinance for a particular purpose to another public purpose. The offense is mala prohibita, meaning that the prohibited act is not inherently immoral but becomes a criminal offense because positive law forbids its commission based on considerations of public policy, order and convenience. It is the commission of an act as defined by the law, and not the character or effect thereof that determines whether or not the provision has been violated. Hence, malice or criminal intent is completely
192
Art 220. Illegal Use of Public Funds or Property
public officer; b) that he applies public funds or property under his administration to some public use; and c) that the public use for which such funds or property were applied is different from the purpose for which they were originally appropriated by law or ordinance. The funds for the feeding program are not specifically appropriated for the beneficiaries of the shelter assistance program in X Municipality’s annual budget. Mayor Maawain ought to use the boxes of food earmarked particularly for the feeding program, which would cater only to the malnourished among his constituents who needed the resources for proper nourishment.
Page
strictly public property, it has become impressed with the character of public property when Eliseo, in his official capacity, conducted the execution sale and received it proceeds. As long as Eliseo has not accounted for and turned over the proceeds officially, he is not relieved of his official accountability.
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
Art. 222: Officers included in malversion of public funds or property Accused Juan Santos, a deputy sheriff in a Regional Trial Court, levied on the personal properties of a defendant in a civil case before said court, pursuant to a writ of execution duly issued by the court. Among the properties levied upon and deposited inside the "evidence room" of the Clerk of Court for Multiple KIC Salas were a refrigerator, a stock of cassette tapes, a dining table set of chairs and several lampshades. Upon the defendant’s paying off the judgment creditor, he tried to claim his properties but found out that several items were missing, such as the cassette tapes, chairs and lampshades. After due and diligent sleuthing by the police detectives assigned to the case, these missing items were found in the house of accused Santos, who reasoned out that he only borrowed them temporarily. If you were the fiscal/prosecutor, what would be the nature of the information to be filed against the accused? Why? (5%) (2001 Bar Question) SUGGESTED ANSWER: If I were the fiscal/prosecutor, I would file an Information for Malversation against Juan Santos for the cassette tapes, chairs and lampshades which he, as deputy sheriff, levied upon and thus under his accountability as a public officer. Said
Juan Santos misappropriated such properties when, in breach of trust, he applied them to his own private use and benefit. His allegation that he only borrowed such properties is a lame excuse, devoid of merit as there is no one from whom he borrowed the same. The fact that it was only "after due and diligent sleuthing by the police detectives assigned to the case", that the missing items were found in the house of Santos, negates his pretension.
Art. 222: Officers included in malversion of public funds or property
Alex Reyes, together with Jose Santos, were former warehousemen of the Rustan Department Store. In 1986, the PCGG sequestered the assets, fund and properties of the owners-incorporators of the store, alleging that they constitute “illgotten wealth" of the Marcos family. Upon their application, Reyes and Santos were appointed as fiscal agents of the sequestered firm and they were given custody and possession of the sequestered building and its contents, including various vehicles used in the firm's operations. After a few months, an inventory was conducted and it was discovered that two (2) delivery vans were missing. After demand was made upon them, Reyes and Santos failed to give any satisfactory explanation why the vans were missing or to turn them over to the PCGG; hence, they were charged with Malversation of Public Property. During the
193
Criminal law - Crimes committed by public officers - Malversation of public property
properties being under levy, are in custodia legis and thus impressed with the character of public property, misappropriation of which constitutes the crime of malversation although said properties belonged to a private individual (Art. 222, RPC).
Page
irrelevant”. (Ysidoro v. People, G.R. No. 192330, 14 November 2012).
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
What is the proper offense committed? State the reason(s) for your answer. (5%) (2001 Bar Question)
B started hitting A with his fists, A suddenly complained of severe chest pains. B, realizing that A was indeed in serious trouble, immediately brought her to the hospital. Despite efforts to alleviate A’s pains, she died of heart attack. It turned out that she had been suffering from a lingering heart ailment. What crime, if any, could B be held guilty of? (2003 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The proper offense committed was Malversation of public property, not estafa, considering that Reyes and Santos, upon their application, were constituted as fiscal agents" of the sequestered firm and were "given custody and possession" of the sequestered properties, including the delivery vans which later they could not account for. They were thus made the depositary and administrator of properties deposited by public authority and hence, by the duties of their office/position, they are accountable for such properties. Such properties, having been sequestered by the Government through the PCGG, are in custodia Iegis and therefore impressed with the character of public property, even though the properties belong to a private individual (Art. 222, RPC).
B could be held liable for parricide because his act of hitting his wife with fist blows and therewith inflicting physical injuries on her, is felonious. A person committing a felonious act incurs criminal liability although the wrongful consequence is different from what he intended (Art. 4, par. 1, Revised Penal Code).
CRIMES AGAINST PERSONS Art. 246: Parricide The conduct of wife A aroused the ire of her husband B. Incensed with anger almost beyond his control, B could not help but inflict physical injuries on A. Moments after
Art. 246: Parricide Procopio, a call center agent assigned at a graveyard shift, went home earlier than usual. He proceeded immediately to their bedroom to change his clothes. To his surprise, he found his wife Bionci in bed making love to another woman Magna. Enraged, Procopio grabbed a knife nearby and stabbed Bionci, who died. (2015 BAR)
194
The failure of Reyes and Santos to give any satisfactory explanation why the vans were missing, is prima facie evidence that they had put the same to their personal use.
Although A died of heart attack, the said attack was generated by B’s felonious act of hitting her with his fists. Such felonious act was the immediate cause of the heart attack, having materially contributed to and hastened A’s death. Even though B may have acted without intent to kill his wife, lack of such intent is of no moment when the victim dies. However, B may be given the mitigating circumstance of having acted without intention to commit so grave a wrong as that committed (Art. 13, par. 3, Revised Penal Code).
Page
trial, the two accused claimed that they are not public accountable officers and, if any crime was committed, it should only be Estafa under Art. 315, par. 1(b) of the Revised Penal Code.
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
What crime did Procopio commit, and what circumstance attended the case? Explain.
Answer: The crime committed by Procopio is parricide qualified by the circumstance of relationship. Killing a spouse after having been surprised in the act of committing sexual intercourse with another woman is death under exceptional circumstance under Article 247 of the Revised Penal Code. However, in this case this is not death under exceptional circumstance because Bionci was having homosexual intercourse with another woman and not sexual intercourse with a man. “Homosexual intercourse “is not within the contemplation of the term “sexual intercourse” in Article 247. However, the crime of parricide is attended by the circumstance of passion arising from a lawful sentiment as a result of having caught his wife in the act of infidelity with another woman (People v. Belarmino, G.R. No. L-4429, April 18, 1952, En Banc). Assuming that Procopio and Bionci were common-law spouses, will your answer be the same? Explain.
Cebu City, Marco surprised his wife, Rosette, and her former boyfriend, Raul, both naked and in the act of illicit copulation. Raul got his revolver and, upon seing the revolver, Marco ran toward the street, took a pedicab and proceeded to the house of his brother, a policeman, from whom he borrowed a revolver. With the weapon, he returned to his residence. Unable to find Raul and Rosette, Marco proceeded to a disco jointly owned and operated by Raul. It was already 11:00 o’clock that evening when he arrived at the joint. Upon seeing Raul with two (2) male companions, A and B, drinking beer at one of the tables, Marco fired two (2) shots at Raul, who was hit on his forehead with one of the bullets; the other bullet hit A, injuring him on his stomach. As a consequence of the gunshot wound, Raul died instantaneously. Due to the timely medical attention given to him, A survived; he was, however, hospitalized for 45 days. Marco was prosecuted for Murder for the death of Raul and for frustrated murder in the case of A. The informations in both cases allege the qualifying circumstances of evident premeditation and treachery and the generic aggravating circumstance of nighttime. You are Marco’s lawyer. What would be your defense(s)? (1991 Bar Question)
Art 247: Death circumstances
under
exceptional
At 10:00 o’clock in the evening of 10 November 1990, upon his arrival from
SUGGESTED ANSWER: The defense with respect to the death of Raul is death under exceptional circumstances (Art. 247, People vs. Abarca, 153 SCRA 735). Although the killing happened one hour after having surprised the spouse, that would still be within the context of “immediately thereafter”. With respect to the wounding of the stranger, the defense of lawful exercise of
Page
No, the answer is not the same. The crime committed is Homicide if Procopio and Bionci were common law spouses. Parricide contemplates killing by spouse who are legally married.
195
Answer:
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
Pedro Orsal and the wife of accused Juan Santos started having illicit relations while the accused was in Manila reviewing for the 1983 Bar Examinations and his wife was left behind in Davao City. In the morning of July 15, 1984, the accused went to the bus station in Davao City to go to Cagayan de Oro City to fetch his daughter, but after he failed to catch the first trip in the morning, and because the 2:00 o’clock bus had engine trouble and could not leave, the accused, afer passing the residence of his father, went home and arrive at his residence at around six o’clock in the afternoon. Upon reaching his home, the accused found his wife Laura, and Pedro Orsal in the act of sexual intercourse. When the wife and Pedro Orsal noticed the accused, the wife pushed her paramour who got his revolver. The accused, who has then peeping above the built in cabinet in their room, jumped down and ran away. He went to the house of his PC soldier-friend, and neighbor, got his (soldier’s) M-16 rifle and immediately, it was almost 6:30 p.m. then, went back to his house. Not finding his wife there, he went to the hangout of Pedro Orsal and found the latter playing mahjong there. The accused fired at Pedro three times with his rifle, hit him and two bystanders. Pedro died instantaneously of wounds in the head, trunk, and abdomen. The two
Can Juan Santos be held guilty for homicide for the death of Pedro Orsal? Explain. (1988 Bar Question) What offense did Juan Santos commit with regard to the two bystanders? Explain. (1988 Bar Question) SUGGESTED ANSWER: Juan Santos cannot be held guilty' of homicide for the death of Pedro Orsal. Instead, Juan is liable for violation of Article 247 “Death inflicted under exceptional circumstances because there was one continuous act. (People vs. Abarca). With regards to the two bystanders, Juan Santos committed the crime of serious physical injuries inflicted under exceptional circumstances. (Art. 247 Revised Penal Code; People vs. Abarca). Art 247: Exceptional circumstances A and B are husband and wife. A is employed as a security guard at Landmark, his shift being from 11 :00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. One night, he felt sick and cold, hence, he decided to go home around midnight after getting permission from his duty officer. Upon reaching the front yard of his home, he noticed that the light in the master bedroom was on and that the bedroom window was open. Approaching the front door, he was surprised to hear sighs and giggles inside the bedroom. He opened the door very carefully and peeped inside where he saw his wife B having sexual intercourse with their neighbor C. A rushed inside and grabbed C but the latter managed to wrest himself free and jumped out of the window. A followed suit and managed to catch C again and after a
196
Criminal law – Crimes against persons Death inflicted under exceptional circumstances; serious physical injuries inflicted under exceptional circumstances
bystanders were seriously injured but survived.
Page
a right is a justifying circumstance. Under Article 11, par. 5 could be invoked. At the time accused shot Raul, he was not committing a felonious act and therefore could not have been criminality liable under Art. 4. RPC.
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
SUGGESTED ANSWER: Yes, A is liable for C's death but under the exceptional circumstances in Article 247 of the Revised Penal Code, where only destierro is prescribed. Article 247 governs since A surprised his wife B in the act of having sexual intercourse with C, and the killing of C was "immediately thereafter" as the discovery, escape, pursuit arid killing of C form one continuous act. (U.S. vs. Vargas, 2 Phil. 194) Likewise, A is liable for the serious physical injuries he inflicted on his wife B but under the same exceptional circumstances in Article 247 of the Revised Penal Code, for the same reasons. Criminal law – Crimes against persons – Death inflicted under exceptional circumstances Pete, a security guard, arrived home late one night after rendering overtime. He was shocked to see Flor, his wife, and Benjie, his best friend, completely naked having sexual intercourse. Pete pulled out his service gun and shot and killed Benjie. Pete was charged with murder for the
The court found that Benjie died under exceptional circumstances and exonerated Pete of the crime, but sentenced him to destierro, conformably with Article 247 of the Revised Penal Code. The court also ordered Pete to pay indemnity to the heirs of the victim in the amount of P50,000.00. Is the defense of Pete meritorious? Explain. Under Article 247 of the Revised Penal Code, is destierro a penalty? Explain. Did the court correctly order Pete to pay indemnity despite his exoneration under Article 247 of the Revised Penal Code? Explain. (5%) (2005 Bar Question) SUGGESTED ANSWER: The defense of Pete lacks merit. He could not have acted in defense of honor, because there was no unlawful aggression against him. At most, what Benjie did could be regarded only as sufficient provocation to Pete. The Court correctly ruled that Benjie’s killing was done under the exceptional circumstances provided for in Article 247 of the Revised Penal Code. Destierro is one of the principal penalties under Article 25 of the Revised Penal Code, but under the exceptional circumstances provided for in Article 247 of the Code, destierro is not intended as a penalty but a means to remove the accused from the vicinity, for his protection against possible reprisal from the family or relatives of the other spouse or those of the paramour or mistress. (People v. Coricort 79 Phil 672 [1947]). Yes, the court correctly ordered Pete to pay indemnity, because the legal consequence
197
Is A liable for C’s death? Why? (5%) (2001 Bar Question) Is A liable for B's injuries? Why? (5%) (2001 Bar Question)
death of Benjie. Pete contended that he acted in defense of his honor and that, therefore, he should be acquitted of the crime.
Page
furious struggle, managed also to strangle him to death. A then rushed back to his bedroom where his wife B was cowering under the bed covers. Still enraged, A hit B with fist blows and rendered her unconscious. The police arrived after being summoned by their neighbors and arrested A who was detained, inquested and charged for the death of C and serious physical injuries of B.
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
Juan had a land dispute with Pedro for a number of years. As Juan was earning down his house, he saw his brother, Rodolfo attack Pedro with a bolo from behind. Rodolfo was about to hit Pedro a second time while the latter was prostrate on the ground, when Carling, Pedro’s son, shouted, “I’ll kill you.” This distracted Rodolfo who then turned ter Carling. Rodolfo and Carling fought with their bolos. While the two were fighting, Juan shouted to his brother Rodolfo: “Kill them both, they are our enemies.” Calling suffered a number of wounds and died on the spot, Pedro who was in serious condition was rushed to the hospital. He died five days later for loss of blood because the blood purchased from Manila which could have saved him, according to the doctor, did not arrive on time, Jose, father of Juan and Rodolfo, told his sons to hide in Manila and he gave them money for the purpose. When the police investigators saw Jose, he told the police investigators that Juan and Rodolfo went to Mindanao. What crimes, if any, did (a) Rodolfo, (b) Juan and Jose commit? Explain your answer and state whether the acts committed are accompanied by circumstances affecting criminal liability. (1987 Bar Question) SUGGESTED ANSWER: Rodolfo committed murder regarding the killing of Pedro since Pedro was attacked from behind. The killing was attended by
Although Pedro died five days later, since the blood purchased which would have saved him did not arrive on time, Rodolfo is still liable for the death of Pedro as that is the direct, natural and logical result of the wound inflicted by him. Juan, the brother of Rodolfo, has no criminal liability. What he shouted to Rodolfo “Kill them both, they are our enemies,” when Rodolfo and Carling were fighting, was not the only reason why Carling was killed; and hence, he cannot be a principal by inducement. The doctrine is to be a principal by inducement, the inducement must be the only reason why the crime is committed. (People vs. Kiichi et. al. 61 Phil. 609) Art. 248: Murder Boy Bala was a notorious gang leader who had previously killed a policeman. The Chief of Police ordered his vice squad headed by Captain Aniceto, to arrest Boy Bala and shoud he resist arrest, to shoot and kill him. Acting upon an informer's tip, Aniceto and two (2) of his trusted men went to the Corinthian nightclub where they saw Boy Bala dancing with a hostess. Without any warning, Aniceto shot Boy Bala who slumped on the dance floor. As Aniceto aimed another shot at Boy Bala, the brother of the latter, Pedro, who was seated at a table nearby, got hold of a table knife and stabbed Aniceto killing him instantly. The Chief of Police filed a homicide case against Pedro for the death
198
Art 248:Murder
the qualifying circumstance of treachery. The mode of attack deprived Pedro of any chance to defend himself or to retaliate. Rodolfo is also liable for homicide regarding the killing of Calling, Pedro’s son as that is the result of a right, both of them being aimed with bolos.
Page
of the exceptional circumstance in Article 247 of the Code is that of an exempting circumstance where generally there is civil liability although there may be no criminal liability.
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
of Aniceto. On the other hand, Pedro filed a complaint for murder against the Chief of Police for the death of Boy Bala alleging that the issuance of the shoot-to-kill order was illegal and the Chief of Police was liable as a principal by inducement. How tenable are the respective claims of the Chief of Police and Pedro? Explain. (1989 Bar Question)
Aniceto is a police officer and Boy Bala is notorious gangster. By shooting Boy Bala without warning instead of attempting to arrest him first, Aniceto became an unlawful agressor. There was reasonable necessity of the means employed by Pedro to prevent or repel unlawful aggression. The use of a knife against a gun for defense is reasonable.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Pedro acted in legitimate defense of relative, he being the brother of Boy Bala. All the requisites of this justifying circumstance are present. Thus: There was unlawful aggression. At the time that Pedro stabbed Aniceto, the latter had already shot at Boy Bala and was in the act of shooting him for the second time. The aggression is unlawful although
Art.248: Murder; Art 263: Serious Physical Injuries Mang Jose, a septuagenarian, was walking with his ten- year old grandson along Paseo de Roxas and decided to cross at the intersection of Makati Avenue but both were hit by a speeding CKV Honda van and were sent sprawling on the pavement, a meter apart. The driver, a Chinese mestizo stopped his car after hitting the two victims but then reversed his gears and ran over Mang Jose’s prostrate body anew and third time by advancing his car forward. The grandson suffered broken legs only and survived but Mang Jose suffered multiple fractures and broken ribs, causing his instant death. The driver was arrested and charged with Murder for the death of Mang Jose and Serious Physical Injuries through Reckless Imprudence with respect to the grandson. Are the charges correct? Explain. (5%) (2001 Bar Question)
199
On the other hand, the charge of homicide against Pedro for the stabbing of Aniceto is likewise not tenable.
Assuming that Boy Bala had provoked that attack on his person by Aniceto because of his having earlier killed a policeman, it does not appear that Pedro, the one making the defense had taken any part in said provocation.
Page
The charge for murder against the Chief of Police for the death of Boy Bala is not tenable. Although, the Chief of Police is the superior on Captain Aniceto who shot Boy Bala in cold blood, he cannot be held accountable for the act of Aniceto. His order was specific; to arrest Boy Bala and should he resist arrest, to shoot and kill him. Aniceto did not act in compliance with this order. He shot Boy Bala without warning, without even attempting to make an arrest. Consequently, it could not be said that the killing of Bala by Aniceto was induced by the Chief of Police so as to make the latter criminally liable as a coprincipal by inducement. The liability for the death of Bala is individual and not collective.
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
SUGGESTED ANSWER: Yes, the charges are correct. For deliberately running over Mang Jose's prostrate body after having bumped him and his grandson, the driver indeed committed Murder, qualified by treachery. Said driveris deliberate intent to kill Mang Jose was demonstrated by his running over the latteris body twice, by up the van and driving it forward, whereas the victim was helpless and not in a position to defend himself or to retaliate.
Candido should be charged with murder qualified by treachery because the suddenness of the stabbing caught the victim by surprise and was totally defenseless. Being under the influence of dangerous drugs is a qualifying aggravating circumstance in the commission of a crime (Sec. 25, Rep Act 9165 Comprehensive Dangerous Drug Act of 2002); hence, the penalty for murder shall be imposed in the maximum.
Art. 249: Homicide
Candido stabbed an innocent bystander who accidentally bumped him. The innocent bystander died as a result of the stabbing. Candido was arrested and was tested to be positive for the use of “shabu" at the time he committed the stabbing. What should be the proper charge against Candido? Explain. (3%) (2005 Bar Question) SUGGESTED ANSWER:
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 JunJun, who had an unsavory reputation, came to her store to buy bottles of beer. Lucresia noticed her bracelet wound around the right arm of Jun-Jun. As soon as the latter left, Lucresia went to a 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
200
Art. 248: Murder
Criminal law – Crimes against persons – Homicide; when justified; when aggravated
Page
As to the serious physical injuries sustained by Mang Jose's 10-year old grandson, as a result of having been hit by the speeding vehicle of said driver, the same were the result of reckless imprudence which is punishable as a quasi-offense in Article 365 of the Revised Penal Code. The charge of Reckless Imprudence Resulting to Serious Physical Injuries is correct. The penalty next higher in degree to what ordinarily should be imposed is called for, since the driver did not lend help on the spot, which help he could have given to the victims.
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
SUGGESTED ANSWER: 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 us. Oanis, etaL, 74PhiL 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. Pocholo should be convicted of the crime of homicide only because the aggravating circumstances which should qualify the crime to murder were not alleged in the information.
Art 249: Homicide On July 1, 2004, Jet Matulis, a pedophile, gave P1,000.00 to Sherly, an orphan and a prostitute and brought her to a motel. He inserted a rusty and oversized vibrator into her vagina with such force that she bled profusely. Jet panicked and fled. Sherly was brought to the hospital and died a few days later because of shock caused by hemorrhage. What crime or crimes did Jet Matulis commit? Explain. (2005 Bar Question) SUGGESTED ANSWER: Jet Matulis should be liable only for the crime of homicide for the death of Sherly, assuming that she was not a minor (in the light of the following question) since the sexual assault was committed without any of the circumstances mentioned in of Article 266-A (1) of the Revised Penal Code as rape. It appears that the offender and the offended party went to the hotel for mutual sexual gratification. Criminal law – Crimes against persons – Homicide; Special penal law - Child abuse; Special Protection of Children Against Child Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination (RA 7610, as amended)
201
a) Rico, a member of the Alpha Rho fraternity, was killed by Pocholo, a member of the rival group, Sigma Phi Omega. Pocholo was prosecuted for homicide before the Regional Trial Court in Binan, Laguna. During the trial, the prosecution was able to prove that the killing was committed by means of poison in consideration of a promise or reward and with cruelty. If you were the Judge, with what crime will you convict Pocholo? Explain. (2%) (2000 Bar Question)
The circumstances of using poison, in consideration of a promise or reward, and cruelty which attended the killing of Rico could only be appreciated as generic aggravating circumstances since none of them have been alleged in the Information to qualify the killing to murder. A qualifying circumstance must be alleged in the Information and proven beyond reasonable doubt during the trial to be appreciated as such.
Page
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, that he acted in the fulfillment of a duty. Is the defense tenable? Explain. (3%)
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
Art. 249: Homicide On July 1, 2004, Jet Matulis, a pedophile, gave P1,000.00 to Sherly, an orphan and a prostitute and brought her to a motel. He inserted a rusty and oversized vibrator into her vagina with such force that she bled profusely. Jet panicked and fled. Sherly was brought to the hospital and died a few days later because of shock caused by hemorrhage. If Sherly were a minor when she died, would your answer be the same? Explain. (5%) (2005 Bar Question)
you sustain the conviction upon appeal? Explain your answer. ANSWER: No, because none of the circumstances qualifying the killing to murder in Art. 248 attended the crime. The faithhealer and his co-accused should only be liable for homicide, because they are not authorized by law to practice medicine and were therefore acting illegally although the wrongful act done was different from what they intended. Criminal law – Crimes against persons – Attempted homicide; Slight physical injury
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The faithhealer and three others who were part of the healing ritual were charged with murder and convicted by the lower court. If you were the appellate court Justice, would
SUGGESTED ANSWER: No. I beg to disagree with A’s contention that his liability should be limited to slight physical injury only. He should be held liable for attempted homicide because he inflicted said injury with the use of a firearm which is a lethal weapon. Intent to kill is
202
Eddie brought his son Randy to a local faithhealer known as "Mother Himala." He was diagnosed by the faithhealer as being possessed by an evil spirit. Eddie thereupon authorized the conduct of a "treatment" calculated to drive the "spirit" from the boy's body. Unfortunately, the procedure conducted resulted in the boy's death.
In a free-for-all brawl that ensued after some customers inside a night club became unruly, guns were fired by a group, among them A and B, that finally put the customers back to their senses. Unfortunately, one customer died. Subsequent investigation revealed that A's gunshot had inflicted on the victim a slight wound that did not cause the deceased’s death nor materially contribute to it. It was B’s gunshot that inflicted a fatal wound on the deceased. A contended that his liability should, if at all, be limited to slight physical injury. Would you agree? Why? (2003 Bar Question)
Page
If Sherly were a minor when she died, the crimes of homicide and child abuse in violation of Rep. Act 7610 (Special Protection of Children against abuse, exploitation, discrimination and for other purposes), are committed by Jet Matulis, provided Sherly is not less than 12 years old. If Sherly was less than 12 years old then, the crime committed by Matulis is rape (through sexual assault) with Homicide, a special complex crime under Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code.
Arts. 250: Penalty for Frustrated Parricide, Murder, or homicide ; Art.254: Discharge of Firearms; Art. 266: Slight Physical Injury
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
A, B and C are members of SFC Fraternity. While eating in a seaside restaurant, they were attacked by X, Y and Z members of a rival fraternity. A rumble ensued in which the above-named members of the two fraternities assaulted each other in confused and tumultuous manner resulting in the death of A. As it cannot be ascertained who actually killed A, the members of the two fraternities who took part in the rumble were charged for death caused in a tumultuous affray. Will the charge prosper? Explain. (4%) (2010 Bar Question) SUGGESTED ANSWER: No, the charge of death caused in a tumultuous affray will not prosper. In death caused by tumultuous affray under Art. 251 of the Revised Penal Code, it is essential that the persons involved did not compose groups organized for the common purpose of assaulting and attacking each other reciprocally. In this case, there is no tumultuous affray since the participants in the rumble belong to organized fraternities. The killer of A, a member of SFC Fraternity could not be any other but member of the rival fraternity. Conspiracy is therefore present among the attackers from the rival fraternity and thus rules out the idea of an affray. The liability of the attackers should be collective for the crime of homicide or murder as the case may be.
Art. 255: Infanticide Ana has been a bar girl/GRO at a beer house for more than 2 years. She fell in love with Oniok, the bartender, who impregnated her. But Ana did not inform him about her condition and instead, went to Cebu to conceal her shame. However, her parents drove her away. So, she returned to Manila and stayed with Oniok in his boarding house. Upon learning of her pregnancy, already in an advanced state, Oniok tried to persuade her to undergo an abortion, but she refused. Because of their constant and bitter quarrels, she suffered birth pangs and gave birth prematurely to a live baby girl while Oniok was at his place of work. Upon coming home and learning what happened, he prevailed upon Ana to conceal her dishonor. Hence, they placed the infant in a shoe box and threw it into a nearby creek. However, an inquisitive neighbor saw them and with the help of others, retrieved the infant who was already dead from drowning. The incident was reported to the police who arrested Ana and Oniok. The 2 were charged with parricide under Article 246 of the Revised Penal Code. After trial, they were convicted of the crime charged. Was the conviction correct? 5% (2006 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER: The conviction for parricide was correct if the infant was already three (3) days old or more when killed because Ana and Oniok are the parents of the child. But if the child was less than 3 days old when killed, the crime of both Ana and Oniok is infanticide
203
Art. 251: Death caused in a tumultuous affray
Criminal law – Crimes against persons – Abortion; infanticide
Page
inherent in the use of a firearm. (Araneta, Jr. v. Court of Appeals. 187 SCRA 123 [1990])
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
for
Will your answers to (a) and (b) be the same if before the incident Gavino and Alma were legally separated? Explain. (1995 Bar Question)
Art 266-A: Rape
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
A complaint for rape was filed by the victim against her father. When the victim was about to finish her testimony, she and her aunt (her closest relative) executed separate affidavits of desistance wherein they stated that they are forgiving the accused. The judge dismissed the case. Is the dismissal proper? (1991 Bar Question)
No. A husband cannot be charged with the rape of his wife because of the matrimonial consent which she gave when she assumed the marriage relation, and the law will not permit her to retract in order to charge her husband with the offense (Sate vs. Haines, 11 La. Ann. 731 So. 372; 441 RA 837). Yes. He may be guilty of serious physical injuries. This offense is specially mentioned in Art. 263 (4), paragraph 2 which imposes a higher penalty for the crime of physical injuries in cases where the offense shall have been committed against any of the persons enumerated in Art 246 (the crime of parricide). C. No. my answer will not be the same.
SUGGESTED ANSWER: No, the dismissal of the case is not proper. While the affidavit of desistance executed by the victim amounts to a pardon, the same does not extinguish criminal liability. In the crime of rape and other private crimes, pardon by the offended party only bars prosecution if given before the institution of the criminal action. After the criminal action had been instituted, such pardon only waives the civil liability but not the criminal liability of the offender. Art 266-A: Rape; Art 263: Serious Physical Injuries
Gavino boxed his wife Alma for refusing to sleep with him. He then violently threw her on the floor and forced her to have sexual intercourse with him. As a result Alma suffered serious physical injuries. Can Gavino be charged with rape? Explain. (1995 Bar Question) Can Gavino be charged with serious physical injuries? Explain. (1995 Bar Question)
C. If Gavino, and Alma were legally separated at the time of the incident, then Gavino could be held liable for rape. A legal separation is a separation of the spouses from bed and board [U.S. vs. Johnson 27 Phil. 477, cited in II Reyes, RPC, p. 853, 1981 edition). In the crime of rape, any crime resulting from the infliction of physical injuries suffered by the victim on the occasion of the rape, is absorbed by the crime of rape. The injuries suffered by the victim may, however, be considered in determining the proper penalty which shall be imposed on the offender. Serious physical injuries cannot be absorbed in rape; it can be so if the injury is slight. Art 266-A: Rape
204
convicted
Page
and they should be infanticide, not parricide.
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
SUGGESTED ANSWER: Yes, I would convict the accused of rape. Since the victim is a mental retardate with an intellectual capacity of a child less than 12 years old, she is legally incapable of giving a valid consent to the sexual intercourse. The sexual intercourse is tantamount to a statutory rape because the level of intelligence is that of a child less than twelve years of age. Where the victim of rape is a mental retardate, violence or intimidation is not essential to constitute rape. (People vs. Ttimor, G.R. 10654142,31 Mar 95) As a matter of fact, RA No. 7659, the Heinous Crimes Law, amended Art. 335, RPC, by adding the phrase "or is demented.”
Art. 266-A: Rape Flordeluna boarded a taxi on her way home to Quezon City which was driven by Roger. Flordeluna noticed that Roger was always placing his car freshener in front of the car aircon ventilation but did not bother asking Roger why. Suddenly. Flordeluna felt dizzy and became unconscious. Instead of
SUGGESTED ANSWER: No, Roger may not be charged and convicted of the crime of rape with serious illegal detention. Roger may be charged and convicted of multiple rapes. Each rape is a distinct offense and should be punished separately. Evidently, his principal intention was to abuse Flordeluna; the detention was only incidental to the rape. Criminal law – Crimes against persons – Rape through sexual assault Art 266-A: Rape A. A, a male, takes B, another male, to a motel and there, through threat and intimidation, succeeds in inserting his penis into the anus of B. What, if any, is A’s criminal liability? Why? (3%) (2002 Bar Question) SUGGESTED ANSWER: A shall be criminally liable for rape by committing an act of sexual assault against B, by inserting his penis into the anus of the latter. Even a man may be a victim of rape by sexual assault under par. 2 of Article 268Aof the Revised Penal Code, as amended, “when the offender’s penis is inserted into his mouth or anal orifice.”
205
With the claim of the accused that the complainant consented for a fee to the sexual intercourse, and with the foregoing answer of the complainant, would you convict the accused of rape if you were the Judge trying the case? Explain. (1996 Bar Question)
Page
The complainant, an eighteen-year old mental retardate with an intellectual capacity between the ages of nine and twelve years, when asked during the trial how she felt when she was raped by the accused, replied “Masarap, it gave me much pleasure."
bringing her to Quezon City, Roger brought Flordeluna to his house in Cavite where she was detained for two (2) weeks. She was raped for the entire duration of her detention. May Roger be charged and convicted of the crime of rape with serious illegal detention? Explain. (5%) (2000 Bar Question)
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
SUGGESTED ANSWER: Hazing, as defined by law, is an initiation rite or practice as a prerequisite for admission into membership In a fraternity, sorority or organization by placing the recruit, neophyte or applicant in some embarrassing or humiliating situations such as forcing him to do menial, silly, foolish and similar tasks or activities or otherwise subjecting him to physical or psychological suffering or injury. A. What does the law require before initiation rites may be performed? (3%) (2002 Bar Question) SUGGESTED ANSWER: Section 2 of Rep. Act No. 8049 (AntiHazing Law) requires that before hazing or initiation rites may be performed, notice to the school authorities or head of organizations shall be given seven (7) days before the conduct of such rites. The written notice shall indicate (a) the period of the initiation activities, not exceeding three (3) days; (b) the names of those to be subjected to such activities, and (c) an undertaking that no physical violence shall be employed by anybody during such initiation rites. Special law - Child abuse; Special Protection of Children Against Child Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination (RA 7610, as amended)
If Sherly were a minor when she died, would your answer be the same? Explain. (5%) (2005 Bar Question) SUGGESTED ANSWER: If Sherly were a minor when she died, the crimes of homicide and child abuse in violation of Rep. Act 7610 (Special Protection of Children against abuse, exploitation, discrimination and for other purposes), are committed by Jet Matulis, provided Sherly is not less than 12 years old. If Sherly was less than 12 years old then, the crime committed by Matulis is rape (through sexual assault) with Homicide, a special complex crime under Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code. Special law – Special Protection of Children against Child abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination Act – RA 7610; “Child trafficking” A childless couple, A and B, wanted to have a child they could call their own. C, an unwed mother, sold her newborn baby to them. Thereafter, A and B caused their names to be stated in the birth certificate of the child as his parents. This was done in connivance with the doctor who assisted in the delivery of C. What are the criminal liabilities, if any, of the couple A and B, C and the doctor? (2002 Bar Question)
206
A. What is hazing as defined by law? (2%) (2002 Bar Question)
Page
Special law - Rep. Act No. 8049 (AntiHazing Law) – Hazing; initiation rites
On July 1, 2004, Jet Matulis, a pedophile, gave P1,000.00 to Sherly, an orphan and a prostitute and brought her to a motel. He inserted a rusty and oversized vibrator into her vagina with such force that she bled profusely. Jet panicked and fled. Sherly was brought to the hospital and died a few days later because of shock caused by hemorrhage.
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
S. A, with lewd designs, took a 13-year old girl to a nipa hut in his farm and there had sexual intercourse with her. The girl did not offer any resistance because she was infatuated with the man, who was good looking and belonged to a rich and prominent family in the town. What crime, if any, was committed by A? Why? (2%) (2002 Bar Question) SUGGESTED ANSWER: A committed "Child Abuse” under Rep. Act No. 7610. As defined in said law, "child abuse” includes sexual abuse or any act which debases, degrades or demeans the intrinsic worth and dignity of a child as a human being, whose age is below eighteen (18) years. Special penal law – RA 7610 - Child abuse or exploitation, punishable acts Sometime in December, 1992, retired Lt. Col. Agaton, celebrating the first year of his compulsory retirement from the Armed Forces of the Philippines, had in his company a fourteen (14) year-old girl whose parents were killed by the Mt. Pinatubo eruption and being totally orphaned has been living or fending for
SUGGESTED ANSWER: The retired colonel may be charged with child abuse, in violation of Rep. Act 7610, a law providing special protection against child abuse, exploitation, and discrimination. One of the acts of child abuse or exploitation penalized under Article VI of RA 7610 is that of keeping company of a minor who is ten (10) years or more younger than the offender in a hotel, motel, beer house, disco joint, pension house, cabaret, sauna or massage parlor, beach resort, and similar places. Considering that Lt Col. Agaton is a retiree pursuant to a compulsory retirement, while the child he kept company within a private room in the beach resort, is only 14 years old, there must be an age difference of more than 10 years between them. This fact plus the circumstance that Lt. Col. Agaton stayed with the child, a girl, in one room at such beach resort for two nights, and thereafter he gave her PI,000.00 “for her services", constitutes the very evil punished, among other acts, in said law. The possible defenses Lt. Col. Agaton may interpose are that the child is related to him by affinity, or by consanguinity within the fourth degree, or by a bond recognized in law, or local customs and traditions, or that
207
Special law – Special Protection of Children against Child abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination Act (RA 7610 – “Child abuse,” punishable acts
herself in the streets in Manila. They were alone in one room in a beach resort and stayed there for two (2) nights. No sexual intercourse took place between them. Before they parted, retired Lt. Col. Agaton gave the girl PI,000.00 for her services. She gladly accepted it. What crime may the retired colonel be charged with, if any? Discuss. (1993 Bar Question) What possible defenses can he interpose? Explain. (1993 Bar Question)
Page
SUGGESTED ANSWER: C, the unwed mother is criminally liable for “child trafficking”, a violation of Article IV, Sec. 7 of Rep. Act No. 7610. The law punishes inter alia the act of buying and selling of a child.
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
A. Mrs. MNA was charged of child abuse. It appears from the evidence that she failed to give immediately the required medical attention to her adopted child, BPO, when he was accidentally bumped by her car, resulting in his head injuries and impaired vision that could lead to night blindness. The accused, according to the social worker on the case, used to whip him when he failed to come home on time from school Also, to punish him for carelessness in washing dishes, she sometimes sent him to bed without supper. She moved to quash the charge on the ground that there is no evidence she maltreated her adopted child habitually. She added that the accident was caused by her driver's negligence. She did punish her ward for naughtiness or carelessness, but only mildly. Is her motion meritorious? Reason briefly. (5%) (2004 Bar Question) SUGGESTED ANSWER: No, the motion to quash is not meritorious. It is not necessary that movant's maltreatment of a child be “habitual" to constitute child abuse. The wrongful acts penalized as "Child Abuse" under Rep. Act No. 7610 refers to the maltreatment of the child, "whether habitual or not": this is expressly stated in Sec. 2(b) of the said Law. Mrs. MNA should be liable for child abuse.
Lina worked as a housemaid and yaya of the one-week old son of the spouses John and Joana. When Lina learned that her 70year old mother was seriously ill, she asked John for a cash advance of P20,000.00, but the latter refused. In anger, Lina gagged the mouth of the child with stockings, placed him in a box, sealed it with masking tape, and placed the box in the attic. Lina then left the house and asked her friend Fely to demand a P20,000.00 ransom for the release of the spouses' child to be paid within twenty-four hours. The spouses did not pay the ransom. After a couple of days, John discovered the box in the attic with his child already dead. According to the autopsy report, the child died of asphyxiation barely minutes after the box was sealed. What crime or crimes, if any, did Lina and Fely commit? Explain. (5%) (2016 BAR) Lina is liable for murder. Gagging the mouth of the child with stockings, placing him in a box, sealing it with masking tape, and placed the box in the attice were only methods employed by the defendant in committing murder qualified by the circumstance of treachery (People v. Lora, GR No, L-49430, 30 March 1982). Taking advantage of the defenseless condition of the victim by reason of his tender age in killing him is treachery (People v. Fallorina, GR No. 137347, 4 March 2004). She is not liable for kidnapping with murder, the essence of which is the actual confinement or restraint of the victim or the deprivation of his liberty. In this case, the victim was not deprived of liberty since he immediately died. The demand for ransom did not covert the offense in to kidnapping with murder. The defendant was well aware that the child would be suffocated to death in a
208
Special law –Republic Act No. 7610 – Child abuse; maltreatment, punishable acts
ART.248-Murder
Page
he was only acting in pursuance of a moral, social, or legal duty (Sec. 10(b), Art. VI. RA 7610).
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
few moments after she left. The demand for ransom is only a part of the diabolic scheme of the defendant to murder the child, to conceal his body and then demand money before the discovery of the cadaver (People v. Lora, supra). Fely is not liable for murder as principal or accomplice. Since Fely did not participate in the actual killing of the child, she can only be held liable for murder as principal or accomplice on the basis of conspiracy or community of design. But in this case, there is neither conspiracy nor community of design to commit murder since her criminal intention pertains to kidnapping for ransom. Moreover, her participation of demanding ransom for the release of the child is not connected to murder. Neither is Fely liable for kidnapping for ransom. Her criminal mind to assist Lina in committing kidnapping for ransom is not constitutive of a felony. Mens rea without actus reus is not a crime. ART.247 and 333 Jojo and Felipa are husband and wife. Believing that his work as a lawyer is sufficient to provide for the needs of their family, Jojo convinced Felipa to be a stay at- home mom and care for their children. One day, Jojo arrived home earlier than usual and caught Felipa in the act of having sexual intercourse with their female nanny, Alma, in their matrimonial bed. In a fit of rage, Jojo retrieved his revolver from inside the bedroom cabinet and shot Alma, immediately killing her.
SUGGESTED ANSWER No. Art. 247 of the Revised Penal Code is not applicable. Under the Revised Penal Code, for Art. 247 to apply, the offender must catch his or her spouse in the act of committing sexual intercourse with another person. In People of the Philippines v. Marciano Gonzales (G.R. No. 46310, 31 October 1939), the Supreme Court held that to avail of the privilege under Art. 247, the accused should surprise his wife in the “very act of sexual intercourse”. Sexual intercourse generally presupposes the penetration of the man’s sexual organ into that of a woman’s. In this case, the paramour was of the same gender as the erring spouse. As such, there is legally, no sexual intercourse to speak of, hence, Art. 247 is not applicable. b] Is Felipa liable for adultery for having sexual relations with Alma? (2.5%) SUGGESTED ANSWER No. Under Article 333 of the Revised Penal Code, adultery is committed by any married woman who shall have sexual intercourse with a “man” not her husband, Thus, Felipa in having homosexual intercourse with Alma, a “woman”, is not committing adultery.
CRIMES AGAINST PERSONAL LIBERTY AND SECURITY AND SECURITY
Page
Angelino, a Filipino, is a transgender who underwent gender reassignment and had implants in different parts of her body. She changed her name to Angelina and was a finalist in the Miss Gay International. She
209
ART.267 [a] Is Art. 247 (death or physical injuries inflicted under exceptional circumstances) of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) applicable in this case given that the paramour was of the same gender as the erring spouse? (2.5%) (2016 BAR)
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
Having sexual intercourse with Angelino is not rape through sexual intercourse since the victim in this crime must be a woman. This act is not rape through sexual assault either, Razzy did not insert his penis into the anal orifice or mouth of Angelino or an instrument or object into the latter’s anal orifice or genital orifice, hence this act constitutes acts of lasciviousness under Art. 336. Since the acts of lasciviousness is committed by reason or on occasion of kidnapping, it will be integrated into one and indivisible felony of kidnapping with homicide (People v. De Leon, GR No. 179943, June 26, 2009; People v. Jugueta, GR No. 202124, April 05, 2016; People v. Laog, GR No. 178321,
ART. 267 - KIDNAPPING AND SERIOUS ILLEGAL DETENTION; RELEASE OF VICTIM, NOT ABSOLUTORY B. DAN, a private individual, kidnapped CHU, a minor. On the second day, DAN released CHU even before any criminal information was filed against him. At the trial of his case, DAN raised the defense that he did not incur any criminal liability since he released the child before the lapse of the 3-day period and before criminal proceedings for kidnapping were instituted. Will DAN’S defense prosper? Reason briefly. (5%) (2004 Bar Question) SUGGESTED ANSWER: B. No. DAN's defense will not prosper. Voluntary release by the offender of the offended party in kidnapping is not absolutory. Besides, such release is irrelevant and immaterial in this case because the victim being a minor, the crime committed is kidnapping and serious illegal detention under Art. 267, Revised Penal Code, to which such circumstance does not apply. The circumstance may be appreciated only in the crime of Slight Illegal Detention in Art. 268 Asistio v. San Diego 10 SCRA 673 [1964D]
210
Razzy is liable for kidnapping with homicide. Abducting Angelino is not forcible abduction since the victim in this crime must be a woman. Gender reassignment will not make him a woman within the meaning of Art. 342 of the RPC. There is no showing, moreover, that at the time of abduction is committed with lewd design; hence, his abduction constitutes illegal detention. Since Angelino was killed in the course of the detention, the crime constitutes kidnapping and serious illegal detention with homicide under Art. 267.
October 5, 2011; People v. Larranaga, 138874-75, February 3, 2004). Max is liable for kidnapping with homicide as an accomplice since he concurred in the criminal design of Razzy in depriving Angelino his liberty and supplied the former material aid in an efficacious way by helping him beat the latter.
Page
came back to the Philippines and while she was walking outside her home, she was abducted by Max and Razzy who took her to a house in the province. She was then placed in a room and Razzy forced her to have sex with him at knife's point. After the act, it dawned upon Razzy that Angelina is actually a male. Incensed, Razzy called Max to help him beat Angelina. The beatings that Angelina received eventually caused her death. What crime or crimes, if any, were committed? Explain. (5%) (2016 BAR) SUGGESTED ANSWER
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
ART.315- Val, a Nigerian, set up a perfume business in the Philippines. The investors would buy the raw materials at a low price from Val. The raw materials consisted of powders, which the investors would mix with water and let stand until a gel was formed. Val made a written commitment to the investors that he would buy back the gel at a higher price, thus assuring the investors of a neat profit. When the amounts to be paid by Val to the investors reached millions of pesos, he sold all the equipment of his perfume business, absconded with the money, and is nowhere to be found. What crime or crimes were committed, if any? Explain. (5%) (2016 BAR)
SUGGESTED ANSWER The crime committed in estafa through false pretenses (Art. 315 par. 2(a)). Val defrauded the investors by falsely pretending to possess business or imaginary transactions. The fact that he sold all the equipment of his perfume business, and absconded with the money when the amounts to be paid by him to the investors reached millions of pesos shows that the transaction or his business is imaginary, and he defrauded the victims.
ART. 308 and 3015-EstafaDomingo is the caretaker of two (2) cows and two (2) horses owned by Hannibal. Hannibal told Domingo to lend the cows to Tristan on the condition that the latter will give a goat to the former when the cows are returned. Instead, Tristan sold the cows
and pocketed the money. Due to the neglect of Domingo, one of the horses was stolen. Knowing that he will be blamed for the loss, Domingo slaughtered the other horse, got the meat, and sold it to Pastor. He later reported to Hannibal that the two horses were stolen. [a] What crime or crimes, if any, did Tristan commit? Explain. (2.5%) (2016 BAR) SUGGESTED ANSWER Tristan is liable for Estafa through Misappropriation under Art. 315 of the RPC. He received the cows under obligation involving the duty to return the same thing deposited, and acquired legal or juridical possession in so doing, since their transaction is a commodatum. Selling the cows as if he owned it constitutes misappropriation or conversion within the contemplation of Art. 315. [b] What crime or crimes, if any, were committed by Domingo? Explain. (2.5%) SUGGESTED ANSWER Domingo is liable for qualified theft under Art. 308 of the RPC. Although Tristan received the horse with the consent of the owner, Hannibal, his possession is merely physical or de facto since the former is an employee of the latter. Slaughtering the horse, which he physically possessed, and selling its meat to Pastor shall be considered as taking without consent of the owner with intent to gain, which constitutes theft (Balerta v. People, GR No. 205144, 26 November 2014). Since the horse is accessible to him, the theft is qualified by the circumstance of abuse of confidence (Yangco v. People, GR No. 209373, 30 July 2014).
211
AGAINST
Page
CRIMES PROPERTY
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
A. An armed band tried to stop a passenger bus, and the driver who sensed that the band might commit robbery, did not stop the bus but drove it faster. The members of the band then fired at the bus, killing one passenger who was hit in the head. B. As the malefactor were about to enter the house of A, the latter hid himself inside the ceiling. Once inside the house, the malefactor took from A’s wife cash and pieces of jewelry. One of the malefactors stood on a table and fired his gun at the ceiling. After they had left A’s wife called for him and receiving no answer, she went up the ceiling and found him already dead. What crime was committed? Explain. (1988 Bar Question) C. In the course of robbery there was confusion and in the exchange of shots between the robbers and the victims, one of the robbers happened to shoot one of his own companions. What crime was committed? Explain. (1988 Bar Question)
B. Robbery with homicide was committed by the malefactors. Article 297 of the Revised Penal Code provides that “Attempted and frustrated robbery committed under certain circumstances.— When by reason...of an attempted or frustrated robbery a homicide is committed the person guilty of such offenses shall be punished by reclusion temporal. . C. The robber committed the crime of robbery with homicide in violation of Article 297 of the Revised Penal Code which provides that “ ... when ... on the occasion of an attempted robbery a homicide is committed the person guilty of such offenses shall be punished by reclusion temporal.
Art 308: Who are liable for theft Fe is the manager of a rice mill in Bulacan. In order to support a gambling debt, Fe made it appear that the rice mill was earning less than it actually was by writing in a "talaan" or ledger a figure lower than what was collected and paid by their customers. Fe then pocketed the difference. What crime/s did Fe commit, if any? Explain your answer. (2007 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER: SUGGESTED ANSWER:
212
Art. 297 Robbery with homicide
A. They committed the crime of attempted robbery with homicide with band as a generic aggravating circumstance. Article 297 of the Revised Penal Code provides that “Attempted... robbery committed under certain circumstances.— When on the occasion of an attempted robbery a homicide is committed the person guilty of such offenses shall be punished by reclusion temporal
Page
Further, Domingo committed the crime of violation of the Anti-Cattle Rustling Law of 1974 (PD No. 533). Cattle rustling is the taking away by any means, method or scheme, without the consent of the owner/raiser, of large cattle, which includes cows and horses, whether or not for profit or gain, or whether committed with or without violence against or intimidation of any person or force upon things. It includes the killing of large cattle, or taking its meat or hide without the consent of the owner/raiser.
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
Malo, a clerk of court of a trial court, promised the accused in a drug case pending before the court, that he would convince the judge to acquit him for a consideration of P5 million. The accused agreed and delivered the money, through his lawyer, to the clerk of court. The judge, not knowing of the deal, proceeded to rule on the evidence and convicted the accused. (2014 BAR) b. Art 315: Malo was charged with estafa under Article 315 because he misrepresented that he had influence, when he actually had none. Is the charge correct? Answer: Yes, estafa is committed by any person who shall ask for money from another for the alleged purpose of bribing a government employee when in truth the offender intended to convert the money to his own personal use and benefit (Art. 315(2)(c), RPC).
AGAINST
ART.336 in rel to RA 7610Braulio invited Lulu, his 11-year old stepdaughter, inside the master bedroom. He pulled out a knife and threatened her with harm unless she submitted to his desires. He was touching her chest and sex organ when his wife caught him in the act. The prosecutor is unsure whether to charge Braulio for acts of lasciviousness under Art. 336 of the RPC; for lascivious conduct under RA 7610 (Special Protection against Child Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination Act); or for rape under Art. 266-A of the RPC. What is the crime committed? Explain. (5%) (2016 BAR) The acts of Braulio of touching the chest and sex organ of Lulu, who is under 12 years of age, are merely acts of lasciviousness and not attempted rape because intent to have sexual intercourse is not clearly shown (People v. Banzuela, GR No. 202060,11 December 2013). To be held liable of attempted rape, it must be shown that the erectile penis is in the position to penetrate (Cruz v. People GR no. 166441, 8 October 2014) or the offender actually commenced to force his penis into the victim’s sexual organ (People v. Banzuela, supra). The same acts of touching the chest and sex organ of Lulu under psychological coercion or influence of her stepfather, Braulio constitutes sexual abuse under Sec. 5 (b) of RA No. 7610 (People v. Optana, GR No. 133922, 12 February 2001). Since the requisites for acts of lasciviousness under Art. 336 of the RPC are met, in addition to the requisites for sexual abuse under Sec. 5 of RA No. 7610, and the victim is under 12 years of age,
213
Art 315: Swindling
CRIMES CHASTITY
Page
The crimes committed by Fe are theft and falsification of private document because Fe’s possession of the proceeds of the rice mill was only physical, not juridical, possession, and having committed the crimes with grave abuse of confidence, it is qualified theft. The falsification is a separate crime from the theft because it was not committed as a necessary means to commit the theft but resorted to only to hide or conceal the unlawful taking.
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
[a] Is Art. 247 (death or physical injuries inflicted under exceptional circumstances) of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) applicable in this case given that the paramour was of the same gender as the erring spouse? (2.5%) SUGGESTED ANSWER No. Art. 247 of the Revised Penal Code is not applicable. Under the Revised Penal Code, for Art. 247 to apply, the offender must catch his or her spouse in the act of committing sexual intercourse with another person. In People of the Philippines v. Marciano Gonzales (G.R. No. 46310, 31 October 1939), the Supreme Court held that to avail
In this case, the paramour was of the same gender as the erring spouse. As such, there is legally, no sexual intercourse to speak of, hence, Art. 247 is not applicable. b] Is Felipa liable for adultery for having sexual relations with Alma? (2.5%) (2016 BAR) SUGGESTED ANSWER No. Under Article 333 of the Revised Penal Code, adultery is committed by any married woman who shall have sexual intercourse with a “man” not her husband, Thus, Felipa in having homosexual intercourse with Alma, a “woman”, is not committing adultery.
CRIMES AGAINST THE CIVIL STATUS OF PERSONS CRIMES AGAINST HONOR ART.353-Libel-A is the president of the corporate publisher of the daily tabloid, Bulgar; B is the managing editor; and C is the author/writer. In his column, Direct Hit, C wrote about X, the head examiner of the BIR-RDO Manila as follows: "Itong si X ay talagang BUWAYA kaya ang logo ng Lacoste T shirt niya ay napaka suwapang na buwaya. Ang nickname niya ay si Atty. Buwaya. Ang PR niya ay 90% sa bayad ng taxpayer at ang para sa RP ay
214
ART.247 and 333--Jojo and Felipa are husband and wife. Believing that his work as a lawyer is sufficient to provide for the needs of their family, Jojo convinced Felipa to be a stay at- home mom and care for their children. One day, Jojo arrived home earlier than usual and caught Felipa in the act of having sexual intercourse with their female nanny, Alma, in their matrimonial bed. In a fit of rage, Jojo retrieved his revolver from inside the bedroom cabinet and shot Alma, immediately killing her.
of the privilege under Art. 247, the accused should surprise his wife in the “very act of sexual intercourse”. Sexual intercourse generally presupposes the penetration of the man’s sexual organ into that of a woman’s.
Page
Braulio shall be prosecuted for acts of lasciviousness under the RPC but the penalty imposable is that prescribed by RA No. 7610 (Amployo v. People, GR No. 157718, 26 April 2005). Under Sec. 5 (b) of RA No. 7610, when the victim (child subjected to sexual abuse) is under 12 years of age, the perpetrators shall be prosecuted (for acts of lasciviousness) under Art. 336 of the RPC, provided, that the penalty for lascivious conduct when the victim is under 12 years of age shall be reclusion temporal in its medium period.
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
Was the crime of libel committed? If so, are A, B, and C all liable for the crime? Explain. (5%) (2016 BAR)
Yes. The crime of libel is committed. Fair comment on acts of public officers related to the discharge of their duties is a qualified privileged communication, hence, the accused can still be held liable for libel if actual malice is shown. In fair comment, actual malice can be established by showing that comment was made with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not (Guingguing v. the Honorable Court of Appeals, GR No. 128959, 30 September 2005). Journalists bear the burden of writing responsibly when practicing their profession, even when writing about public figures or matters of public interest. The report made by C describing a lawyer in the Bureau of Customs as corrupt cannot be considered as “fair” and “true” since he did not do research before making his allegations, and it has been shown that these allegations were baseless. The articles are not “fair and true reports,” but merely wild accusations. He has written and published the subject articles with
ART.355-Crimes against honor - libel by theatrical exhibition In the course of proceeding during a socalled “public hearing held before a crowd in a place open to the public, the leaders of the meeting “tried” certain public officials and thereafter “sentenced” them to “death by assassination or ambuscades.” Are the leaders criminally liable? Decide the case. (1988 Bar Question) SUGGESTED ANSWER: The leaders are criminally liable for the crime of libel by theatrical exhibition. Article 355 of the Revised Penal Code provides: “libel by means of writing or similar means.— A libel committed by means of writing, printing lithography, engraving, radio, phornographs, painting, theatrical exhibition, cinematographic exhibition, or any similar means, shall be punished by prision correctional ART.358-Crimes against honor - slander or slight defamation A. Romeo Cunanan, publisher of the Baguio Daily, was sued by Pedro Aguas for libel for the public publication of his picture
215
A, B and C were charged with libel before the RTC of Manila. The three (3) defendants argued that the article is within the ambit of qualified privileged communication; that there is no malice in law and in fact; and, that defamatory comments on the acts of public officials which are related to the discharge of their official duties do not constitute libel.
reckless disregard of whether the same were false or not (Erwin Tulfo v. People, GR No. 161032, 16 September 2008). A, president of the publishing company, B, managing editor, and C, writer of the defamatory articles, are all liable for libel. Under Art. 360 of the RPC, the publisher, and editor of newspaper, shall be responsible for the defamation contained therein to the same extent. The law makes the publisher and editor liable for libel as if they were the author (Tulfo v. People, supra).
Page
10% lang. Kaya ang baba ng collection ng RDO niya. Masyadong magnanakaw si X at dapat tanggalin itong bundat na bundat na buwaya na ito at napakalaki na ng kurakot."
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
B. For some time, bad blood had existed beween the two families of Maria Razon and Judge Gadioma who were neighbors. First, there w&s a boundary dispute between them which was still pending in court. Maria’s mother also filed an administrative complaint against the judge which was however dismissed. The Razons also felt intimidated by the position and alleged influence of their neighbor. Fanning fire to the situation was the practice of the Gadiomas of throwing garbage and animal excrement into the Razon’s premises. In an explosion of anger, Maria called Judge Gadioma “land grabber'*, “shameless”, and “hypocrite." What crime was committed by Maria, if any? Explain briefly. (1988 Bar Question) SUGGESTED ANSWER: A. The publication is not defamatory because the element of intent to defame is absent. This is a mere announcement and does not carry any implication. B. Maria committed the crime of slander or slight defamation only because she was under the influence of anger. When Maria called Judge Gadioma a hypocrite and land grabber she imputed to him the commission of crimes. ART. 355, 358-Crimes against honor – Libel or slander
SUGGESTED ANSWER: I would grant the motion to quash on the ground that the facts charged do not constitute an offense, since there is no definite person or persons dishonored. The crime of libel or slander, is a crime against honor such that the person or persons dishonored must be identifiable even by innuendoes: otherwise the crime against honor is not committed. Moreover, A was not making a malicious imputation, but merely stating an opinion; he was delivering a lecture with no malice at all during a seminar workshop. Malice being inherently absent in the utterance, the statement is not actionable as defamatory. ART.355- Crimes against honor - Libel In an interview aired on television, Cindee uttered defamatory statements against Erika, a successful and reputable businesswoman.
216
Is the publication defamatory? Explain briefly. (1988 Bar Question)
During a seminar workshop attended by government employees from the Bureau of Customs and the Bureau of Internal Revenue, A, the speaker, in the course of his lecture, lamented the fact that a great majority of those serving in said agencies were utterly dishonest and corrupt. The following morning, the whole group of employees in the two bureaus who attended the seminar, as complainants, filed a criminal complaint against A for uttering what the group claimed to be defamatory statements of the lecturer. In court, A filed a motion to quash the information, reciting fully the above facts, on the ground that no crime were committed. If you were the judge, how would you resolve the motion? (2003 Bar Question)
Page
with the notice that: “This is to inform the public that Mr. Pedro Aguas whose picture appears above has ceased to be connected with the Sincere Insurance Company as underwriter as of December 31, 1987. Any transaction entered into by him after said date will not be honored.”
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
Cindee committed libel. Defamation made in a television program is penalized as libel under Art. 355 of the Revised Penal Code. Televison falls under “similar means" in the enumeration as “radio phonograph, theatrical exhibition, cinematographic exhibition, or any similar means" in said Article. [People v. Casten, et al.t CJL G.R. No. 07924 - CR., Dec. 13, 1974) ART.355-Crimes against honor – Proof of truth in the crime of libel TRUE or FALSE. Answer TRUE if the statement is true, or FALSE if the statement is false. Explain your answer in not more than two (2) sentences. (5%) (2009 Bar Question) In the crime of libel, truth is an absolute defense. SUGGESTED ANSWER: False. Article 361 of the RPC provides that proof of truth shall be admissible in libel cases only if the same imputes a crime or is made against a public officer with respect to facts related to the discharge of their official duties, and moreover must have been published with good motives and for justifiable ends. Hence, "truth" as a defense, on its own, is not enough. ART.355-Crimes against honor – Libel by means of writings or similar means Angeline maintains a website where visitors can give their comments on the posted pictures of the goods she sells in her exclusive boutique. Bettina posted a comment that the red Birkin bag shown in
SUGGESTED ANSWER: I will advise Angelina to file a criminal case of libel against Bettina because the imputations made by Bettina is libelous. Whether the imputation of a defect, status, or condition is real or imaginary, if it publicly tends to discredit, dishonor or place in contempt or ridicule a particular person who is identified, the imputation is presumed by law to be malicious and thus penalized as libel under Art 355 of the Revised Penal Code. Moreover, if Bettina is engaged in similar line of trade, her statement against the goods sold by Angelina may constitute a violation of the law on Unfair Competition (Rep. Act No. 8291.) ART.358-Crimes against honor - grave oral defamation; light slander Lando and Marco are candidates in the local elections. In his speeches Lando attacked his opponent Marco alleging that he is the son of Nanding, a robber and a thief who amassed his wealth through shady deals. May Marco file a case against Lando for grave oral defamation? State your reasons. (1990 Bar Question) Suppose Marco also delivered a speech stating therein that he had charged Lando of estafa through falsification in the Tanodbayan so much so that since his (Lando's) integrity is doubtful he should not be elected. May Marco also be held liable
217
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Angelina’s website is fake and that Angelina is known to sell counterfeit items. Angelina wants to file a case against Bettina. She seeks your advice. What advice will you give her? (4%) (2010 Bar Question)
Page
What crime or crimes did Cindee commit? Explain. (3%) (2005 Bar Question)
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
for grave oral defamation? State your reasons. (1990 Bar Question)
offended party. The individual defamed or slandered was not singled out (People vs. Uy Tioco, 32 Phil. 624).
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
ART.358-Crimes against honor - Oral defamation or slander Because of a pendency of a labor dispute, two (2) belligerent labor unions had a confrontation in a picket line during which the President and the Secretary of one union shouted to the members and officers of the rival union composed of men and women, the following: “Mga supot, mga walang bayag, mga kabit ng Intsik, mga tuta, mga segunda mano." Are the President and the Secretary of said union liable for oral defamation/slander? Explain. SUGGESTED ANSWER: No. The President and the Secretary of the Union are not liable for oral defamation or slander because there is no identity of the
SUGGESTED ANSWER: I will acquit the concerned citizens and the newspapers Involved, from the crime of libel, because obviously they made the denunciation out of a moral or social duty and thus there is absence of malice. Since A was a candidate for a very important public position of a Department Secretary, his moral, mental and physical fitness for the public trust in such position becomes a public concern as the interest of the public is at stake. It is pursuant to such
218
No, Marco cannot be held liable for grave oral defamation considering that Lando was merely stating what appears in a public record, referring to the exercise of a legal right to file suit. Moreover, his statement against Marco pertains to a person who is running for public office wherein a wider latitude is given.
A was nominated Secretary of a Department in the Executive Branch of the government. His nomination was thereafter submitted to the Commission on Appointments for confirmation. While the Commission was considering the nomination, a group of concerned citizens caused to be published in the newspapers a full-page statement objecting to A's appointment. They alleged that A was a drug dependent, that he had several mistresses, and that he was corrupt, having accepted bribes or favors from parties transacting business in his previous office, and therefore he was unfit for the position to which he had been nominated. As a result of the publication, the nomination was not confirmed by the Commission on Appointments. The official sued the concerned citizens and the newspapers for libel and damages on account of his nonconfirmation. How will you decide the case? (3%) (2002 Bar Question)
Page
Marco cannot file a case for grave oral defamation. If at all, he may file a case for light slander. In the case of People v. Laroga (40 O.G. 123), it was held that defamation in a political meeting, when feelings are running high and people could not think clearly, only amount to light slander.
ART.353-Crimes against honor – Libel; publication in the newspapers; broadcast over the radio
Distinguish clearly but briefly: (10%) (2004 Bar Question) Between oral defamation and criminal conversation.
Office a complaint for slander by deed against Maria. After preliminary investigation, the Fiscal forgot all about the case until the 179th day, which was a Saturday, from the commission of the crime. Since the following day was a Sunday, the fiscal filed the information in court on Monday, the 181st day from the commission of the crime. After trial, the Judge convicted Maria. She engaged another lawyer who on appeal asserted that the crime of slander by deed had prescribed because it was filed in court one day after the six-month period of prescription under Art. 90 of the Revised Penal Code. The Fiscal argued that since the 180th day fell on a Sunday, he could file the information the following Monday. He also said that, in any event, Maria waived the defense of prescription because she did not raise it during the trial of case.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Decide the case. (1987 Bar Question)
Oral defamation, known as slander, is a malicious imputation of any act, omission, condition or circumstance against a person, done orally in public, tending to cause dishonor, discredit, contempt, embarrassment or ridicule to the latter. This is a crime against honor penalized in Art. 358 of the Revised Penal Code.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
If defamatory imputations are made not by publication in the newspapers but by broadcast over the radio, do they constitute libel? Why? (2%) (2002 Bar Question) SUGGESTED ANSWER: Yes, because libel may be committed by radio broadcast Article 355 of the Revised Penal Code punishes libel committed by means, among others, of radio broadcast, Inasmuch as the broadcast made by radio is public and may be defamatory. ART.358-Crimes against honor - Slander
Criminal conversation. The term is used in making a polite reference to sexual intercourse as in certain crimes, like rape, seduction and adultery. It has no definite concept as a crime ART.359-Crimes against honor - slander by deed Maria called Lydia names and slapped her at the dance floor in the presence of many people because she suspected that Lydia was flirting with her boyfriend. The following day, Lydia filed with the Fiscal’s
The crime of slander by deed has already prescribed as it was tiled one day after the six month period of prescription. The rule is if the last day of the period of prescription of a crime falls on a Sunday, as in the problem, the information cannot be filed on the next working day, which is Monday as that will lengthen the period of prescription, which will not be favorable to the accused. (Japdiangco vs. Bartolome 122 SCRA 713) The contention of the Fiscal that Maria waived the defense of prescription because she did not raise it during the trial of die case is untenable. It has already been settled that prescription, although not raised in the trial may be invoked on appeal. (People vs. Balagtas 105 Phil. 1362; People vs. Castro 95 Phil 462).
Page
concern that the denunciation was made; hence, bereft of malice.
219
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
During a concert of Gary V., and in order to prevent the crowd from rushing to the stage, Rafael Padilla (a security guard) pointed his gun at the onrush of people. When the crowd still pushed forward, Rafael fired his gun into the air to scare them off. However, the bullet hit one of the metal roof supports, ricocheted and then hit one of the stage crew members, causing injuries which resulted in the latter's confinement in a hospital for twelve days. What crime/ s did Rafael commit? Explain your answer (2007 Bar Question) SUGGESTED ANSWER: The crime committed by Rafael is Simple Negligence Resulting in Less Serious Physical Injuries. Rafael is a security guard and was on duty when he discharged the firearm. The discharge of the firearm was not calculated to cause alarm or danger but simply to ward off the unruly crowd which persisted in pushing forward, thereby challenging the duty he was to fulfill there. The discharge of the firearm, therefore, should neither constitute a crime of Alarms and Scandal under Art. 155 of the Revised Penal Code nor may such discharge amount to a crime of Illegal Discharge of Firearms under Art. 254 of the Code since it was not directed towards a particular person when the firearm was discharged. However, the physical injuries resulting from the discharge of the firearm betrays a lack of precaution in a situation where the
ART. 365-Criminal negligence – Reckless imprudence resulting in homicide Eddie brought his son Randy to a local faithhealer known as "Mother Himala." He was diagnosed by the faithhealer as being possessed by an evil spirit. Eddie thereupon authorized the conduct of a "treatment" calculated to drive the "spirit" from the boy's body. Unfortunately, the procedure conducted resulted in the boy's death. The faithhealer and three others who were part of the healing ritual were charged with murder and convicted by the lower court. If you were the appellate court Justice, would you sustain the conviction upon appeal? Explain your answer. SUGGESTED ANSWER: No, the conviction for murder should not be sustained, because there is no indication that the accused acted with intent to kill Randy. On the contrary, the facts show that the accused acted to "treat" the victim in a way of driving the evil spirit which was believed to have "possessed" him. Considering that proximate cause of the victim's death was the healing ritual done by the accused which is, not recognized in law as legitimate, the accused are criminally liable for the victim's death. As they may have overdone the "healing ritual" they conducted on the victim's body, causing the latter's death, although the
220
ART. 365-Criminal negligence - Simple Negligence Resulting in Less Serious Physical Injuries; Simple Imprudence Resulting in Less Serious Physical Injuries; Reckless imprudence resulting in less serious physical injuries
danger to the discharge of the firearm is not clearly manifest, thus considered as simple imprudence only. The crime committed is Simple Imprudence Resulting In Less Serious Physical Injuries, since the physical injuries required only twelve (12) days of medical attention.
Page
QUASI-OFFENSES
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
Olimpio caught a cold and was running a fever. His doctor prescribed paracetamol. Olimpio went to a drug store with the prescription, and the pharmacist sold him three (3) tablets. Upon arriving home, he took a tablet. One hour later, he had a seizure and died. The autopsy showed that the tablet he had taken was not paracetamol but a pill to which he was allergic. The pharmacist was charged with murder. Is the charge proper? If not, what should it be? Explain. (6%) (2008 Bar Question) SUGGESTED ANSWER: The pharmacist committed a serious mistake. But the mistake could not characterize the death as murder because the specific intent to kill the victim was absent. The pharmacist could not be liable for murder. The pharmacist should be charged instead with reckless imprudence resulting in homicide (Art. 365, RPC) because Olimpio's death was the result of the pharmacist's serious negligence or imprudence as there is no specific intent to kill and no requisite qualifying circumstance.
SPECIAL PENAL LAWS SPECIAL LAW-R.A 9262 Romeo and Julia have been married for twelve (12) years and had two (2) children. The first few years of their marriage went
One night, Romeo came home drunk and went straight to bed. Fearing the onset of another violent fight, Julia stabbed Romeo while he was asleep. A week later, their neighbors discovered Romeo's rotting corpse on the marital bed. Julia and the children were nowhere to be found. Julia was charged with parricide. She asserted "battered woman's syndrome" as her defense. [a] Explain the "cycle (2.5%)(2016 BAR)
of
violence."
The battered woman syndrome is characterized by the so-called “cycle of violence,” which has three phases: (1) the tension building phase; (2) the acute battering incident; and (3) the tranquil, loving (or, at least, nonviolent) phase. During the tension-building phase, minor battering occurs- it could be verbal or slight physical abuse or another form of hostile behavior. The woman tries to pacify the batterer through a kind, nurturing behavior; or by simply staying out of his way. The acute battering incident is
221
ART. 365-Criminal negligence – Reckless imprudence resulting in homicide
along smoothly. However, on the fifth year onwards, they would often quarrel when Romeo comes home drunk. The quarrels became increasingly violent, marked by quiet periods when Julia would leave the conjugal dwelling. During these times of quiet, Romeo would "court" Julia with flowers and chocolate and convince her to return home, telling her that he could not live without her; or Romeo would ask Julia to forgive him, which she did, believing that if she humbled herself, Romeo would change. After a month of marital bliss, Romeo would return to his drinking habit and the quarrel would start again, verbally at first, until it would escalate to physical violence.
Page
intent to kill was absent, the accused may be held criminally liable for Reckless Imprudence Resulting in Homicide.
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
Yes. Under Sec. 3 (c) of RA No. 9262, “Battered Woman Syndrome” refers to a scientifically defined pattern of psychological and behavioral symptoms found in women living in battering relationships as a result of “cumulative abuse”. Under Sec. 3 (b), “Battery” refers to an act of inflicting physical harm upon the woman or her child resulting in physical and psychological or emotional distress (Sec. 3). In sum, the defense of Battered Woman Syndrome can be invoked if the woman in a marital relationship with the victim is subjected to cumulative abuse or battery involving the infliction of physical harm resulting to the physical and psychological or emotional distress. Cumulative means resulting from successive addition. In sum, there must be “at least two battering episodes” between the accused and her intimate partner and such final episode produced in the battered person’s mind an actual fear of an imminent harm from her batterer and an honest belief that she needed to use force in order to save her life (People v. Genosa, GR No. 135981, 15 January 2004). In this case, because of the battering episodes, Julia, feared the onset
SPECIAL LAW- RA 9165Dimas was arrested after a valid buy-bust operation. Macario, the policeman who acted as poseur-buyer, inventoried and photographed ten (10) sachets of shabu in the presence of a barangay tanod. The inventory was signed by Macario and the tanod, but Dimas refused to sign. As Macario was stricken with flu the day after, he was able to surrender the sachets to the PNP Crime Laboratory only after four (4) days. During pre-trial, the counsel de oficio of Dimas stipulated that the substance contained in the sachets examined by the forensic chemist is in fact methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu. Dimas was convicted of violating Section 5 of RA 9165. On appeal, Dimas questioned the admissibility of the evidence because Macario failed to observe the requisite "chain of custody" of the alleged "shabu" seized from him. On behalf of the State, the Solicitor General claimed that despite non-compliance with some requirements, the prosecution was able to show that the integrity of the substance was preserved. Moreover, even with some deviations from the requirements, the counsel of Dimas stipulated that the substance seized from
222
[b] Is Julia's "battered woman's syndrome" defense meritorious? Explain. (2.5%)
of another violent fight and honestly believed the need to defend herself even if Romeo had not commenced an unlawful aggression. Even in the absence of unlawful aggression, however, Battered Woman Syndrome is a defense. Under Sec. 27 of RA No. 9262, Battered Woman Syndrome is a defense notwithstanding the absence of any of the elements for justifying circumstances of self-defense under the RPC such as unlawful aggression (Sec. 26 of RA No. 9262).
Page
characterized by brutality, destructiveness and, sometimes, death. The battered woman deems this incident as unpredictable, yet also inevitable. During this phase, she has no control; only the batterer may put an end to the violence. The final phase of the cycle of violence begins when the acute battering incident ends. During this tranquil period, the couple experience profound relief.
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
Dimas was shabu so that the conviction should be affirmed. [a] What is the "chain of custody" requirement in drug offenses? (2.5%) (2016 BAR)
elected public official who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof and within twenty-four (24) hours upon such confiscation, the drug shall be submitted to the PDEA Forensic Laboratory for examination. [b] Rule on the contention of the State. (2.5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER SUGGESTED ANSWER
SPECIAL LAW– RA 6805; Instances of legal use of an alias by a Filipino citizen When can a Filipino citizen residing in this country use an alias legally? Give 3 instances. 2.5% (2006 Bar Question) SUGGESTED ANSWER: Yes, an alias may be legally used a. as a pseudonym in cinema and other entertainment field;
223
To establish the first link in the chain of custody, and that is the seizure of the drug from the accused, the prosecution must comply with Sec. 21 of RA No. 9165, which requires that the apprehending officer after the confiscation of drug must immediately physically inventory and photograph the same in the presence of the accused or the person from whom such items were confiscated, or his representative or counsel, a representative from the media and the DOJ, and any
The contention of the State is meritorious. Macario, the policeman failed to comply with Sec. 21 of RA No. 9165 since the inventory and photograph of the drugs was only made in the presence of barangay tanod and the same was not submitted to the PNP Crime Laboratory within 24 hours. The rule is settled that failure to strictly comply with Sec. 21(1), Article II of RA No. 9165 does not necessarily render an accused’s arrest illegal or the items seized or confiscated from him inadmissible. The most important factor is the preservation of the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized item. Moreover, the issue of non-compliance with Sec. 21 of RA No. 9165 cannot be raised for the first time on appeal (People v. Badilla, GR No. 218578, August 31, 2016).
Page
To establish the chain of custody, the prosecution must show the movements of the dangerous drugs from its confiscation up to its presentation in court. The purpose of establishing the chain of custody is to ensure the integrity of the corpus delicti (People v. Magat, GR No. 179939, 29 September 2008). The following links that must be established in the chain of custody in a buy-bust situation are: first, the seizure and marking, if practicable, of the illegal drug recovered from the accused by the apprehending officer; second, the turnover of the illegal drug seized by the apprehending officer to the investigating officer; third, the turnover by the investigating officer of the illegal drug to the forensic chemist for laboratory examination; and fourth, the turnover and submission of the marked illegal drug seized from the forensic chemist to the court (People v. Kamad, GR No. 174198, 29 January 2010).
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
Upon a laboratory examination of the fish seized by the police and agents of the Fisheries Commission, it was indubitably determined that the fish they were selling were caught with the use of explosives. Accordingly, the three vendors were criminally charged with the violation of Section 33 of P.D. 704 which makes it unlawful for any person to knowingly possess, deal in, or sell for profit any fish which have been illegally caught. During the trial, the three vendors claimed that they bought the fish from a fishing boat which they duly identified. The prosecution however claimed that the three vendors should nevertheless be held liable for the offense as they were the ones caught in possession of the fish illegally caught. On the basis of the above facts, if you were the judge, would you convict the three fish vendors? Explain. (1996 Bar Question) SUGGESTED ANSWER: No, I would not convict the three fish vendors if I were the judge. Mere possession of such fish without knowledge of the fact that the same were caught with the use of explosives does not by itself render the seller-possessor criminally liable under P.D. 704. Although the act penalized in said Decree may be a malum prohibitum, the law punishes the possession, dealing in or selling of such fish only when “knowingly" done that the fish were caught
SPECIAL LAW- Pres. Decree Nos. 704 and 1058 - Fishing with the use of explosives; punishable acts Two (2) Philippine National Police (PNP) officers, X and Y, on board on motorboat with Z, a civilian as motorman, arrested A and B who were in a banca, for dynamite fishing. The latter’s banca was towed towards the municipality. On the way, the PNP motorboat was intercepted by a third banca whose occupants, C, D. and E, tried to negotiate for the release of A and B and their banca. The PNP officers refused and instead shouted at C, D, and E that they are all under arrest. Thereupon, C, D, and E simultaneously threw dynamite sticks at the PNP motorboats. The first explosion killed X. A and B also reacted by throwing dynamite at the PNP motorboat: its explosion killed Y and Z. What crime or crimes did A, B, C, D and E commit? (1991 Bar Question) SUGGESTED ANSWER: Firstly, A and B committed a violation of Pres. Decree No. 534 (on illegal fishing) as amended by Pres. Decree Nos. 704 and 1058. Fishing with the use of explosives is punishable under said Decree.
224
SPECIAL LAW– PD 704 – punishable acts
with the use of explosives; hence criminal intent is essential. The claim by the fish vendors that they only bought the fish from fishing boats which they “duly identified", renders their possession of such fish innocent unless the prosecution could prove that they have knowledge that explosives were used in catching such fish, and the accused had knowledge thereof.
Page
b. as a pen name in literary composition or work; c. as a pseudonym in television and radio broadcasting (Ursua v. CA, 256 SCRA 147 11986); RA 6085, Secs. 1 & 2;
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
If you were the lawyer of Estafador, with what crime would you charge the NBI agent? Explain. .(1993 Bar Question) SUGGESTED ANSWER: Violation of RA 7438, defining rights of persons arrested.
[e] For a person who transacts an instrument representing the proceeds of a covered unlawful activity to be liable under the Anti-Money Laundering Act (R.A. 9160, as amended), it must be shown that he has knowledge of the identities of the culprits involved in the commission of the predicate crimes. SUGGESTED ANSWER: False. There is nothing in the law which requires that the accused must know the identities of the culprits involved in the commission of the predicate crimes. To establish liability under RA 9160, it is sufficient that proceeds of an unlawful activity are transacted, making them appear to have originated from legitimate sources.
Special Law. under Republic Act (RA) No. 9160, as amended (Anti- Money Laundering Act)
1. Failure to inform him of his right to counsel and to remain silent (Sec. 4, par. 1); and 2. Prevent an immediate member of his family which includes fiancee, to confer with Estafador (Sec. 4(b)
There being probable cause to believe that certain deposits and investments in a bank are related to an unlawful activity of smuggling by Alessandro as defined under Republic Act (RA) No. 9160, as amended (Anti- Money Laundering Act) an application for an order to allow inquiry into his deposit was filed with the Regional Trial Court.
Special law. RA 9160: Laundering Act
Anti-Money
After hearing the application, the court granted the application and issued a freeze order.
TRUE or FALSE. Answer TRUE if the statement is true, or FALSE if the
Pass upon the correctness of the court’s order. Explain. (3%) (2010 Bar Question)
225
Upon complaint of Baby, NBI agent Cesar invited estafador to the NBI headquarters where Cesar showed to Estafador the sworn complaint of Baby for estafa. He thereafter began questioning Estafador who told him that he (Estafador) is willing to submit to an Investigation since he has nothing to hide. Thereupon, Cesar got a typewriter and took down the statement of Estafador without informing the latter that he has a right to remain silent and to secure the services of a lawyer. After the statement was signed by Estafador, his fiancee, Fadora, came and asked Cesar to allow her to confer with Estafador but Cesar refused saying that after all. Fadora is not a lawyer, and that Estafador voluntarily gave his statement.
statement is false. Explain your answer in not more than two (2) sentences. (5%) (2009 Bar Question)
Page
SPECIAL LAW– Act Defining Certain Rights of Persons Arrested, Detained or Under Custodial Investigation (RA 7438) – Rights which can be violated
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
SUGGESTED ANSWER: The freeze order issued by the Regional Trial Court is not correct, because jurisdiction to issue said freeze order is now vested with the Court of Appeals under Rep Act 9194, amending the Anti-Money Laundering Act (Rep. Act No. 9160). The Regional Trial Court is without jurisdiction to issue a freeze order of the money involved. Define Money laundering. What are the three (3) stages in money laundering? (3%) (2010 Bar Question)
opened an account in the Mayor’s name and regularly deposited various amounts ranging from P500,000.00 to PI Million. From this account, the Mayor withdrew and used the money for constructing feeder roads, barangay clinics, repairing schools and for all other municipal projects. It was subsequently discovered that Don Gabito was actually a jueteng operator and the amounts he deposited were proceeds from his jueteng operations. What crime/s were committed? Who are criminally liable? Explain. (6%)(2005 Bar Question) SUGGESTED ANSWER:
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
1. Placement/ infusion or the physical disposal of criminal proceeds 2. Layering or the separation of the criminal proceeds from their source by creating layers of financial transactions to disguise such proceeds as legitimate and avoid audit trail; and 3. Integration or the provision of apparent legitimacy to the criminal proceeds.
Don Gabito, a philanthropist, offered to fund several projects of the Mayor. He
RA3019, PD 1829: During a PNP buy-bust operation, Cao Shih was arrested for selling 20 grams of methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu) to a poseur-buyer. Cao Shih, through an intermediary, paid Patrick, the Evidence Custodian of the PNP Forensic Chemistry Section, the Evidence Custodian of the PNP Forensic Chemistry Section, the amount of P500.000.00 in consideration for the destruction by Patrick of the drug. Patrick managed to destroy the drug.
226
The three (3) stages in money laundering are:
1) Money laundering under the same laws above- mentioned if after learning that the money deposited in his account were proceeds of jueteng, he still continued using said funds; (crime committed by the Mayor)
Page
Money Laundering is the process by which a person conceals the existence of unlawfully obtained money and makes it appear to have originated from lawful sources. The intention behind such a transaction is to hide the beneficial owner of said funds and allows criminal organizations or criminals to enjoy proceeds of such criminal activities.”
1) Money laundering under Rep. Act 9160 (Anti- Money Laundering Act of 2001), as amended by Rep. Act 9194, since the money proceeds from an unlawful activity, i.e., jueteng are transacted as though coming from a legitimate source; (crime committed by Don Gabito)
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
Direct bribery; Indirect bribery; Section 3(e) of RA 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act); Obstruction of Justice under PD 1829; (7%) (2005 Bar Question) SUGGESTED ANSWER:
c) Implementing Rules Regulations (IRR) of R.A. No. 9165
and
Patrick committed the crimes of direct bribery under Article 210 of the Revised Penal Code, Violation of Section 3(e) of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act (R.A. 3019), and Obstruction of Justice under Section 1(b) of PD 1829.
Special penal law - Crimes relative to opium and other prohibited drugs - Rep. Act No. 9165, the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002
Direct bribery was committed by Patrick when, for a consideration of P500.000.00, he committed a violation ofPD 1829 by destroying the drugs which were evidence entrusted to him in his official capacity.
MNO, who is 30 years old, was charged as a drug pusher under the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002. During pretrial, he offered to plead guilty to the lesser offense concerning use of dangerous drugs.
Indirect bribery is not committed, because he received the P500,000.00 as a consideration for destroying the evidence against the offender, which was under his official custody as a public officer. The money was not delivered to him simply as a gift or present by reason of his public office. Patrick also violated Section 3(e), R.A. 3019 causing undue injury to the government through evident bad faith, giving unwarranted benefit to the offender by destroying evidence of a crime. Obstruction of justice under Section 1 (b) of P.D. 1829 is committed by destroying evidence intended to be used in official proceedings in criminal case.
Should the Judge allow MNO’s plea to the lesser offense? Explain briefly. (5%) (2004 Bar Question) SUGGESTED ANSWER: No, the Judge should not allow MNO’s plea to a lesser offense, because pleabargaining in prosecutions of drugrelated cases is no longer allowed by Rep. Act No. 9165, the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, regardless of the imposable penalty.
Obie Juan is suspected to have in his possession an unspecified amount of methamphetamlne hydrochloride or “shabu". An entrapment operation was conducted by police officers, resulting in his
227
Patrick
Page
State with reasons whether committed the following crimes:
b) The Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002 (R.A. No. 9165) (i) Punishable acts (ii) Who are liable (iii) Attempt or conspiracy, effect on liability (iv) Immunity from prosecution and punishment (v) Custody and disposition of confiscated, seized and/or surrendered dangerous drugs (Section 21, R.A. No. 9165)
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
SUGGESTED ANSWER: A. The charge of possession of shabu is proper as the mere possession of such drug is punishable, but the charge of use of marijuana is not proper as Section 15 of Rep. Act 9165 (Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002) expressly excludes penalties for “use” of dangerous drugs when the person tested is also found to have in possession such quantity of any dangerous drug" provided for in Section 11 of such Act. B. No, because Section 23 of R.A. 9165 expressly provides that "Any person charged under any provision of this Act regardless of the imposable penalty shall not be allowed to avail of the provision on plea-bargaining. ” For this reason, Obie Juan cannot be allowed to plead guilty to a lesser offense.
After receiving a reliable information that Dante Ong, a notorious drug smuggler, was arriving on PAL Flight No. PR181, PNP Chief Inspector Samuel Gamboa formed a group of anti-drug agents. When
What are their respective criminal liabilities? 5% (2006 Bar Question) SUGGESTED ANSWER: The two police officers are criminally liable for violation of Sec. 27, R.A. 9165 of the same law for misappropriation and failure to account for the confiscated or seized dangerous drugs. On the other hand, Dante Ong is criminally liable for the illegal importation or bringing into the Philippines of the dangerous drugs. (Article 11, Sec. 4, RA 9165)
After receiving a reliable information that Dante Ong, a notorious drug smuggler, was arriving on PAL Flight No. PR181,
228
A. Are the charges proper? Explain. B. So as not to be sentenced to death, Obie Juan offers to plead guilty to a lesser offense. Can he do so? Why? (5%) (2005 Bar Question)
Ong arrived at the airport, the group arrested him and seized his attache case. Upon inspection inside the Immigration holding area, the attache case yielded 5 plastic bags of heroin weighing 500 grams. Chief Inspector Gamboa took the attache case and boarded him in an unmarked car driven by P03 Pepito Lorbes. On the way to Camp Crame and upon nearing White Plains comer Edsa. Chief Inspector Gamboa ordered P03 Lorbes to stop the car. They brought out the drugs from the case in the trunk and got 3 plastic sacks of heroin. They then told Ong to alight from the car. Ong left with the 2 remaining plastic sacks of heroin. Chief Inspector Gamboa advised him to keep silent and go home which the latter did. Unknown to them, an NBI team of agents had been following them and witnessed the transaction. They arrested Chief Inspector Gamboa and P03 Lorbes. Meanwhile, another NBI team followed Ong and likewise arrested him. All of them were later charged
Page
arrest following the discovery of 100 grams of the said dangerous drug in his possession. He was subjected to a drug test and was found positive for the use of marijuana, another dangerous drug. He was subsequently charged with two crimes: Violation of Section 11, Article II of RA 9165 for the possession of “shabu" and violation of Section 15, Article II of RA 9165 for the use of marijuana.
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
SUGGESTED ANSWER: Chief Inspector Samuel Gamboa and P03 Pepito Lorbes incur criminal liability under Art. 11, Sec. 4 last par., R.A. No. 9165, otherwise known as the “Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002”. They acted as “protector/coddler” to the unlawful bringing into the Philippines of the dangerous drugs. A “protector/ coddler” refers to any person who uses his power or position in, inter alia, facilitating the escape of any person whom he knows or believes, has violated the Dangerous Drugs Law, in
Tuburcio asked Anastacio to join their group for a "session". Thinking that it was for a mahjong session Anastacio agreed. Upon reaching Tiburcio's house, Anastacic discovered that it was actually a shabu session. At that precise time, the place was raided by the police, and Anastacio was among those arrested. What crime can Anastacio be charged with, if any? Explain your answer. (2007 Bar Question) SUGGESTED ANSWER: Anastacio may not be charged of any crime. Sec. 7 of Rep. Act. 9165 on the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs of 2002 punishes employees and visitors of a den, dive or resort where dangerous drugs are used in any form. But for a visitor of such place to commit the crime, it is a requisite that he "is aware of the nature of the place as such and shall knowingly visit the same." These requisites are absent in the facts given.
Special law – Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act (RA 3019, as amended) – Preventive suspension A month after the arraignment of Brad Kit Commissioner of the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board, who was charged with violation of Section 3 (h) of Republic Act 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act) before the Sandiganbayan, the Office of the Special Prosecutor filed a Motion to Suspend Accused Pendente Lite pursuant
229
What are their respective criminal liabilities? 5% (2006 Bar Question)
order to prevent the arrest, prosecution and conviction of the violator.
Page
PNP Chief Inspector Samuel Gamboa formed a group of anti-drug agents. When Ong arrived at the airport, the group arrested him and seized his attache case. Upon inspection inside the Immigration holding area, the attache case yielded 5 plastic bags of heroin weighing 500 grams. Chief Inspector Gamboa took the attache case and boarded him in an unmarked car driven by P03 Pepito Lorbes. On the way to Camp Crame and upon nearing White Plains comer Edsa. Chief Inspector Gamboa ordered P03 Lorbes to stop the car. They brought out the drugs from the case in the trunk and got 3 plastic sacks of heroin. They then told Ong to alight from the car. Ong left with the 2 remaining plastic sacks of heroin. Chief Inspector Gamboa advised him to keep silent and go home which the latter did. Unknown to them, an NBI team of agents had been following them and witnessed the transaction. They arrested Chief Inspector Gamboa and P03 Lorbes. Meanwhile, another NBI team followed Ong and likewise arrested him. All of them were later charged
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
The suspension order does not partake of a penalty and is thus not violative of Brad Kit's constitutional right to be presumed innocent. Under the law, the accused public officers shall be suspended from office while the criminal prosecution is pending in court (Sec. 13, R.A. 3019). Such preventive suspension is mandatory to prevent the accused from hampering the normal course of the investigation (Rios vs. Sandiganbayan, 279SCRA 581J1997): Bunye vs. Escareal 226 SCRA 332 [19931). Neither is there merit in Brad Kit's claim that the provision on suspension pendente lite applies only to elective officials and not to appointed ones like him. It applies to all public officials indicted upon a valid information under R. A. No. 3019, whether they be appointive or elective officials; or permanent or temporary employees, or pertaining to the career or non-career service (Segovia vs. Sandiganbayan, 288 SCRA 328 [1998]). Special law – RA 3019 - Attempted or frustrated stage of the violation charged is not punishable, but the accused be
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 and file with the Bureau of Customs the necessary Import Entiy and Internal Revenue Declaration covering Moonglow’s shipment Mr. Gabisi and Mr. Yto submitted to Mr. Ocuarto a packing list, a commercial invoice, a bill of lading and a Sworn Import Duty 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 Customs Senior Agent James Bandldo, 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 RA. 3019 which makes it unlawful among others, for public officers to cause any undue injuiy 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
230
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
nevertheless convicted for an offense punished by the Revised Penal Code
Page
to Section 13 of the Anti-Graft Law. The Court granted the motion and suspended accused Brad Kit for a period of 90 days. Accused assailed the constitutional validity of the suspension order on the ground that it partakes of a penalty before judgment of conviction is reached and is thus violative of his constitutional right to be presumed innocent. He also claimed that this provision of the law on suspension pendente lite applies only to electiye officials and not to appointed ones like him. Rule with reasons. (5%) (2000 Bar Question)
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
SUGGESTED ANSWER: A. Yes, the contention of the accused that the 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 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. Special penal law - Violation of Rep. Act 6713 (Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees) Don Gabito, a philanthropist, offered to fund several projects of the Mayor. He opened an account in the Mayor’s name and regularly deposited various amounts ranging from P500,000.00 to PI Million. From this account, the Mayor withdrew and used the money for constructing feeder roads, barangay clinics, repairing schools and for all other municipal projects. It was subsequently discovered that Don Gabito was actually a jueteng operator and the
What crime/s were committed? Who are criminally liable? Explain. (6%)(2005 Bar Question) SUGGESTED ANSWER: 4. Corruption of public officials under Article 212 of the Revised Penal Code for having given the amounts that were deposited in an account which he opened in the Mayor’s name for no reason but the public position or office held by the Mayor; (crime committed by Don Gabito) 5. Indirect Bribery for accepting such moneys deposited in his account by using them when they were given to him for no other reason except for his public position as a Mayor. (crime committed by the Mayor) 6. Violation of Rep. Act 6713 (Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees) for receiving such gift from someone who may be affected by the functions of his office. (crime committed by the Mayor) Criminal law – Crimes committed by public officers - Indirect bribery; Special penal law - Republic Act No. 3019directly or indirectly requesting or receiving any gift, present, percentage, or benefit in connection with any contract or transaction x x x wherein the public officer, in his official capacity, has to intervene under the law RA 3019: Charina, Clerk of Court of an RTC Branch, promised the plaintiff in a case pending before the court that she would convince the Presiding Judge to decide the case in plaintiff's favor. In
231
A. Is the contention of both accused correct? Explain.(3%) (2000 Bar Question) B. Art. 315: 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. (3%) (2000 Bar Question)
amounts he deposited were proceeds from his jueteng operations.
Page
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.
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
consideration therefor, the plaintiff gave Charina P20,000.00. Charina was charged with violation of Section 3 (b) of Republic Act No. 3019, prohibiting any public officer from directly or indirectly requesting or receiving any gift, present, percentage, or benefit in connection with any contract or transaction x x x wherein the public officer, in his official capacity, has to intervene under the law. While the case was being tried, the Ombudsman filed another information against Charina for Indirect Bribery under the Revised Penal Code. Charina demurred to the second information, claiming that she can no longer be charged under the Revised Penal Code having been charged for the same act under R.A. 3019. Is Charina correct? Explain. (3%) (2009 Bar Question)
programs for 2008. Records show that the amount of P2-million was purportedly used as financial assistance for a rice production livelihood project. Upon investigation, however, it was found that Roger and Jessie falsified the disbursement vouchers and supporting documents in order to make it appear that qualified recipients who, in fact, are non-existent individuals, received the money. Roger and Jessie are charged with violation of Section 3 (e) of R.A. 3019 for causing undue injury to the government. Discuss the propriety of the charge filed against Roger and Jessie. Explain. (4%) (2009 Bar Question) SUGGESTED ANSWER: They should be charged of violation of Section 3(e) of Rep. Act 3019 for the breach of public trust and undue injury caused to the Government. The violation is a crime malum prohibitum.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
RA 3019: May a public officer charged under Section 3(b) of Republic Act No. 3019 [“directly or indirectly requesting or receiving any gift, present, share, percentage or benefit, for himself of 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”] also be simultaneously or successively charged with direct bribery under Article 210 of the Revised Penal Code? Explain. (4%) (2010 Bar Question)
232
Roger and Jessie, Municipal Mayor and Treasurer, respectively, of San Rafael, Leyte, caused the disbursement of public funds allocated for their local development
Criminal law – Crimes committed by public officers - direct bribery; Special penal law - Republic Act No. 3019
Page
No, Charina is not correct. Although the charge for violation of Rep. Act No. 3019 and the charge for Indirect Bribery (Art. 211, RPC) arose from the same act, the elements of the violation charged under Rep. Act No. 3019 are not the same as the felony charged for Indirect Bribery under the Rev. Penal Code (Mejia v. Pamaran, 160 SCRA 457 [1988]). Hence, the crimes charged are separate and distinct from each other, with different penalties. The two charges do not constitute a ground for a motion to dismiss or motion to quash, as there is no jeopardy against the accused.
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
Criminal law – Crimes committed by public officer - Republic Act No. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act) The Central Bank (Bangko Sentralna Pilipinas), by a resolution of the monetary board, hires Thereof Sto. Tomas, a retired manager of a leading bank as a consultant. Thereof later receives a valuable gift from a bank under investigation by the Central Bank. May Thereof be prosecuted under Republic Act No. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act) for accepting such a gift? Explain. (2003 Bar Question) SUGGESTED ANSWER:
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER: Yes, Thereof may be prosecuted under Rep. Act 3019 because he is a “public officer' within the purview of said law, and Thereof received the valuable gift from a bank which is under investigation by the Central Bank where he is employed as a “public officer. Receiving gift, directly or indirectly by a public officer from a party who has a transaction with the Government is wrong, more so when the gift-giver is under investigation by the government office to which the public officer is connected. Proserfina, an assistant public high school principal, acted to facilitate the release of salary differentials and election duty per diem of classroom teachers with the agreement that they would reimburse her for her expenses. Did Proserfina commit a crime? Explain. (5%) (2010 Bar Question)
No, Thereof may not be prosecuted under Rep. Act 3019, but may be prosecuted for violation of Pres. Decree No. 46, under which such act of receiving a valuable gift is punished.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Although Thereof is a “public officer” within the application of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act (RA 3019), yet his act of receiving such gift does not appear to be included among the punishable acts under Rep. Act 3019), yet his act of receiving such gift does not appear to be included among the punishable acts under Rep. Act not to intervene in his official capacity in the
“(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. “
Yes, Proserfina committed violation of Sec. 3(b) of Rep. Act No. 3019 which considers as corrupt practice, the act of:
233
Yes, a public officer charges under Sec. 3 (b) of Rep. Act 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act) may also be charged simultaneously or successively for the crime of direct bribery under Art. 210 of the Revised Penal Code, because two crimes are essentially different and are penalized under distinct legal philosophies. Whereas violation of Sec. (b) of R.A. 3019 is a malum prohibitum, the crime under Art. 210 of the Code is a malum in se.
investigation of the bank which gave the gift. Penal laws must be strictly construed against the State. In any case, Thereof is administratively liable.
Page
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
Don Gabito, a philanthropist, offered to fund several projects of the Mayor. He opened an account in the Mayor’s name and regularly deposited various amounts ranging from P500,000.00 to PI Million. From this account, the Mayor withdrew and used the money for constructing feeder roads, barangay clinics, repairing schools and for all other municipal projects. It was subsequently discovered that Don Gabito was actually a jueteng operator and the amounts he deposited were proceeds from his jueteng operations. What crime/s were committed? Who are criminally liable? Explain. (6%)(2005 Bar Question) SUGGESTED ANSWER: 1. Corruption of public officials under Article 212 of the Revised Penal Code for having given the amounts that were deposited in an account which he opened in the Mayor’s name for no reason but the public position or office held by the Mayor; (crime committed by Don Gabito)
3. Violation of Rep. Act 6713 (Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees) for receiving such gift from someone who may be affected by the functions of his office. (crime committed by the Mayor) Special penal law– Violation of Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials (RA 6713) - Requesting donations of gifts Commissioner Marian Torres of the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) wrote solicitation letters addressed to the Filipino-Chinese Chamber of Commerce and Industry and to certain CEOs of various multinational corporations requesting donations of gifts for her office Christmas party. She used the Bureau's official stationery. The response was prompt and overwhelming so much so that Commissioner Torres' office was overcrowded with rice cookers, radio sets, freezers, electric stoves and toasters. Her staff also received several envelopes containing cash money for the employees' Christmas luncheon. Has Commissioner Torres committed any impropriety or irregularity? What laws or decrees did she violate? 5% (2006 Bar Question) SUGGESTED ANSWER: Yes, Commissioner Torres committed an impropriety. She violated Sec. 7(d) of Rep. Act 6713 otherwise known as the “Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public
234
Special penal law - Violation of Rep. Act 6713 (Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees)
2. Indirect Bribery for accepting such moneys deposited in his account by using them when they were given to him for no other reason except for his public position as a Mayor. (crime committed by the Mayor)
Page
Being the assistant public high school principal, it is her duty to intervene in the release of salary differentials and per diem of classroom teachers under her. Her act of doing so, made a request for a share or benefit therefor constitutes graft or corrupt practice under Sec 3(b) of Rep. Act No. 3019. Considering that the acts prohibited or punished under this law are mala prohibita, and thus punishable thereunder, whether done with criminal intent or not.
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
Officials and Employees”. Sec. 7(d) mandates that public officials and employees shall not solicit or accept directly or indirectly any gift, favor, entertainment, loan or anything of monetary value from any person in the course of£ her official duties or any transaction which may be affected by the functions of their office.
the crime of illegal possession of firearms and ammunition. What the law requires is merely possession, which includes not only actual physical possession but also constructive possession where the firearm and explosive are subject to one’s control and management. [People us. De Grecia, 233 SCRA 716; U.S. vs. Juan, 23 Phil, 105; People vs. Soyag, 110 Phil. 565).
Special Law. PD 1866, as amended by RA8294 and RA 10591 :
Special law – Penalties – Grave offense; life imprisonment
A has long been wanted by the police authorities for various crimes committed by him. Acting on an information by a tipster, the police proceeded to an apartment where A was often seen. The tipster also warned the policemen that A was always armed. At the given address, a lady who introduced herself as the elder sister of A, opened the door and let the policemen in. Inside, the team found A sleeping on the floor. Immediately beside him was a clutch bag which, when opened, contained a .38 caliber paltik revolver and a hand grenade. After verification, the authorities discovered that A was not a licensed holder of the .38 caliber paltik revolver. As for the hand grenade, it was established that only military personnel are authorized to carry hand grenades. Subsequently, A was charged with the crime of Illegal Possession of Firearms and Ammunition. During trial, A maintained that the bag containing the unlicensed firearm and hand grenade belonged to A, his friend, and that he was not in actual possession thereof at the time he was arrested. Are the allegations meritorious? Explain. (3%) (2000 Bar Question)
QUESTION A. RR represented to AA, BB, CC and DD that she could send them to London to work there as sales ladies and waitresses. She collected and received from them various amounts of money for recruitment and placement fees totalling P400.000. After their dates of departure were postponed several times, the four prospects got suspicious and went to POEA (Phil. Overseas Employment Authority). There they found out that RR was not authorized nor licensed to recruit workers for employment abroad. They sought refund to no avail.
A. Yes. RR is guilty of a grave offense, having engaged in illegal recruitment constituting the offense of economic sabotage which is punishable with life imprisonment and a fine of P100,000.00. Economic sabotage is an offense defined in 38(b) of the Labor Code, as amended by Pres. Decree No. 2018, which is incurred when the illegal recruitment is carried out in large scale or by a syndicate. It is in a large scale when there are three or more
235
A’s allegations are not meritorious. Ownership is not an essential element of
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Page
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Is RR guilty of any grave offense? Explain briefly. (5%) (2004 Bar Question)
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
Matt filed a petition for probation. Jeff appealed his conviction during the pendency of which he also filed a petition for probation. The brothers' counsel argued that they being first time offenders, their petitions for probation should be granted. How would you resolve the brothers' petitions for probation? Explain. (3%) (2010 Bar Question) SUGGESTED ANSWER: The brothers' petition for probation should both be denied. Matt's petition for probation shall be denied because he was convicted for drugtrafficking. Section 24 of RA 9165 (Comprehensive Dangerous Drug Act of 2002) expressly provides, "Any person convicted for drug trafficking or pushing under this Act, regardless of the penalty imposed by the court, cannot avail of the privilege granted by the Probation Law or Presidential Decree No. 968, as amended." On the other hand, Jeff's application for probation cannot also be entertained or granted because he has already appealed
Special law -Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act - Processes of intervention and diversion Joe was 17 years old when he committed homicide in 2005. The crime is punishable by reclusion temporal. After two years in hiding, he was arrested and appropriately charged in May 2007. Since Republic Act 9344 (Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of 2006) was already in effect, Joe moved to avail of the process of intervention or diversion. [a] What is intervention or diversion? Is Joe entitled to intervention or diversion? Explain. (3%) (2009 Bar Question) SUGGESTED ANSWER: The two terms are different. "Intervention" refers to a series of activities which are designed to address issues that caused the child to commit an offense. It may take the form of an individualized treatment program which may include counseling, skills training, education, and other activities that will enhance his/her psychological, emotional and psychosocial wellbeing. This is available to a child 15 years old or less at the time of the commission of the crime or although over 15 but below 18 years old at the time of commission of the crime, the child acted without discernment. "Diversion" refers to an alternative, childappropriate process of determining the responsibility and treatment of a child in conflict with the law on the basis of his/her social, cultural, economic, psychological or educational background without resorting
236
Matt was found guilty of drug trafficking while his younger brother Jeff was found guilty of possession of equipment, instrument, apparatus and other paraphernalia for dangerous drugs under Section 12 of Republic Act No. 9165.
his conviction by the trial court (Section 4, P.D. 968, as amended).
Page
aggrieved parties, individually or as a group. And it is committed by a syndicate when three or more persons conspire or cooperate with one another in carrying out the illegal transaction, scheme or activity. Special penal law - Section 24 of RA 9165 (Comprehensive Dangerous Drug Act of 2002)
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
to formal court proceedings. This process governs when the child is over 15 years old but below 18 at the time of the commission of the crime and he acted with discernment.
unlawfully acquired? Explain your answer. (1990 Bar Question)
Yes. Joe is entitled to diversion. Being only 17 years old at the time he committed the crime of homicide, he is treated as a child in conflict with the law under RA 9344
I would interpose the defense of prescription as the right to file a petition for forfeiture under Republic Act No. 1379 Section 2 prescribes in four (4) years from the date of resignation.
No. The judge should not suspend sentence anymore because Joe was already 21 years old. Suspension of sentence is availing under Rep. Act 9344 only until a child reaches the maximum age of twenty-one (21) years.
Prescription for violation of special laws - Petition for forfeiture under Republic Act No. 1379 Maloling is a public official who resigned from the service on February 1, 1984. On February 15, 1990, the Solicitor General filed a petition in court for the forfeiture of the property of Maloling which was allegedly unlawfully acquired. If you were the counsel of Maloling, what defense or defenses would you interpose? Explain your answer. (1990 Bar Question) Besides property unlawfully acquired found to be in the name of Maloling, what are the other properties not in his name which may nevertheless be considered
1. Property unlawfully acquired by the respondent but its ownership concealed by being recorded in the name of, or held by, the respondent’s spouse, ascendants, descendants, relatives or any other person; and 2. Property unlawfully acquired by the respondent, but transferred by him to another person/s. (R-A. 1379 Section 1(b)). Special law - Highway Robbery under Presidential Decree No. 532 a) Distinguish Highway Robbery under Presidential Decree No. 532 from Robbery committed on a highway. (3%) (2000 Bar Question) b) A, B, C, D and E were in a beerhouse along MacArthur Highway having a drinking spree. At about 1 o’clock in the morning, they decided to leave and so asked for the bill. They pooled their money together but they were still short of P2.Q00.00. E then orchestrated a plan whereby A, B, C and D would go out, flag a taxicab and rob the taxi driver of all his money while E would wait for them in the beerhouse. A, B, C and D agreed. All
237
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Property which may still be considered as unlawfully acquired, though not in the name of Maloling at the time of filing of the petition for forfeiture, shall include:
Page
[b] Suppose Joe's motion for intervention or diversion was denied, and he was convicted two (2) years later when Joe was already 21 years old, should the judge apply the suspension of sentence? Explain. (2%) (2009 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
a) Highway Robbery under Pres. Decree 532 differs from ordinary Robbery committed on a highway in these respects: In Highway Robbery under PD 532, the robbery is committed indiscriminately against persons who commute in such highways, regardless of the potentiality they offer; while in ordinary Robbery committed on a highway, the robbery is committed only against predetermined victims; It is Highway Robbery under PD 532, when the offender is a brigand or one who roams in public highways and carries out his robbery in public highways as venue, whenever the opportunity to do so arises. It is ordinary Robbery under the Revised Penal Code when the commission thereof in a public highway is only incidental and the offender is not a brigand; and In Highway Robbery under PD 532, there is frequency in the commission of the robbery in public highways and against persons travelling thereat; whereas ordinary Robbery In public highways is only
b) A, B, C, D and E are liable for two (2) counts of robbery under Article 294 of the Rev. Penal Code; not for highway Robbery under PD 532. The offenders are not brigands but only committed the robbery to raise money to pay their bill because it happened that they were short of money to pay the same. Special law – Anti-Piracy and AntiHighway Robbery (PD 532) punishable acts Police Sgt. Diego Chan, being a member of the Theft and Robbery Division of the Western Police District and assigned to the South Harbor, Manila, was privy to and more or less familiar with the schedules, routes and hours of the movements of container vans, as well as the mobile police patrols, from the pier area to the different export processing zones outside Metro Manila. From time to time, he gave valuable and detailed information on these matters to a group interested in those shipments in said container vans. On several instances, using the said information as their basis, the gang hijacked and pilfered the contents of the vans. Prior to their sale to “fences” in Banawe, Ouezon City and Bangkal, Makati City, the gang informs Sgt. Chan who then inspects the pilfered goods, makes his choice of the valuable items and disposes of them through his own sources or “fences”. When the highjackers were traced on one occasion and arrested, upon custodial investigation, they implicated Sgt. Chan and the fiscal charged them all, including Sgt. Chan as co-principals. Sgt. Chan, in his defense, claimed that he should not be charged as a principal but only as an accessory after the fact under
238
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
occasional against a predetermined victim, without frequency in public highways.
Page
armed with balisongs, A, B, C and D hailed the first taxicab they encountered. After robbing X, the driver, of his earnings, which amounted to P1,000.00 only, they needed P1,000.00 more to meet their bill. So, they decided to hail another taxicab and they again robbed driver Y of his hard-eamed money amounting to PI,000.00. On their way back to the beerhouse, they were apprehended by a police team upon the complaint of X, the driver of the first cab. They pointed to E as the mastermind. What crime or crimes, if any, did A, B, C, D and E commit? Explain fully. (3%) (2000 Bar Question)
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
SUGGESTED ANSWER: No, the contention of Sgt. Chan is not valid or tenable because by express provision of P.D. 532, Section 4, a person who knowingly and in any manner, aids or protects highway robbers/brigands, such as giving them information about the movement of police officers or acquires or receives property taken by brigands, or who directly or indirectly abets the commission of highway robbeiy/brigandage, shall be considered as accomplice of the principal offenders and punished in accordance with the rules in the Revised Penal Code. Special penal law - The Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002 (R.A. No. 9165) – Chain of custody Following his arrest after a valid buy-bust operation, Tommy was convicted of violation of Section 5, Republic Act 9165. On appeal, Tommy questioned the admissibility of the evidence because the police officers who conducted the buybust operation failed to observe the requisite "chain of custody" of the evidence confiscated and/or seized from him. What is the "chain of custody" requirement in drug offenses? What is its rationale? What is the effect of failure to observe the requirement? (3%) (2009 Bar Question) SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Its rationale is to preserve the authenticity of the corpus delicti or body of the crime by rendering it improbable that the original item seized/confiscated in the violation has been exchanged or substituted with another or tampered with or contaminated. It is a method of authenticating the evidence as would support a finding beyond reasonable doubt that the matter is what the prosecution claims it to be. Failure to observe the "chain of custody" requirement renders the evidence questionable, not trustworthy and insufficient to prove the corpus delicti beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, Tommy would be acquitted on reasonable doubt. The Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) had intelligence reports about the drug pushing activities of Rado, but could not arresthim for lack of concrete evidence. SP03 Relio, a PDEA team leader, approached Emilo and requested him to act as poseur-buyer of shabu and transact with Rado. Emilo refused, saying that he had completely been rehabilitated and did not want to have anything to do with drugs anymore. But he was prevailed upon to help when SP03 Relio explained that only
239
Is the contention of Sgt. Chan valid and tenable? Explain. (5%) (2001 Bar Question)
"Chain of custody" requirement in drug offenses refers to the duly recorded, authorized movement and custody of seized dangerous drugs, controlled chemicals, plant sources of dangerous drugs, and laboratory equipment for dangerous drugs from the time of confiscation/seizure thereof from the offender, to its turn-over and receipt in the forensic laboratory for examination, to its safekeeping and eventual presentation/offer in court as evidence of the criminal violation, and for destruction. (Dangerous Drugs Board Regulation No.1 Series of 2002)
Page
P.D. 532, otherwise known as the AntiPiracy and AntiHighway Robbery Act of 1972.
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
Answer: Ernilo may invoke Section 33, Art. II of RA 9165 or the “Comprehensive Drugs Act of 2002”. He may have violated Section 11 of RA 9165 for possession of shabu but he is immune from prosecution and punishment because of his role as the poseur-buyer in the entrapment operation. There was virtually instigation. He is exempted from prosecution or punishment because the information obtained from him by the PDEA agents, who had no direct and concrete evidence of Rado’s drug-pushing activities, led to the whereabouts, identity and arrest of Rado. So long as the information and testimony given are pleaded and proven, Emililo cannot be prosecuted for violation of RA 9165. b) May Rado adopt as his own Emilo's defense? Explain. Answer: No. First, an entrapment operation is a valid means of arresting violators of RA 9165. It is an effective way of apprehending law offenders in the act of committing a
ART.220 in rel to RA 3019 Governor A was given the amount of PIO million by the Department of Agriculture for the purpose of buying seedlings to be distributed to the farmers. Supposedly intending to modernize the farming industry in his province, Governor A bought farm equipment through direct purchase from XY Enterprise, owned by his kumpare B, the alleged exclusive distributor of the said equipment. Upon inquiry, the Ombudsman discovered that B has a pending patent application for the said farm equipment. Moreover, the equipment purchased turned out to be overpriced. What crime or crimes, if any, were committed by Governor A? Explain. (5%)(2016 BAR)
SUGGESTED ANSWER Governor A committed the crimes of: (1) Technical Malversation; and (2) Violation of Sections 3(e) and (g) of Republic Act No. 3019. Governor A committed the crime of illegal use of public funds or property punishable under Art. 220 of the Revised Penal Code. This offense is also known as technical malversation. The crime has three elementsL: a) that the offender is an accountable public officer; b) that he applies public funds or property under his administration to some public use; and c) that the public use for which such funds or property had been applied is different from
240
a) What defense, if any, may Ernilo invoke to free himself from criminal liability? Explain.
crime. In a buy-bust operation, the idea to commit a crime originates from the offender, without anybody inducing or prodding him to commit the offense. Second, the immunity does not extend to violators of Section 5 of RA 9165 or the sale of shabu (sec. 33, RA 9165). Lastly, he was the offender of the crime and apparently the most guilty of the offense.
Page
he could help capture Rado because he used to be his customer. SP03 Relio then gave Emilo the marked money to be used in buying shabu from Rado. The operation proceeded. After Emilo handed the marked money to Rado in exchange for the sachets of shabu weighing 50 grams, and upon receiving the pre-arranged signal from Ernilo, SP03 Relio and his team members barged in and arrested Rado and Ernilo, who were both charged with violation of R.A. 9165, otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of2002. (2015 BAR)
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
Ofelia, engaged in the purchase and sale of jewelry, was charged with violation of PD 1612, otherwise known as the Anti-Fencing Law, for having been found in possession of recently stolen jewelry valued at Pl 00,000.00 at her jewelry shop. Her defense is that she merely bought the same from Antonia and produced a receipt covering the sale. She presented other receipts given to her by Antonia representing previous transactions. Convicted of the charge, Ofelia appealed, arguing that her acquisition of the jewelries resulted from a legal transaction and that the prosecution failed to prove that she knew or should have known that the pieces of jewelry which she bought from Antonia were proceeds of the crime of theft. [a] What is a "fence" under PD 1612? (2.5%) (2016 BAR) SUGGESTED ANSWER Fencing is the act of any person who, with intent to gain for himself or for another, shall buy, receive, possess, keep, acquire, conceal, sell or dispose of, or shall buy and sell, or in any other manner deal in any article, item, object or anything of value which he knows, or should be known to him, to have been derived from the proceeds of the crime of robbery or theft (Sec. 2 of PD 1612) [b] Is Ofelia liable under the Anti-Fencing Law? Explain. (2.5%) SUGGESTED ANSWER
241
The facts show that the first element is present. The second element is likewise present because, “through manifest partiality” in favoring his kumpare, Governor A did not hold a public bidding and directly purchased the farm equipment from the latter. With respect to the third element, Governor A’s actions caused undue injury to the government as well as the farmers who were deprived of the seedlings. His acts likewise gave his kumpare, a private party, the unwarranted benefit, advantage or preference, to the exclusion of other interested suppliers.
The act committed by Governor is also in violation of Sec. 3 (g) of RA No. 3019 for entering a contract on behalf of the government which is manifestly and grossly disadvantageous to the same. SPECIAL LAW- P.D 1612
Page
the purpose for which they were originally appropriated by law or ordinance (Ysidora v. People. G.R. No. 192330, 14 November 2012). The amount of P 10M granted by the Department of Agriculture to Governor A, an accountable public officer, is specifically appropriated for the purpose of buying seedlings to be distributed to the farmers. Instead, Governor A applied the amount to acquire modern farm equipment through direct purchase from XY Enterprise owned by his kumpare. The law punishes the act of diverting public funds earmarked by law or ordinance for a specific public purpose to another public purpose, hence, the liability for technical malversation. Governor A can also be held liable for Violation of Section 3 (e) of R.A. 3019 or the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, which has the following elements: (1) the accused is a public officer discharging administrative, judicial or official functions; (2) he must have acted with manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence; and (3) his action caused any undue injury to any party, including the government, or gave any private party unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference in the discharge of his functions.
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
RA
6539-Anti-
A is the driver of B's Mercedes Benz car. When B was on a trip to Paris, A used the car for a joy ride with C whom he is courting. Unfortunately, A met an accident. Upon his return, B came to know about the unauthorized use of the car and sued A for qualified theft. B alleged that A took and used the car with intent to gain as he derived some benefit or satisfaction from its use. On the other hand, A argued that he has no intent of making himself the owner of the car as he in fact returned it to the garage after the joy ride. What crime or crimes, if any, were committed? Explain. (5%)(2016 BAR) SUGGESTED ANSWER The crime commited by A is carnapping. The unlawful taking of motor vehicles is now covered by the AntiCarnapping Law (RA 6539 as amended) and not by the provisions on qualified theft or robbery (People v. Rustinera, GR No. 148233, 8 June 2004). The concept of carnapping is the same as that of robbery and theft. Hence, rules applicable to theft
Arnold, 25 years of age, was sitting on a bench in Luneta Park watching the statue of Jose Rizal when, without his permission, Leilani, I 7 years of age, sat beside him and asked for financial assistance, allegedly for payment of her tuition fee, in exchange for sex. While they were conversing, police operatives arrested and charged him with violation of Section l 0 of RA 76 I 0 (Special Protection of Children against Child Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination Act), accusing him of having in his company a minor, who is not related to him, in a public place. It was established that Arnold was
242
SPECIAL LAWcarnapping Law
or robbery are also applicable to carnapping (People v. Asamudding GR No. 213913, 2 September 2015). In theft, unlawful taking should be understood within the Spanish concept of apoderamiento. In order to constitute apoderamiento, the physical taking must be coupled with the intent to appropriate the object, which means intent to deprive the lawful owner of the thing, whether permanently or temporarily (People v. Valenzuela, GR No. 160188, 21 June 2007). In this case A took the car without the consent of B with intent to temporarily deprive him of the car. Although the taking was “temporary” and for a “joy ride”, the Supreme Court in People v. Bustinera, (supra), sustains as the better view that which holds that when a person, either with the object of going to a certain place, or learning how to drive, or enjoying a free ride, takes possession of a vehicle belonging to another, without the consent of its owner, he is guilty of theft because by taking possession of the personal property belonging to another and using it, his intent to gain is evident since he derives therefrom utility, satisfaction, enjoyment and pleasure. SPECIAL LAW- R.A Child exploitation—
Page
No. Ofelia is not liable under the Anti-Fencing Law. While under the said law mere possession of any good, article, item, object or anything of value which has been the subject of robbery or thievery shall be prima facie evidence of fencing, such evidence when sufficiently overturned constitutes a defense. In this case, Ofelia’s defense that she merely acquired the jewelries through a legitimate transaction is sufficient. Further, there is no other circumstance as regards the jewelries which would indicate to Ofelia, an innocent purchaser, that the jewelries were the subject of theft. There was even a receipt produced by Ofelia for the transaction.
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
not in the performance of a social, moral and legal duty at that time. Is Arnold liable for the charge? Explain. (5%) (2016 Bar)
SUGGESTED ANSWER No. Arnold is not liable. Under Sec. 10 of RA No. 7610, any person who shall keep or have in his company a minor, twelve (12) year or under or who is ten (10) years or more his junior in any public or private place, hotel, motel, beer joint, discotheque, cabaret, pension house, sauna, or massage parlor, beach and/or other tourist resort or similar places is liable for child abuse. Arnold is not liable for the charge. To be held liable under Sec. 10 (b) of RA No. 7610, it is indispensable that the child in the company of the offender must be 12 years or under or who in 10 years or more his junior in a public place. In this case, Leilani is 17 years of age, and only 8 years younger than Arnold. Morever, Leilani sat beside Arnold without his permission, hence he is not in the company of a child in a public place.
Page
243
Lastly, applying the ejusdem generis principle, Arnold is not liable for child abuse because Luneta is not a place similar to hotel, motel, beer joint, discotheque, cabaret, pension house, sauna or massage parlor, beach and/or other tourist resort.
This work is a compilation of the ANSWERS TO BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS by the UP LAW complex, UST bar exam Q and A and compiled
bar
exam
questions
of
Siliman
University College of law and not an original
0
creation or formulation of the authors.
Compiled by: 4A - Aiza, Gloovy, Vianney, Leilani, Joan, Freda and Hagad.
Page
“Consider it pure joy when you face trials of many kinds, because the testing of your faith produces endurance so that you may be lacking in nothing.” JAMES 1 :2-4
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS 1989-2016
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
Territoriality (1994) ............................ 18
PRINCIPLES
AND
CONCEPTS.............................................. 10 Wrongful Acts Which Are Not Per Se Considered As Criminal Offense (2008) 10 Human Rights Violation (2008) ........... 10 Simultaneous
prosecution
of
Territoriality principle (2008) .............. 19 Distinguish between ex post facto law and bill of attainder (2015) ........................ 19 Ex Post Facto Law (2014) .................... 19 What are the constitutional provisions
two
limiting the power of Congress to enact
different offenses (1991) ..................... 11
penal laws? (2012 BAR) ....................... 20
Circumstantial evidence; Proof beyond
Constitutional limitations on the power of
reasonable doubt (2006) ...................... 11
Congress to enact penal laws (1988) .... 20
Construction of penal laws – Doctrine of
Constitutional limitations on the power of
pro reo (2010) ..................................... 11
Congress to enact penal laws (2013) .... 20
Grounds for dismissal of cases; affidavit of
Due process – Proper allegation of the
desistance; effect thereof (1993) ......... 12
offense charged (1997) ........................ 21
Corpus delicti, Elements (2000) .......... 12
What is aberratio ictus? (2015)............ 22
Corpus delicti (2001) ........................... 12
Aberratio
Absence of corpus delicti .................... 13
(1993) .................................................. 22
Aberratio Ictus in rel. to ART 48, 49, 13—
ART 3 Mala in se and crimes mala
(1989) ................................................. 13
prohibita (2005, 2003, 2001, 1999, 1997,
Aberratio ictus and error in personae .. 14 Aberratio ictus: Error in personae; and Praeter intentionem
(1999 ................ 15
Art.2-Application of RPC’s provisions—
Ictus
vs
Impossible
Crime
1988)................................................... 22 ART 3 Motive (1999) ............................ 22 ART
3
Mala
in
se;
mala
prohibita
(1997) .................................................. 23
(2015) ................................................. 15
ART 3 Criminal Intent (1988) .............. 23
Characteristics of criminal law (1988) . 16
ART 3 Proof of motive; when not required
Characteristics of Philippine criminal law (1998) ................................................. 17 Generality
–
Diplomatic
Immunity
(2016) ................................................. 17 Generality
–
Diplomatic
Immunity
(2014) ................................................. 17 Territoriality (2004) ............................ 17
(2006) .................................................. 23 ART 3 Theories; motive; criminal intent (2004, 1996) ........................................ 23 ART 3 How are felonies committed? (2015) .................................................. 24 CRIMINAL LIABILITY .............................. 24
1
FUNDAMENTAL
Page
Table of Contents
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
–when
Art. 4 (2): Impossible crime of murder
incurred (1994) ................................... 24
(1998) .................................................. 33
Art 4 Criminal Liability In relation to Art
ART 4. In rel to ART 267—Impossible
8 Conspiracy (1992) ............................ 25
crime (2014) ........................................ 34
Art. 4 Criminal Liability – Proximate
ART. 4- Impossible crimes (2000) ........ 34
(1)
In
Criminal
relation
to
liability
robbery
with
homicide (1999) .................................. 25 Art. 4 Criminal Liability (2008) ........... 25 ART.4--Criminal liability – when incurred (1996) ................................................. 26 ART.4--Criminal liability; when incurred (2001) ................................................. 27 ART.4--Criminal liability; when incurred (2004) ................................................. 27 ART.4--Criminal liability; when incurred (2008) ................................................. 28 IMPOSSIBLE CRIMES ............................... 28
ART.4-Impossible crime of theft (2008) 35 ART .4(2)- Impossible crime of murder (1994) .................................................. 36 ART.4(2) Impossible crime of murder; less serious physical injuries (1998) ........... 36 STAGES OF EXECUTION ........................... 37 ART.
6-Stages
of
execution
–
Consummated theft (1998) .................. 37 ART.6- Stages of execution - Crime of theft; attempted; consummated (2000) 37 ART.6--Stages of execution – Frustrated felony (2005) ....................................... 38
Art 4 (2): Impossible crimes (2014) ...... 28
ART.6--Stages of execution – Frustrated
ART 4(2) Impossible Crime (2014) ....... 28
murder (2009) ..................................... 38
Art. 4 (2): Impossible crime of murder
Art 6: Consummated theft (1998) ........ 38
(2009) ................................................. 30
Art 6: Theft; attempted; consummated
ART 4(2)- Impossible crime of murder
(2000) .................................................. 39
(2009) ................................................. 30
LIGHT FELONIES .................................... 40
Art. 4 (2): Impossible crime of theft (2008)
Art 7 Light Felonies in relation to Art 16
........................................................... 31
(1988) .................................................. 40
Art. 4 (2) Impossible crime of murder (2004) ................................................. 31 ART.4(2)- Impossible crime of murder (2004) ................................................. 31 Art. 4 (2): Impossible crimes (2000) ..... 32 Art. 4 (2): Impossible crime of murder (1994) ................................................. 33
CONSPIRACY ........................................... 41 ART. 8-[b] Wheel vs Circle and Chain (2016) .................................................. 41 Art. 8: Define conspiracy (2012) .......... 41 Art. 8: Conspiracy as a Felony vs as a Manner (2012) ..................................... 41
2
Cause
4
Page
ART
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
Art. 8: Conspiracy (1991) .................... 41
ART.8-Define conspiracy. (2012) ......... 51
Art. 8: Conspiracy (1993) .................... 42
ART.8-- Conspiracy (1991) ................... 52
Art. 8: Conspiracy to commit robbery
ART.8-- Conspiracy; murder (1993) ..... 52 ART.8-Conspiracy
to
commit
robbery
Art. 8: Conspiracy (1994) .................... 43
(1996) .................................................. 53
Art.
Conspiracy
ART.8- Felonies – Proposal to commit
(1997) ................................................. 43
kidnapping (1996) ............................... 53
Art. 8: Implied conspiracy (1998) ........ 44
ART.8--Conspiracy (1994) .................... 53
Art. 8: Implied conspiracy (2003) ........ 44
ART.8-- Conspiracy – Who are liable
Criminal
law
–
Art. 8: Conspiracy (1988) .................... 44
(1997) .................................................. 54
Art. 8: Conspiracy to commit sedition
ART.8- Conspiracy - Implied conspiracy
(1987) ................................................. 45
(1998) .................................................. 55
Art. 8: Act of one is the act of all
ART.8- “Implied conspiracy” (2003) .... 55
(2004) ................................................. 46
Art. 8: Proposal (1996) ......................... 55
Art. 8: Conspiracy to commit robbery
JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES .................. 56
(2005) ................................................. 46 Art. 8: Conspiracy; Special complex crime of robbery with serious physical injuries (1992) ................................................. 47 Art. 8: Conspiracy - Special complex crime of robbery with rape (Art 294) (2004) ................................................. 48 Art. 8 Criminal law – Conspiracy In
Art.11 Defense Of Relative And Stranger (2016) .................................................. 56 Art. 11: Self-Defense (1987) ................. 56 Art. 11: Self-Defense (1993) ................. 57 Art. 11: Avoid Greater Evil (1990) ....... 57 Art
11
Lawful
Defense
Of
Property
(2008) .................................................. 58
relation to Special complex crime of
Art. 11 Defense Of Property Rights (1990)
robbery with homicide (2003) ............. 48
........................................................... 58
Art. 8 Conspiracy and proposal in relation
Art. 11:
to Special complex crime of robbery with
Sustained (2000) ................................. 58
homicide (2007) .................................. 49
Art.
Art.
In
Untenable (1998) ................................. 59
relation to PENALTIES (2006) ............. 50
Art. 11: Defense Of Property (2003) ..... 59
Art. 8. Conspiracy and proposal (2008) 50
Art. 11: Defense of a stranger (2002) ... 60
8:
Conspiracy
and
proposal
Art. 8: Conspiracy and proposal (2008) 50
11:
Defense Of Honor – When Not
Defense
Of
Honor;
When
3
8:
Page
(1996) ................................................. 42
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
Battered
Woman
Syndrome
Art 12: Minority; ................................. 68
(2014, 2010) ....................................... 60
In
Art.
Syndrome
circumstances (2000) .......................... 68
(2015) ................................................. 60
Art. 12 Minority In relation to robbery
Art
in
with homicide (1995) .......................... 69
Exempting
ART. 12 Warrantless arrest; entrapment;
Circumstances .................................... 62
in relation to prohibited drugs (1992).. 69
11:
Battered
11:
Justifying
relation
to
Woman
Circumstances
Art
12:
Distinction (2004) ............................... 62
ART.
relation
to
Art
12--Entrapment
13:
and
Mitigating
instigation
Art. 11; Art 12: Exempting circumstances
(1990) .................................................. 71
–
ART.12
in
comparison
with
justifying
circumstances; illustration of exempting circumstances; minor below nine (9) years old; (1998) ........................................... 62 EXEMPTING CIRCUMSTANCES .............. 63 Art. 12: Exempting circumstances; when
Entrapment
and
instigation;
illustration of instigation (1995) ......... 71 ART.12 Entrapment and instigation .... 71 MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES .................. 72 Art 13 Incomplete self-defense (1990) . 72
not appreciated (1989) ........................ 63
Art. 13: Intoxication (2002) ................. 72
Art. 12: Insanity (1991) ....................... 63
Art.
Art. 12: Insanity (2010) ....................... 64 Art.12:Insuperable cause (1994) .......... 65 Art.
12:
Exempting
Circumstance-
Suspended sentence under The Child and
13:
Privileged
Mitigating In
Circumstance
relation
to
–
Penalties
(2012) .................................................. 73 Art. 13 Immediate Vindication (1988) . 74 Art. 13: Voluntary surrender (1996) ..... 74
Youth Welfare Code; when not applicable
Art. 13: Voluntary surrender and plea of
(2013) ................................................. 65
guilty; when not considered (1992) ..... 75
Art. 12: Suspended sentence under The
Art. 13: Voluntary surrender; plea of
Child and Youth Welfare Code; when not
guilty (1997) ........................................ 75
applicable (1995) ................................. 66
Art 13 Plea of Guilty (1999) ................. 76
Art. 12: Suspended sentence under The
Art. 13: Voluntary surrender (1999) ..... 76
Child and Youth Welfare Code; when not applicable (2003) ................................. 66 Art. 12: RA 9344) – When applicable (2006) ................................................. 67 Art 12: Persons exempt from criminal liability In relation to Art 332 (2008) .. 67
Art. 13: Voluntary surrender (2009) ..... 76 Art. 13: No intention to commit so grave a wrong as that committed; intoxication (2000) .................................................. 77
4
11:
Page
Art.
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
Art. 13: No intention to commit so grave
Art. 14:
a wrong as that which was committed
Uninhabitted Place (1996) ................... 85
(2001) ................................................. 77
Art.
Art. 13: Immediate vindication of a grave
treachery, night time and unlawful entry
offense to a descendant (2002) ............ 78
(1997) .................................................. 86
Art. 13: Lack of intention to commit so
Art. 14: Aggravating circumstances ..... 86
grave
Four
as
that
committed
(2005) ................................................. 78 Art.
13:
Mitigating
and
Art;
14:
aggravating circumstances (1993) ....... 79 AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES ............. 79 Art 14: Cruelty (1988) ......................... 79 Art. 14 Recidivism In relation to Art. 62 Habitual Delinquency (2012) ............... 79 Art. 14: Recidivism (2014) .................. 80
Evident
Kinds;
premeditation,
Generic
vs
Qualifying
(1999) .................................................. 86 Art. 14: Explosive, Treachery (2008) ... 87 Art. 14: Dwelling, Nighttime (2009) ..... 88 Art. 14: Qualifying circumstance in rape cases (2004) ........................................ 88 Art.
14:
Qualifying
Aggravating
circumstances (2003) .......................... 89 Art. 14: Special aggravating circumstance
Art. 14. Recidivist (2009) .................... 80
........................................................... 89
Arti. 14 Recidivism In relation to Art. 62
Use of an unlicensed firearm in the
reiteracion (1989) ............................... 81
commission of a crime (2004) ............. 89
Art. 14. Recidivism; In relation to Art. 62
Art. 14: Use of an unlicensed firearm in
habitual delinquency (2001) ................ 82
homicide or murder (2009) .................. 90
Art. 14 Recidivism And Art. 160. Quasi-
Article 14 Treachery (1993) ................. 90
recidivism (1998) ................................ 82
PERSONS CRIMINALLY LIABLE FOR FELONIES
Art. 14. Quasi recidivism – Art 160 (1991)
.............................................................. 90
........................................................... 82
ART.
Art. 14 Treachery (2008) ..................... 83
Participation ....................................... 90
Art. 14: Treachery; when not considered
ART.
(1992) ................................................. 83
participation
Art.
14:
Evident
Premeditation,
Treachery (1991) ................................. 84 Art. 14: Nighttime (1994) .................... 84 Art. 14: Cruelty; Relationship (1994) .. 85
17-
Principals
17-
Principals and
By
by
Direct
direct
co-principal
by
indispensable cooperation (2000) ........ 91 ART.
17
Principal
by
inducement;
Accessory (1987) ................................. 91 ART.
17
Principal
by
inducement;
Accessory (2015) ................................. 92
5
wrong
14:
Page
a
Band, Nocturnity, Dwelling,
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
Principal
by
inducement;
Duration
and
Effect
of
Penalties,
Accessory (1989) ................................. 93
Imposition (1997) .............................. 102
ART.
Duration
17
Principal
by
inducement;
and
Effect
of
Penalties,
Accessory (2002) ................................. 93
Imposition (1997) .............................. 102
ACCOMPLICES ....................................... 95
Alternative Penalty............................ 103
ART.
18-
Who
is
an
accomplice?
(2012) ................................................. 95 ART.
18
Accomplice
vs
Conspirator:
Distinctions (2007, 2012) ................... 95 ART.
18
Accomplice
vs
Conspirator
(1998) ................................................. 96 ACCESSORIES ........................................ 96 Art.
19.
Accessories
And
Art.
20
Civil Indemnity ................................. 103 Reclusion Perpetua vs Life Imprisonment (1994) ................................................ 103 Reclusion Perpetua vs Life Imprisonment (2001) ................................................ 104 Reclusion Perpetua vs Life Imprisonment (2009) ................................................ 104 ART 27 – Penalties – Reclusion perpetua;
Accessories who are exempt; In relation
pecuniary
to
liabilities ........................................... 104
Composite
crime
of
rape
with
homicide; theft (1998) ........................ 96 ART 19- Accessories (2013) ................. 97
penalties;
pecuniary
ART 38- PECUNIARY LIABILITIES ..... 105 ART 39-SUBSIDIARY PENALTY .......... 105
ART 19- Accessories (2009) ................. 97
ART 47- CASES WHEREIN THE DEATH
ART. 19- Accessories (1987) ................ 98
PENALTY SHALL NOT BE IMPOSED ... 106
ART. 19- Accessories (1989) ................ 98
Proscription on Death Penalty ........... 106
ART. 19- Accessories (2004) ................ 99
Death Penalty .................................... 106
ART. 19- Accessories (2010) .............. 100
ART. 48 in rel ART. 296 (2016).......... 108
ART. 19- Accessories (2008) .............. 100
Art. 48. Complex Crimes In relation to
PENALTIES............................................ 101 ART 25- PENALTIES WHICH MAY BE IMPOSED .......................................... 101 Duration
and
Effect
of
Penalties,
Imposition (1991).............................. 101 Duration
and
Effect
of
Penalties,
Imposition (1997).............................. 102
Art. 294 (1) Robbery with homicide; direct assault with multiple attempted homicide ......................................................... 108 Art 48 Complex Crimes, Art 294 Robbery, Art 249 Homicide, Art 320 Arson ...... 109 Art. 48: Complex crime of parricide with unintentional abortion ...................... 110
6
17
Page
ART.
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
Murder,
Art. 48 – Complex crimes - Frustrated
qualified by explosion, with direct assault
robbery, with homicide and damage to
......................................................... 110
property ............................................ 117
Art 48: Special Complex Crime In relation
Art. 48 - Complex crime of attempted
to
murder with homicide ....................... 117
Art.
Complex
14:
crime
Qualifying
of
Aggravating
Circumstance .................................... 111
Art. 48 – Complex crimes - Malversation
Art. 48 Special Complex crime of Robbery
through falsification .......................... 118
with Rape .......................................... 111
Art 48 Special Complex Crimes - Robbery
Art. 48 Criminal law – Complex crimes -
with homicide ................................... 118
Robbery with Homicide in relation to Art. 297 ................................................... 112
Art. 48: Special complex crime of Robbery with homicide ................................... 118
Art. 48 – Continuing crimes in relation to
Art. 48: Special complex crimes- Robbery
BP 22 ................................................ 112
with homicide ................................... 119
Art 48 - Complex crime; requirement of two or more grave or less grave felonies as a result of single act ......................... 113 Art
48
–
crimes;
to Art 267 Serious illegal detention with homicide ........................................... 119
when
Art 48Special complex crime In relation
proper ............................................... 113
to Art. 266 - B rape through sexual assault
Art
with homicide ................................... 120
48
Complex
Art. 48 Special Complex Crime In relation
–Complex
crimes,
what
constitutes, penalty .......................... 114
Art 48 Special Crime In relation to Art.
Art. 48 Complex crime; Special complex
266
crime; complex crime of coup d’etat with
Penalties ........................................... 120
rebellion; complex crime of coup d'etat with sedition ..................................... 114 Art.
48
-
of
rape
with
homicide,
Art. 48 Special Complex Crime In relation to Art 267. Kidnapping for ransom with homicide ........................................... 121
crimes ............................................... 115
Art 48 Special Complex Crime in relation
Art 48 Complex crime of estafa thru
to Art. 304 Rape with homicide ........ 122
of
and
B
complex
falsification
Compound
-
a
commercial
document .......................................... 116
Penalties – Disqualified offenders for parole; heinous crimes ...................... 122
Art. 48 – Complex crime; Special complex
ART.
crime; Delito continuado .................. 116
continuing offense ............................ 123
48--Delito
continuado
and
ART. 48--Doctrine of aberratio ictus .. 123
7
48:
Page
Art.
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
Art. 48: Special complex crime of Robbery
A. The differences between pardon and
with homicide ................................... 124
amnesty: ........................................... 154
Art. 62 Habitual delinquency (1991) .. 143
B.
MITIGATING
OR
CIRCUMSTANES
AND
AGGRAVATING
the
under
grant
of
Presidential
Proclamation No. 724: ....................... 154
HABITUAL
Pardon: Reinstatement ...................... 155
DELINQUENCY .................................. 143
Modification and extinction of criminal
ART 62 – EFFECTS OF THE ATTENDANCE
liability
OF
Executive .......................................... 155
MITIGATING
OF
amnesty,
by
OR
CIRCUMSTANES
AND
AGGRAVATING OF
HABITUAL
DELINQUENCY .................................. 144 EXTINCTION OF CRIMINAL LIABILITY . 145 Art. 93 in relation to Art 157 ............ 145 ART.
89-93
Extinction
of
criminal
liability- prescription of crimes ......... 145 ART.89/ART.
94
Total
and
partial
extinguishment – Acquittal in relation to civil liability ..................................... 150 ART.
89--Extinguishment
of
criminal
liability; civil liability ....................... 151 ART. 89--Effect of death of the accused on civil liability ..................................... 152 ART. 89/ART. 112--Effect of death of accused on criminal and civil liability152 ART. 89--effect death of the accused pending appeal
on
his criminal
and
pecuniary liabilities .......................... 153 ART.89--Criminal and civil liability; when extinguished ..................................... 153 ART. 89 Criminal law – Modification and extinction of criminal liability – Pardon and Amnesty ..................................... 153 Pardon vs Amnesty ........................... 154
–
Pardon
by
the
Chief
Amnesty ............................................ 156 Modification and extinction of criminal liability – Amnesty ............................ 156 CIVIL LIABILITY ...................................... 157 ART. 103--Execution of the employer’s subsidiary liability............................. 157 Art.
103--Civil
liability
–
Subsidiary
liability of the employer .................... 158 Art.
104-Civil
liability
-Restitution;
reparation ......................................... 158 ART. 104--Civil liability - Damages .... 159 ART.
104--Acquittal
prosecution;
in
a
Institution
criminal of
civil
action ................................................ 159 Civil action for recovery of property not subject to confiscation; jurisdiction .. 160 CRIMES AGAINST NATIONAL SECURITY AND THE LAW OF NATIONS .................. 161 ART.
116
Crimes
against
National
Security – Misprision of treason ........ 161 ART. 123-Qualified Piracy ................. 161 ART.
123
Crimes
against
national
security – Qualified piracy ................. 162
8
OF
covered
Page
ART 62 – EFFECTS OF THE ATTENDANCE
Crimes
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
a) Anti-Piracy and Anti-Highway Robbery
SPECIAL LAW- Pres. Decree Nos. 704 and
(P.D. 532)
(i) Definition of terms (ii)
1058 - Fishing with the use of explosives;
Punishable acts ................................. 163
punishable acts ................................. 224
ART.122, 123--Crimes against National
SPECIAL
Security and Law of Nations – Piracy; 163
Rights of Persons Arrested, Detained or
CRIMES AGAINST PUBLIC ORDER ....... 167 CRIMES
AGAINST
INTERESTCRIMES
PUBLIC
AGAINST
PUBLIC
INTEREST ............................................. 179 CRIMES
COMITTED
BY
PUBLIC
OFFICERS ............................................ 185 CRIMES AGAINST PERSONS ................. 194 CRIMES AGAINST PERSONAL LIBERTY AND SECURITY AND SECURITY ..................... 209
Defining
Certain
Under Custodial Investigation (RA 7438) – Rights which can be violated ............. 225 Special
law.
RA
9160:
Anti-Money
Laundering Act .................................. 225 Special Law. under Republic Act (RA) No. 9160,
as
amended
(Anti-
Money
Laundering Act) ................................. 225 Special penal law - Crimes relative to opium and other prohibited drugs - Rep. Act
No.
9165,
the
Comprehensive
Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002 ............ 227 Special law – Anti-Graft and Corrupt
CRIMES AGAINST PROPERTY .............. 211
Practices Act (RA 3019, as amended) –
CRIMES AGAINST CHASTITY ............... 213
......................................................... 229
CRIMES AGAINST THE CIVIL STATUS OF
Special penal law - Violation of Rep. Act
PERSONS.............................................. 214
6713
CRIMES AGAINST HONOR .................... 214 QUASI-OFFENSES ................................ 220 SPECIAL PENAL LAWS.......................... 221
(Code
Standards
of for
Conduct Public
and
Ethical
Officials
and
Employees) ........................................ 231 Criminal law – Crimes committed by public officers - Indirect bribery; Special
SPECIAL LAW-R.A 9262 .................... 221
penal law - Republic Act No. 3019- .... 231
SPECIAL LAW- RA 9165- ................... 222
Criminal law – Crimes committed by
SPECIAL LAW– RA 6805; Instances of
public officer - Republic Act No. 3019
legal use
(Anti-Graft
of
an
alias by
a
Filipino
and
Corrupt
Practices
citizen .............................................. 223
Act) ................................................... 233
SPECIAL LAW– PD 704 – punishable
Special penal law - Violation of Rep. Act
acts ................................................... 224
6713
(Code
Standards
of for
Conduct Public
and
Ethical
Officials
and
Employees) ........................................ 234
9
OF THE STATE ..................................... 164
Act
Page
CRIMES AGAINST THE FUNDAMENTAL LAW
LAW–
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
Special law – Penalties – Grave offense; life imprisonment ............................. 235 Prescription for violation of special laws Petition for forfeiture under Republic Act
PRINCIPLES
AND
FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLE -Wrongful Acts Which Are Not Per Se Considered As Criminal Offense (2008)
acts ................................................... 238
After due hearing on a petition for a writ of amparo founded on the acts of enforced disappearance and extralegal killing of the son of the complainant allegedly done by the respondent military officers, the court granted the petition. May the military officers be criminally charged in court with enforced disappearance and extralegal killing? Explain fully. (3%)
ART.220 in rel to RA 3019 ................ 240
SUGGESTED ANSWER
No. 1379 ........................................... 237 Special law - Highway Robbery under Presidential Decree No. 532 .............. 237 Special
law
–
Anti-Piracy
and
Anti-
Highway Robbery (PD 532) punishable
SPECIAL LAW- P.D 1612 .................... 241 SPECIAL LAW- RA 6539-Anti- carnapping Law ................................................... 242 SPECIAL LAW- R.A Child exploitation— ......................................................... 242
No. "Enforced disappearance and extralegal killing" is not per se a criminal offense although it is wrongful. The grant of a writ of amparo only provides a relief; it does not establish a basis for a crime. Unless the writ was issued because of specific overt acts shown to have been committed by the respondent military officers and such acts are crimes under penal laws, no criminal charge may be routinely filed just because the petition for the writ was granted. FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLE -Human Rights Violation (2008) Are human rights violations considered as crimes in the Philippines? Explain. (3%) SUGGESTED ANSWER: Not necessarily, since there are human rights violations which do not amount to criminal offenses. In this country, there can be no crime when there is no law punishing an act or omission as a crime.
10
RA8294 and RA 10591 : .................... 235
FUNDAMENTAL CONCEPTS
Page
Special Law. PD 1866, as amended by
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
two
May a ranking leader of the NPA who has taken up arms against the government be simultaneously prosecuted for violation of Section 1 of RA. 1700 (the AntiSubversion Act) and for rebellion under Article 135 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended? SUGGESTED ANSWER: Yes, because the two offenses are punished under separate laws. Besides, the elements of the two offenses differ. FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLE – Circumstantial evidence; Proof beyond reasonable doubt (2006) Forest Ranger Jay Velasco was patrolling the Balara Watershed and Reservoir when he noticed a big pile of cut logs outside the gate of the watershed. Curious, he scouted around and after a few minutes, he saw Rene and Dante coming out of the gate with some more newly-cut logs. He apprehended and charged them with the proper offense. During the preliminary investigation and up to the trial proper, Rene and Dante contended that if they were to be held liable, their liability should be limited only to the newly-cut logs found in their possession but not to those found outside the gate. If you were the judge, what will be your ruling? 2.5% SUGGESTED ANSWER:
FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES— Construction of penal laws – Doctrine of pro reo (2010) What is the doctrine of pro reo? How does it relate to Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code? (3%) SUGGESTED ANSWER: The doctrine of pro reo advocates that penal laws and laws penal in nature are to be construed and applied in a way lenient or liberal to the offender, consonant to and consistent with the constitutional guarantee that an accused shall be presumed innocent until his guilt is established beyond reasonable doubt. Following the pro reo doctrine, under Art. 48 of the Revised Penal Code, crimes are complexed and punished with a single penalty (i.e that prescribed for the most serious crime and to be imposed in its maximum period). The rationale being, that the accused who commits two crimes with single criminal impulse demonstrates lesser perversity
11
of
Page
FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLE Simultaneous prosecution different offenses (1991)
If I were the judge and the evidence adduced by the prosecution convincingly show a clear link between the accused and the cut logs piled outside the gate of the watershed, I will hold the accused criminally liable not only for the newly cut logs in their possession but also for those found outside the gate. Circumstantial evidence proving that the accused and no other persons could have done the cutting of the logs, such as the manner of cutting the logs, the area where they cut the logs they were carrying, and other indications pointing to them as the culprits may be considered.
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
than when the crimes are committed by different acts and several criminal resolutions. (People v. Comadre, 431 SCRA 366, 384 [2004}. However, Art. 48 shall be applied only when it would bring about the imposition of a penalty lesser than the penalties imposable for all the component crimes if prosecuted separately instead of being complexed. FUNDAMENTAL PRINICIPLE — Grounds for dismissal of cases; affidavit of desistance; effect thereof (1993) Ariel intimidated Rachel, a mental retardate, with a bolo into having sexual intercourse with him. Rachel’s mother immediately filed a complaint, supported by her sworn statement, before the City Prosecutor’s Office, After the necessary preliminary investigation, an information was signed by the prosecutor but did not contain the signature of Rachel nor of her mother. Citing Art. 344 of the RPC (prosecution of the crimes of rape, etc.), Ariel moves for the dismissal of the case. Resolve with reasons. After the prosecution had rested its case, Ariel presented a sworn affidavit of desistance executed by Rachel and her mother stating that they are no longer interested in prosecuting the case and that they have pardoned Ariel. What effect would this affidavit of desistance have on the criminal and civil aspects of the case? Explain fully.
was filed by the offended party or the parents in the Fiscal’s Office. The affidavit of desistance will only amount to the condonation of civil liability but not criminal liability hence the case should still proceed. FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLE – Corpus delicti, Elements (2000) A. Define “corpus delicti". (2%) (2000 Bar Question) B. What are the elements of "corpus delicti"? (3%) SUGGESTED ANSWER: A. Corpus Delicti literally means “the body or substance of the crime" or the fact that a crime has been committed, but does not include the identity of the person who committed it. (People vs. Pascual, 44 OG 2789). B.
Elements of corpus delicti:
The actual commission by someone of the particular crime charged. It is a compound fact made up of two things: a.the existence of a certain act or result forming the basis of the criminal charge; and b.the existence of a criminal agency as the cause of the act or result The identity of the offender is not a necessary element of corpus delicti
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
12
At a birthday party in Bogo, Cebu, A got intoxicated and started quarrelling with B
Page
The case should not be dismissed. This is allowed by law (People vs. Horde, 125 SCRA 11). It is enough that a complaint
FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLE Corpus delicti (2001)
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
SUGGESTED ANSWER: The defense of A is not tenable. "Corpus delicti' does not refer to the body of the purported victim which had not been found. Even without the body of the purported victim being found, the offender can be convicted when the facts and circumstances of a crime, the body of the crime or “corpus delicti' is established. In other words, the non-recovery of the body of the victim is not a bar to the prosecution of A for Murder, but the fact of death and identity of the victim must be established beyond reasonable doubt.
Dang was a beauty queen in a university. Job, a rich classmate, was so enamored with her that he persistently wooed and pursued her. Dang, being in love with another man, rejected him. This angered Job. Sometime in September 2003, while Dang and her sister Lyn were on their way home, Job and his minor friend Nonoy grabbed them and pushed them inside a white van. They brought them in an abandoned warehouse where they forced them to dance naked. Thereafter, they brought them to a hill in a nearby barangay where they took turns raping them. After satisfying their lust, Job ordered Nonoy to push Dang down a ravine, resulting in her death. Lyn ran away but Job and Nonoy chased her and pushed her inside the van. Then the duo drove away. Lyn was never seen again. SUGGESTED ANSWER: No. The corpus delicti or fact of commission of the crime is clear. Even the death of Lyn may be established from the acts of the culprits, without the need of the body of Lyn being presented. FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLE Aberratio Ictus in rel. to ART 48, 49, 13— (1989) What do you understand by aberratio ictus; error in personae; and praeter intentionem? Do they alter the criminal liability of an accused? Explain. SUGGESTED ANSWER:
13
Is the defense of A tenable or not? State the reason(s) for your answer. (5%)
FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLE – Absence of corpus delicti
Page
and C. At the height of their arguments, A left and took a bolo from his house, after which he returned to the party and threatened to stab everybody. B got scared and ran towards the seashore, with A chasing him. B ran up a steep incline along the shore and was cornered on top of a cliff. Out of fear. B jumped from the cliff into the sea. A returned to the scene of their confrontation and seeing that nobody was there, went home to sleep. The next day, B’s wife reported to the police station that her husband had not yet come home. A search was conducted by the residents of the barangay but after almost two days, B or his body could not be located and his disappearance continued for the next few days. Based on the testimony of C and other guests, who had seen A and B on top of the cliff, A was arrested and charged with Murder. In his defense, he claimed that since B’s body has not been found, there was no evidence of "corpus delicti' and therefore, he should be acquitted.
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
In error in personae, there is a mistake in the identity of the victim, as for instance, when A, intending to kill B, his enemy lay in ambush for the latter to pass along a dark alley. Because of the darkness, A fired his gun at a person passing by, thinking him to be B. It turned out that the person shot was C, A's father. In praeter intentionem, the injurious result is greater than that intended by the offender, the act exceeds the intent, as for instance, where A, without intent to kill, strikes B with his fist at the back of the head, causing B to fall down with his head hitting the asphalt pavement, resulting in the fracture of his head that caused his death. The presence of these circumstances will alter the criminal liability of the accused. Thus: In aberratio ictus, two offenses are actually committed by the offender, that which he intended to commit and that which he actually committed. But if these two offenses are both either grave
In the case of error in personae, the offender shall be guilty of the crime actually committed by him, but the penalty to be imposed shall either be the penalty for the crime actually committed or that for the crime intended to be committed. Which ever is lower, but the same will be imposed in its maximum period. In the case praeter intentionem, the offended, will incur criminal liability for the felony actually committed by him, but he will be entitled to the mitigating circumstance of not having intended to commit so grave a wrong as that which he committed. FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLE in rel. to ART. 48, 49Aberratio ictus and error in personae Distinguish aberratio ictus from error in personae. (1994 Bar Question) SUGGESTED ANSWER: Aberratio ictus or mistake in the blow occurs when a felonious act missed the person against whom it was directed and hit instead somebody who was not the intended victim. Error in personae, or mistake in identity occurs when the felonious act was directed at the person intended, but who turned out to be somebody else. Aberratio ictus brings about at least two (2) felonious consequence. i.e the attempted felony on the intended victim who was not hit and the felony on the unintended victim who was hit. A complex crime of the first form under Art. 48, RPC generally result.
14
In aberratio ictus, there is a mistake in the blow meaning to say that the offender intending to cause an injury to one person actually inflicts it on another because of lack of precision, as far for example when A, intending to kill B, fires his gun at the latter but because of poor aim or lack of precision, he hits C instead, who suffers serious physical injury.
or less grave, since they are produced by one single act, a complex crime will result.
Page
Aberatio ictus, error in personae and praeter intentionem are the three ways by which a person may commit a felony although the wrongful act done is different from that which he intended.
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
What do you understand by aberratio ictus: error in personae; and praeter intentionem? Do they alter the criminal liability of an accused? Explain. (4%) SUGGESTED ANSWER: Aberratio ictus or mistake in the blow occurs when the offender delivered the blow at his intended victim but missed, )unintended victim. The situation generally brings about complex crimes where from a single act, two or more grave or less grave felonies resulted, namely the attempt against the intended victim and the consequence on the unintended victim. As complex crimes, the penalty for the more serious crime shall be the one imposed and in the maximum period. It is only when the resulting felonies are only light that complex crimes do not result and the penalties are to be imposed distinctly for each resulting crime. Error in personae or mistake in identity occurs when the offender actually hit the person to whom the blow was directed but turned out to be different from and not the victim intended. The criminal liability of the offender is not affected, unless the mistake in identity resulted to a crime different from what the offender intended to commit, in which case the lesser penalty between the crime intended and the crime committed shall be imposed but in the maximum period (Art. 49. RPC).
Art.2-Application of RPC’s provisions— (2015) Ando, an Indonesian national who just visited the Philippines, purchased a ticket for a passenger vessel bound for Hong Kong. While on board the vessel, he saw his mortal enemy Iason, also an Indonesian national, seated at the back portion of the cabin and who was busy reading a newspaper. Ando stealthily approached Iason and when he was near him, Ando stabbed and killed Iason. The vessel is registered in Malaysia. The killing happened just a few moments after the vessel left the port of Manila. Operatives from the PNP Maritime Command arrested Ando. Presented for the killing of Iason, Ando contended that he did not incur criminal liability because both he and the victim were Indonesians. He likewise argued that he could not be prosecuted in Manila because the vessel is a Malaysianregistered ship. Discuss the merits of Ando's contentions. Suggested Answer: Both contentions of Ando lack merit. The argument of Ando that he did not incur criminal liability because both he and the victim were Indonesians is not tenable. Under the generality principle,
15
FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLE in rel. to ART. 48, 49, 13— Aberratio ictus: Error in personae; and Praeter intentionem (1999)
Praeter intentionem or where the consequence went beyond that intended or expected. This is a mitigating circumstance (Art. 13, par. 3, RPC) when there is a notorious disparity between the act or means employed by the offender and the resulting felony, i.e., the resulting felony could not be reasonably anticipated or foreseen by the offender from the act or means employed by him.
Page
In error in personae only one crime is committed.
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
penal laws shall be obligatory upon all who live or sojourn in the Philippine territory (Article 14 of the Civil Code). The foreign characteristic of an offender and offended party does not exclude him from operation of penal laws (People v. Galacgac, C.A., 54 O.G. 1027). Under the Revised Penal Code, except as provided in treaties and laws of preferential application, penal laws of the Philippines shall have force and effect within its territory. Here, since the killing took place within the Philippine territory, our penal laws applies and Ando may be held criminally responsible despite his being and Indonesian citizen.
of a kind to disturb the peace of the country or the good order of the territorial sea. The vessel is still within the territorial waters of the Philippines when the crime was committed since the killing happened a few moments after the vessel left the port of Manila. Murder committed by Ando disturbs the peace of the Philippines; hence, he could be prosecuted in Manila. FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLECharacteristics of criminal law (1988) State the characteristics of criminal law and explain each. SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Under Section 27 of the Convention of the Law of The Sea, the criminal jurisdiction of the coastal State should not be exercised on board a foreign ship passing through the territorial sea to arrest any person or to conduct any investigation in connection with any crime committed on board the ship during its passage except if the crime is
1. GENERALITY — That the law is binding upon all persons who reside to sojourn in the Philippines, irrespective of age, sex, color, creed, or personal cricumtances. 2. TERRITORIALITY - That the law is applicable to all crimes committed with in the limits of Philippine territory, which includes its atmosphere interiors waters and maritime zone (Art. 2). 3. PROSPECTIVITY — that the law does not have any retroactive effect, except if it favors the offender unless he is a habitual delinquent (Art. 22) or the law otherwise provides. Article 2 if the Revised Penal Code however provides for the following exception: “Treaty stipulations or by a law of preferential application” FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLE—
16
ADDITIONAL ANSWER:
The characteristics of criminal law are as follows:
Page
Likewise, the contention of Ando that he could not be prosecuted in Manila because the vessel is a Malaysianregistered ship is without merit. Under the English Rule, which our jurisdiction recognizes and follows, crimes committed aboard a vessel within the territorial waters of a country are triable in the courts of such country except when crimes merely affect things within the vessel or when they only refer to the internal management thereof. Here, since the crime was committed within the Philippine waters and neither exception applies, Ando may be prosecuted in Manila.
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
SUGGESTED ANSWER: The three main characteristics of Philippine criminal law are: 1. Generality or its being binding to all persons who live or sojourn in Philippine territory subject to certain exceptions; 2. Territoriality or its having force and effect only within Philippine territory, subject to certain exceptions also; 3. Irretrospectivity or its application only to acts and omissions committed/incurred after the effectivity of the law. FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLE -Generality – Diplomatic Immunity (2016) Charges d'affaires Volvik of Latvia suffers from a psychotic disorder after he was almost assassinated in his previous assignment. One day, while shopping in a mall, he saw a group of shoppers whom he thought were the assassins who were out to kill him. He asked for the gun of his escort and shot ten (10) people and wounded five (5) others before he was subdued. The wounded persons required more than thirty (30) days of medical treatment. What crime or crimes, if any, did he commit? Explain. (5%) SUGGESTED ANSWER Volvik committed five frustrated murders for the unwounded victims and five frustrated murders for the wounded
FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLE— Generality – Diplomatic Immunity (2014) Pierce is a French diplomat stationed in the Philippines. While on EDSA and driving with an expired license, he hit a pedestrian who was crossing illegally. The pedestrian died. Pierce was charged with reckless imprudence resulting in homicide. In his defense, he claimed diplomatic immunity. Is Pierce correct? SUGGESTED ANSWER: Yes, Pierce is correct. Pierce, being a French diplomat stationed in the Philippines, would be exempt from the general application of our criminal laws, as provided for under laws or treaties of preferential application, more particularly under R.A. 75. Scope of application and characteristics of Philippine criminal law – Territoriality (2004)
17
What are the three cardinal features or main characteristics of Philippine criminal Law? [5%]
victims. Treachery is present since the sudden attack rendered the victims defenseless. The nature of the weapon used in attacking the victims and extent of the wounds sustained by the five victims showed intent to kill. His psychotic condition is not an exempting circumstance of insanity in the absence of showing that there is complete deprivation of intelligence in accordance with the cognition test. However, he is immune from criminal prosecution. Since the position of Volvik as charges de affaires is diplomatic, he is vested with blanket immunity from criminal suit (Minucher v. Hon. CA, G.R. No. 142396, 11 February 2003).
Page
Characteristics of Philippine criminal law (1998)
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
Yes, the Motion to Quash the Information should be granted. The Philippine court has no jurisdiction over the crime committed since it was committed on the high seas or outside of Philippine territory and on board a vessel not registered or licensed in the Philippines (US vs. Fowler, 1 PhiL 614) It is the registration of the vessel in accordance with the laws of the Philippines, not the citizenship of her owner, which makes it a Philippine ship. The vessel being registered in Panama, the laws of Panama govern while it is in the high seas.
A. Can Abe be prosecuted for bigamy? (1994 Bar Question) B. If not, can he be prosecuted for any other crime? (1994 Bar Question) SUGGESTED ANSWER: A. No, Abe may not be prosecuted for bigamy since the bigamous marriage was contracted or solemnized in Singapore, hence such violation is not one of those where the Revised Penal Code, under Art. 2 thereof, may be appplied extraterritorially. The general rule on territoriality of criminal law governs the situation. B. Yes, Abe, together with Connie, may be prosecuted for concubinage under Art. 334 of the Revised Penal Code for having cohabited as husband and wife. But concubinage being a private crime requires the sworn complaint of Liza, the offended spouse in accordance with Rule 110 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure.
FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLE--Application of Philippine Criminal law – Territoriality (1994)
As lawyer of Andrew, I will file a motion to quash the information on the ground of prescription. The crime of false testimony under Art. 180 has prescribed because Paolo, the accused in the principal case, was acquitted on January 10, 1987 and therefore the penalty prescribed for such crime is arresto mayor under Art. 180. par. 4. RPC.
Abe, married to Liza, contracted another marriage with Connie in Singapore. Thereafter, Abe and Connie returned to the Philippines and lived as husband and wife
Crimes punishable by arresto mayor prescribes in five (5) years (Art. 90, par. 3. RPC). But the case against Andrew was filed only on June 18. 1994,
18
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
in the hometown of Abe in Calamba, Laguna.
Page
After drinking one (1) case of San Miguel beer and taking two plates of “pulutan", Binoy, a Filipino seaman, stabbed to death Sio My, a Singaporean seaman, aboard M/V “Princess of the Pacific", an overseas vessel which was sailing in the South China Sea. The vessel, although Panamanian registered, is owned by Lucio Sy, a rich Filipino businessman. When M /V “Princess of the Pacific" reached a Philippine Port at Cebu City, the Captain of the vessel turned over the assailant Binoy to the Philippine authorities. An Information for homicide was filed against Binoy in the Regional Trial Court of Cebu City. He moved to quash the Information for lack of jurisdiction. If you were the Judge, will you grant the motion? Why? (5%)
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
The inter-island vessel M/ V Viva Lines I, while cruising off Batanes, was forced to seek shelter at the harbor of Kaoshiung, Taiwan because of a strong typhoon. While anchored in said harbor, Max, Baldo and Bogart arrived in a speedboat, fired a bazooka at the bow of the vessel, boarded it and divested the passengers of their money and jewelry. A passenger of M/ V Viva Lines I, Dodong, took advantage of the confusion to settle an old grudge with another passenger, and killed him. After their apprehension, all four were charged with qualified piracy before a Philippine court. Was Dodong correctly charged before the Philippine court for qualified piracy? Explain. (3%) SUGGESTED ANSWER: No, Dodong was not correctly charged with qualified piracy because committing piracy was never in his mind nor did he have any involvement in the piracy committed. He merely took advantage of the situation in killing the passenger. He should be charged with murder since there was evident premeditation and intent to kill. FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLE—
SUGGESTED ANSWER: Ex post facto law is any law which makes an innocent act a crime after the act was committed. It is a Latin phrase which means “from something done afterwards.” It could also be a law which aggravates a crime, or makes it greater than when it was committed, or which changes the punishment and inflicts a greater penalty than the law governing the crime when committed. A bill of attainder is a law which inflicts punishment on a named individual or a group of individuals without judicial trial. Ex post facto law pertains to the act while a bill of attainder pertains to a named individual or to members of a group. FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLE Ex Post Facto Law (2014) Congress passed a law reviving the AntiSubversion Law, making it a criminal offense again for a person to join the Communist Party of the Philippines. Reporma, a former high-ranking member of the Communist Party, was charged under the new law for his membership in the Communist Party when he was a student in the 80’s. He now challenges the charge against him. What objections may he raise? SUGGESTED ANSWER: Reporma may raise the limitations imposed by the 1987 Constitution on the power of Congress to enact retroactive penal laws which are prejudicial to the
19
FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLE-- Application of Philippine criminal law – Territoriality principle (2008)
Distinguish between ex post facto law and bill of attainder (2015)
Page
whereas the principal criminal case was decided with finality on January 10, 1987 and, thence the prescriptive period of the crime commenced to run. From January 10, 1987 to June 18, 1994 is more than five (5) years.
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
SUGGESTED ANSWER: The constitutional provisions limiting the power of Congress to enact penal laws are the following: 1. The law must not be an ex post facto law or it should not be given a retroactive effect. 2. The law must not be a bill of attainder, meaning it cannot provide punishment without judicial process. 3. The law must not impose cruel, unusual or degrading punishment. 4. No person shall be held to answer for a criminal offense without due process of law. FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLE – Constitutional limitations on the power of Congress to enact penal laws (1988) A. What are the limitations upon the power of congress to enact penal laws? B. Are there common law crimes in our jurisdiction? SUGGESTED ANSWER:
1. Congress cannot enact an ex post facto law. 2. Congress cannot enact a bill of attainder. 3. Congress cannot provide for a cruel punishment. However, other limitations may be considered like: a. Congress cannot enact a law which shall punish for a condition. Congress shall punish an act and not the condition or status. (Robinson vs. California). b. Congress should consider Article 21 of the Revised Penal Code which provides that “penalties that may be imposed. No felony shall be punishable by any penalty not prescribed by law prior to its commission.” B. There are none. The rule is, nullum crimen, nulla poena sine lege, there is no crim if there is no law punishing it. FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLE— Constitutional limitations on the power of Congress to enact penal laws (2013) Assume that you are a member of the legal staff of Senator Salcedo who wants to file a bill about imprisonment at the National Penitentiary in Muntinlupa. He wants to make the State prison a revenue earner for the country through a law providing for premium accommodations for prisoners (other than those under maximum security status) whose wives are allowed conjugal weekend visits, and for those who want long-term premium accommodations.
20
FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLE – What are the constitutional provisions limiting the power of Congress to enact penal laws? (2012 BAR)
A. The limitations upon the power of congress to enact penal laws are as follows:
Page
accused. Under the Bill of Rights of the Constitution such is classified as an ex post facto law. It should be noted that when Congress decriminalized the crime of subversion, under R.A. 7637, it obliterated the felony and its effects upon Reporma. Consequently charging him now under the new law for his previous membership in the Communist Party would be constitutionality impermissible.
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
A has filed a motion to quash the information, contending that it does not charge an offense. Is he correct?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
I would advise Senator Salcedo not to file the said bill. First, the bill is unconstitutional as it violates the equal protection clause of the Constitution. It will create economic inequality in our criminal justice system. Rich prisoners will enjoy better amenities and privileges than those who are poor. Second, the bill will defeat the purpose of penalties in criminal law, which is to secure justice, retribution, and reformation.
Yes, the contention of A is correct. The information failed to allege that the undue lnjury to B and the government was caused by the accused's manifest partiality, evident bad faith, or gross inexcusable negligence, which are necessary elements of the offense charged, i.e., violation of Section 3(e) of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. The accused is employed in the Office of the District Engineer of the DPWH, which has nothing to do with the determination and fixing of the price of the land expropriated, and for which expropriated land the Government is legally obligated to pay. There is no allegation in the Information that the land was overpriced or that the payment of the amount was disadvantageous to the Government. It appears that the charge was solely based on the accused having followed up the payment for B's land which the Government has already appropriated, and that the accused eventually withheld for himself from the price of the said land, the amount of P4.000.00 for his services. No violation of Section 3(e) of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Act appears. At most, the
FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLE – Due process – Proper allegation of the offense charged (1997) A is charged with the crime defined in Section 3(e) of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act in an information that reads: "That from 1 to 30 January 1995, in the City of Pasig and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the accused, being then employed in the Office of the District Engineer, Department of Public Works and Highways and in the discharge of his official administrative functions, did then and there willfully and unlawfully work for and facilitate the approval of
21
What advice will you give the Senator from the point of view of criminal law, taking into account the purpose of imprisonment (7%) and considerations of ethics and morality (3%)?
B’s claim for the payment of the price of his land which the government had expropriated, and after the claim was approved, the accused gave B only PI,000.00 of the approved claim ofP5,000.00and willfully and unlawfully appropriated for himself the balance of P4,000.00, thus causing undue injury to B and the Government."
Page
For conjugal weekenders, he plans to rent out rooms with hotel-like amenities at rates equivalent to those charged by 4-star hotels; for long-term occupants, he is prepared to offer room and board with special meals in air conditioned single occupancy rooms, at rates equivalent to those charged by 3-star hotels.
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
accused should be merely charged administratively
ART 3 Mala in se and crimes mala prohibita (2005, 2003, 2001, 1999, 1997, 1988)
FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLE in rel. to Art 48— What is aberratio ictus? (2015)
Distinguish between crimes mala in se and crimes mala prohibita.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Aberratio ictus means mistake of blow. Under the principle of aberration ictus, a person is criminally responsible for committing an intentional felony although the consequent victim is different from that intended due to mistake of blow. This principle is based on the rule in Article 4 of the Revised Penal Code, which provides that criminal liability shall be incurred by any person committing a felony (delito) although the wrongful act done be different from that which he intended.
Crimes mala prohibita are distinguished from crimes mala insets follows, to wit:
FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLE in rel. to Art 48, 49, 13— Aberratio Ictus vs Impossible Crime (1993) Explain and illustrate the following: 1) aberratio ictus, 2) impossible crime, and 3) subordination of perjury.
In crimes mala prohibita, the acts are not by nature wrong, evil or bad. They are punished only because there is a law prohibiting them for public good, and thus good faith or lack of criminal intent in doing the prohibited act is not a defense. In crimes mala in se, the acts are by nature wrong, evil or bad, and so generally condemned. The moral trait of the offender is involved; thus, good faith or lack of criminal intent on the part of the offender is a defense, unless the crime is the result of criminal negligence. Correspondingly, modifying circumstances are considered in punishing the offender. ART 3 Motive (1999)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
“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.
22
FELONIES
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Page
1. Aberratio ictus - A fired a gun at his father to kill him but hit instead a stranger. 2. Impossible crime - Killing a dead person. 3. Subordination of perjury Procuring another to swear falsely and testify under circumstances rendering him guilty of perjury.
When is motive relevant to prove a case? When is it not necessary to be established? Explain. (3%)
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
Motive, if attending a crime, always precede the intent.
2. Felonies committed by means of culpa.
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.
ART 3 Proof of motive; when not required (2006)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
ART 3 Mala in se; mala prohibita (1997)
Proof of motive is not required –
May an act be malum in se and be, at the same time, malum prohibitum?
a. Where the offender is positively identified or b. has admitted the commission of the crime (People v. Yurong, 133 SCRA 26 (1984] citing People v. Realon, et. al., 94 SCRA 422 [1980]); c. Where the crime committed is a malum prohibitum; or d. Where the crime is the product of culpa or criminal negligence.
Yes, an act may be malum in se and malum prohibitum at the same time. In People v. Sunico, etaL, (CA 50 OG 5880) it was held that the omission or failure of election inspectors and poll clerks to include a voter's name in the registry list of voters is wrong perse because it disenfranchises a voter of his right to vote. In this regard it is considered as malum in se. Since it is punished under a special law (Sec. 101 and 103, Revised Election Code), it is considered malum prohibitum.
ART 3 Theories; motive; criminal intent (2004, 1996) A. What are the different schools of thought or theories in Criminal Law and describe each briefly. (1996 Bar Question)
ART 3 Criminal Intent (1988)
B. To what theory does our Revised Penal Code belong? (1996 Bar Question)
May a crime be committed without criminal intent? Explain.
C. Distinguish intent from motive in Criminal Law. (2004, 1996 Bar Question)
A crime may be committed without criminal intent in two cases: 1. Offense, punishable as mala prohibita; and
D. May crime be committed without criminal intent? (1996 Bar Question) SUGGESTED ANSWER:
23
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Page
It is not necessary to prove motive when the offender is positively identified or the criminal act did not give rise to variant crimes.
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. 5%
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
C. 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. D. Yes, a crime may be committed without criminal intent if 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.
SUGGESTED ANSWER: Felonies are committed not only by means of deceit (dolo) but also by means of fault (culpa). There is deceit when the act is performed with deliberate intent; and there is fault when the wrongful act results from imprudence, negligence, lack of foresight, or lack of skill (Article 3 of Revised Penal Code).
CRIMINAL LIABILITY ART 4 (1) Criminal liability –when incurred (1994) Bhey eloped with Scott. Whereupon, Bhey’s father, Robin, and brother, Rustom, went to Scott’s house. Upon reaching the house, Rustom inquired from Scott about his sister’s whereabouts, while Robin shouted and threatened to kill Scott. The latter then went downstairs but Rustom held his (Scott’s) waist. Meanwhile Olive, the elder sister of Scott, carrying her twomonth old child, approached Rustom and Scott to pacify them. Olive attempted to remove Rustom’s hand from Scott’s waist. But Rustom pulled Olive’s hand causing her to fall over her baby. The baby then died moments later. Is Rustom criminally liable for the death of the child? SUGGESTED ANSWER: Yes, Rustom is criminally liable for the death of the child because his felonious act was the proximate cause of such death. It was Rustom’s act of pulling Olive’s hand which caused the latter to
24
B. We follow the classical school of thought although some provisions of eminently positivist in tendencies, like punishment of impossible crime, juvenile circumstances, are incorporated in our Code.
ART 3 How are felonies committed? (2015)
Page
A. There are two schools of thought in Criminal Law, and these are (a) the classical theory, which simply means that the basis of criminal liabilities is human free will, and the purpose of the penalty is retribution which must be proportional to the gravity of the offense; and (b) the positivist theory, which considers man as a social being and his acts are attributable not just to his will but to other forces of society. As such, punishment is not the solution, as he is not entirely to be blamed; law and jurisprudence should not be the yardstick in the imposition of sanction, instead the underlying reasons would be inquired into.
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
fall on her baby. Had it not been for said act of Rustom, which is undoubtedly felonious (at least slight coercion) there was no cause for Olive to fall over her baby. In short, Rustom’s felonious act is the cause of the evil caused. Any person performing a felonious act is criminally liable for the direct, natural and logical consequence thereof although different from what he intended (Art. 4, par. 1. RPC: People vs. Pugay, et aL, GR No. 74324, Nov. 18, 1988).
During the robbery in a dwelling house, one of the culprits happened to fire his gun upward in the ceiling without meaning to kill anyone. The owner of the house who was hiding thereat was hit and killed as a result.
Art 4 Criminal Liability In relation to Art 8 Conspiracy (1992)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
SUGGESTED ANSWER: If they have to be criminally liable at all each will be responsible for their individual acts as there appears to be no conspiracy, as the acts of the three were spontaneous and a reflex response to Yabang’s shooting of Sergio. There was no concerted act that will lead to a common purpose. Art. 4 Criminal Liability – Proximate Cause In relation to robbery with homicide (1999)
No, I will not sustain the defense. The act being felonious and the proximate cause of the victim's death, the offender is liable therefor although it may not be intended or different from what he intended. The offender shall be prosecuted for the composite crime of robbery with homicide, whether the killing was intentional or accidental, as long as the killing was on occasion of the robbery Art. 4 Criminal Liability (2008) While Carlos was approaching his car, he saw it being driven away by Paolo, a thief. Carlos tried to stop Paolo by shouting at him, but Paolo ignored him. To prevent his car from being carnapped, Carlos drew his gun, aimed at the rear wheel of the car and fired. The shot blew the tire which caused the car to veer out of control and collide with an oncoming tricycle, killing the tricycle driver. Art 4 (1) What is the criminal liability of Carlos, if any? Explain. (4%) (2008) SUGGESTED ANSWER:
25
What are the criminal liabilities of Yoyong, Zoilo and Warlito for the injury to Yabang?
Will you sustain the defense? Why? (4%)
Page
As Sergio, Yoyong, Zoilo and Warlilo engaged in a drinking spree at Heartthrob Disco, Special Police Officer 3 (SPO 3) Manolo Yabang suddenly approached them, aimed his revolver at Sergio whom he recognized as a wanted killer and fatally shot the latter. Whereupon, Yoyong.Zoilo and Warlito ganged up on Yabang. Warlito, using his own pistol, shot and wounded Yabang.
The defense theorized that the killing was a mere accident and was not perpetrated in connection with, or for purposes of, the robbery.
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
liability
–
when
Alexander, an escaped convict, ran amuck on board a Superlines Bus bound for Manila from Bicol and killed ten (10) persons. Terrified by the incident, Carol and Benjamin who are passengers of the bus, jumped out of the window and while lying unconscious after hitting the pavement of the road, were ran over and crushed to death by a fast moving Desert Fox bus tailing the Superlines Bus. Can Alexander be held liable for the death of Carol and Benjamin although he was completely unaware that the two jumped out of the bus? Explain. SUGGESTED ANSWER: Yes, Alexander can be held liable for the death of Carol and Benjamin because of felonious act of running was the proximate cause of the victim’s death. The rule is that when a person, by a felonious act, generates in the mind of another a sense of imminent danger, prompting the latter to escape from or avoid such danger and in the process, sustains injuries or dies, the person committing the felonious act is responsible for such injuries or death.
ART.4 Criminal liability – when incurred (1997) While the crew of a steamer prepared to raise anchor at the Pasig River, A, evidently impatient with the progress of work, began to use abusive language against the men. B, one of the members of the crew, remonstrated saying that they could work best if they were not insulted. A took B's attitude as a display of insubordination and, rising in a rage, moved towards B wielding a big knife and threatening to stab B. At the instant when A was only a few feet from B, the latter, apparently believing himself to be in great and immediate peril, threw himself into the water, disappeared beneath the surface, and drowned. May A be held criminally liable for the death of B? SUGGESTED ANSWER: Yes, A can be held criminally liable for the death of B. Article 4 of the Revised Penal Code provides in part that criminal liability shall be incurred by any person committing a felony although the wrongful act done be different from that which he intended. In U.S. vs. Valdez, 41 Phil. 497, where the victim who was threatened by the accused with a knife, jumped into the river but because of the strong current or because he did not know how to swim, he drowned, the Supreme Court affirmed the conviction for homicide of the accused because, if a person against whom a criminal assault is directed believes himself to be in danger of death or great bodily harm
26
ART.4--Criminal incurred (1996)
(C7.S. os. Valdez. 41 Phil. 1497; People vs. Apra. 27 SCRA 1037.)
Page
Carlos did not incur criminal liability because his act of firing at the rear wheel of the car to stop the vehicle and prevent Paolo from taking away his (Carlos') car is neither done with dolo nor culpa. The act does not constitute a crime; it is a reasonable exercise of his right to prevent or repel an actual unlawful physical invasion or usurpation of his property pursuant to Art. 429 of the Civil Code.
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
Luis Cruz was deeply hurt when his offer of love was rejected by his girlfriend Marivella one afternoon when he visited her. When he left her house, he walked as if he was sleepwalking so much so that a teenage snatcher was able to grab his cellphone and flee without being chased by Luis. At the next LRT station, he boarded one of the coaches bound for Baclaran. While seated, he happened to read a newspaper left on the seat and noticed that the headlines were about the sinking of the Super Ferry while on its way to Cebu. He went over the list of missing passengers who were presumed dead and came across the name of his grandfather who had raised him from childhood after he was orphaned. He was shocked and his mind went blank for a few minutes, after which he ran amuck and, using his balisong, started stabbing at the passengers who then scampered away, with three of them jumping out of the train and landing on the road below. All the three passengers died later of their injuries at the hospital. Is Luis liable for the death of the three passengers who jumped out of the moving train? State your reasons. (5%) SUGGESTED ANSWER: Yes, Luis is liable for their deaths because he was committing a felony when he started stabbing at the passengers and such wrongful act was the proximate cause of said
Under Article 4, Revised Penal Code, any person committing a felony shall incur criminal liability although the wrongful act done be different from that which he intended. In this case, the death of the three passengers was the direct, natural and logical consequence of Luis felonious act which created an immediate sense of danger in the minds of said passengers who tried to avoid or escape from it by jumping out of the train. (People vs. Arpa, 27 SCRA 1037; U.S. vs. Valdez, 41 Phil. 497) ART.4--Criminal liability; when incurred (2004) On his way home from office, ZZ rode in a jeepney. Subsequently, XX boarded the same jeepney. Upon reaching a secluded spot in QC, XX pulled out a grenade from his bag and announced a hold-up. He told ZZ to surrender his watch, wallet and cellphone. Fearing for his life, ZZ jumped out of the vehicle. But as he fell, his head hit the pavement, causing his instant death. Is XX liable for ZZs death? Explain briefly. (5%) SUGGESTED ANSWER: Yes, XX is liable for ZZ's death because his acts of pulling out a grenade and announcing a hold-up, coupled with a demand for the watch, wallet and cellphone of ZZ is felonious, and such felonious act was the proximate cause of ZZ's jumping out of the jeepney, resulting in the latter's death. Stated otherwise, the death of ZZ was the
27
ART.4--Criminal liability; when incurred (2001)
passengers’jumping out of the train; hence their deaths.
Page
and in order to escape jumps into the water, impelled by the instinct of selfpreservation, the assailant is responsible for the homicide in case death results by drowning.
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
direct, natural and logical consequence of XX’s felonious act which created an immediate sense of danger in the mind of ZZ who tried to avoid such danger by jumping out of the jeepney (.People v. Arpat 27 SCRA 1037 [1969]). ART.4--Criminal liability; when incurred (2008)
was arrested. The prosecutor considered that the ransom note was never received by Carla’s parents and filed a case of “Impossible crime to commit kidnapping” against Enrique. Is the prosecutor correct? If he is not correct, can he instead file a case of grave coercion? SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Francis and Joan were sweethearts, but their parents had objected to their relationship because they were first cousins. They forged a pact in writing to commit suicide. The agreement was to shoot each other in the head which they did. Joan died. Due to medical assistance, Francis survived. Is Francis criminally liable for the death of Joan? Explain. (5%) SUGGESTED ANSWER: Yes, Francis is criminally liable for Joan's death. His act of shooting her, although done pursuant to a solemn pact, is nevertheless felonious and is the proximate cause of Joan's death (Art. 4, par. 1, RPC). Moreover, the mere act of giving assistance to a suicide is a crime (Art. 253, RPC)
The Prosecutor is not correct. There is no “Impossible crime to commit kidnapping”. First, an impossible crime applies only to Crimes against Persons and Crimes against Property under Titles 8 and 10 of the RPC, respectively. Kidnapping is a Crime against Personal Liberty and Security under Title 9, RPC. Second, even if the ransom note was not received by Carla’s parents, the crime of kidnapping and serious illegal detention for ransom is already consummated. Under Article 267, RPC, Kidnapping for Ransom is committed “when the kidnapping or detention is for the purpose of extorting ransom from the victim or any other person.” To consummate the crime, it suffices that the purpose is to extort ransom; it is not necessary that the ransom note be received or that ransom be paid.
IMPOSSIBLE CRIMES
ART 4(2) Impossible Crime (2014) Puti detested Pula, his roommate, because Pula was courting Ganda, whom Puti fancied. One day, Puti decided to teach Pula a lesson and went to a veterinarian (Vet) to ask for poison on the pretext that he was going to kill a sick pet, when
28
Carla, four (4) years old, was kidnapped by Enrique, the tricycle driver engaged by her parents to drive her to and from school every day. Enrique wrote a ransom note demanding that Carla’s parents pay him P500,000.00 ransom in exchange for her liberty. However, before the ransom note could be received by Carla’s parents, Enrique’s hideout was discovered by the police. Carla was rescued while Enrique
Page
Art 4 (2): Impossible crimes (2014)
No, the Prosecutor cannot file a case of grave coercion because the crime committed, as explained above, is kidnapping for ransom.
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
SUGGESTED ANSWER: (A) Puti committed the impossible crime of murder. All the elements of an impossible crime are present. Puti’s act of mixing a solution with Pula’s food would have been murder, a crime against persons. The act was done evil intent which is to kill Pula. However, the crime was not accomplished because of the employment of ineffectual means, i.e., the solution turned out to be nontoxic which would not kill Pula. And said act would not fall under any other provision of the RPC. (B) No, my answer would not be the same. If as a result of the mixture, Pula got an upset stomach and had to be hospitalized for 10 days, the crime committed by Puti is Less Serious Physical Injuries. It is not an impossible crime because the last element of an impossible requires that the act performed should not constitute a violation of another provision of the RPC.
Art. 4 (2) Impossible Crime In relation to Art. 265: Less serious physical injuries (1998) Buddy always resented his classmate, Jun. One day. Buddy planned to kill Jun by mixing poison in his lunch. Not knowing
(A) What crime or crimes, if any, did Jerry and Buddy commit? [3%J (1998 Bar Question) (B) Suppose that, because of his severe allergy to powdered milk, Jun had to be hospitalized for 10 days for ingesting it. Would your answer to the first question be the same? [2%] (1998 Bar Question) SUGGESTED ANSWER: (A) Jerry and Buddy are liable for the socalled “impossible crime” because, with intent to kill, they tried to poison Jun and thus perpetrate murder, a crime against persons. Jun was not poisoned only because the would-be killers were unaware that what they mixed with the food of Jun was powdered milk, not poison. In short, the act done with criminal intent by Jerry and Buddy, would have constituted a crime against persons were it not for the inherent inefficacy of the means employed. Criminal liability is incurred by them although no crime resulted, because their act of trying to poison Jun is criminal, (B) No, the answer would not be the same. Charlie would be, criminally liable for less serious physical injuries because his act of mixing the powder with Brad's food was done with felonious intent and was the proximate
29
(A) What crime, if any, did Puti commit? (B) Would your answer be the same if, as a result of the mixture, Pula got an upset stomach and had to be hospitalized for 10 days?
where he can get poison, he approached another classmate. Jerry to whom he disclosed his evil plan. Because he himself harbored resentment towards Jun, Jerry gave Buddy a poison, which Buddy placed on Jun's food. However, Jun did not die because, unknown to both Buddy and Jerry, the poison was actually powdered milk.
Page
actually Puti was intending to poison Pula. The Vet instantly gave Puti a non-toxic solution which, when mixed with Pula’s food, did not kill Pula.
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
Charlie hated his classmate, Brad, because the latter was assiduously courting Lily, Charlie's girlfriend. Charlie went to a veterinarian and asked for some poison on the pretext that it would be used to kill a very sick, old dog. Actually, Charlie intended to use the poison on Brad. The veterinarian mistakenly gave Charlie a non-toxic powder which, when mixed with Brad's food, did not kill Brad. (A) Did Charlie commit any crime? If so; what and why? If not, why not? (3%) SUGGESTED ANSWER: Charlie committed an impossible crime of murder. His act of mixing the nontoxic powder with Brad's food, done with intent to kill, would have constituted murder which is a crime against persons, had it not been for the employment of a means which, unknown to him, is ineffectual (Art.4, par. 2, RPC). ART 4(2)- Impossible crime of murder (2009)
The veterinarian mistakenly gave Charlie a non-toxic powder which, when mixed with Brad's food, did not kill Brad. [a] Did Charlie commit any crime? If so; what and why? If not, why not? (3%) [b] Would your answer be the same if Brad proved to be allergic to the powder, and after ingesting it with his food, fell ill and was hospitalized for ten (10) days? Explain. (3%) SUGGESTED ANSWER: a. Charlie committed an impossible crime of murder. His act of mixing the non-toxic powder with Brad's food, done with intent to kill, would have constituted murder which is a crime against persons, had it not been for the employment of a means which, unknown to him, is ineffectual (Art.4, par. 2, RPC).
b. No, the answer would not be the same. Charlie would be, criminally liable for less serious physical injuries because his act of mixing the powder with Brad's food was done with felonious intent and was the proximate cause of Brad's illness for 10 days. It cannot constitute attempted murder, although done with intent to kill, because the means employed is inherently ineffectual to cause death and the crime committed must be directly linked to the means employed,
30
Art. 4 (2): Impossible crime of murder (2009)
Charlie hated his classmate, Brad, because the latter was assiduously courting Lily, Charlie's girlfriend. Charlie went to a veterinarian and asked for some poison on the pretext that it would be used to kill a very sick, old dog. Actually, Charlie intended to use the poison on Brad.
Page
cause of Brad's illness for 10 days. It cannot constitute attempted murder, although done with intent to kill, because the means employed is inherently ineffectual to cause death and the crime committed must be directly linked to the means employed, not to the intent. Liability for an impossible crime can only arise from a consummated act.
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
Lucas had been the stay-in houseboy of spouses Nestor and Julia for five years. One night, while Nestor and Julia were out having dinner, Lucas and his friend Pedro gained entry into the masters' bedroom with the use of a false key. They found Julia's jewelry box in one of the cabinets, which was unlocked. Lucas believed that Julia's jewelry was inside the box. Unknown to Lucas and Pedro, the box was empty. Pedro took the box and left the bedroom with Lucas. They were shocked when they saw Nestor in the house pointing a gun at them. Nestor ordered them to stop hand over the box. Pedro complied. It turned out that Nestor had just arrived in time to see Lucas and Pedro leaving masters' bedroom with the box. State with reasons, the crime or crimes, if any, Lucas and Pedro committed. (7%) SUGGESTED ANSWER: Lucas and Pedro may be held liable only for impossible crime of theft because what they had in in in taking the jewelry box was to take Julia's jewelry. However, it turned out to be empty. The impossibility of committing the crime of theft is factual or physical since there is no jewelry to steal inside the box.
What criminal liability did OZ incur, If any? Explain briefly. (5%) (2004 Bar Question) SUGGESTED ANSWER: OZ incurred criminal liability for an impossible crime of murder. Criminal liability shall be incurred by any person performing an act which would be an offense against persons or property, were it not for the inherent impossibility of its accomplishment or on account of the employment of inadequate or ineffectual means (Art. 4, par. 2, RPC). In the problem given, the impossibility of accomplishing the crime of murder, a crime against persons, was due to the employment of ineffectual means which OZ thought was poison. The law imputes criminal liability to the offender although no crime resulted, only to suppress his criminal propensity. ART.4(2)- Impossible crime of murder (2004)
Art. 4 (2) Impossible crime of murder (2004)
OZ and YO were both courting their coemployee, SUE. Because of their bitter rivalry, OZ decided to get rid of YO by poisoning him. OZ poured a substance into YO’s coffee thinking it was arsenic. It turned out that the substance was white sugar substitute known as Equal. Nothing happened to YO after he drank the coffee.
OZ and YO were both courting their coemployee, SUE. Because of their bitter
What criminal liability did OZ incur, If any? Explain briefly. (5%)
31
Art. 4 (2): Impossible crime of theft (2008)
rivalry, OZ decided to get rid of YO by poisoning him. OZ poured a substance into YO’s coffee thinking it was arsenic. It turned out that the substance was white sugar substitute known as Equal. Nothing happened to YO after he drank the coffee.
Page
not to the intent. Liability for an impossible crime can only arise from a consummated act.
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
In the problem given, the impossibility of accomplishing the crime of murder, a crime against persons, was due to the employment of ineffectual means which OZ thought was poison. The law imputes criminal liability to the offender although no crime resulted, only to suppress his criminal propensity because subjectively, he is a criminal though objectively, no crime was committed. Art. 4 (2): Impossible crimes (2000) A. What is an impossible crime? (2%) (2000 Bar Question) B. Is an impossible crime really a crime? (2%) (2000 Bar Question) 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 X's 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
SUGGESTED ANSWER: A. An impossible crime is an act which would be an offense against person or 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.
32
OZ incurred criminal liability for an impossible crime of murder. Criminal liability shall be incurred by any person performing an act which would be an offense against persons or property, were it not for the inherent impossibility of its accomplishment or on account of the employment of inadequate or ineffectual means (Art. 4, par. 2, RPC).
Page
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
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 Carla's parents in exchange for Carla's freedom. Enrique sent the ransom note by mail. However, before the ransom note was received by Carla's parents, Enrique's hideout was discovered by the police. Carla was rescued while Enrique was arrested and incarcerated. Considering that the ransom note was not received by Carla’s parents, the investigating prosecutor merely filed a case of ’‘Impossible Crime to Commit Kidnapping" against Enrique. Is the prosecutor correct? Why? (3%) (2000 Bar Question)
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
Although the facts involved are parallel to the case of Intod vs. Court of Appeals (215 SCRA 52). where it was 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.
On appeal to the Court of Appeals, all the accused ascribed to the trial court the sole error of finding them guilty of attempted murder. If you were the ponente, how will you decide the appeal? SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Art. 4 (2): Impossible crime of murder (1994) JP, Aries and Randal planned to kill Elsa, a resident of Barangay Pula, Laurel, Batangas. They asked the assistance of Ella, who is familiar with the place. On April 3, 1992, at about 10:00 in the evening, JP, Aries and Randal, all armed with automatic weapons, went to Barangay Pula. Ella, being the guide, directed her companions to the room in the house of Elsa. Whereupon, JP, Aries and Randal fired their guns at her room. Fortunately, Elsa was not around as she attended a prayer meeting that evening in another barangay in Laurel. JP, et aL, were charged and convicted of attempted murder by the Regional Trial Court at Tanauan, Batangas.
Art. 4 (2): Impossible crime of murder (1998) Buddy always resented his classmate, Jun. One day. Buddy planned to kill Jun by mixing poison in his lunch. Not knowing where he can get poison, he approached another classmate. Jerry to whom he disclosed his evil plan. Because he himself harbored resentment towards Jun, Jerry gave Buddy a poison, which Buddy placed on Jun's food. However, Jun did not die because, unknown to both Buddy and
33
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
If I were the ponente, I will set aside the judgment convicting the accused of attempted murder and instead find them guilty of impossible crime under Art. 4, par. 2, RPC, in relation to Art. 59, RPC. Liability for impossible crime arises not only when the impossibility is legal, but likewise when it is factual or physical impossibility, as in the case at bar. Elsa’s absence from the house is a physical impossibility which renders the crime intended inherently incapable of accomplishment. To convict the accused of attempted murder would make Art. 4, par. 2 practically useless as all circumstances which prevented the consummation of the offense will be treated as an incident independent of the actor’s will which is an element of attempted or frustrated felony (Intod vs. CA, 215 SCRA 52).
Page
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.
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
SUGGESTED ANSWER: 1. Jerry and Buddy are liable for the so-called “impossible crime” because, with intent to kill, they tried to poison Jun and thus perpetrate murder, a crime against persons. Jun was not poisoned only because the would-be killers were unaware that what they mixed with the food of Jun was powdered milk, not poison. In short, the act done with criminal intent by Jerry and Buddy, would have constituted a crime against persons were it not for the inherent inefficacy of the means employed. Criminal liability is incurred by them although no crime resulted, because their act of trying to poison Jun is criminal. ART 4. In rel to ART 267—Impossible crime (2014) Carla, four (4) years old, was kidnapped by Enrique, the tricycle driver engaged by her parents to drive her to and from school every day. Enrique wrote a ransom note demanding that Carla’s parents pay him P500,000.00 ransom in exchange for her liberty. However, before the ransom note could be received by Carla’s parents, Enrique’s hideout was discovered by the police. Carla was rescued while Enrique was arrested. The prosecutor considered that the ransom note was never received by Carla’s parents and filed a case of “Impossible crime to commit kidnapping” against Enrique.
SUGGESTED ANSWER: The Prosecutor is not correct. There is no “Impossible crime to commit kidnapping”. First, an impossible crime applies only to Crimes against Persons and Crimes against Property under Titles 8 and 10 of the RPC, respectively. Kidnapping is a Crime against Personal Liberty and Security under Title 9, RPC. Second, even if the ransom note was not received by Carla’s parents, the crime of kidnapping and serious illegal detention for ransom is already consummated. Under Article 267, RPC, Kidnapping for Ransom is committed “when the kidnapping or detention is for the purpose of extorting ransom from the victim or any other person.” To consummate the crime, it suffices that the purpose is to extort ransom; it is not necessary that the ransom note be received or that ransom be paid. No, the Prosecutor cannot file a case of grave coercion because the crime committed, as explained above, is kidnapping for ransom. ART. 4- Impossible crimes (2000) A. What is an impossible crime? (2%) (2000 Bar Question) B. Is an impossible crime really a crime? (2%) (2000 Bar Question) 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
34
What crime or crimes, if any, did Jerry and Buddy commit? [3%)
Is the prosecutor correct? If he is not correct, can he instead file a case of grave coercion?
Page
Jerry, the poison was actually powdered milk
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
SUGGESTED ANSWER: A. An impossible crime is an act which would be an offense against person or 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.
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 ART.4-Impossible crime of theft (2008) Lucas had been the stay-in houseboy of spouses Nestor and Julia for five years. One night, while Nestor and Julia were out having dinner, Lucas and his friend Pedro gained entry into the masters' bedroom with the use of a false key. They found Julia's jewelry box in one of the cabinets, which was unlocked. Lucas believed that Julia's jewelry was inside the box. Unknown to Lucas and Pedro, the box was empty. Pedro took the box and left the bedroom with Lucas. They were shocked
35
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 Carla's parents in exchange for Carla's freedom. Enrique sent the ransom note by mail. However, before the ransom note was received by Carla's parents, Enrique's hideout was discovered by the police. Carla was rescued while Enrique was arrested and incarcerated. Considering that the ransom note was not received by Carla’s parents, the investigating prosecutor merely filed a case of ’‘Impossible Crime to Commit Kidnapping" against Enrique. Is the prosecutor correct? Why? (3%)
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 involved are parallel to the case of Intod vs. Court of Appeals (215 SCRA 52). where it was 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.
Page
peppered the room with bullets. Unsatisfied, A even threw a hand grenade that totally destroyed X's 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%) (2000 Bar Question)
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
when they saw Nestor in the house pointing a gun at them. Nestor ordered them to stop hand over the box. Pedro complied. It turned out that Nestor had just arrived in time to see Lucas and Pedro leaving masters' bedroom with the box.
error of finding them guilty of attempted murder. If you were the ponente, how will you decide the appeal? SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Lucas and Pedro may be held liable only for impossible crime of theft because what they had in in in taking the jewelry box was to take Julia's jewelry. However, it turned out to be empty. The impossibility of committing the crime of theft is factual or physical since there is no jewelry to steal inside the box. ART .4(2)- Impossible crime of murder (1994) JP, Aries and Randal planned to kill Elsa, a resident of Barangay Pula, Laurel, Batangas. They asked the assistance of Ella, who is familiar with the place. On April 3, 1992, at about 10:00 in the evening, JP, Aries and Randal, all armed with automatic weapons, went to Barangay Pula. Ella, being the guide, directed her companions to the room in the house of Elsa. Whereupon, JP, Aries and Randal fired their guns at her room. Fortunately, Elsa was not around as she attended a prayer meeting that evening in another barangay in Laurel. JP, et aL, were charged and convicted of attempted murder by the Regional Trial Court at Tanauan, Batangas. On appeal to the Court of Appeals, all the accused ascribed to the trial court the sole
ART.4(2) Impossible crime of murder; less serious physical injuries (1998) Buddy always resented his classmate, Jun. One day. Buddy planned to kill Jun by mixing poison in his lunch. Not knowing where he can get poison, he approached another classmate. Jerry to whom he disclosed his evil plan. Because he himself harbored resentment towards Jun, Jerry gave Buddy a poison, which Buddy placed on Jun's food. However, Jun did not die because, unknown to both Buddy and Jerry, the poison was actually powdered milk
36
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
If I were the ponente, I will set aside the judgment convicting the accused of attempted murder and instead find them guilty of impossible crime under Art. 4, par. 2, RPC, in relation to Art. 59, RPC. Liability for impossible crime arises not only when the impossibility is legal, but likewise when it is factual or physical impossibility, as in the case at bar. Elsa’s absence from the house is a physical impossibility which renders the crime intended inherently incapable of accomplishment. To convict the accused of attempted murder would make Art. 4, par. 2 practically useless as all circumstances which prevented the consummation of the offense will be treated as an incident independent of the actor’s will which is an element of attempted or frustrated felony (Intod vs. CA, 215 SCRA 52).
Page
State with reasons, the crime or crimes, if any, Lucas and Pedro committed. (7%)
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
–
What crime or crimes, if any, did Jerry and Buddy commit? [3%]
ART. 6-Stages of execution Consummated theft (1998)
Suppose that, because of his severe allergy to powdered milk, Jun had to be hospitalized for 10 days for ingesting it. Would your answer to the first question be the same? [2%]
In the jewelry section of a big department store, Julia snatched a couple of bracelets and put these in her purse. At the store's exit, however, she was arrested by the guard after being radioed by the store personnel who caught the act in the store's moving camera. Is the crime consummated, frustrated, or attempted? (5%)
Criminal liability is incurred by them although no crime resulted, because their act of trying to poison Jun is criminal, 2. No, the answer would not be the same as above. Jerry and Buddy would be liable instead for less serious physical injuries for causing the hospitalization and medical attendance for 10 days to Jun. Their act of mixing with the food eaten by Jun the matter which required such medical attendance, committed with criminal intent, renders them liable for the resulting injury.
STAGES OF EXECUTION
SUGGESTED ANSWER: The crime is consummated theft because the taking of the bracelets was complete after Julia succeeded in putting them in her purse. Julia acquired complete control of the bracelets after putting them in her purse; hence, the taking with intent to gain is complete and thus the crime is consummated. ART.6- Stages of execution - Crime of theft; attempted; consummated (2000) Sunshine, a beauteous “colegiala” but a shoplifter, went to the Ever Department Store and proceeded 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
37
1. Jerry and Buddy are liable for the so-called “impossible crime” because, with intent to kill, they tried to poison Jun and thus perpetrate murder, a crime against persons. Jun was not poisoned only because the would-be killers were unaware that what they mixed with the food of Jun was powdered milk, not poison. In short, the act done with criminal intent by Jerry and Buddy, would have constituted a crime against persons were it not for the inherent inefficacy of the means employed.
Page
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
consummated, frustrated or attempted? Explain. (5%)
ART.6--Stages of execution – Frustrated murder (2009)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Delmo learned that his enemy, Oscar, was confined at the Intensive Care Unit (ICU) of the Philippine Medical Center. Intending to kill Oscar, Delmo disguised himself as a nurse, entered the ICU, and saw a man lying on the hospital bed with several lifesaving tubes attached to the body. Delmo disconnected the tubes and left. Later, the resident physician doing his rounds entered the ICU and, seeing the disconnected tubes, replaced them. The patient survived. It turned out that the patient was Larry, as Oscar had been discharged from the hospital earlier.
–
Taking into account the nature and elements of the felonies of coup d’etat and rape, may one be criminally liable for frustrated coup d'etat or frustrated rape? Explain. (2%) SUGGESTED ANSWER: No, a person may not be held liable for frustrated coup d'etat or for frustrated rape because in a frustrated felony, it is required that all acts of execution that could produce the felony as a consequence must have been performed by the offender but the felony was not produced by reason of causes independent of the will of the offender. In the said felonies, however, one cannot perform all the acts of execution without consummating the felony. The said felonies, therefore, do not admit of the frustrated stage.
SUGGESTED ANSWER: Delmo was correctly charged with the crime of frustrated murder qualified by treachery—not evident premeditation because the victim was different from the one premeditated against. Delmo has performed all the acts of execution that would produce the death of the victim but for reasons independent of the will of the perpetrator, the death of the victim was not accomplished. Treachery qualifies the crime, because the means, manner and method of committing the intended killing were consciously adopted to insure its execution without risk that may arise from the defense the victim may make. Evident premeditation is absorbed in the treachery. Art 6: Consummated theft (1998)
38
ART.6--Stages of execution Frustrated felony (2005)
Delmo was charged with frustrated murder, qualified by evident premeditation and treachery as aggravating circumstances. Discuss the propriety of the charge. (4%)
Page
The theft was consummated because the taking or asportation was complete. The asportation is 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.
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
The crime is consummated theft because the taking of the bracelets was complete after Julia succeeded in putting them in her purse. Julia acquired complete control of the bracelets after putting them in her purse; hence, the taking with intent to gain is complete and thus the crime is consummated. Art 6: Theft; attempted; consummated (2000) Sunshine, a beauteous “colegiala” but a shoplifter, went to the Ever Department Store and proceeded 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:
Art. 6 (consummated carnapping) Art. 249; Art. 263; Homicide, Serious Physical Injuries and Damage to property resulting from reckless imprudence (1993) Dodoy, possessing only a student driver's permit, found a parked car with the key left in the ignition, he proceeded to drive it away, intending to sell it. Just then Ting, the owner of the car, arrived. Failing to make Dodoy stop. Ting boarded a taxi and pursued Dodoy, who in his haste to escape, and because of his inexperience, violently collided with a jeepney full of passengers. The jeepney overturned and was wrecked. One passenger was killed: the leg of the other passenger was crushed and had to be amputated. The car of Ting was damaged to the tune of P20.000.00. What offense or offenses may Dodoy be charged with? Discuss. SUGGESTED ANSWER: Dodong may be charged with consummated carnnaping. Homicide, Serious Physical Injuries and Damage to property resulting from reckless imprudence.
39
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The theft was consummated because the taking or asportation was complete. The asportation is 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.
Page
In the jewelry section of a big department store, Julia snatched a couple of bracelets and put these in her purse. At the store's exit, however, she was arrested by the guard after being radioed by the store personnel who caught the act in the store's moving camera. Is the crime consummated, frustrated, or attempted? (5%)
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
Please take note that with respect to Espiritu Case, taking hold of the object is enough to consummate the crime: although in the Dino case, it is still frustrated because there is inability to dispose freely the object.
patient survived. It turned out that the patient was Larry, as Oscar had been discharged from the hospital earlier. Delmo was charged with frustrated murder, qualified by evident premeditation and treachery as aggravating circumstances. Discuss the propriety of the charge. (4%)
Art 6: Frustrated felony (2005) SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, a person may not be held liable for frustrated coup d'etat or for frustrated rape because in a frustrated felony, it is required that all acts of execution that could produce the felony as a consequence must have been performed by the offender but the felony was not produced by reason of causes independent of the will of the offender. In the said felonies, however, one cannot perform all the acts of execution without consummating the felony. The said felonies, therefore, do not admit of the frustrated stage. Art 6: Frustrated murder (2009) Delmo learned that his enemy, Oscar, was confined at the Intensive Care Unit (ICU) of the Philippine Medical Center. Intending to kill Oscar, Delmo disguised himself as a nurse, entered the ICU, and saw a man lying on the hospital bed with several lifesaving tubes attached to the body. Delmo disconnected the tubes and left. Later, the resident physician doing his rounds entered the ICU and, seeing the disconnected tubes, replaced them. The
LIGHT FELONIES Art 7 Light Felonies in relation to Art 16 (1988) When are light felonies punishable and who are liable in light felonies? SUGGESTED ANSWER: Light felonies, according to Article 7 of the Revised Penal Code are punishable “only when they have been consummated, with the exception of those committed against persons or property.” Article. 16 of the Revised Penal Code provides that “the following are criminally liable for light felonies: 1. Principals 2. Accomplices.
40
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Delmo was correctly charged with the crime of frustrated murder. Delmo has performed all the acts of execution that would produce the death of the victim but for reasons independent of the will of the perpetrator, the death of the victim was not accomplished.
Page
Taking into account the nature and elements of the felonies of coup d’etat and rape, may one be criminally liable for frustrated coup d'etat or frustrated rape? Explain. (2%)
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
CONSPIRACY ART. 8-[b] Wheel vs Circle and Chain (2016)
Art. 8: Conspiracy as a Felony vs as a Manner (2012)
Differentiate wheel conspiracy and chain conspiracy. (2.5%)
Distinguish by way of illustration conspiracy as a felony from conspiracy as a manner of incurring liability in relation to the crimes of rebellion and murder.
A “wheel conspiracy” occurs when there is a single person or group (the hub) dealing individually with two or more other persons or groups (spokes). The spoke typically interacts with the hub rather than with another spoke. In the event that the spoke shares a common purpose to succeed, there is a single conspiracy. However, in the instances when each spoke is unconcerned with the success of the other spokes, there are multiple conspiracies. A “chain conspiracy”, on the other hand, exists when there is successive communication and cooperation in much the same way as with legitimate business operations between manufacturer and wholesaler, then wholesaler and retailer, and then retailer and consumer (Estrada v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. 138965, 26 February 2002). Art. 8: Define conspiracy (2012) SUGGESTED ANSWER: Conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it.
Conspiracy to commit rebellion – if “A” and “B” conspired to overthrow the government, conspiracy is punishable. Conspiracy to commit rebellion is a felony. Rebellion – if they committed rebellion, they are equally liable for the crime of rebellion. However, they will not be additionally charged with conspiracy to commit rebellion. Since they committed what they conspired, conspiracy will not be considered as an independent felony but as a manner of incurring criminal responsibility. Art. 8: Conspiracy (1991) During a fiesta, Simeon Marco, brandishing a knife, asked Constancio whether he was the one who slapped his (Simeon's) son the year previous. Vicente (father of Constancio) shouted at Constancio and his other son, Bien- venido, telling them to run away. When Bienvenido passed by Rafael Marco (brother of Simeon), Rafael stabbed him. Bienvenido parried the blow but fell down, his feet entangled with some vines. While Bienvenido was lying on the ground, Rafael continued to stab him, inflicting slight injuries on the shoulder of Bienvenido, after which Rafael stood up. At that moment, Dulcisimo Beltran (no relation to the Marco brothers), came out of nowhere and, together with Simeon, stabbed Bienvenido. Both of them inflicted
41
There are two structures of multiple conspiracies, namely: wheel or circle conspiracy and chain conspiracy.
Page
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
fatal wounds resulting in the death of the victim.
the victim and hence, liable collectively. The act of one is the act of all.
Discuss the criminal liability of Dulcisimo, Simeon and Rafael.
The existence of a conspiracy among the offenders can be clearly deduced or inferred from the manner they committed the killing, demonstrating a common criminal purpose and intent. There being a conspiracy, the individual acts of each participant is not considered because their liability is collective.
SUGGESTED ANSWER: Simeon and Dulcisimo will be liable for the death of Bienvenido as the fatal injuries sustained by the victim were inflicted by the two. Rafael is not liable for slight physical injuries as conspiracy was not present, and there was no apparent intent to kill when he inflicted the slight physical injuries on the aim of the victim.
Art. 8: Conspiracy (1993) As a result of a misunderstanding during a meeting, Joe was mauled by Nestor, Jolan, Reden and Arthur. He ran towards his house but the four chased and caught him. Thereafter, they tied Joe’s hands at his back and attacked him. Nestor used a knife; Jolan, a shovel; Arthur, his fists; and Reden, a piece of wood. After killing Joe, Reden ordered the digging of a grave to bury Joe’s lifeless body. Thereafter, the four (4) left together. Convicted for the killing of Joe,
Art. 8: Conspiracy to commit robbery (1996) Jose, Domingo. Manolo, and Fernando, armed with bolos, at about one o'clock in the morning, robbed a house at a desolate place where Danilo, his wife, and three daughters were living. While the four were in the process of ransacking Danilo’s house, Fernando, noticing that one of Danilo’s daughters was trying to get away, ran after her and finally caught up with her in a thicket somewhat distant from the house. Fernando, before bringing back the daughter to the house, raped her first. Thereafter, the four carted away the belongings of Danilo and his family. What crime did Jose, Domingo. Manolo and Fernando commit? Explain.
Would you sustain his claim? Why? SUGGESTED ANSWER: No. Arthur’s claim is without merit. The offenders acted in conspiracy in killing
Jose, Domingo, and Manolo committed Robbery, while Fernando committed complex crime of Robbery with Rape. Conspiracy can be inferred from the manner the offenders committed the robbery but the rape was committed by Fernando at a place “distant from the house” where the robbery was committed, not in the presence of the other conspirators. Hence, Fernando
Page
Arthur now claims that his conviction is erroneous as it was not he who inflicted the fatal blow.
42
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
alone should answer for the rape, rendering him liable for the special complex crime. [People vs. Cardurta et at, G.R. 108490. 22 June 1995) Art. 8: Conspiracy (1994) At about 9:30 in the evening, while Dino and Raffy were walking along Padre Faura Street, Manila. Johnny hit them with a rock injuring Dino at the back. Raffy approached Dino but suddenly, Bobby, Steve, Danny and Nonoy surrounded the duo. Then Bobby stabbed Dino. Steve, Danny. Nonoy and Johnny kept on hitting Dino and Raffy with rocks. As a result, Dino died. Bobby, Steve, Danny, Nonoy and Johnny were charged with homicide.
foot to the house of F. B positioned himself at a distance as the group's lookout. C and D stood guard outside the house. Before A could enter the house, D left the scene without the knowledge of the others. A stealthily entered the house and stabbed F. F ran to the street but was blocked by C, forcing him to flee towards another direction. Immediately after A had stabbed F. A also stabbed G who was visiting F. Thereafter, A exited from the house and, together with B and C, returned to the waiting taxicab and motored away. G died, F survived. Who are liable for the death of G and the physical injuries of F? SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Is there conspiracy in this case?
Art. 8: Criminal law – Conspiracy (1997) A had a grudge against F. Deciding to kill F, A and his friends, B, C, and D, armed themselves with knives and proceeded to the house of F, taking a taxicab for the purpose. About 20 meters from their destination, the group alighted and after instructing B, the driver, to wait, traveled on
Since B, C, and D did not know of the stabbing of G by A, they cannot be held criminally therefor E. the driver, cannot be also held liable for the death of G since the former was completely unaware of said killing. For the physical injuries of A, B and C, should be held liable therefore. Even if it was only A who actually stabbed and caused physical injuries to G, B and C are nonetheless liable for conspiring with A and for contributing positive acts which led to the realization of a common criminal intent. B positioned himself as a lookout, while C blocked F's escape. D, however, although part of the conspiracy, cannot be held liable because he left the scene before A could enter the house where the stabbing
43
Yes, there is conspiracy among the offenders, as manifested by their concerted actions against the victims, demonstrating a common felonious purpose of assaulting the victims. The existence of the conspiracy can be inferred or deduced from the manner the offenders acted in commonly attacking Dino and Raffy with rocks, thereby demonstrating a unity of criminal design to inflict harm on their victims.
Page
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
A alone should be held liable for the death of G. The object of the conspiracy of A B, C, and D was to kill F only.
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
occurred. Although he was earlier part of the conspiracy, he did not personally participate in the execution of the crime by acts which directly tended toward the same end (People vs. Tamaro. et al, 44 Phil. 38). In the same breath, E, the driver, cannot be also held liable for the infliction of physical injuries upon F because there is no showing that he had knowledge of the plan to kill F. Art. 8: Implied conspiracy (1998) What is the doctrine of implied conspiracy? [3%] SUGGESTED ANSWER: The doctrine of conspiracy holds two or more persons participating in the commission of a crime collectively responsible and liable as coconspirators although absent any agreement to that effect, when they act in concert, demonstrating unity of criminal intent and a common purpose or objective. The existence of a conspiracy shall be inferred or deduced from their criminal participation in pursuing the crime and thus the act of one shall be deemed the act of all. Art. 8: Implied conspiracy (2003) State the concept of “implied conspiracy” and give its legal effects.
concert in the commission of the crime, meaning that their acts are coordinated or synchronized in a way indicative that they are pursuing a common criminal objective, they shall be deemed to be acting in conspiracy and their criminal liability shall be collective, not individual. The legal effects conspiracy” are:
of
an
“implied
1. Not all those who are present at the scene of the crime will be considered conspirators; 2. Only those who participated by criminal acts in the commission of the crime will be considered as coconspirators; and 3. Mere acquiescence to or approval of the commission of the crime, without any act of criminal participation, shall not render one criminally liable as coconspirator. Art. 8: Conspiracy (1988) In the course of funeral procession, a young mourner who was marching in front of the funeral hearse, momentarily stooped down to tie her shoelaces which had become untied. The driver of the hearse, who was driving at 5 miles an hour, was then looking at the stores by the roadside and did not see her. He continued to drive on and ran over the girl. When the people around shouted and gestured, he backed up and ran over the girl a second time, killing her.
Page
(a) An “implied conspiracy” is one which is only inferred or deduced from the manner the participants in the commission of crime carried out its execution. Where the offenders acted in
If you were the-parent of the girl-victim, what crime would you charge, if you think a crime had been committed, and against whom? Explain your answer briefly.
44
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
At a pre-wedding celebration where plenty of people were milling and walking about or standing close together, a mad killer shot up the wedding party. The three appellants were convicted by the owner court as coconspirators of the killer because they were allegedly with him before, during, and after the shooting. It was proven conclusively that the appellant were friends of the killer; that they went together with the killer to the celebration; and that they left at the same time with the killer, after the shooting. However, the appellants had no guns and passively witnessed the without intervening in the killing in any way nor shielding killer. Is there conspiracy among them? Why?
implementation of the Land Reform Law in Cotabato Province. Jose and Pedro promised to finance the group and to buy firearms for the purpose. The former soldiers agreed. After Jose and Pedro left, A, the leader of the former soldiers, said that in the meanwhile he needed money to support his family. D suggested that they rob a bank and agreed to carry out the plan on the 15 th day of the month. Unknown to all of them, as they were conferring with Jose and Pedro and as they were planning to rob the bank, Rosauro, a house boy, was within hearing distance. On the pretext of buying cigarettes, Ro6auro instead went directly to the Police and told them what transpired. All the former soldiers, as well as Jose and Pedro, were arrested.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Art. 8: Conspiracy to commit sedition (1987) A, B, C, D, and E were former soldiers who deserted their command in Mindanao. Jose and Pedro, two big landowners, called A. B, C, D, and E to a conference. Jose and Pedro proposed to these former soldiers that they recruit their comrades and organize a group of 100 for the purpose of challenging the government by force of arms in order to prevent the enforcement or
B.
What about Jose and Pedro?
SUGGESTED ANSWER: A. The former soldiers committed the crime of conspiracy to commit sedition. What Jose and Pedro proposed to the soldiers that they recruit their comrades and organize a group of 100 for the purpose of challenging the government by force of arms in order to prevent the implementation of the Land Reform Law in Cotabato Province is to commit sedition. Proposal to commit sedition is not punished. But since the soldiers agreed, a conspiracy to commit sedition resulted which is now punishable. Conspiracy arises on the very moment the plotters agree (People vs. Peralta 25 SCRA 759; People vs. Tiongson 12 SCRA 402).
45
There is no conspiracy among them because as the problem has stated, they passively witnessed the shooting. No overt act was committed therefore the element that the conspiracy must be proved as the essence of the crime itself is not present.
A. What crime, if any, did the former soldiers commit?
Page
Only the driver could be charged of homicide thru reckless imprudence or homicide thru simple negligence which preclude conspiracy against those who shouted and gestured.
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
A. BB and CC, both armed with knives, attacked FT. The victim’s son, ST, upon seeing the attack, drew his gun but was prevented from shooting the attackers by AA, who grappled with him for possession of the gun. FT died from knife wounds. AA, BB and CC were charged with murder. In his defense, AA invoked the justifying circumstance of avoidance of greater evil or injury, contending that by preventing ST from shooting BB and CC, he merely avoided a greater evil. Will AA’s defense prosper? Reason briefly. (5%) SUGGESTED ANSWER: A. No, AA’s defense will not prosper because obviously there was a conspiracy among BB, CC and AA, such that the principle that when there is a conspiracy, the act of one is the act of all, shall govern. The act of ST, the victim’s son, appears to be a legitimate defense of relatives; hence, justified as a defense of his father against the unlawful aggression by BB and CC. ST’s act to defend his father’s life, cannot be regarded as an evil inasmuch as it is, in the eyes of the law, a lawful act.
Art. 8: Conspiracy to commit robbery (2005) Jose employed Mario as gardener and Henry as cook. They learned that Jose won P5, 000,000.00 in the-lotto, and decided to rob him. Mario positioned himself about 30 meters away from Jose's house and acted as lookout. For his part. Henry surreptitiously gained entry into the house and killed Jose who was then having his dinner. Henry found the P5,000,000.00 and took it. Henry then took a can of gasoline from the garage and burned the house to conceal the acts. Mario and Henry fled, but were arrested around 200 meters away from the house by alert barangay tanods. The tanods recovered the P500,000.00. Mario and Henry were charged with and convicted of robbery with homicide, with the aggravating circumstances of arson, dwelling, and nighttime. Mario moved to reconsider the decision maintaining that he was not at the scene of the crime and was not aware that Henry killed the victim; hence, he was guilty only of robber, as an accomplice. Mario also claimed that he conspired with Hemy to commit robbery but not to kill Jose. Henry, likewise, moved to reconsider the decision, asserting that he is liable only for attempted robbery with homicide with no aggravating circumstance; dwelling is not aggravating in attempted robbery with homicide; and nighttime is not aggravating because the house of Jose was lighted at the time he was killed.
46
Art. 8: Act of one is the act of all (2004)
What AA did was to stop a lawful defense, not greater evil, to allow BB and CC achieve their criminal objective of stabbing FT.
Page
B. Jose and Pedro will also be liable for conspiracy to commit sedition since they are members of the conspiracy where the act of one is the act of all. If the soldiers did not agree to their proposal, they would not incur any criminal liability because there is no pro-posal to commit sedition.
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
The motion of Mario contending that he should be liable only as an accomplice is without merit. There was conspiracy to commit the robbery between him and Henry. Thus, the act of one is the act of all. Since the conspiracy was only to commit robbery, Mario should be liable only for robbery as a co-principal, not for the composite crime of robbery with homicide. Mario, being 30 meters away from the victim's house, could not have known what Henry was doing inside the victim’s (Jose's) house, so much so that he was not in a position to stop the same. Mario, therefore, cannot properly be made answerable for what Henry did inside Jose's house which was not agreed upon. Applying the subjective test to his participation as a coconspirator to the robbery, Mario’s criminal liability should be aggravated by nighttime but not by dwelling or arson. Henry's motion to reconsider the decision is, likewise, without merit and should be denied. He is criminally liable for robbery with homicide. His contention that he is only liable for attempted robbery with homicide is not correct because the unlawful taking of the P500,000.00 is deemed complete from the moment he gained control of the money even if he had no opportunity to dispose of the same. The killing of Jose, having been committed on the occasion of a robbery, becomes a component of the robbery,
The burning of the house or arson accompanying the robbery is only a component of the robbery under Article 294 (1), Revised Penal Code. Such burning does not constitute a separate crime from robbery with homicide. Nighttime is aggravating, applying the subjective test, unless the house of Jose was indeed well-lighted during the commission of the crime. Art. 8: Conspiracy; Special complex crime of robbery with serious physical injuries (1992) Efren, Greggy and Hilario, wearing fatigues and carrying unlicensed firearms, barged into the residence of Amulfo Dilat at Scout Lazcano St. (Before making their entrance, they gave instructions to their companion Sakay to stand watch outside). Once inside, they announced that they were members of the Philippine National Police (PNP) on an official mission. Inside the master bedroom, they demanded from Luningning, the wife of Amulfo, cash and jewelries. After receiving the jewelries but before the money could be handed to them, they heard their companion Sakay shouting: “Pulis! Pulis!" Panic-stricken, Efren shot Amulfo who was seriously injured. Greggy and Hilarto picked up the jewelry box whose contents spilled all over the floor as they rushed out. Before they
47
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
giving rise to the special complex crime of robbery with homicide. Since Henry alone committed the killing of Jose a fact unknown to Mario, Henry alone should be convicted for said crime. Dwelling, although not aggravating in robbery with force upon things where the circumstance is inherent, is aggravating in robbery with violence against or with intimidation of persons.
Page
Resolve with reasons the respective motions of Mario and Henry. (7%)
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
could make good their escape, however, the police blocked their way, one of them clutching Sakay by the collar. They were forthwith brought to the Police Headquarters nearby.
What crime or crimes did XA, YB and ZC commit, and what is the criminal liability of each? Explain briefly. (5%)
Discuss the individual and collective criminal liabilities of Efren, Greggy, Hilario and Sakay.
B. The crime committed by XA, YB and ZC is the composite crime of Robbery with Rape, a single, indivisible offense under Art. 294(1) of the Revised Penal Code.
Sakay, who seems to have participated only as lookout, still will be liable as principal because of the conspiracy. Even if there is none, he is criminally liable as a principal by indispensable cooperation. Art. 8: Conspiracy - Special complex crime of robbery with rape (Art 294) (2004) B. Together XA, YB and ZC planned to rob Miss OD. They entered her house by breaking one of the windows in her house. After taking her personal properties and as they were about to leave, XA decided on impulse to rape OD. As XA was molesting her, YB and ZC stood outside the door of her bedroom and did nothing to prevent XA from raping OD.
Although the conspiracy among the offenders was only to commit robbery and only XA raped CD, the other robbers, YB and ZC, were present and aware of the rape being committed by their co-conspirator. Having done nothing to stop XA from committing the rape, YB and ZC thereby concurred in the commission of the rape by their coconspirator XA. The criminal liability of all, XA, YZ and ZC, shall be the same, as principals in the special complex crime of robbery with rape which is a single, indivisible offense where the rape accompanying the robbery is just a component. Art. 8 Criminal law – Conspiracy In relation to Special complex crime of robbery with homicide (2003) A and B, both store janitors, planned to kill their employer C at midnight and take the money kept in the cash register. A and B together drew the sketch of the store, where they knew C would be sleeping, and planned the sequence of their attack. Shortly before midnight, A and B were ready to carry out the plan. When A was about to lift C's mosquito net to thrust his dagger, a police car with sirens blaring passed by. Scared, B ran out of the store and fled, while A went on to stab C to death,
48
There appears to be conspiracy amongst the four offenders; in which case the act of one becomes the act of all. Ergo, they are all liable for the consequent crime, which is robbery under Art. 299, special complex crime of robbery with serious physical injuries, committed in an inhabited house, by pretending to be persons in authority. There is no band as only three are armed.
Page
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
There was an expressed conspiracy between A and B to kill C and take the latter’s money. The planned killing and taking of the money appears to be intimately related as component crimes, hence a special complex crime of robbery with homicide. The conspiracy being expressed, not just implied, A and B are bound as co-conspirators after they have planned and agreed on the sequence of their attack even before they committed the crime. Therefore, the principle in law that when there is a conspiracy, the act of one is the act of all, already governs them, in fact, A and B were already in the store to carry out their criminal plan. That B ran out of the store and fled upon hearing the sirens of the police car, is not spontaneous desistance but flight to evade apprehension. It would be different if B then tried to stop A from continuing with the commission of the crime; he did not. So the act of A in pursuing the commission of the crime which both he and B designed, planned, and commenced to commit, would also be the act of B because of their expressed conspiracy. Both are liable for the composite crime of robbery with homicide. Art. 8 Conspiracy and proposal in relation to Special complex crime of robbery with homicide (2007)
What crime or crimes did Jervis, Marlon and Jonathan commit? Explain your answer. SUGGESTED ANSWER: Jervis and Marlon committed the crime of robbery, while Jonathan committed the special complex crime of robbery with homicide. Jervis and Marlon are criminally liable for the robbery only, because that was the crime conspired upon and actually committed by them, assuming that the taking of the cellphones and the cash from the bank's customers was effected with intimidation. They will not incur liability for the death of the pedestrian because they have nothing to do with it. Only Jonathan will incur liability for the death of the pedestrian, aside from the robbery, because he alone brought about such death. Although the death caused was not intentional but accidental, it shall be a component of the special complex crime of robbery with homicide because it was committed in the course of the commission of the robbery.
49
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Jervis and Marlon asked their friend, Jonathan, to help them rob a bank. Jervis and Marlon went inside the bank, but were unable to get any money from the vault because the same was protected by a time-delay mechanism. They contented themselves with the customers' cellphones and a total of P5,000 in cash. After they dashed out of the bank and rushed into the car, Jonathan pulled the car out of the curb, hitting a pedestrian which resulted in the latter's death.
Page
put the money in the bag, and ran outside to look for B. The latter was nowhere in sight. Unknown to him, B had already left the place. What was the participation and corresponding criminal liability of each, if any? Reasons.
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
What crime or crimes were committed by Job and Nonoy? 2.5% What penalties should be imposed on them? 2.5% SUGGESTED ANSWER: Because of obvious conspiracy, each of the culprits should be punished not only for the rape he committed but also for the rape committed by the other; hence, for as many counts of rape committed by him plus those committed by the other culprit against each of the victims. Although the penalty for the crime of rape with homicide was death at the time the accused committed them, and the law (Rep. Act No. 9346) prohibiting the imposition of the death penalty took effect only this year (2006), said new law
Art. 8. Conspiracy and proposal (2008) Ricky was reviewing for the bar exam when the commander of a vigilante group came to him and showed him a list of five policemen to be liquidated by them for graft and corruption. He was further asked if any of them is innocent. After going over the list, Ricky pointed to two of the policemen as honest. Later, the vigilante group liquidated the three other policemen in the list. The commander of the vigilante group reported the liquidation to Ricky. Is Ricky criminally liable? Explain. (7%) SUGGESTED ANSWER: No, Ricky is not criminally liable because he has not done any overt act that the law punishes as a crime. He did not conspire with the vigilante group. Although his act of pointing out two policemen as honest men may imply his acquiescence to the vigilante's conclusion that the others were corrupt and deserved to be killed, mere acquiescence to a crime, absent any criminal participation, does not make one a coconspirator. Art. 8: Conspiracy and proposal (2008)
50
Dang was a beauty queen in a university. Job, a rich classmate, was so enamored with her that he persistently wooed and pursued her. Dang, being in love with another man, rejected him. This angered Job. Sometime in September 2003, while Dang and her sister Lyn were on their way home, Job and his minor friend Nonoy grabbed them and pushed them inside a white van. They brought them in an abandoned warehouse where they forced them to dance naked. Thereafter, they brought them to a hill in a nearby barangay where they took turns raping them. After satisfying their lust, Job ordered Nonoy to push Dang down a ravine, resulting in her death. Lyn ran away but Job and Nonoy chased her and pushed her inside the van. Then the duo drove away. Lyn was never seen again.
should be given retroactive effect because it is favorable to the culprits who are not habitual delinquents and there being no provision of law to the contrary. Hence, reclusion perpetua for each count of rape with homicide. The accessory penalty under Art. 40 of the Revised Penal Code will not follow because RA 9346, Sec. 2 does not so provide: it is the accessory penalty for reclusion perpetua that shall now adhere to the principal penalty.
Page
Art. 8: Conspiracy and proposal In relation to PENALTIES (2006)
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
a) What is the criminal liability of Eman, if any? Explain. (3%) SUGGESTED ANSWER: a) Eman has no criminal liability, unless he received part of the proceeds of the pawned ring. The facts do not state that Eman received any part of the P50,000.00 proceeds of the ring pledged. The facts state that after turning over the bag to P01 Melvin, Eman never saw P01 Melvin again. The proposal Eman made to P01 Melvin is not a crime as to bring about criminal liability. Art. 8 Conspiracy In relation to Art. 294 robbery with rape (1999) Two young men, A and B, conspired to rob a residential house of things of value. They succeeded in the commission of their original plan to simply rob. A, however, was sexually aroused when he saw the lady owner of the house and so, raped her. The lady victim testified that B did not in any way participate in the rape but B watched
Is B as criminally liable as A for robbery with rape? Explain. (4%) (1999 Bar Question) SUGGESTED ANSWER: Yes, B is as criminally liable as A for the composite crime of robbery with rape under Art. 294 (1). Although the conspiracy of A and B was only to rob, B was present when the rape was being committed which gave rise to a composite crime, a single indivisible offense of robbery with rape. B would not have been liable had he endeavored to prevent the commission of the rape. But since he did not when he could have done so, he in effect acquiesced with the rape as a component of the robbery and so he is also liable for robbery with rape. ART.8-Define conspiracy. (2012) SUGGESTED ANSWER: Conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it. ART.8--Distinguish by way of illustration conspiracy as a felony from conspiracy as a manner of incurring liability in relation to the crimes of rebellion and murder. Conspiracy to commit rebellion – if “A” and “B” conspired to overthrow the government, conspiracy is punishable. Conspiracy to commit rebellion is a felony. Rebellion – if they committed rebellion, they are equally liable for the crime of rebellion. However, they will
51
Knowing that it was not his, he went to the nearest police station to seek help in finding the owner of the bag. At the precinct P01 Melvin attended to him. In the investigation Eman proposed to P01 Melvin, "in case you don't find the owner let's just pawn the ring and split the proceeds fifty-fifty (50/50)." P01 Melvin then went straight to the pawnshop and pawned the ring for P50,000. Eman never saw P01 Melvin again.
the happening from a window and did nothing to stop the rape.
Page
Eman, a vagrant, found a bag containing identification cards and a diamond ring along Roxas Blvd.
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
ART.8-- Conspiracy (1991) During a fiesta, Simeon Marco, brandishing a knife, asked Constancio whether he was the one who slapped his (Simeon's) son the year previous. Vicente (father of Constancio) shouted at Constancio and his other son, Bien- venido, telling them to run away. When Bienvenido passed by Rafael Marco (brother of Simeon), Rafael stabbed him. Bienvenido parried the blow but fell down, his feet entangled with some vines. While Bienvenido was lying on the ground, Rafael continued to stab him, inflicting slight injuries on the shoulder of Bienvenido, after which Rafael stood up. At that moment, Dulcisimo Beltran (no relation to the Marco brothers), came out of nowhere and, together with Simeon, stabbed Bienvenido. Both of them inflicted fatal wounds resulting in the death of the victim. Discuss the criminal liability of Dulcisimo, Simeon and Rafael.
Simeon and Dulcisimo will be liable for the death of Bienvenido as the fatal injuries sustained by the victim were inflicted by the two. Rafael is not liable for slight physical injuries as conspiracy was not present, and there was no apparent intent to kill when he inflicted the slight physical injuries on the aim of the victim. ART.8-- Conspiracy; murder (1993) As a result of a misunderstanding during a meeting, Joe was mauled by Nestor, Jolan, Reden and Arthur. He ran towards his house but the four chased and caught him. Thereafter, they tied Joe’s hands at his back and attacked him. Nestor used a knife; Jolan, a shovel; Arthur, his fists; and Reden, a piece of wood. After killing Joe, Reden ordered the digging of a grave to bury Joe’s lifeless body. Thereafter, the four (4) left together. Convicted for the killing of Joe, Arthur now claims that his conviction is erroneous as it was not he who inflicted the fatal blow. Would you sustain his claim? Why? What was the crime committed by the four assailants? Discuss with reasons. SUGGESTED ANSWER: No. Arthur’s claim is without merit. The offenders acted in conspiracy in killing the victim and hence, liable collectively. The act of one is the act of all.
52
Conspiracy to commit homicide, not punishable – if “A” and “B” conspire to kill “X”, conspiracy is not punishable. The law provides no penalty for conspiracy to be commit homicide. Homicide – if pursuant to conspiracy to commit homicide, “A” embraced “X” and then “B” stabbed and killed “X”, the conspirators are equally liable for homicide. Conspirators are equally liable for homicide. Conspiracy in this case will be considered as a manner of incurring liability.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Page
not be additionally charged with conspiracy to commit rebellion. Since they committed what they conspired, conspiracy will not be considered as an independent felony but as a manner of incurring criminal responsibility.
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
ART.8-Conspiracy to commit robbery (1996) Jose, Domingo. Manolo, and Fernando, armed with bolos, at about one o'clock in the morning, robbed a house at a desolate place where Danilo, his wife, and three daughters were living. While the four were in the process of ransacking Danilo’s house, Fernando, noticing that one of Danilo’s daughters was trying to get away, ran after her and finally caught up with her in a thicket somewhat distant from the house. Fernando, before bringing back the daughter to the house, raped her first. Thereafter, the four carted away the belongings of Danilo and his family. What crime did Jose, Domingo. Manolo and Fernando commit? Explain. SUGGESTED ANSWER: Jose, Domingo, and Manolo committed Robbery, while Fernando committed
ART.8- Felonies – Proposal to commit kidnapping (1996) Edgardo induced his friend Vicente, in consideration of money, to kidnap a girl he is courting so that he may succeed in raping her and eventually making her accede to marry him. Vicente asked for more money which Edgardo failed to put up. Angered because Edgardo did not put up the money he required, he reported. Edgardo to the police. May Edgardo be charged with attempted kidnapping? Explain. SUGGESTED ANSWER: No, Edgardo may not be charged with attempted kidnapping inasmuch as no overtact to kidnap or restrain the liberty of the girl had been commenced. At most, what Edgardo has done in the premises was a proposal to Vicente to kidnap the girl, which is only a preparatory act and not an overt act. The attempt to commit a felony commences with the commission of overt act, not preparatory act. Proposal to commit kidnapping is not a crime. ART.8--Conspiracy (1994)
53
The crime committed is murder, qualified by treachery because the offenders, taking advantage of their superiority in number, rendered the victim defenseless and without any chance to retaliate, by tying his hands at his back before attacking him. Treachery exists at least in the second and final stage of the attack, after the offenders caught up with the victim.
complex crime of Robbery with Rape. Conspiracy can be inferred from the manner the offenders committed the robbery but the rape was committed by Fernando at a place “distant from the house” where the robbery was committed, not in the presence of the other conspirators. Hence, Fernando alone should answer for the rape, rendering him liable for the special complex crime. [People vs. Cardurta et at, G.R. 108490. 22 June 1995)
Page
The existence of a conspiracy among the offenders can be clearly deduced or inferred from the manner they committed the killing, demonstrating a common criminal purpose and intent. There being a conspiracy, the individual acts of each participant is not considered because their liability is collective.
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
At about 9:30 in the evening, while Dino and Raffy were walking along Padre Faura Street, Manila. Johnny hit them with a rock injuring Dino at the back. Raffy approached Dino but suddenly, Bobby, Steve, Danny and Nonoy surrounded the duo. Then Bobby stabbed Dino. Steve, Danny. Nonoy and Johnny kept on hitting Dino and Raffy with rocks. As a result, Dino died. Bobby, Steve, Danny, Nonoy and Johnny were charged with homicide.
forcing him to flee towards another direction. Immediately after A had stabbed F. A also stabbed G who was visiting F. Thereafter, A exited from the house and, together with B and C, returned to the waiting taxicab and motored away. G died, F survived. Who are liable for the death of G and the physical injuries of F? SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Is there conspiracy in this case?
ART.8-- Conspiracy – Who are liable (1997) A had a grudge against F. Deciding to kill F, A and his friends, B, C, and D, armed themselves with knives and proceeded to the house of F, taking a taxicab for the purpose. About 20 meters from their destination, the group alighted and after instructing B, the driver, to wait, traveled on foot to the house of F. B positioned himself at a distance as the group's lookout. C and D stood guard outside the house. Before A could enter the house, D left the scene without the knowledge of the others. A stealthily entered the house and stabbed F. F ran to the street but was blocked by C,
Since B, C, and D did not know of the stabbing of G by A, they cannot be held criminally therefor E. the driver, cannot be also held liable for the death of G since the former was completely unaware of said killing. For the physical injuries of A, B and C, should be held liable therefore. Even if it was only A who actually stabbed and caused physical injuries to G, B and C are nonetheless liable for conspiring with A and for contributing positive acts which led to the realization of a common criminal intent. B positioned himself as a lookout, while C blocked F's escape. D, however, although part of the conspiracy, cannot be held liable because he left the scene before A could enter the house where the stabbing occurred. Although he was earlier part of the conspiracy, he did not personally participate in the execution of the crime by acts which directly tended toward the same end (People vs. Tamaro. et al, 44 Phil. 38).
54
Yes, there is conspiracy among the offenders, as manifested by their concerted actions against the victims, demonstrating a common felonious purpose of assaulting the victims. The existence of the conspiracy can be inferred or deduced from themannerthe offenders acted in commonly attacking Dino and Raffy with rocks, thereby demonstrating a unity of criminal design to inflict harm on their victims.
A alone should be held liable for the death of G. The object of the conspiracy of A B, C, and D was to kill F only
Page
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
What is the doctrine of implied conspiracy? [3%] (Distinguish between recidivism and quasi-recidivism. (2%) SUGGESTED ANSWER: The doctrine of conspiracy holds two or more persons participating in the commission of a crime collectively responsible and liable as coconspirators although absent any agreement to that effect, when they act in concert, demonstrating unity of criminal intent and a common purpose or objective. The existence of a conspiracy shall be inferred or deduced from their criminal participation in pursuing the crime and thus the act of one shall be deemed the act of all.
The legal effects of an “implied conspiracy” are: Not all those who are present at the scene of the crime will be considered conspirators; 1. Only those who participated by criminal acts in the commission of the crime will be considered as coconspirators; and 2. Mere acquiescence to or approval of the commission of the crime, without any act of criminal participation, shall not render one criminally liable as coconspirator. Art. 8: Proposal (1996)
ART.8- “Implied conspiracy” (2003)
Edgardo induced his friend Vicente, in consideration of money, to kidnap a girl he is courting so that he may succeed in raping her and eventually making her accede to marry him. Vicente asked for more money which Edgardo failed to put up. Angered because Edgardo did not put up the money he required, he reported. Edgardo to the police.
State the concept of “implied conspiracy” and give its legal effects.
May Edgardo be charged with attempted kidnapping? Explain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
(a) An “implied conspiracy” is one which is only inferred or deduced from the manner the participants in the commission of crime carried out its execution. Where the offenders acted in concert in the commission of the crime, meaning that their acts are coordinated or synchronized in a way indicative that they are pursuing a common criminal objective, they shall be deemed to be
No, Edgardo may not be charged with attempted kidnapping inasmuch as no overt act to kidnap or restrain the liberty of the girl had been commenced. At most, what Edgardo has done in the premises was a proposal to Vicente to kidnap the girl, which is only a preparatory act and not an overt act. The attempt to commit a felony commences with the commission of overt act, not
55
ART.8- Conspiracy - Implied conspiracy (1998)
acting in conspiracy and their criminal liability shall be collective, not individual.
Page
In the same breath, E, the driver, cannot be also held liable for the infliction of physical injuries upon F because there is no showing that he had knowledge of the plan to kill F.
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
Art.11 Defense Of Relative And Stranger (2016) Pedro is married to Tessie. Juan is the first cousin of Tessie. While in the market, Pedro saw a man stabbing Juan. Seeing the attack on Juan, Pedro picked up a spade nearby and hit the attacker on his head which caused the latter's death. Can Pedro be absolved of the killing on the ground that it is in defense of a relative? Explain. (5%) SUGGESTED ANSWER No. the relatives of the accused for purpose of defense of relative under Article 11 (2) of the Revised Penal Code are his spouse, ascendants, descendants, or legitimate, natural or adopted brothers or sisters, or of his relatives by affinity in the same degrees, and those by consanguinity within the fourth civil degree. Relative by affinity within the same degree includes the ascendant, descendant, brother or sister of the spouse of the accused. In this case, Juan is not the ascendant, descendant, brother or sister of Tessie, the spouse of Pedro. Relative by consanguinity within the fourth civil degree includes first cousin. But in this case Juan is the cousin of Pedro by affinity but not by consanguinity. Juan, therefore is not a relative of Pedro for purpose of applying the provision on defense of relative. Pedro, however can invoke defense of stranger. Under the Revised
Art. 11: Self-Defense (1987) Pedro confronted Jose one morning near the letter's house and angrily inquired why he let loose his carabaos which destroyed his plants. Pedro saw that Jose was aimed with a dagger tucked on his waist and thinking that Jose would react violently. Pedro immediately drew his revolver. Instinctively, Jose grabbed the gun from Pedro’s hand and a struggle for possession of the gun ensued, as a result of which the gun was thrown one meter away. Pedro jumped for the gun, and Jose unsheathed his dagger and stabbed Pedro at the base of his neck, causing the latter to fall down. Jose ran away as he was afraid Pedro’s relatives might kill him. He was apprehended three days later in another barrio. Fortunately, Pedro survived after 40 days of hospitalization. The gun turned out to be without live bullets. During the trial for frustrated homicide against Jose, Pedro testified that he drew his gun even while he knew it had no bullets, merely to scare Jose, and he jumped for it when it was thrown away for the same purpose. Jose pleaded self-defense. The Fiscal argued that Jose’s act of running away is evidence of guilt and negates self-defense. He also said that, in any event, there was no reasonable necessity of the means employed — namely, stabbing with a dagger — because Pedro’s gun had no bullets.
56
JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES
Penal Code, a person who defends a person who is not his relative may invoke the defense of a stranger provided that all its elements exist, to wit: (a) unlawful aggression, (b) reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel the attack; and (c) the person defending be not induced by revenge, resentment, or other evil motive.
Page
preparatory act. Proposal to commit kidnapping is not a crime.
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
Jose is entitled to self-defense. Considering the circumstance of the case, unlawful aggression, the first element of self-defense is present. Pedro loose his carabaos which destroyed his plants and he then loose his carabaos whicn destroyed his plants and then immediately drew his revolver which Jose instinctively grabbed from Pedro’s hand. In the struggle for the possession for the revolver, it was thrown one meter away, and when Pedro jumped for the gun, Jose unsheathed his dagger and stabbed Pedro who fell down. Jose ran away. The intimidating attitude of Pedro when he drew his revolver constitutes imminent unlawful aggression. Jose did not give any provocation to Pedro. Pedro was in a violent mood and in the mind of Jose, was armed, with revolver, in hand, and what Jose did in grabbing the gun was to prevent an aggression that is expected (People vs. Domingo CA 13 Rep. 1355). Stabbing Pedro with a dagger was the only available means to prevent the expected aggression considering that Jose acted by following his instinct of selfpreservation. The flight of Jose after stabbing Pedro cannot be considered as evidence of guilt because he did so as he was afraid the relatives of Pedro might kill him. Art. 11: Self-Defense (1993) Pat. Negre saw Filemon, an inmate, escaping from jail and ordered the latter to surrender. Instead of doing so, Filemon
Can Pat. Negre claim self defense? Explain. Suppose Pat Negre missed in his shot, and Filemon ran away without parting with his weapon. Pat Negre pursued Filemon but the latter was running so fast that Pat Negre fired warning shots into the air shouting for Filemon to stop. Inasmuch as Filemon continued running Pat. Negre fired at him hitting and killing him. Is the plea of self-defense sustainable? Why would you then hold Pat. Negre criminally liable? Discuss. (1993 Bar Question) SUGGESTED ANSWER: Yes, self-defense can be claimed as there is an imminent and great peril on the life of Negre; No, self-defense is no longer sustainable as there is no more peril on his life; Yes, excessive force is used. Art. 11: Avoid Greater Evil (1990) A. In mercy killing, is the attending physician criminally liable for deliberately turning off the life support system consequently costing the life of the patient? State reasons. (1990 Bar Question) B. How about in an instance when in saving the life of the mother, the doctor sacrificed the life of the unborn child? Explain your answer.
57
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Page
Decide the case.
attacked Pat. Negre with a bamboo spear. Filemon missed in his first attempt to hit Pat. Negre, and before he could strike again, Pat. Negre shot and killed him.
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
b. There is no criminal liability on the part of the doctor because his acts are justified under Article 11(4) of the Revised Penal Code which provides that: "The following do not incur any criminal liability: x x x 4) any person, who in order to avoid an evil or injury, does an act which causes damage to another, provided that the following requisites are present: First: That the evil sought to be avoided actually exists; Second. That the injury feared be greater than that done to avoid it; Third. That there be no other practical and less harmful means of preventing it." Art 11 Lawful Defense Of Property (2008) While Carlos was approaching his car, he saw it being driven away by Paolo, a thief. Carlos tried to stop Paolo by shouting at him, but Paolo ignored him. To prevent his car from being carnapped, Carlos drew his gun, aimed at the rear wheel of the car and fired. The shot blew the tire which caused the car to veer out of control and collide with an oncoming tricycle, killing the tricycle driver. SUGGESTED ANSWER: Carlos did not incur criminal liability because his act of firing at the rear wheel of the car to stop the vehicle and prevent Paolo from taking away his (Carlos') car is neither done with dolo nor culpa. The act does not constitute a crime; it is a reasonable exercise of his
Art. 11 Defense Of Property Rights (1990) In the middle of the night, Enyong heard the footsteps of an intruder inside their house. Enyong picked up his rifle and saw a man, Gorio, with a pistol ransacking Enyong’s personal effects in his study. He shot and killed Gorio. Is Enyong criminally liable for killing the robber Gorio? State your reasons. SUGGESTED ANSWER: Enyong is not criminally liable because he was acting in defense of property rights. Under the case of People v. Narvaez (G.R. Nos. L-33466-67. April 20, 1983, 121 SCRA 389) defense of property need not necessarily be coupled with aggression against persons. Art. 11: Defense Of Honor – When Not Sustained (2000) Osang, a married woman in her early twenties, was sleeping on a banig on the floor of their nipa hut beside the seashore when she was awakened by the act of a man mounting her. Thinking that it was her husband, Gardo, who had returned from fishing in the sea, Osang continued her sleep but allowed the man, who was actually their neighbor, Julio, to have sexual intercourse with her. After Julio satisfied himself, he said “Salamat Osang" as he turned to leave. Only then did Osang realize that the man was not her husband. Enraged, Osang grabbed a balisong from
58
a. The attending physician is criminally liable. Euthanasia is not a justifying circumstance in Philippine jurisdiction.
right to prevent or repel an actual unlawful physical invasion or usurpation of his property pursuant to Art. 429 of the Civil Code.
Page
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
the wall and stabbed Julio to death. When tried for homicide, Osang claimed defense of honor. Should the claim be sustained? Why? (5%) SUGGESTED ANSWER: No, Osang's claim of defense of honor should not be sustained because the aggression on her honor had ceased when she stabbed the aggressor. In defense of rights under paragraph 1, Art. 11 of the RPC, it is required inter alia that there be (1) unlawful aggression, and (2) reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it. The unlawful aggression must be continuing when the aggressor was injured or disabled by the person making a defense.
did." Not recognizing the voice, it dawned upon Lina that the man was not Tito, her husband. Furious. Una took out Tito's gun and shot the man. Charged with homicide Una denies culpability on the ground of defense of honor. Is her claim tenable? 15%. SUGGESTED ANSWER: No, Lina's claim that she acted in defense of honor, is not tenable because the unlawful aggression on her honor had already ceased. Defense of honor as included in self-defense, must have been done to prevent or repel an unlawful aggression. There is no defense to speak of where the unlawful aggression no longer exists. Art. 11: Defense Of Property (2003)
Art. 11: Defense Of Honor; When Untenable (1998) One night, Lina, a young married woman, was sound asleep in her bedroom when she felt a man on top of her. Thinking it was her husband Tito, who came home a day early from his business trip, Una let him have sex with her. After the act, the man said, “I hope you enjoyed it as much as I
SUGGESTED ANSWER: The accused should be convicted because, even assuming the facts to be true in his belief, his act of shooting a burglar when there is no unlawful aggression on his
59
Hence, Osang's act of stabbing Julio to death after the sexual intercourse was finished, is not defense of honor but an immediate vindication of a grave offense committed against her, which is only mitigating.
The accused lived with his family in a neighborhood that often was the scene of frequent robberies. At one time, past midnight, the accused went downstairs with a loaded gun to investigate he thought were footsteps of an uninvited guest. After seeing what appeared to him an armed stranger looking around and out to rob the house, he fired his gun seriously injuring the man. When the lights were turned on, the unfortunate victim turned out to be a brotherin-law on his way to the kitchen to get some light snacks. The accused was indicted for serious physical injuries. Should the accused, given the circumstances, be convicted or acquitted? Why?
Page
But if the aggression that was begun by the injured or disabled party already ceased to exist when the accused attacked him, as in the case at bar, the attack made is a retaliation, and not a defense. Paragraph 1, Article 11 of the Code does not govern.
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
A chanced upon three men who were attacking B with fist blows. C, one of the men, was about to stab B with a knife. Not knowing that B was actually the aggressor because he had earlier challenged the three men to a fight, A shot C as the latter was about to stab B. May A invoke the defense of a stranger as a justifying circumstance in his favor? Why? (2%) SUGGESTED ANSWER: Yes. A may invoke the justifying circumstance of defense of stranger since he was not involved in the fight and he shot C when the latter was about to stab B. There being no indication that A was induced by revenge, resentment, or any other evil motive in shooting C, his act is justified under par. 3, Article 11 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended. Art. 11: Battered Woman Syndrome (2014, 2010) Ms. A had been married to Mr. B for 10 years. Since their marriage, Mr. B had been jobless and a drunkard, preferring to stay with his "barkadas" until the wee hours of the morning. Ms. A was the breadwinner and attended to the needs of their three (3) growing children. Many times, when Mr. B was drunk, he would beat Ms. A and their three (3) children, and shout invectives against them. In fact, in one of the beating
SUGGESTED ANSWER: Yes, Ms. A can put up the defense of battered woman syndrome. It appears that she is suffering from physical and psychological or emotional distress resulting from cumulative abuse by her husband. Under Sec. 3 of R.A. 9262, “victim survivors who are found by courts to be suffering from battered woman syndrome do not incur any criminal and civil liability notwithstanding the absence of any of the elements for justifying circumstances of self defense under the RPC.” Art. 11: Battered Woman Syndrome (2015) Dion and Talia were spouses. Dion always came home drunk since he lost his job a couple of months ago. Talia had gotten used to the verbal abuse from Dion. One night, in addition to the usual verbal abuse, Dion beat up Talia. The next morning, Dion saw the injury that he had inflicted upon
60
Art. 11: Defense of a stranger (2002)
incidents, Ms. A suffered a deep stab wound on her tummy that required a prolonged stay in the hospital. Due to the beatings and verbal abuses committed against her, she consulted a psychologist several times, as she was slowly beginning to lose her mind. One night, when Mr. B arrived dead drunk, he suddenly stabbed Ms. A several times while shouting invectives against her. Defending herself from the attack, Ms. A grappled for the possession of a knife and she succeeded. She then stabbed Mr. B several times which caused his instantaneous death. Medico-Legal Report showed that the husband suffered three (3) stab wounds. Can Ms. A validly put up a defense? Explain.
Page
person is not justified. Defense of property or property right does not justify the act of firing a gun at a burglar unless the life and limb of the accused is already in imminent and immediate danger. Although the accused acted out of a misapprehension of the facts, he is not absolved from criminal liability.
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
SUGGESTED ANSWER: No, a single act of battery or physical harm committed by Dion against Talia resulting to the physical and psychological or emotional distress on her part is not sufficient to avail of the benefit of the justifying circumstance of “Battered Woman Syndrome”. The defense of Battered Woman Syndrome can be invoked if the woman with marital relationship with the victim is subjected to cumulative abuse or battery involving the infliction of physical harm resulting to the physical and psychological or emotional distress. Cumulative means resulting from successive addition. In sum, there must be “at least two battering episodes” between the accused and her intimate partner and such final episode produced in the battered person’s mind an actual fear of an imminent harm from her batterer and an honest belief that she needed to use force in order to save her life (People v. Genosa, G.R. No. 135981, January 15, 2004). b) Will your answer be the same, assuming that Talia killed Dion after being beaten up after a second time? Explain.
Yes, Talia can invoke the defense of Battered Woman Syndrome to free herself from criminal liability for killing her husband since she suffered physical and emotional distress arising from cumulative abuse or battery. Under Section 26 of RA 9262, victim survivors of Battered Woman Syndrome do not incur any criminal or civil liability despite the absence of the requisites of self-defense. Art. 11: Justifying CircumstanceBattered Woman Syndrome (2010) Jack and Jill have been married for seven years. One night, Jack came home drunk. Finding no food on the table, Jack started hitting Jill only to apologize the following day. A week later, the same episode occurred Jack came home drunk and started hitting Jill. Fearing for her life, Jill left and stayed with her sister. To woo Jill back, Jack sent her floral arrangements of spotted lilies and confectioneries. Two days later, Jill returned home and decided to give Jack another chance. After several days, however, Jack again came home drunk. The following day, he was found dead. Jill was charged with parricide but raised the defense of "battered woman syndrome." A. Define "Battered Woman Syndrome? (2%) B. What are the three phases of the "Battered Woman Syndrome"? (3%)
61
a) May Talia invoke the defense of Battered Woman Syndrome to free herself from criminal liability? Explain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Page
Talia and promised her that he would stop drinking and never beat her again. However, Dion did not make good on his promise. Just after one week, he started drinking again. Talia once more endured the usual verbal abuse. Afraid that he might beat her up again, Talia stabbed Dion with a kitchen knife while he was passed out from imbibing too much alcohol. Talia was charged with the crime of parricide.
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
A. "Battered Woman Syndrome" refers to a scientifically defined pattern of psychological and behavioral symptoms found in women living in battering relationships as a result of cumulative abuse (Section 31dj, Rep. Act No. 9262). B. The three (3) phases of the "Battered Woman Syndrome" are: (1) the tensionbuilding phase; (2) the acute battering incident; and (3) the tranquil, loving, or nonviolent phase (People v. Genosa, G.R. No. 135981, January 15, 2004). C. Yes. Section 26 of Rep. Act No. 9262 provides that victim-survivors who are found by the courts to be suffering from battered woman syndrome do not incur any criminal and civil liability notwithstanding the absence of any of the elements for justifying circumstances of self-defense under the Revised Penal Code.
Art 11: Justifying Circumstances in relation to Art 12: Exempting Circumstances Distinction (2004) Distinguish clearly but briefly: (10%) Between justifying and exempting circumstances in criminal law. SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Art. 11; Art 12: Exempting circumstances – in comparison with justifying circumstances; illustration of exempting circumstances; minor below nine (9) years old; (1998) A. Distinguish between justifying and exempting circumstances. [3%] (1998 Bar Question) B. John, an eight-year old boy, is fond of watching the television program "Zeo Rangers." One evening while he was engrossed watching his favorite television show. Petra, a maid changed the channel to enable her to watch “Home Along the Riles." This enraged John who got his father's revolver, and without warning, shot Petra at the back of her head causing her instantaneous death. is John criminally liable? (2%) SUGGESTED ANSWER: A. In justifying circumstances: 1. The circumstance affects the act, not the actor; 2. The act is done within legal bounds, hence considered as not a crime; 3. Since the act is not a crime, there is no criminal;
62
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
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 is incurred; while in exempting circumstance, civil liability is generally incurred although there is no criminal liability
Page
C. Would the defense prosper despite the absence of any of the elements for justifying circumstances of self-defense under the Revised Penal Code? Explain. (2%)
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
4. There being no crime nor criminal, there is no criminal nor civil liability.
to be accidental, the requisites of exempting circumstance of accident are not all present. Said requisites are:
Whereas, in an exempting circumstances:
EXEMPTING CIRCUMSTANCES Art. 12: Exempting circumstances; when not appreciated (1989) Nicandro borrowed Valeriano’s, gun, a high-powered M-16 rifle, to hunt wild pigs. Nicandro was accompanied by his friend, Felix. On their way to the hunting ground, Nicandro and Felix met Pedro near a hut. Pedro told them where to hunt. Later, Nicandro saw a pig and then shot and killed it. The same bullet, however, that killed the pig struck a stone and ricocheted hitting Pedro on his breast. Pedro later died. May Nicandro be held liable for the death of Pedro? Explain. SUGGESTED ANSWER: Nicandro may be held liable for the death of Pedro. While Pedro’s death would seem
Furthermore, considering that the M-16 is a high- powered gun. Nicandro was negligent in not foreseeing that bullets fired from said gun may ricochet. Two separate crimes of serious physical injuries (against the first neighbor whose injuries requires 35 days of medical attendance), and slight physical injuries (against the second neighbor), both through reckless imprudence, were committed by Rodolfo. Although both of these offenses were the result of one single act, a complex crime is not committed because it is only when a single act constitutes two or more grave or less grave felonies that a complex crime may be committed under the first clause of article 48, RPC. Slight physical injuries is not a grave or less grave felonies
Art. 12: Insanity (1991)
63
B. No, John is not criminally liable for killing Petra because he is only 8 years old when he committed the killing. A minor below nine (9) years old is absolutely exempt from criminal liability although not from civil liability. (Art. 12, par. 2, RPC).
When Nicandro borrowed Valeriano’s high powered M-16 rifle and used it for hunting wild pigs, he committed the crime of illegal possession of firearms, as he does not appear to have either a license to possess a high-powered gun or to carry the same outside of his residence. At the time he shot at the wild pig, therefore, Nicandro was not performing a lawful act.
Page
1. The circumstance affects the actor, not the act; 2. The act is felonious and hence a crime but the actor acted without voluntariness; 3. Although there is a crime, there is no criminal because the actor is regarded only as an instrument of the crime; 4. There being a wrong done but no criminal, there is civil liability but no criminal liability.
a. A person is performing a lawful act; b. With due care; c. He causes an injury to another by mere accident; d. Without fault or intention of causing it (Art. 12, par. 4, RPC).
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
SUGGESTED ANSWER: Yes, the court is correct in ruling out insanity as an exempting circumstance. While there was testimony that A was suffering from a mental disorder, the testimony of A’s father disclosed that A had lucid intervals. Because what is presumed is sanity, not insanity, it is to be presumed that A was sane when he committed the crime. Consequently, evidence being wanting that A is completely deprived of reason at the moment of committing the crime, he should be liable. Besides, the
The sentence of “life imprisonment" is not a correct imposition of penalty for the rape: it should be reclusion perpetua, the technical designation of the penalty for the crime under the Revised Penal Code. It is not correct to use the term “life imprisonment” because the accessory penalties to reclusion perpetua does not follow the penalty of “life imprisonment". Furthermore, in reclusion perpetua the duration is stated to be for 30 years. Art. 12: Insanity (2010) While he was on a 2-year scholarship abroad, Romeo was having an affair with his maid Dulcinea. Realizing that the affair was going nowhere, Dulcinea told Romeo that she was going back to the province to marry her childhood sweetheart. Clouded by anger and jealousy, Romeo strangled Dulcinea to death while she was sleeping in the maid’s quarters. The following day, Romeo was found catatonic inside the maid’s quarters. He was brought to the National Center for Mental health (NCMH) where he was diagnosed to be mentally unstable. Charged with murder, Romeo pleaded insanity as a defense. Will Romeo’s defense prosper? Explain. (2%) SUGGESTED ANSWER: No, Romeo’s defense of insanity will not prosper because, even assuming that
64
Given the conflicting testimonies as to sanity of the accused, was the trial court correct in ruling out insanity as an exempting circumstances in this case? Is the sentence of “life imprisonment” a correct imposition of penalty?
crime committed and the acts done by the accused in the commission of the crime hardly reconciles with insanity of the offender, as rape presupposes evident premeditation.
Page
A raped X. In the process, X resisted and slapped A Angered. A grabbed a stone and hit X. She was dying when A consummated the sexual attack. A psychiatrist from the National Center for Mental Health testified that he conducted physical, mental and psychological examinations on A and found him to be suffering from a mental disorder classified under organic mental disorder with psychosis. A's father testified that A was playful but cruel to his brothers and sisters, stole his mother’s jewelry which he sold for low sums, wandered naked sometimes, and oftentimes did not come home for extended periods of time. The prosecution on the other hand, presented an array of witnesses to prove A that was lucid before and after the crime was committed and that he acted with discernment. After trial, the court convicted the accused and sentenced him to “life imprisonment" considering that under the Constitution death penalty could no longer be imposed.
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
Romeo was “insane” when diagnosed after he committed the crime, insanity as a defense to the commission of a crime must have existed and proven to be existing at the precise moment when the crime was being committed. The facts of the case indicate that Romeo committed the crime with discernment. What is the effect of the diagnosis of the NCMH on the case (2%)
from criminal liability under Art. 12, par. 7, as his failure to report can be considered as due to “insuperable cause", as this involves the sanctity and inviolability of a confession. Conspiracy to commit rebellion results in criminal liability to the co-conspirators, but not to a person who learned of such and did not report to the proper authorities (US vs. Vergara, 3 Phil. 432; People vs. Atienza, 56 Phil. 353).
SUGGESTED ANSWER The effect of the diagnosis made by NCMH is possibly a suspension of the proceedings against Romeo and his commitment to appropriate institution for treatment until he could already understand the proceedings. Art.12:Insuperable cause (1994) VC, JG, GG and JG conspired to overthrow the Philippine Government. VG was recognized as the titular head of the conspiracy. Several meetings were held and the plan was finalized. JJ, bothered by his conscience, confessed to Father Abraham that he, VG, JG and GG have conspired to overthrow the government. Father Abraham did not report this information to the proper authorities. Did Father Abraham commit a crime? If so, what crime was committed? What is his criminal liability?
Art. 12: Exempting CircumstanceSuspended sentence under The Child and Youth Welfare Code; when not applicable (2013) Michael was 17 years old when he was charged for violation of Sec. 5 of R.A. 9165 (illegal sale of prohibited drug). By the time he was convicted and sentenced, he was already 21 years old. The court sentenced him to suffer an indeterminate penalty of imprisonment of six (6) years and one (1) day of prision mayor, as minimum, to seventeen (17) years and four (4) months of reclusion temporal, as maximum, and a fine of P500,000. Michael applied for probation but his application was denied because the probation law does not apply to drug offenders under R.A. 9165. Michael then sought the suspension of his sentence under R.A. 9344 or the Juvenile Justice and Youth Welfare Code. Can Michael avail of the suspension of his sentence provided under this law?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Page
The benefits of a suspended sentence can no longer apply to Michael. The suspension of sentence lasts only until the law reaches the maximum age and thus, could no longer be considered a child for purposes of applying R.A. 9344. However, he shall
65
SUGGESTED ANSWER: No, Father Abraham did not commit a crime because the conspiracy involved is one to commit rebellion, not a conspiracy to commit treason which makes a person criminally liable under Art. 116, RPC. And even assuming that it will fall as misprision of treason. Father Abraham is exempted
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
be entitled to the right of restoration, rehabilitation and reintegration in accordance with the law to give him the chance to live a normal life and become a productive member of the community. Accordingly, Michael may be confined in an agricultural camp and other training facility in accordance with Sec. 51 of R.A. 9344 (People v. Jacinto, G.R. No. 182239, March 16, 2011). Art. 12: Suspended sentence under The Child and Youth Welfare Code; when not applicable (1995) Victor, Ricky, Rod and Ronnie went to the store of Mang Pandoy. Victor and Ricky entered the store while Rod and Ronnie posted themselves at the door. After ordering beer Ricky complained that he was shortchanged although Mang Pandoy vehemently denied it. Suddenly Ricky whipped out a knife as he announced “Hold-up ito!" and stabbed Mang Pandoy to death. Rod boxed the store’s salesgirl Lucy to prevent her from helping Mang Pandoy. When Lucy ran out of the store to seek help from people next door she was chased by Ronnie. As soon as Ricky had stabbed Mang Pandoy, Victor scooped up the money from the cash box. Then Victor and Ricky dashed to the street and shouted, “Tumakbo na kayo!” Rod was 14 and Ronnie was 17. The money and other articles looted from the store of Mang Pandoy were later found in the houses of Victor and Ricky.
SUGGESTED ANSWER: Although Rod is only 14years old, his act of boxing Lucy to prevent her from helping Mang Pandoy is a clear sign of discernment, thus he cannot invoke exemption from crimi-nal liability under Art. 12, par. 3, RPC. Rod and Ronnie are, however, entitled to two and one degrees lower, respectively from the penalty of the principal under Art. 68. RPC. No, because the benefits of suspension of sentence is not available where the youthful offender has been convicted of an offense punishable by life imprisonment or death, pursuant to P.D. No. 603, Art. 192. The complex crime of robbery with homicide is punishable by reclusion perpetua to death under Art. 294 (1), RPC (People vs. Galit, 230 SCRA 486). Art. 12: Suspended sentence under The Child and Youth Welfare Code; when not applicable (2003) A was 2 months below 18 years of age when he committed the crime. He was charged with the crime 3 months later. He was 23 when he was finally convicted and sentenced. Instead of preparing to serve a jail term, he sought a suspension of the sentence on the ground that he was a juvenile offender. Should he be entitled to a suspension of sentence? Reasons. (2003 Bar Question) (a) Can juvenile offenders, who are recidivists, validly ask for suspension of sentence? Explain.
a. No, A is not entitled to a suspension of the sentence because he is no longer a minor at the time of promulgation of the
Page
Are the minors Rod and Ronnie entitled to suspended sentence under The Child and Youth Welfare Code? Explain.
66
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
sentence. For purposes of suspension of sentence, the offender’s age at the time of promulgation of the sentence is the one considered, not his age when he committed the crime. So although A was below 18 years old when he committed the crime, but he was already 23 years old when sentenced, he is no longer eligible for suspension of the sentence.
satisfying their lust, Job ordered Nonoy to push Dang down a ravine, resulting in her death. Lyn ran away but Job and Nonoy chased her and pushed her inside the van. Then the duo drove away. Lyn was never seen again. Will Nonoy’s minority exculpate him? 2.5% SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Dang was a beauty queen in a university. Job, a rich classmate, was so enamored with her that he persistently wooed and pursued her. Dang, being in love with another man, rejected him. This angered Job. Sometime in September 2003, while Dang and her sister Lyn were on their way home, Job and his minor friend Nonoy grabbed them and pushed them inside a white van. They brought them in an abandoned warehouse where they forced them to dance naked. Thereafter, they brought them to a hill in a nearby barangay where they took turns raping them. After
Art 12: Persons exempt from criminal liability In relation to Art 332 (2008) Dennis leased his apartment to Myla for P10,000 a month. Myla failed to pay the rent for 3 months. Gabriel, the son of Dennis, prepared a demand letter falsely alleging that his father had authorized him to collect the unpaid rentals. Myla paid the unpaid rentals to Gabriel who kept the payment. Can Gabriel invoke his relationship with Dennis to avoid criminal liability? Explain. (3%) SUGGESTED ANSWER: If Gabriel would be made criminally liable for falsification of a private document, he cannot invoke his relationship with Dennis, his father, to avoid criminal liability because Art. 332 of the Revised Penal Code provides exemption from criminal liability in crimes against property only for theft,
67
Art. 12: RA 9344) – When applicable (2006)
Nonoy’s minority will exculpate him under Rep. Act 9344, referred to as the “Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of 2006”, if he was 15 years old or less: otherwise he will be criminally and civilly liable considering that he acted with discernment when he also raped the victims. At most, his minority will be appreciated as privileged mitigating circumstance.
Page
b. Yes, so long as the offender is still a minor at the time of the promulgation of the sentence. The law establishing Family Courts, Rep. Act 8369, provides to this effect: that if the minor is found guilty, the court should promulgate the sentence and ascertain any civil liability which the accused may have incurred. However, the sentence shall be suspended without the need of application pursuant to PD 603, otherwise known as the “Child and Youth Welfare Code” (RA 8369, Sec. 5a). It is under PD 603 that an application for suspension of the sentence is required and thereunder it is one of the conditions for suspension of sentence that the offender be a first time convict: this has been displaced by RA 8369.
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
swindling or malicious mischief but not for falsification of documents.
upon the prosecution to prove that the accused acted with discernment.
If he would be made criminally liable for swindling, he can invoke his relationship with Dennis because this crime cannot be complexed with falsification of a private document. The charge could, therefore, stand alone. The exemption in Art. 332 will obtain.
The presumption is that such minor acted without discernment and this is strengthened by the fact that Katreena only reacted with a ballpen which she must be using in class at the time, and only to stop Pomping’s vexatious act of repeatedly pulling her ponytail. In other words, the injury was accidental.
Mitigating
The attendant circumstances which may be considered are:
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.
1. Minority of the accused as an exempting circumstance 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;
Discuss the attendant circumstances and effects thereof. (2%) SUGGESTED ANSWER: 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
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. 8369otherwise known as the “Family Courts Act of 1997"; 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 The ordinary mitigating circumstance of sufficient provocation on the part of the offended party immediately preceded the act.
68
13:
Page
Art 12: Minority; In relation to Art circumstances (2000)
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
Victor, Ricky, Rod and Ronnie went to the store of Mang Pandoy. Victor and Ricky entered the store while Rod and Ronnie posted themselves at the door. After ordering beer Ricky complained that he was shortchanged although Mang Pandoy vehemently denied it. Suddenly Ricky whipped out a knife as he announced “Hold-up ito!" and stabbed Mang Pandoy to death. Rod boxed the store’s salesgirl Lucy to prevent her from helping Mang Pandoy. When Lucy ran out of the store to seek help from people next door she was chased by Ronnie. As soon as Ricky had stabbed Mang Pandoy, Victor scooped up the money from the cash box. Then Victor and Ricky dashed to the street and shouted, “Tumakbo na kayo!” Rod was 14 and Ronnie was 17. The money and other articles looted from the store of Mang Pandoy were later found in the houses of Victor and Ricky.
SUGGESTED ANSWER: All are liable for the special complex crime of robbery with homicide. The acts of Ricky in stabbing Mang Pandoy to death, of Rod in boxing the salesgirl to prevent her from helping Mang Pandoy, of Ronnie in chasing the salesgirl to prevent her in seeking help, of Victor in scooping up money from the cash box, and of Ricky and Victor in dashing to the street and announcing the escape, are all indicative of conspiracy. The rule is settled that when homicide takes place as a consequence or on the occasion of a robbery, all those who took part in the robbery are guilty as principals of the crime of robbery with homicide, unless the accused tried to prevent the killing {People vs. BaeUo, 224 SCRA 218). Although Rod is only 14 years old, his act of boxing Lucy to prevent her from helping Mang Pandoy is a clear sign of discernment, thus he cannot invoke exemption from criminal liability.
ART. 12 Warrantless arrest; entrapment; in relation to prohibited drugs (1992) Members of the Narcotics Command, upon learning from an informer that Tee Moy, notorious drug lord was plying his trade and selling methamphetamine hydrocholide (popularly known as shabu) in a motel at Bambang St, planned a buy-bust operation to capture him. Camotes was to enter the lobby of the motel where Tee Mqy hangs around and pose as buyer. The moment the drug vendor hands the drug to him. Camotes would scratch his ear as a signal
69
Art. 12 Minority In relation to robbery with homicide (1995)
Discuss fully the criminal liability of Victor, Ricky, Rod and Ronnie.
Page
(i) Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of 2006 (R.A. No. 9344); also refer to Child and Youth Welfare Code (P.D. 603, as amended) (a) Definition of child in conflict with the law (b) Minimum age of criminal responsibility (c) Determination of age (d) Exemption from criminal liability (e) Treatment of child below age of responsibility (f) Status offenses under Sec. 57 of R.A. No. 9344 Offenses not applicable to children under Sec. 58 of R.A. No. 9344
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
In the course of time, Tee Moy was prosecuted for the crimes of possession and sale of prohibited drugs under the Dangerous Drugs Act. During the trial, his counsel interposed the following defenses: a) The arrest, having been effected without a warrant of arrest, was violative of Tee Moy’s constitutional rights. b) Accused was the victim of a frameup instigated by the law enforcement officers, such that he was practically forced to sell his goods to a total stranger which was abnormal and unrealistic for one in the kind of business he is in. c) The prosecution deliberately failed to present the informer as a witness so that he could have been subjected to crossexamination by the counsel for the accused. d) Tee Moy cannot be prosecuted for the separate offenses of possession and sale of prohibited drugs but of only one criminal offense. e) Tee Moy was made to sign a Confiscation Receipt at NARCOM headquarters which has been admitted as evidence against him, thus violating his constitutional right against selfincrimination.
SUGGESTED ANSWER: a. There is no need for a warrant of arrest, as this falls under the instances of warrantless airest sanctioned by law, where a public officer or private individual may arrest a person if, in his personal presence, the person arrested is actually committing, is about to commit, or has just committed a crime. b. This is a pure case of entrapment as Tee Moy has already decided to commit a crime and the agents of persons in authority merely devised ways and means to entrap him. There was no inducement of Tee Moy as the latter precisely decided to make a “score” or sale. No pressure or investigation was applied on him. c. Failure to present the informer is not fatal to the cause of the prosecution as the testimony of the latter will be merely corroborative to the testimony of the other witnesses who were eye-witnesses to the commission of the crime. There are sufficient evidence to convict the accused beyond reasonable doubt. d. While as a general rule the offense of possession is integrated in selling prohibited drugs, in this case, I will argue that, the quantity of the drugs confiscated from Tee Moy was so large that it cannot be deemed absorbed in the crime of “pushing”. Besides, I will contend that the matchbox with shabu inside, was not the only evidence taken from the accused. The Confiscation Receipt signed by Tee Moy was merely presented as part of the testimony of the prosecution witnesses and such evidence is not material to the
70
So Camotes, upon espying Tee Moy near the registration desk, approached the latter. When asked if he would like a “score”, he answered in the affirmative. He was then handed a matchbox with the assurance that it contained the drug, for which he gave a P100.00 marked bill. Upon giving the pre-arranged signal, the NARCOM agents rushed inside and arrested Tee Moy.
If you were the prosecutor, how would you traverse the above arguments of counsel for the accused? Take up each number separately.
Page
to his companions deployed near the motel entrance.
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
conviction of the accused. Again, overwhelming evidence are presented that inevitably supports conviction ART. 12--Entrapment and instigation (1990) Rodolfo is an informer who told the police authorities that Aldo is a drug pusher. Policeman Taba then posed as a buyer and persuaded Aldo to sell marijuana worth P10.00 to the former. Aldo agreed. He delivered the goods and so was apprehended with the marked money. He is now prosecuted for violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act. Aldo’s defense is that he1 was the victim of an instigation of the police who persuaded him to sell the goods to him. Decide the case with reasons.
the mall. After fifteen minutes, Juan returned with ten sticks of marijuana cigarettes which he gave to SP02 Mercado who thereupon placed Juan under arrest and charged him with violation of The Dangerous Drugs Law by selling marijuana cigarettes. Is Juan guilty of any ofense punishable under The Dangerous Drugs Act? Discuss fully. SUGGESTED ANSWER: A. In instigation, the instigator practically induces the prospective accused into commission of the offense and himself becomes co-principal. In entrapment, ways and means are resorted to for the purpose of trapping and capturing the lawbreaker while executing his criminal plan,
SUGGESTED ANSWER: Aldo’s defense in untenable as what happened here was entrapment. With or without the act of Policemen Taba, Aldo would have went on selling the marijuana to another buyer. The finding, it must be noted, was that Aldo was continously engaged in the act of pushing drugs. (People v. Tia, 51 O.G. 1863). ART.12 Entrapment and instigation; illustration of instigation (1995)
B. Juan cannot be charged of any offense punishable under The Dangerous Drugs Act Although Juan is a suspected drug pusher, he cannot be charged on the basis of a mere suspicion. By providing the money with which to buy marijuana cigarettes, SP02 Mercado practically induced and prodded Juan to commit the offense of illegal possession of marijuana. Set against the facts instigation is a valid defense available to Juan. ART.12 Entrapment and instigation
from
SUGGESTED ANSWER: In entrapment a. the criminal design originates from and is already in the mind of the lawbreaker even before entrapment;
71
B. Suspecting that Juan was a drug pusher, SP02 Mercado, leader of the Narcom team, gave Juan a P 100-bill and asked him to buy some marijuana cigarettes. Desirous of pleasing SP02 Mercado, Juan went inside the shopping mall while the officer waited at the comer of
Distinguish fully between entrapment and instigation in Criminal Law. Exemplify each.
Page
A. Distinguished entrapment instigation. Discuss fully.
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
Example of entrapment: A, an anti-narcotic agent of the Government acted as a poseur buyer of shabu and negotiated with B, a suspected drug pusher who is unaware that A is a police officer. A then issued marked money to B who handed a sachet of shabu to B. Thereupon, A signalled his anti-narcotic team to close-in and arrest B. This is a case of entrapment because the criminal mind is in B already when A transacted with him. Example of instigation: Because the members of an anti-narcotic team are already known to drug pushers, A, the team leader, money to be used in buying shabu from C. After C handed the sachet of shabu to B and the latter handed the marked money to C, the team closed-in and placed B and C under arrest. Under the facts, B is not criminally liable for his participation in the transaction because he was acting only under instigation by the law enforcers.
Art 13 Incomplete self-defense (1990) In the middle of the night, Enyong heard the footsteps of an intruder inside their house. Enyong picked up his rifle and saw a man, Gorio, with a pistol ransacking Enyong’s personal effects in his study. Suppose Enyong shot Gorio while he was running away from Enyong’s house with his television set, what is Enyong liable for? Explain your answer. SUGGESTED ANSWER: There is criminal liability this time with the mitigating circumstance of incomplete selfdefense. Under the case of People v. Narvaez, defense of property can be availed of even when there is no assault against a person. It is recognized as an unlawful aggression.
Art. 13: Intoxication (2002) A was invited to a drinking spree by friends. After having had a drink too many, A and B had a heated argument, during which A stabbed B. Asa result, B suffered serious physical injuries. May the intoxication of A be considered aggravating or mitigating? (5%) SUGGESTED ANSWER: The intoxication of A may be prima facie considered mitigating since it was merely incidental to the commission of the crime. It may not be considered aggravating as there is no clear indication from the facts of the case that it was habitual or intentional on the part of A. Aggravating circumstances are not to be presumed;
72
In instigation a. the idea and design to bring about the commission of the crime originated and developed in the mind of the law enforcers; b. the law enforcers induce, lure, or incite a person who is not minded to commit a crime and would not otherwise commit it, into committing the crime; and c. this circumstance absolves the accused from criminal liability (People v. Dante Marcos, 185 SCRA154. [1990]).
MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES
Page
b. the law enforcers resort to ways and means for the purpose of capturing the lawbreaker in flagrante delicto; and c. this circumstance is no bar to prosecution and conviction of the lawbreaker.
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
they should be proved beyond reasonable doubt
Privileged mitigating circumstances are not subject to the offset rule.
Art. 13: Mitigating Circumstance – Privileged In relation to Penalties (2012)
Art. 13: Mitigating Circumstance In relation to Penalties (2014)
What is a privileged mitigating circumstance? Distinguish a privileged mitigating circumstance from an ordinary mitigating circumstance as to reduction of penalty and offsetting against aggravating circumstance/s.
A, a young boy aged sixteen (16) at the time of the commission of the crime, was convicted when he was already seventeen (17) years of age for violation of Section 11 of R.A. 9165 or Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs for which the imposable penalty is life imprisonment and a fine. Section 98 of the same law provides that if the penalty imposed is life imprisonment to death on minor offenders, the penalty shall be reclusion perpetua to death. Under R.A. 9344, a minor offender is entitled to a privileged mitigating circumstance.
The distinctions between ordinary and privileged mitigating circumstances are as follows: i. Under the rules for application of divisible penalties (RPC, Art. 64), the presence of a mitigating circumstance, if not off-set by aggravating circumstance, has the effect of applying the divisible penalty in its minimum period. Under the rules on graduation of penalty (RPC, Art. 68, 69), the presence of privileged mitigating circumstance has the effect of reducing the penalty one to two degrees lower; Ordinary mitigating circumstances can be off-set by aggravating circumstances.
(A) May the privileged mitigating circumstance of minority be appreciated considering that the penalty imposed by law is life imprisonment and fine? (B) Is the Indeterminate Sentence Law applicable considering that life imprisonment has no fixed duration and the Dangerous Drugs Law is malum prohibitum? (C) If the penalty imposed is more than six (6) years and a notice of appeal was filed by A and given due course by the court, may A still file an application for probation? (D) If probation is not allowed by the court, how will A serve his sentence? SUGGESTED ANSWER: (A) Yes. As stated above, under Section 98, RA 9165, if the offender is a minor, the penalty of life imprisonment shall be considered as reclusion perpetua. Now that it has the nomenclature of penalties under the RPC, the modifying circumstances therein may also be applied. Even if
73
Privileged mitigating circumstances are those that mitigate the criminal liability of the accused by graduating the imposable penalty for the crime being modified to one or two degrees lower. These circumstances cannot be offset by aggravating circumstance. The circumstance of incomplete justification or exemption (when majority of the conditions are present), and the circumstance of minority (if the child above 15 years of age acted with discernment) are privileged mitigating circumstance.
Page
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
The victim Dario went to the Civil Service Commission at about 11:00 a.m. to have some documents signed, and because his efforts were frustrated, he angrily remarked in the presence of the accused Benito that the Civil Service Commission is a hang-out of thieves. The accused felt alluded to because he was then facing criminal and administrative charges on several counts involving his honesty and integrity, and pulling out a gun from his desk, he shot Dario, inflicting a fatal wound. Benito is now invoking the mitigating circumstances of immediate vindication of grave offense. Decide the case. (1988 Bar Question) SUGGESTED ANSWER: The mitigating circumstances of immediate vindication of grave offense cannot be considered because to be applicable, Article 13 par. 5 requires that: “Mitigating circumstances.— xxxx 5. That the act was committed in the immediate vindication of a grave offense to the one committing the felony (delito) his spouse, ascendants, descendants, legitimate, natural or adopted brothers or sisters or relatives by affinity within the same degrees.” Instead, the circumstances of passion or obfuscation should be considered. Benito should be charged with frustrated homicide with the mitigating circumstances of passion. Art. 13: Voluntary surrender (1996) Hilario, upon seeing his son engaged in a scuffle with Rene, stabbed and killed the latter. After the stabbing, he brought his son home. The Chief of Police of the town,
74
The phrase “at any time” mentioned in Section 42 means that the child in conflict with the law may file an application for probation at any time, even beyond the period for perfecting an appeal and even if the child has perfected the appeal from the judgment of conviction. (D) If probation is not allowed by the court, the minor offender shall serve his sentence in agricultural camp or other training facility in accordance with Section 51 of RA 9344 as amended.
Art. 13 Immediate Vindication (1988)
Page
reclusion perpetua is a single indivisible penalty, the privileged mitigating circumstance of minority would still be considered to lower the imposable penalty. The rule in Article 63, RPC that if the penalty prescribed by law is a single indivisible penalty, it shall be imposed regardless of mitigating and aggravating circumstance refers only to ordinary mitigating circumstances. (B) Yes. The Indeterminate Sentence Law is applicable even to special penal laws. Since life imprisonment was converted into reclusion perpetua, which in turn was graduated to reclusion temporal because of the privileged mitigating circumstance of minority, the Indeterminate Sentence Law is applicable. (People vs. Mantalaba, GR 186227, July 20, 2011) (C) Yes. A may still file an application for probation even if he filed a notice of appeal. Section 42, RA 9344 provides: “The court may, after it shall have convicted and sentenced a child in conflict with the law, and upon application at any time, place the child on probation in lieu of service of his/her sentence taking into account the best interest of the child. For this purpose, Section 4 of PD 968, otherwise known as the Probation Law of 1976, is hereby amended accordingly.”
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
SUGGESTED ANSWER: Yes, Hilario is entitled to the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender. The crux of the issue is whether the fact that Hilario went home after the incident, but came down and met the police officers and went with them is considered “voluntary surrender." The voluntariness of surrender is tested if the same is spontaneous showing the intent of the accused to submit himself unconditionally to the authorities. This must be either (a) because he acknowledges his guilt, or (b) because he wishes to save them the trouble and expenses necessarily incurred in his search and capture. (Reyes’ Commentaries, p. 303). Thus, the act of the accused in hiding after commission of the crime, but voluntarily went with the policemen who had gone to his hiding place to investigate, was held to be mitigating circumstance.[People vs. Dayrit, cited in Reyes’ Commentaries, p. 299) Art. 13: Voluntary surrender and plea of guilty; when not considered (1992) Upon learning that the police wanted him for the killing of Polistico. Jeprox decided to
SUGGESTED ANSWER: Jeprox is not entitled to the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender as his going to the police station was only for the purpose of verification of the news that he is wanted by the authorities. In order to be mitigating, surrender must be spontaneous and that he acknowledges his guilt. Neither is plea of guilty a mitigating circumstances because it was qualified plea; besides. Art. 13, par. 7 provides that confession of guilt must be done before the prosecution had started to present evidence. Art. 13: Voluntary surrender; plea of guilty (1997) After killing the victim, the accused absconded. He succeeded in eluding the police until he surfaced and surrendered to the authorities about two years later. Charged with murder, he pleaded not guilty but, after the prosecution had presented two witnesses implicating him to the crime, he changed his plea to that of guilty. Should the mitigating circumstances of voluntary surrender and plea of guilty be considered in favor of the accused? SUGGESTED ANSWER:
75
Hilario, upon seeing the approaching policemen, came down from his house to meet them and voluntarily went with them to the Police Station to be investigated in connection with the killing. When eventually charged with and convicted of homicide, Hilario, on appeal, faulted the trial court for not appreciating in his favor the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender. Is he entitled to such a mitigating circumstance? Explain.
visit the police station to make inquiries. On his way, he met a policeman who immediately served upon him the warrant for his arrest. During the trial, in the course of the presentation of the prosecution’s evidence. Jeprox withdrew his plea of not guilty and entered a plea of guilty. Can he invoke the mitigating circumstances of voluntary surrender and plea of guilty? Explain.
Page
accompanied by several policemen, went to Hilario’s house.
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
A. In order that the plea of guilty may be mitigating, what requisites must be complied with? (2%) B. An accused charged with the crime of homicide pleaded “not guilty" during the preliminary investigation before the Municipal Court. Upon the elevation of the case to the Regional Trial Court the Court of competent jurisdiction, he pleaded guilty freely and voluntarily upon arraignment. Can his plea of guilty before the RTC be considered spontaneous and thus entitle him to the mitigating circumstance of spontaneous plea of guilty under Art. 13(7), RPC? (3%)
Art. 13: Voluntary surrender (1999) When is surrender by an accused considered voluntarily, and constitutive of the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender? (3%) SUGGESTED ANSWER: A surrender by an offender is considered voluntary when it is spontaneous, indicative of an intent to submit unconditionally to the authorities. To be mitigating, the surrender must be: spontaneous, i.e., indicative of acknowledgment of guilt and not for convenience nor conditional; made before the government incurs expenses, time and effort in tracking down the offender's whereabouts; and made to a person in authority or the letter's agents.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Art. 13: Voluntary surrender (2009)
A. For plea of guilty to be mitigating, the requisites are: 1. That the accused spontaneously pleaded guilty to the crime charged; 2. That such plea was made before the court competent to try the case and render judgment; and 3. That such plea was made prior to the presentation of evidence for the prosecution.
TRUE or FALSE. Answer TRUE if the statement is true, or FALSE if the statement is false. Explain your answer in not more than two (2) sentences. (5%) Voluntary surrender is a mitigating circumstance in all acts and omissions punishable under the Revised Penal Code. SUGGESTED ANSWER:
76
Art 13 Plea of Guilty (1999)
B. Yes, his plea of guilty before the Regional Trial Court can be considered spontaneous, for which he is entitled to the mitigating circumstance of plea of guilty. His plea of not guilty before the Municipal Court is immaterial as it was made during preliminary investigation only and before a court not competent to render judgment.
Page
1. Voluntary surrender should be considered as a mitigating circumstance. After two years, the police were still unaware of the whereabouts of the accused and the latter could have continued to elude arrest. Accordingly, the surrender of the accused should be considered mitigating because it was done spontaneously, indicative of the remorse or repentance on the part of said accused and therefore, by his surrender, the accused saved the Government expenses, efforts, and time.
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
Despite the massive advertising campaign in media against firecrackers and gun-firing during the New Year's celebrations. Jonas and Jaja bought ten boxes of super lolo and pla-pla in Bocaue, Bulacan. Before midnight of December 31,1999, Jonas and Jaja started their celebration by having a drinking spree at Jona's place by exploding their high-powered firecrackers in their neighborhood. In the course of their conversation, Jonas confided to Jaja that he has been keeping a long-time grudge against his neighbor Jepoy in view of the tatter's refusal to lend him some money. While under the influence of liquor, Jonas started throwing lighted super lolos inside Jepoy's fence to irritate him and the same exploded inside the tatter's yard. Upon knowing that the throwing of the super lolo was deliberate, Jepoy became furious and sternly warned Jonas to stop his malicious act or he would get what he wanted. A heated argument between Jonas and Jepoy ensued but Jaja tried to calm down his friend. At midnight, Jonas convinced Jaja to lend him his .45 caliber pistol so that he could use it to knock down Jepoy and to end his arrogance. Jonas thought that after all, explosions were everywhere and nobody would know who shot Jepoy. After Jaja lent his firearm to Jonas, the latter again started started throwing lighted super lolos and pla-plas at Jepoy’s yard in order to provoke him so that he would come out
SUGGESTED ANSWER: If I were Jonas' and Jaja's lawyer, I will use the following defenses: (1) That the accused had no intention to commit so grave a wrong as that committed as they merely intended to frighten Jepoy; (2) That Jonas committed the crime in a state of intoxication thereby impairing his will power or capacity to understand the wrongfulness of his act. Non-intentional intoxication is a mitigating circumstance [People us. Forttch, 281 SCRA 600 [1997]: Art 15, RFC). Art. 13: No intention to commit so grave a wrong as that which was committed (2001) Maryjane had two suitors - Felipe and Cesar. She did not openly show her preference but on two occasions, accepted Cesar’s invitation to concerts by Regine and Pops. Felipe was a working student and could only ask Mary to see a movie which was declined. Felipe felt insulted and made plans to get even with Cesar by scaring him off somehow. One day, he entered Cesar’s room in their boarding house and placed a rubber snake which appeared to be real in Cesar’s backpack. Because Cesar had a weak heart, he suffered a heart attack upon opening his backpack and seeing the snake. Cesar
77
Art. 13: No intention to commit so grave a wrong as that committed; intoxication (2000)
of his house. When Jepoy came out, Jonas immediately shot him with Jaja’s .45 caliber gun but missed his target. Instead, the bullet hit Jepoy's five year old son who was following behind him, killing the boy instantaneously.If you were Jonas' and Jaja’s lawyer, what possible defenses would you set up in favor of your clients? Explain. (2%)
Page
False. Voluntary surrender may not be appreciated in cases of criminal negligence under Art. 365 since in such cases, the courts are authorized to impose a penalty without considering Art. 62 regarding mitigating and aggravating circumstances.
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
died without regaining consciousness. The police investigation resulted in pinpointing Felipe as the culprit and he was charged with homicide for Cesar’s death. In his defense, Felipe claimed that he did not know about Cesar’s weak heart and that he only intended to play a practical joke on Cesar. Is Felipe liable for the death of Cesar or will his defense prosper? Why? (5%) SUGGESTED ANSWER: Yes, Felipe is liable for the death of Cesar but he shall be given the benefit of the mitigating circumstance that he did not intend to commit so grave a wrong as that which was committed (Art. 13, par. 3, RPC). When Felipe intruded into Cesar’s room without the letter's consent and took liberty with the letter's backpack where he placed the rubber snake, Felipe was already committing a felony. And any act done by him while committing a felony is no less wrongful, considering that they were part of "plans to get even with Cesar1'. Felipe's claim that he intended only "to play a practical joke on Cesar" does not persuade, considering that they are not friends but in fact rivals in courting Maryjane. This case is parallel to the case of People vs. Pugay, et al.
any mitigating circumstance or circumstances? (3%) (2002 Bar Question) SUGGESTED ANSWER: No, A cannot validly invoke defense of his daughter’s honor in having killed B since the rape was already consummated; moreover, B already ran away, hence, there was no aggression to defend against and no defense to speak of. A may, however, invoke the benefit of the mitigating circumstance of having acted in immediate vindication of a grave offense to a descendant, his daughter, under par. 5, Article 13 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended. Art. 13: Lack of intention to commit so grave a wrong as that committed (2005) Belle saw Gaston stealing the prized cock of a neighbor and reported him to the police. Thereafter, Gaston, while driving a car saw Belle crossing the street. Incensed that Belle had reported him, Gaston decided to scare her by trying to make it appear that he was about to run her over. He rewed the engine of his car and drove towards her but he applied the brakes. Since the road was slippery at that time, the vehicle skidded and hit Belle causing her death. What is the liability of Gaston? Why? (4%)
Page
When A arrived home, he found B raping his daughter. Upon seeing A, B ran away. A took his gun and shot B, killing him. Charged with homicide, A claimed he acted in defense of his daughter's honor. Is A correct? If not, can A claim the benefit of
Gaston is criminally liable for homicide in doing the felonious act which caused Belle’s death, although the penalty therefor shall be mitigated by lack of intention to commit so grave a wrong as that committed (Art. 13 (3), RPC). The act, having been deliberately done with malice, is felonious and being the proximate cause of Belle’s
78
SUGGESTED ANSWER: Art. 13: Immediate vindication of a grave offense to a descendant (2002)
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
14:
B, who is blind in one eye, conspired with M, a sixteen year old boy, with C, who had been previously convicted of Serious Physical Injuries, and with R, whose sister was raped by X a day before, to kill the latter. B, C and R were armed with .38 caliber revolvers, while M carried no weapon and acted only as a look out. They proceeded to the house of X riding in a motorized tricycle. Thereupon, C, on instruction of B to give X no chance, shot X who was then sleeping. Indicted for Homicide, as the information alleges no qualifying circumstance, specify the mitigating and aggravating circumstances present, and explain in whose favor, and against whom, must they be considered. SUGGESTED ANSWER:
AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES Art 14: Cruelty (1988) The robbers killed a mother and her baby, then threw the body of the baby outside the window. Can the aggravating circumstances of “cruelty” be considered in this case? Reasons. (1988 Bar Question) (a) Cruelty cannot be considered in this case because the aggravating circumstance of cruelty requires deliberates prolongation of the suffering of the victim. In this case, the baby was dead already so that there is no more prolongation to speak of.
1. Mitigating circumstances: a) B is entitled to the mitigating circumstance under paragraph 8 of Article 13 of the Revised Penal Code; b) M is entitled to the privileged mitigating circumstances of minority under Article 68 of the Revised Penal Code; c) Vindication of a grave offense in favor of R because his sister was raped by X a day before the shooting, and even if there was an interval of one (1) day between the rape and the killing.
Art. 14 Recidivism In relation to Art. 62 Habitual Delinquency (2012)
2. Aggravating circumstances: a) The aggravating circumstance of recidivism under paragraph 9. Article 14 should be considered against C if alleged in the Information (People vs. Peter
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Who is a habitual delinquent? Distinguish habitual delinquency from recidivism as to the crimes committed, the period of time the crimes are committed, the number of crimes committed and their effects in relation to the penalty to be imposed on a convict.
79
Art. 13: Mitigating and Art; aggravating circumstances (1993)
Cadevida, et al, G.R. No. L-94528, March 1. 1993). b) The aggravating circumstance of motor vehicle under paragraph 20 of Article 14 of the Code, all the accused having used a motorized tricyle; c) Treachery should be aggravating against all of the accused including M who acted as a lookout because all of them were present when X was shot (Article 62. paragraph 4 of the Revised Penal Code). X was sleeping when shot to death.
Page
death, brings about criminal liability although the wrong done was different from what was intended (Art. 4, [1], RPC).
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
Nature of crime
First crime and the aggravated second crime are embraced in the same Title of the RPC.
Accused was convicted of the first crime by final judgment at the time of the trial of the second crime. Time element
Number of Crimes
First, second and third crimes must be a habitual delinquency crime, that is, serious or less serious physical injuries, theft, robbery, estafa or falsification of document. The accused was convicted of first habitual delinquency crime; within ten years after conviction or release, he was found guilty or habitualdelinquency crime for the second time; within 10 years after conviction or release, he was found guilty of habitualdelinquency crime for the third time or oftener.
At least two crimes At least three crimes committed committed
Ordinary aggravating circumstance the presence of any of Nature which will trigger of the the application of aggravat the penalty for the ing second crime circumst committed in its ance maximum period unless it is off-set by a mitigating circumstance
Extraordinary or special aggravating circumstance, the presence of which will trigger the imposition of additional penalty for the third or subsequent crime. This is not subject of the off-set rule.
During trial for theft in 2014, the prosecution managed to show that accused AA has also been convicted by final judgment for robbery in 2003, but she eluded capture. A subsequent verification showed that AA had several convictions, to wit: 1. In 1998, she was convicted of estafa; 2. In 2002, she was convicted of theft; 3. In 2004, she was convicted of frustrated homicide; The judge trying the theft case in 2014 is about to convict AA. What circumstances affecting the liability or penalty may the judge appreciate against AA? SUGGESTED ANSWER: The judge may appreciate the aggravating circumstance of recidivism. A recidivist is one who, at the time of his trial for one crime, shall have been previously convicted by final judgment of another crime embraced in the same title of the RPC. Robbery, theft, estafa are crimes against property embraced in Title Ten of the RPC. The judge may also appreciate the aggravating circumstance of habituality or reiteracion, because there have been two or more crimes committed for which she has been published, regardless of the degree of penalty. Art. 14. Recidivist (2009) TRUE or FALSE. Answer TRUE if the statement is true, or FALSE if the statement is false. Explain your answer in not more than two (2) sentences. (5%) [a] Amado, convicted of rape but granted an absolute pardon by the President, and
80
The following are the differences between recidivism and habitual delinquency:
Art. 14: Recidivism (2014)
Page
A person shall be deemed to be habitual delinquent, if within a period of ten years from the date of his release or last conviction of the crimes of serious or less serious physical injuries, robo, hurto estafa or falsification, he is found guilty of any of said crimes a third time or oftener (Art. 62, RPC).
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
one year thereafter, convicted of homicide, is a recidivist. SUGGESTED ANSWER: True. Rape is now a crime against persons and, like the crime of homicide, is embraced in the same Title of the Revised Penal Code under which Amado had been previously convicted by final judgment. The absolute pardon granted him for rape, only excused him from serving the sentence for rape but did not erase the effects of the conviction therefore unless expressly remitted by the pardon. Arti. 14 Recidivism In relation to Art. 62 reiteracion (1989) Andres was earlier convicted of adultery and served an indeterminate penalty, the maximum term of which did not exceed two (2) years, four (4) months and one (1) day of prision correctional. A month after his release from prison, he was charge with the crime of serious physical injuries. Later, Andres was again charged with homicide punishable by re-clusion temporal. He entered a plea of guilty in the homicide case. May the aggravating circumstances of recidivism and/or habituality (reiteracion) be appreciated against Andres? Explain.
c. Both the first and second offenses are embraced in the same title of the Code; and d. The offender is convicted of the new offense (Art. 14, par. 9 RPC). At the time of his trial for homicide, Andres was not previously convicted by final judgment of another crime embraced in the same title of the Revised Penal Code. Adultery, which is his only previous conviction by final judgment is a crime against chastity, and therefore is not embraced in the same title of the Code as homicide, which is a crime against person. As for the charge of serious physical injuries, although serious physical is also a crime against person, it appears that he had not as yet been conviced, much less by final judgment, of the charge at the time that he was facing trial for homicide. The aggravating circumstance of habitually or reiteracion can likewise not be taken against Andres because in order that this circumstance can exist, it is necessary that he was facing trial for homicide. The aggravating circumstance of habituality or reiteracion can likewise not be taken against Andres because in order for this circumstance to exist, it is necessary that—
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
In the case at bar, Andres had previously served sentence only for one offense that
81
a. The offender is on trial for an offense; b. He was previously convicted by final judgment of another crime;
Page
The aggravating circumstance of recidivism cannot be taken against Andres. For this circumstance to exist, it is necessary that —
a. The accused is on trial for an offense; b. He previously served sentence for another offense to which the law attaches an equal or greater penalty, or for two or more crimes to which it attaches a lighter penalty than that for the new offense; c. He is convicted of the new offense.
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
of adultery, but the penalty for adultery (prison correctional) is lighter than then penalty for homicide (reclusion-temporal). Consequently, there is no aggravating circumstance of habituality or reiteracion.
convictions by final judgment for theft and again convicted for Robbery With Homicide. And the crimes specified as basis for habitual delinquency includes, inter alia, theft and robbery.
Art. 14. Recidivism; In relation to Art. 62 habitual delinquency (2001)
No, the appeal is not meritorious. Recidivism and habitual delinquency are correctly considered in this case because the basis of recidivism is different from that of habitual delinquency. Juan is a recidivist because he had been previously convicted by final judgment for theft and again found guilty for Robbery with Homicide, which are both crimes against property, embraced under the same Title (Title Ten, Book Two) of the Revised Penal Code. The implication is that he is specializing in the commission of crimes against property, hence aggravating in the conviction for Robbery with Homicide. Habitual delinquency, which brings about an additional penalty when an offender is convicted a third time or more for specified crimes, is correctly considered because Juan had already three (3) previous
SUGGESTED ANSWER: In recidivism a. The convictions of the offender are for crimes embraced in the same Title of the Revised Penal Code; and b. This circumstance is generic aggravating and therefore can be offset by an ordinary mitigating circumstance. Whereas in quasi-recidivism a. The convictions are not for crimes embraced in the same Title of the Revised Penal Code, provided that it is a felony that was committed by the offender before serving sentence by final judgment for another crime or while serving sentence for another crime; and b. This circumstance is a special aggravating circumstance which cannot be offset by any mitigating circumstance. Art. 14. Quasi recidivism – Art 160 (1991) During a fiesta, Simeon Marco, brandishing a knife, asked Constancio whether he was the one who slapped his (Simeon's) son the year previous. Vicente (father of
82
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Distinguish between recidivism and quasirecidivism. (2%)
Page
Juan de Castro already had three (3) previous convictions by final judgment for theft when he was found guilty of Robbery with Homicide. In the last case, the trial judge considered against the accused both recidivism and habitual delinquency. The accused appealed and contended that in his last conviction, the trial court cannot consider against him a finding of recidivism and, again, of habitual delinquency. Is the appeal meritorious? Explain. (5%)
Art. 14 Recidivism And Art. 160. Quasirecidivism (1998)
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
SUGGESTED ANSWER: No, because quasi-recidivism under Art. 160, RPC occurs when the accused commits a felony while serving or about to serve sentence (or if he escapes from prison). A parolee who commits a felony cannot be a quasi-recidivist. Art. 14 Treachery (2008) Roger, the leader of a crime syndicate in Malate, Manila, demanded the payment by Antonio, the owner of a motel in that area, of P10,000 a month as “protection money". With the monthly payments, Roger assured, the syndicate would provide protection to Antonio, his business, and his employees. Should Antonio refuse, Roger warned, the motel owner would either be killed or his establishment destroyed. Antonio refused to pay the protection money. Days later, at around 3:00 in the morning, Mauro, a member of the criminal
State, with reasons, the crime or crimes that had been committed as well as the aggravating circumstances, if any, attendant thereto. (7%) SUGGESTED ANSWER: Roger & Mauro conspired to commit the crime of murder qualified by treachery, with the use of means involving great waste and ruin. In this case, Mauro is liable as a principal by direct participation by using a grenade and hurled into an open window of the victim‟s bedroom. Killing the victims while they were sleeping and in no position to defend themselves, is a treacherous act (People v. Aguilar, 88 Phil 693, 1951). The following are the aggravating circumstances: 1. Sec. 3, R.A. 8294 – when a person commits any of the crime under the RPC or special laws with the use of explosive, etc. and alike incendiary devices which resulted in the death of any person. 2. Art. 23, R.A. 7659 – organized/syndicated crime group. Art. 14: Treachery; when not considered (1992) As Sergio, Yoyong, Zoilo and Warlilo engaged in a drinking spree at Heartthrob Disco, Special Police Officer 3 (SPO 3) Manolo Yabang suddenly approached them, aimed his revolver at Sergio whom he recognized as a wanted killer and fatally shot the latter. Whereupon, Yoyong.Zoilo and Warlito ganged up on Yabang. Warlito,
83
Supposing Dulcisimo is a convict out on parole, will the aggravating circumstances of quasi-recidivism be appreciated against him?
syndicate, arrived at Antonio's home and hurled a grenade into an open window of the bedroom where Antonio, his wife and their three year-old daughter were sleeping. All three of them were killed instantly when the grenade exploded.
Page
Constancio) shouted at Constancio and his other son, Bien- venido, telling them to run away. When Bienvenido passed by Rafael Marco (brother of Simeon), Rafael stabbed him. Bienvenido parried the blow but fell down, his feet entangled with some vines. While Bienvenido was lying on the ground, Rafael continued to stab him, inflicting slight injuries on the shoulder of Bienvenido, after which Rafael stood up. At that moment, Dulcisimo Beltran (no relation to the Marco brothers), came out of nowhere and, together with Simeon, stabbed Bienvenido. Both of them inflicted fatal wounds resulting in the death of the victim.
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
using his own pistol, shot and wounded Yabang. B. Was there conspiracy and treachery? Explain.
the prosecution, without objection from the de officio counsel for the accused, proved evident premeditation. It likewise successfully proved the qualifying and the generic aggravating circumstances alleged in the information.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
SUGGESTED ANSWER: Yabang is liable for Homicide for the killing of Sergio as the attack was frontal Sergio, being a suspected killer, is no jurisdiction to be killed by Yabang (People vs. Oanis). Art. 14: Evident Treachery (1991)
Premeditation,
In an information for Murder against A. B, and C, the prosecution alleges Treachery as the qualifying circumstance and the following generic aggravating circumstances: (1) noctumity, (2) abuse of superior strength, and (3) employing means to weaken the defense. At the trial,
C. If the prosecution failed to prove treachery and did not offer any evidence to prove evident premeditation, does acquittal of the accused follow? SUGGESTED ANSWER: A. Yes, as far as evident premeditation is concerned, but only as a generic a gravating circumstance. Since treachery absorbs nocturnity, abuse of superior strength and employing means to weaken the defense, they can no longer be considered as additional circumstances. B. No, since it was not alleged in the information; qualifying circumstances not alleged if proved during trial will only be considered as generic. C. No, but liability will only be for homicide, as there is no circumstances to qualify it to murder. Art. 14: Nighttime (1994)
84
In turn, is yabang criminally liable for the death of Sergio?
B. Supposing that treachery was not proved, may evident premeditation, which was duly proved, be considered as the qualifying circumstances?
Page
The acts of Yoyong, Zoilo and Warlito are justified under pars. 1 and 2 of Article 11, RPG, that is, self-defense or defense of a stranger, as they have reason to suspect that Yabang might not be satisfied in killing Sergio ONLY, the three being friends and companions of the victim. Hence, they are entitled to protect their own lives and limbs from the unlawful aggression of Yabang. Alternatively they have the justified right to defend a stranger (Sergio) whose life at that moment might still be saved by ganging up on Yabang to prevent the latter from any further attack by the latter. In either case reasonable necessity of the means employed and lack of sufficient provocation are present.
A. For the purpose of determining the appropriate penalty to be imposed upon the accused, may the court take into account evident premeditation and the other generic aggravating circumstances?
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
At about 9:30 in the evening, while Dino and Raffy were walking along Padre Faura Street, Manila. Johnny hit them with a rock injuring Dino at the back. Raffy approached Dino but suddenly, Bobby, Steve, Danny and Nonoy surrounded the duo. Then Bobby stabbed Dino. Steve, Danny. Nonoy and Johnny kept on hitting Dino and Raffy with rocks. As a result, Dino died.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Bobby, Steve, Danny, Nonoy and Johnny were charged with homicide.
Relationship, because the offended party is a descendant (daughter) of the offender and considering that the crime is one against chastity.
No, nighttime cannot be appreciated as an aggravating circumstance because there is no indication that the offenders deliberately sought the cover of darkness to facilitate the commission of the crime or that they took advantage of nighttime (People vs. De los Reyes, 203 SCRA 707). Besides, judicial notice can be taken of the fact that Padre Faura Street is well-lighted. However, band should be considered as the crime was committed by more than three armed malefactors; in a recent Supreme Court decision, stones or rocks are considered deadly weapons. Art. 14: Cruelty; Relationship (1994) Ben, a widower, driven by bestial desire, poked a gun on his daughter Zeny, forcibly undressed her and tied her legs to the bed. He also burned her face with a lighted cigarrete. Like a madman, he laughed while raping her. What aggravating circumstances are present in this case? (1994 Bar Question)
Art. 14: Band, Nocturnity, Dwelling, Uninhabitted Place (1996) Jose, Domingo. Manolo, and Fernando, armed with bolos, at about one o'clock in the morning, robbed a house at a desolate place where Danilo, his wife, and three daughters were living. While the four were in the process of ransacking Danilo’s house, Fernando, noticing that one of Danilo’s daughters was trying to get away, ran after her and finally caught up with her in a thicket somewhat distant from the house. Fernando, before bringing back the daughter to the house, raped her first. Thereafter, the four carted away the belongings of Danilo and his family. Under the facts of the case, what aggravating circumstances may be appreciated against the four? Explain. SUGGESTED ANSWER: The aggravating circumstances which may be considered in the premises are: i) Band because all the four offenders are armed: ii) Nocturnity because evidently the offenders took advantage of night time;
85
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Page
Can the court appreciate the aggravating circumstances of nighttime and band?
Cruelty, for burning the victim’s face with a lighted cigarrete, thereby deliberately augmenting the victim’s suffering by acts clearly unnecessary to the rape, while the offender delighted and enjoyed seeing the victim suffer in pain (People vs. Lucas, 181 SCRA 316).
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
The accused and the victim occupied adjacent apartments, each being a separate dwelling unit of one big house. The accused suspected his wife of having an illicit relation with the victim. One afternoon, he saw the victim and his wife together on board a vehicle. In the evening of that day, the accused went to bed early and tried to sleep, but being so annoyed over the suspected relation between his wife and the victim, he could not sleep. Later in the night, he resolved to kill the victim. He rose from bed and took hold of a knife. He entered the apartment of the victim through an unlocked window. Inside, he saw the victim soundly asleep. He thereupon stabbed the victim, inflicting several wounds, which caused his death within a few hours. Would you say that the killing was attended by the qualifying or aggravating circumstances of evident premeditation, treachery, nighttime and unlawful entry? SUGGESTED ANSWER: Evident premeditation cannot be considered against the accused because he resolved to kill the victim 'later in the night" and there was no sufficient lapse of time between the determination and execution, to allow his conscience to overcome the resolution of his will.
Nighttime cannot be appreciated because there is no showing that the accused deliberately sought or availed of nighttime to insure the success of his act The Intention to commit the crime was conceived shortly before its commission (People vs. Pardo. 79 Phil. 568). Moreover, nighttime is absorbed in treachery. Unlawful entry may be appreciated as an aggravating circumstance, Inasmuch as the accused entered the room of the victim through the window, which is not the proper place for entrance into the house (Art. 14, par. 18, Revised Penal Code. People vs. Baruga. 61 Phil. 318). Art. 14: Aggravating circumstances Four Kinds; Generic vs Qualifying (1999) A. Name the four (4) kinds of aggravating circumstances and state their effect on the penalty of crimes and nature thereof. (3%) B. Distinguish generic aggravating circumstance from qualifying aggravating circumstance. SUGGESTED ANSWER: A. The four (4) kinds of aggravating circumstances are: 1. Generic aggravating or those that can generally apply to all crimes, and can
86
Art. 14: Evident premeditation, treachery, night time and unlawful entry (1997)
Treachery may be present because the accused stabbed the victim while the latter was sound asleep. Accordingly, he employed means and methods which directly and specially insured the execution of the act without risk himself arising from the defense which the victim might have made (People us. Dequifto. 60 Phil. 279 People vs. Miranda, et aL, 90 Phil. 91).
Page
iii) dwelling: and iv) Uninhabited place because the house where the crimes were committed was “at a desolate place" and obviously the offenders took advantage of this circumstance in committing the crime.
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
Generic aggravating circumstances:
1. affects the nature of the crime or brings about a penalty higher in degree than that ordinarily prescribed. 2. Can be offset by ordinary mitigating circumstances; 3. need not be alleged in the Information as long as proven during the trial, the same shall be considered in imposing the sentence. Qualifying circumstances: 1. must be alleged In the Information and proven during trial; 2. cannot be offset by mitigating circumstances; 3. affects the nature of the crime or brings about a penalty higher in degree than that ordinarily prescribed. Art. 14: Explosive, Treachery (2008) Roger, the leader of a crime syndicate in Malate, Manila, demanded the payment by Antonio, the owner of a motel in that area, of P10,000 a month as 'protection money". With the monthly payments, Roger assured, the syndicate would provide protection to Antonio, his business, and his
State, with reasons, the crime or crimes that had been committed as well as the aggravating circumstances, if any, attendant thereto. (7%) SUGGESTED ANSWER: The killing is qualified by the use of an explosive (hand grenade). The treachery attending the killing shall be separately appreciated as another aggravating circumstance aside from the use of explosive as the qualifying circumstance. Other aggravating circumstances which may be appreciated are: 1. Dwelling, because the killings were committed in the home of the victims who had not given any provocation; 2. Nocturnity, considering that the offenders carried out the killing at around 3:00 AM, indicative of a deliberate choice of night time for the commission of the crime; 3. Treachery, under Art. 14, par. 16, RPC, mentioned above, considering that victims were all asleep when killed; and 4. The offense was committed by a person who belongs to an organized/syndicated crime group under the Heinous Crimes Law (Sec. 23 R.A.
87
B.
employees. Should Antonio refuse, Roger warned, the motel owner would either be killed or his establishment destroyed. Antonio refused to pay the protection money. Days later, at around 3:00 in the morning, Mauro, a member of the criminal syndicate, arrived at Antonio's home and hurled a grenade into an open window of the bedroom where Antonio, his wife and their three year-old daughter were sleeping. All three of them were killed instantly when the grenade exploded.
Page
be offset by mitigating circumstances, but if not offset, would affect only the maximum of the penalty prescribed by law; 2. Specific aggravating or those that apply only to particular crimes and cannot be offset by mitigating circumstances; 3. Qualifying circumstances or those that change the nature of the crime to a graver one, or brings about a penalty next higher in degree, and cannot be offset by mitigating circumstances; 4. Inherent aggravating or those that essentially accompany the commission of the crime and does not affect the penalty whatsoever.
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
7659), amending for this purpose Art. 62(1) of the Revised Penal Code.
picklocks is equivalent to force upon things in robbery with force upon things.
Art. 14: Dwelling, Nighttime (2009)
Art. 14: Qualifying circumstance in rape cases (2004)
SUGGESTED ANSWER: Dwelling is aggravating because the crimes were committed in the privacy of Loretta's room which in law is considered as her dwelling. It is well settled that "dwelling" includes a room in a boarding house being occupied by the offended party where she enjoys privacy, peace of mind and sanctity of an abode. Nocturnity or nighttime is also aggravating because although it was not purposely or especially sought for by Wenceslao, nighttime was obviously taken advantaged of by him in committing the other crimes. Under the objective test, nocturnity is aggravating when taken advantaged of by the offender during the commission of the crime thus facilitating the same. The use of a picklock to enter the room of the victim is not an aggravating circumstance under Art. 14 of the Code but punished as a crime by itself where the offender has no lawful cause for possessing it. The use of
On automatic review before the Supreme Court, accused- appellant contends that capital punishment could not be imposed on him because of the inadequacy of the charges and the insufficiency of the evidence to prove all the elements of the heinous crime of rape beyond reasonable doubt. Is appellant’s contention correct? Reason briefly. (5%) SUGGESTED ANSWER: Yes, appellant's contention is correct insofar as the age of the victim is concerned. The age of the victim raped has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt to constitute the crime as qualified rape and deserving of the death penalty. The guidelines in appreciating age as a qualifying circumstance in rape cases have not been met, to wit: 1. The primary evidence of the age of the victim is her birth certificate; 2. In the absence of the birth certificate, age of the victim may be proven
88
[b] Discuss the applicability of the relevant aggravating circumstances of dwelling, nocturnity and the use of the picklock to enter the room of the victim. (3%)
GV was convicted of raping TC, his niece, and he was sentenced to death. It was alleged in the information that the victim was a minor below seven years old, and her mother testified that she was only six years and ten months old, which her aunt corroborated on the witness stand. The information also alleged that the accused was the victim’s uncle, a fact proved by the prosecution.
Page
Wenceslao and Loretta were staying in the same boarding house, occupying different rooms. One late evening, when everyone in the house was asleep, Wenceslao entered Loretta's room with the use of a picklock. Then, with force and violence, Wenceslao ravished Loretta. After he had satisfied his lust, Wenceslao stabbed Loretta to death and, before leaving the room, took her jewelry.
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
Aggravating
When qualifying circumstances would be deemed, if at all, elements of a crime? SUGGESTED ANSWER: A qualifying circumstance would be deemed an element of a crime when 1) it changes the nature of the crime, bringing about a more serious crime and a heavier penalty;
Art. 14: Special aggravating circumstance Use of an unlicensed firearm in the commission of a crime (2004) A. PH killed OJ, his political rival in the election campaign for Mayor of their town. The Information against PH alleged that he used an unlicensed firearm in the killing of the victim, and this was proved beyond reasonable doubt by the prosecution. The trial court convicted PH of two crimes: murder and illegal possession of firearms. Is the conviction correct? Reason briefly. (5%) SUGGESTED ANSWER: A. No, the conviction of PH for two crimes, murder and illegal possession of firearm is not correct. Under the new law on illegal possession of firearms and explosives, Rep. Act No. 8294, a person may only be criminally liable for illegal possession of firearm if no other crime is committed therewith; if a homicide or murder is committed with the use of an unlicensed firearm, such use shall be considered as an aggravating circumstance. PH therefore may only be convicted of murder and the use of an unlicensed firearm in its commission may only be appreciated as a special aggravating circumstance, provided that such use is alleged specifically in the information for Murder.
89
Art. 14: Qualifying circumstances (2003)
2) it is essential to the crime involved, otherwise some other crime is committed; and 3) it is specifically alleged in the Information and proven during the trial.
Page
by authentic document, such as baptismal certificate and school records; 3. If the aforesaid documents are shown to have been lost or destroyed or otherwise unavailable, the testimony, if clear and credible of the victim’s mother or any member of the family, by consanguinity or affinity, who is qualified to testify on matters respecting pedigree such as the exact age or date of birth of the offended party pursuant to Section 40, Rule 130 of the Rules on Evidence shall be sufficient but only under the following circumstances: (a) If the victim is alleged to be below 3 years of age and what is sought to be proved is that she is less than 7 years old; (b) If the victim is alleged to be below 7 years of age and what is sought to be proved is that she is less than 12 years old; 4. If the victim is alleged to be below 12 years of age and what is sought to be proved is that she is less than 18 years old. 5. In the absence of a certificate of live birth, authentic document, or the testimony of the victim's mother or relatives concerning the victim's age under the circumstances above-stated, complainant’s sole testimony can suffice, provided that it is expressly and clearly admitted by the accused (People vs. Pruna, 390 SCRA 577 [2002D])
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
[c] The use of an unlicensed firearm in homicide is considered a generic aggravating circumstance which can be offset by an ordinary mitigating circumstance. SUGGESTED ANSWER: False. Offsetting may not take place because the use of an unlicensed firearm in homicide or murder is a specific aggravating circumstance provided for by Rep. Act No. 8294. It is not one of the generic aggravating circumstances under Art.14 of the Revised Penal Code (People v. Avecilla, 351 SCRA 635 [20011). Article 14 Treachery (1993) As a result of a misunderstanding during a meeting, Joe was mauled by Nestor, Jolan, Reden and Arthur. He ran towards his house but the four chased and caught him. Thereafter, they tied Joe’s hands at his back and attacked him. Nestor used a knife; Jolan, a shovel; Arthur, his fists; and Reden, a piece of wood. After killing Joe, Reden ordered the digging of a grave to bury Joe’s lifeless body. Thereafter, the four (4) left together. Convicted for the killing of Joe, What was the crime committed by the four assailants? Discuss with reasons The crime committed is murder, qualified by treachery because the offenders, taking advantage of their superiority in number,
PERSONS CRIMINALLY LIABLE FOR FELONIES ART. 17Principals Participation
By
Direct
Mr. Red was drinking with his buddies, Mr. White and Mr. Blue when he saw Mr. Green with his former girlfriend, Ms. Yellow. Already drunk, Mr. Red declared in a loud voice that if he could not have Ms. Yellow, no one can. He then proceeded to the men’s room but told Mr. White and Mr. Blue to take care of Mr. Green. Mr. Blue and Mr. White asked Mr. Red what he meant but Mr. Red simply said, "You already know what I want," and then left. Mr. Blue and Mr. White proceeded to kill Mr. Green and hurt Ms. Yellow. (2014 BAR) A. What, if any, are the respective liabilities of Mr. Red, Mr. White and Mr. Blue for the death of Mr. Green? B. What, if any, are the respective liabilities of Mr. Red, Mr. White and Mr. Blue for the injuries of Ms. Yellow? SUGGESTED ANSWER A. Mr. Blue and Mr. White are liable for the death of Mr. Green as principals by direct participation. They were the ones who participated in the criminal resolution and who carried out their plan and personally took part in its execution by acts which directly tended to the same end. Mr. Red cannot be held criminally liable as principal by inducement because his
90
TRUE or FALSE. Answer TRUE if the statement is true, or FALSE if the statement is false. Explain your answer in not more than two (2) sentences. (5%)
rendered the victim defenseless and without any chance to retaliate, by tying his hands at his back before attacking him. Treachery exists at least in the second and final stage of the attack, after the offenders caught up with the victim.
Page
Art. 14: Use of an unlicensed firearm in homicide or murder (2009)
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
ART. 17Principals by direct participation and co-principal by indispensable cooperation (2000) Despite the massive advertising campaign in media against firecrackers and gun-firing during the New Year's celebrations. Jonas and Jaja bought ten boxes of super lolo and pla-pla in Bocaue, Bulacan. Before midnight of December 31,1999, Jonas and Jaja started their celebration by having a drinking spree at Jona's place by exploding their high-powered firecrackers in their neighborhood. In the course of their conversation, Jonas confided to Jaja that he has been keeping a long-time grudge against his neighbor Jepoy in view of the tatter's refusal to lend him some money. While under the influence of liquor, Jonas started throwing lighted super lolos inside Jepoy's fence to irritate him and the same exploded inside the tatter's yard. Upon knowing that the throwing of the super lolo was deliberate, Jepoy became furious and
If you were the judge, how would you decide the case? Explain. (1%) SUGGESTED ANSWER: I would convict Jonas as principal by direct participation and Jaja as co-principal by indispensable cooperation for the complex crime of murder with homicide. Jaja should be held liable as co-principal and not only as an accomplice because he knew of Jonas' criminal design even before he lent his firearm to Jonas and still he concurred in that criminal design by providing the firearm. ART. 17 Principal Accessory (1987)
by
inducement;
Juan had a land dispute with Pedro for a number of years. As Juan was earning down his house, he saw his brother, Rodolfo attack Pedro with a bolo from behind. Rodolfo was about to hit Pedro a second time while the latter was prostrate
91
B. Mr. Blue and Mr. White are liable as principals by direct participation for the crime of physical injuries for hurting Ms. Yellow to the extent of the injuries inflicted. Having no participation in the attack upon Ms. Yellow, Mr. Red would have no criminal liability therefor.
sternly warned Jonas to stop his malicious act or he would get what he wanted. A heated argument between Jonas and Jepoy ensued but Jaja tried to calm down his friend. At midnight, Jonas convinced Jaja to lend him his .45 caliber pistol so that he could use it to knock down Jepoy and to end his arrogance. Jonas thought that after all, explosions were everywhere and nobody would know who shot Jepoy. After Jaja lent his firearm to Jonas, the latter again started started throwing lighted super lolos and pla-plas at Jepoy’s yard in order to provoke him so that he would come out of his house. When Jepoy came out, Jonas immediately shot him with Jaja’s .45 caliber gun but missed his target. Instead, the bullet hit Jepoy's five year old son who was following behind him, killing the boy instantaneously.
Page
statement that Mr. Blue and Mr. White are to take care of Mr. Green was not made directly with the intention of procuring the commission of the crime. There is no showing that the words uttered by him may be considered as so efficacious and powerful so as to amount to physical or moral coercion (People v. Assad, G.R. No. L-33673, February 24, 1931). Neither is there evidence to show that Mr. Red has an ascendancy or influence over Mr. White and Mr. Blue (People v. Abarri, F.R. No. 90815, March 1, 1995).
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
SUGGESTED ANSWER: Jose, father of Juan and Rodolfo, is an accessory to the crime of murder committed by Rodolfo because he assisted him to escape to Manila. But he is not criminally liable because of his relationship to Rodolfo (Article 20). He is not an accessory to the crime of homicide, because this crime is not included in treason, parricide, muraer, attempt against the life of the Chief Executive or the principal is known to be habitually guilty of some other crime if the accessory is a private person. However, this is moot and academic because of the relationship of Jose to Rodolfo.
by
inducement;
Nel learned that Elgar, the owner of the biggest house in the place, would be out of town for three days with no one left to watch the house. He called his friends Ben, Ardo and Gorio and they planned to take the valuables in the house while Elgar was away. Nel and Ben would go inside the house, Ardo would serve as the lookout, while Gorio would stay in the getaway car. When Elgar left, they carried out their plan to the letter. Nel and Ben went inside the house through the backdoor which was left unlocked. None of the rooms and drawers inside were locked. They took the money, jewelry and other valuables therefrom and immediately left using the getaway car. After driving for about one kilometer, Nel realized he left his bag and wallet with IDs in the house and so he instructed Gorio to drive back to the house. Nel just went in thinking that the house was still empty. But to his surprise, Nel found Fermin seated on a bench with Nel's bag and wallet beside him and appeared to be texting using his smart phone. Nel took a golf club near him and hit Fermin with it. Fermin shouted for help, but Nel kept hitting him until he stopped making noise. The noise alerted the neighbor who called the police. Nel, Ben, Ardo and Gorio were caught. Fermin died. What is the criminal liability of Nel, Ben, Ardo and Gorio? Explain. SUGGESTED ANSWER: Nel, Ben, Ardo and Gorio are criminally liable as principals for the crime of Theft. They conspired to take Elgar’s personal properties without his knowledge, with intent to gain, and without violence against or intimidation of persons or force upon things (Art. 308, RPC) Nel and Ben entered the house through an unlocked backdoor
92
What crimes, if any, did (a) Rodolfo, (b) Juan and Jose commit? Explain your answer and state whether the acts committed are accompanied by circumstances affecting criminal liability.
ART. 17 Principal Accessory (2015)
Page
on the ground, when Carling, Pedro’s son, shouted, “I’ll kill you.” This distracted Rodolfo who then turned ter Carling. Rodolfo and Carling fought with their bolos. While the two were fighting, Juan shouted to his brother Rodolfo: “Kill them both, they are our enemies.” Calling suffered a number of wounds and died on the spot, Pedro who was in serious condition was rushed to the hospital. He died five days later for loss of blood because the blood purchased from Manila which could have saved him, according to the doctor, did not arrive on time, Jose, father of Juan and Rodolfo, told his sons to hide in Manila and he gave them money for the purpose. When the police investigators saw Jose, he told the police investigators that Juan and Rodolfo went to Mindanao.
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
ART. 17 Principal Accessory (1989)
by
inducement;
Mario, a law student, wanted to avenge the death of his brother, Jose, in the hands of Pedro and his gang. So, Mario talked to Dalmacio, known tough guy, to kill Pedro by promising him P50,000 to be paid after he had accomplished the killing. Dalmacio agreed. Since Pedro was to appear in court the following day at 9:00 a.m. at the city hall to attend the hearing involving the death of Jose, Mario told Dalmacio to carry out the plan at that exact time in the court room, to which Dalmacio assented. At 8:50 a.m., Mario went to see Captain Malonso of the Police Department and told him that Dalmacio would kill Pedro at 9:00 a.m. at the city hall. He asked Captain Malonso to prevent it and so the latter rushed to the city hall but arrived at 9:05 a.m. when Dalmacio had already killed Pedro. Is Mario liable as
SUGGESTED ANSWER: Mario is a principal by inducement. By promising to give P50,000.00 to Dalmacio, which is an agreement for a consideration for the purpose of avenging his brother's death the inducement was made directly with the intention of procuring the commission of the crime. Furthermore, the facts show that Dalmacio has no personal reason to kill Pedro except the inducement, which is therefore the determining cause for the commission of the crime by Dalmacio. Mario's change of mind and heart at the last minute, which did not, after all, prevent the consummation of the crime, because it was too late, does not alter the course of his criminal liability as a co-principal by inducement. Desistance from carrying out a criminal design is no defense if such desistance has not actually and successfully prevented the commission of the crime. ART. 17 Principal Accessory (2002)
by
inducement;
A asked B to kill C because of a grave injustice done to A by C. A promised B a reward. B was willing to kill C, not so much because of the reward promised to him but because he also had his own long-standing grudge against C, who had wronged him in the past. If C is killed by B, would A be liable as a principal by inducement? (5%) SUGGESTED ANSWER: No. A would not be liable as a principal by inducement because the reward he promised S is not the sole impelling reason which made B to kill C. To bring about
93
Nel, however, is also liable for the separate crime of Homicide for the death of Fermin. The killing of Fermin was a separate act and was not a necessary means for committing Theft (Art. 48, RPC) because the latter crime was already consummated. Nel killed Fermin for a different reason perhaps because of his anger that Fermin was in possession of his bag and wallet and appeared to be using his smart phone to contact the police.
co-principal with Dalmacio for the killing of Pedro? Give your reasons.
Page
and took the valuables from the rooms and drawers that wer likewise left unlocked. Nel and Ben are liable as principals by direct participation while Ardo and Gorio are principals by indispensable cooperation because they have concurred in the criminal resolution and cooperated by performing another act as lookout and driver of a getaway car, respectively, which were indispensable for the commission of the crime (Art. 17, RPC).
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
To secure a release of his brother Willy, a detention prisoner, and his cousin Vincent, who is serving sentence for homicide, Chito asked the RTC Branch Clerk of Court to issue an Order which would allow the two prisoners to be brought out of jail. At first, the Clerk refused, but when Chita gave her P50,000.00, she consented. She then prepared an Order requiring the appearance in court of Willy and Vincent, ostensibly as witnesses in a pending case. She forged the judge's signature, and delivered the Order to the jail warden who, in turn, allowed Willy and Vincent to go out of jail in the company of an armed escort, Edwin. Chito also gave Edwin P50,000.00 to leave the two inmates unguarded for three minutes and provide them with an opportunity to escape. Thus, Willy and Vincent were able to escape. What crime or crimes, if any, had been committed by Chito, Willy, Vincent, the Branch Clerk of court, Edwin, and the jail warden? Explain your answer. (5%) SUGGESTED ANSWER: The crimes committed in this case are as follows:
Willy committed the crime of Delivery of Prisoners from Jail (Art. 156, RPC) as a principal by indispensable cooperation if he was aware of the criminal plan of Chito to have them escape from prison and he did escape pursuant to such criminal plan; otherwise he would not be liable for said crime if he escaped pursuant to human instinct only. Vincent, being a prisoner serving sentence by final judgment, committed the crime of Evasion of Service of Sentence (Art. 157, RPC) for escaping during the term of his imprisonment. The Branch Clerk of Court committed the crimes of: 1. Direct Bribery (Art. 210, RPC) for accepting the P50,000.00 - in consideration of the order she issued to enable the prisoners to get out of jail; 2. Falsification of Public Document for forging the judge's signature on said Order (Art. 171, RPC); 3. Delivery of Prisoners from Jail (Art. 156, RPC), as a co-principal of Chito by indispensable cooperation for making the false Order and forging the judge's signature thereon, to enable the prisoners to get out of jail; 4. 4. Evasion of Service of Sentence (Art. 157, RPC); as a co-principal of Vincent by indispensable cooperation for
94
ART 17- Principal by indispensable cooperation; principal by inducement (2009)
Chito committed the crimes of Delivery of Prisoners from Jail (Art. 156, RPC) for working out the escape of prisoners Willy and Vincent; Two counts of Corruption of Public Officials (Art. 212, RPC); and 3. Falsification of Public Documents, as a principal by inducement (Art. 172 [1], RPC).
Page
criminal liability of a co-principal, the inducement made by the inducer must be the sole consideration which caused the person induced to commit the crime and without which the crime would not have been committed. The facts of the case indicate that B, the killer supposedly induced by A, had his own reason to kill C out of a long standing grudge.
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
1. Infidelity in the Custody of Prisoners, specifically conniving with or consenting to Evasion for leaving unguarded the prisoners escorted by him and provide them an opportunity to escape (Art. 223, RPC); 2. Direct Bribery for receiving the P50,000.00 as consideration for leaving the prisoners unguarded and allowing them the opportunity to escape (Art. 210, RPC); The jail warden did not commit nor incur a crime there being no showing that he was aware of what his subordinates had done nor of any negligence on his part that would amount to infidelity in the custody of prisoners.
ACCOMPLICES ART. 18- Who is an accomplice? (2012) A: Accomplices are those persons who, not being the principal, cooperate in the execution of the offense by previous or simultaneous acts (Art. 18, RPC). ART. 18 Accomplice vs Conspirator: Distinctions (2007, 2012) Distinguish between an accomplice and a conspirator. SUGGESTED ANSWER: The distinctions between an accomplice and a conspirator are: 1. An accomplice incurs criminal liability by merely cooperating in the
Accomplice (1) Community of criminal design; that is, knowing the criminal design of the principal by direct participation, he concurs with the latter in his purpose; (2) the performance of the previous or simultaneous acts that are not indispensible to the commission of the crime Conspirator (1) that the agreement concerned the commission of a crime; (2) that two or more persons come to an agreement; (3) that the execution of the felony was decided upon.
95
Edwin, the jail guard who escorted the prisoners in getting out of jail, committed the crimes of –
execution of the crime without participating as a principal, by prior or simultaneous acts; whereas a conspirator participates in the commission of a crime as a coprincipal. 2. An accomplice incurs criminal liability in an individual capacity by his act alone of cooperating in the execution of the crime; while a conspirator incurs criminal liability not only for his individual acts in the execution of the crime but also for the acts of the other participants in the commission of the crime collectively. The acts of the other participants in the execution of the crime are considered also as acts of a conspirator for purposes of collective criminal responsibility. 3. An accomplice participates in the execution of a crime when the criminal design or plan is already in place; whereas a conspirator participates in the adoption or making of the criminal design. 4. An accomplice is subjected to a penalty one degree lower than that of a principal; whereas a conspirator incurs the penalty of a principal. 5. As to Requisites
Page
making the false Order that enabled Vincent to evade service of his sentence;
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
ART. 18 Accomplice vs Conspirator (1998)
ACCESSORIES
Juan and Arturo devised a plan to murder Joel. In a narrow alley near Joel's house, Juan will hide behind the big lamppost and shoot Joel where the latter passes through on his way to work. Arturo will come from the other end of the alley and simultaneously shoot Joel from behind. On the appointed day, Arturo was apprehended by the authorities before reaching the alley. When Juan shot Joel as planned, he was unaware that Arturo was arrested earlier. Discuss the criminal liability of Arturo, if any. 15%
Art. 19. Accessories And Art. 20 Accessories who are exempt; In relation to Composite crime of rape with homicide; theft (1998)
Later, King gave Jose, his legitimate brother, one piece of jewelry belonging to Laura. Jose knew that the jewelry was taken from Laura but nonetheless he sold it for P2.000. What crime or crimes did King, Doming and Jose commit? Discuss their criminal liabilities. (10% SUGGESTED ANSWER: King committed the composite crime of Rape with homicide as a single indivisible offense, not a complex crime, and Theft. The taking of Laura's jewelry when she is already dead is only theft. Doming's acts, having been done with knowledge of the commission of the crime and obviously to conceal the body of the crime to prevent its discovery, makes him an accessory to the crime of rape with homicide under Art. 19, par. 2 of the Rev. Penal Code, but he is exempt from criminal liability therefor under Article 20 of the
96
Arturo, being one of the two who devised the plan to murder Joel, thereby becomes a co-principal by direct conspiracy. What is needed only is an overt act and both will incur criminal liability. Arturo's liability as a conspirator arose from his participation in jointly devising the criminal plan with Juan, to kill Jose. And it was pursuant to that conspiracy that Juan killed Joel. The conspiracy here is actual, not by inference only. The overt act was done pursuant to that conspiracy whereof Arturo is coconspirator. There being a conspiracy, the act of one is the act of all. Arturo, therefore, should be liable as a co-conspirator but the penalty on him may be that of an accomplice only (People vs. Nierra, 96 SCRA1; People vs. Medrano, 114 SCRA 335) because he was not able to actually participate in the shooting of Joel, having been apprehended before reaching the place where the crime was committed.
Doming, King's adopted brother, learned about the incident. He went to Laura's house, hid her body, cleaned everything and washed the bloodstains inside the room.
Page
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
King went to the house of Laura who was alone. Laura offered him a drink and after consuming three bottles of beer. King made advances to her and with force and violence, ravished her. Then King killed Laura and took her jewelry.
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
ART 19- Accessories (2013) Modesto and Abelardo are brothers. Sometime in August 1998 while Abelardo was in his office, Modesto, together with two other men in police uniform, came with two heavy bags. Modesto asked Abelardo to keep the two bags in his vault until he comes back to get them. When Abelardo later examined the two bags, he saw bundles of money that, in his rough count, could not be less than P5 Million. He kept the money inside the vault and soon he heard the news that a gang that included Modesto had been engaged in bank robberies. Abelardo, unsure of what to do under the circumstances, kept quiet about the two bags in his vault. Soon after, the police captured, and secured a confession from, Modesto who admitted that their loot had been deposited with Abelardo. What is Abelardo's liability? SUGGESTED ANSWER Abelardo is not criminally liable. To be criminally liable as an accessory under Art. 19, such person must have knowledge of the commission of the crime. The term
ART 19- Accessories (2009) Ponciano borrowed Ruben's gun, saying that he would use it to kill Freddie. Because Ruben also resented Freddie, he readily lent his gun, but told Ponciano: "0, pagkabaril mo kay Freddie, isauli mo kaagad, ha." Later, Ponciano killed Freddie, but used a knife because he did not want Freddie's neighbors to hear the gunshot. A. What, if any, is the liability of Ruben? Explain. (3%) B. Would your answer be the same if, instead of Freddie, it was Manuel, a relative of Ruben, who was killed by Ponciano using Ruben's gun? Explain. (3%) SUGGESTED ANSWER: A. Ruben's liability is that of an accomplice only because he merely cooperated in Ponciano's determination to kill Freddie. Such cooperation is not indispensable to the killing, as in fact the killing was carried out without the use of Ruben's gun. Neither may Ruben be regarded as a co-conspirator since he was not a participant in the decisionmaking of Ponciano to kill Freddie; he merely cooperated in carrying out the criminal plan which was already in place (Art. 18, RPC). B. No. The answer would not be the same because Ruben lent his gun purposely for the killing of Freddie only, not
97
Jose incurs criminal liability either as an accessory to the crime of theft committed by King, or as fence. Although he is a legitimate brother of King, the exemption under Article 20 does not include the participation he did, because he profited from the effects of such theft by selling the jewelry knowing that the same was taken from Laura. Or Jose may be prosecuted for fencing under the Anti-Fencing Law of 1979 (PD No. 1612) since the jewelry was the proceeds of theft and with intent to gain, he received it from King and sold it.
“knowledge “under the law is not synonymous with suspicion. Mere suspicion that the crime has been committed is not sufficient. Even if he can be considered as an accessory under Art. 19(2) of RPC, Abelardo is not liable, being the brother of Modesto under Art. 20, RPC.
Page
Code, being an adopted brother of the principal.
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
A. Did Juanito commit any crime? B. Would the situation be different if at the time Ricardo secured the professional services of Juanito, ABC Insurance Company had already paid Sing Hua the insurance and the latter had in turn paid Ricardo 10% thereof?
ART. 19- Accessories (1987)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Ricardo secured the services of Atty. Juanito to defend him in an arson case pending in court. Juanito asked his client what actually happened. Ricardo informed his lawyer that Sing Hua, owner of a department store, hired him to bum the store because Sing Hua was losing heavily and wanted to get the insurance on the store. Ricardo said that Sing Hua paid him P5,000.00, and promised an additional 10% of the proceeds of the PI0,000,000.00 lire insurance once this was collected from the insurance company. He further said that Sing Hna’s claim for payment of the fire insurance was still pending and its approval depended on the outcome of the arson case. This meant that the ABC Insurance Company would pay the claim should Ricardo be acquitted in the arson case. Then he would also get the 10% share of the fire insurance proceeds. He told lawyer Juanito that by depending him in the arson case, the latter would be helping collect the 10% which would amount of P1,000,000.00. After hearing Ricardo’s story, Atty. Juanito told him he could not further give him professional advice or services and so Ricardo left That same
A. Juanito did not commit any crime. By telling Ricardo that he could not give him professional advice or services, after being informed that the owner of the department store hired him to bum the store because it was losing heavily and wanted to get the insurance on the store, and that he was paid already P5,000 with a promise of an additional 10% of the proceeds of the PI0,000,000 fire insurance once collected from the insurance company, Atty. Juanito complied with his obligation as a lawyer to report to the authorities whatever knowledge he has regarding the commission of a crime. B. Juanito will be liable as an accessory because by accepting 10% of the insurance proceeds even in payment of the professional services, he profited or assisted the principal, Ricardo, to profit from the proceeds of the commission of the crime. ART. 19- Accessories (1989) Emilio and Andres were walking home from the farm at 8:00 o’clock in the evening
98
It has been ruled that when the owner of the gun knew that it would be used to kill a particular person, but the offender used it to kill another person, the owner of the gun is not an accomplice as to the killing of the other person. While there was community of design to kill Freddie between Ponciano and Ruben, there was none with respect to the killing of Manuel.
day, Juanito went to the NBI and told the NBI what Ricardo narrated him. The NBI alerted ABC Insurance Company, which immediately denied the daim for payment of insurance and filed a complaint for attempted estafa through arson against Sing Hua and Ricardo.
Page
for any other killing. Ponciano's using Ruben's gun in killing a person other than Freddie is beyond Ruben's criminal intent and willing involvement. Only Ponciano will answer for the crime against Manuel.
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
If I were the fiscal, I would file two separate informations against Emilio and Andres, one for homicide with Emilio as principal and Andres as accessory, and another for theft against both Emilio and Andres as principals. This is so because of the following reasons: 1. The killing of Asiong by Emilio is homicide. It is not attended by any qualifying circumstance of murder. It was a killing at the spur of the moment, in the course of a bolo fight, as an aftermath of a heated discussion. 2. Neither was the killing by reason of or on the occasion of a robbery. There was no intention of either Emilio or Andres to rob Asiong either prior to or in the course of the killing. The taking of Asiong’s P600.00 was only an AFTERTHOUGHT, after the killing was already perpetrated. There is no
With respect to the taking of the P600.00 which Emilio and Andres divided between themselves, they committed the crime of theft as co-principals. Theft because with intent to gain but without violence against or intimidation of persons no force upon things, they took personal property of another without the latter’s consent. They acted with unity of purposes and intention, thus making them co-principals by direct participation. ART. 19- Accessories (2004) B. DCB, the daughter of MCB, stole the earrings of XYZ, a stranger. MCB pawned the earrings with TBI Pawnshop as a pledge for P500 loan. During the trial, MCB raised the defense that being the mother of DCB, she cannot be held liable as an accessory. Will MCB’s defense prosper? Reason briefly. (5%) SUGGESTED ANSWER: B. No, MCB’s defense will not prosper because the exemption from criminal liability of an accessory by virtue of
99
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
causal or other connection between the act of killing and the act of taking the money. 3. Andres is liable as an accessory in the homicide case because he had no participation either as co-principal or accomplice in the killing of Asiong who died solely because of the wounds inflicted on him in his bolo-fight with Emilio, the principal. However, when Andres agreed to help Emilio carry the body of Asiong and bury it behind the bushes, thus concealing or destroying the body of the crime (corpus delicti) to prevent its discovery, he became an accessory to the crime of homicide (Art. 19, RPC).
Page
when they met Asiong whom Emilio suspected as the one who stole his fighting cock two (2) days before; Emilio confronted Asiong and after a heated discussion, a bolo fight between the two (2) ensued. Asiong sustained fatal wounds and died. Emilio asked Andres to help him carry the body of Asiong and bury it behind the bushes. After burying Asiong, Emilio picked up the jute bag Asiong was then holding and found inside P600 which Emilio and Andres divided each getting P300. A week after the investigation by the police, a complaint was filed in the Office of Provincial Fiscal against Emilio and Andres for robbery with homicide with the aggravating circumstances of nighttime and uninhabited place. If you were the fiscal, what information or information will you file against Emilio and Andres? What are their respective criminal liabilities?
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
Immediately after murdering Bob, Jake went to his mother to seek refuge. His mother told him to hide in the maid's quarters until she finds a better place for him to hide. After two days, Jake transferred to his aunt's house. A week later, Jake was apprehended by the police. Can Jake's mother and aunt be made criminally liable as accessories to the crime of murder? Explain. (3%) SUGGESTED ANSWER: Obviously, Jake's mother was aware of her son's having committed a felony, such that her act of harboring and concealing him renders her liable as an accessory. But being an ascendant of Jake, she is exempt from criminal liability by express provision of Article 20 of the Revised Penal Code. On the other hand, the criminal liability of Jake's aunt depends on her knowledge of the felony committed by Jake. If she had knowledge of his commission of the felony, her act of harboring and concealing Jake would render her criminally liable as accessory to the crime of murder; otherwise without knowledge of Jake's commission of the felony, she would not be liable. ART. 19- Accessories (2008)
a) Can he be held liable for the charge? Explain. (4%) (2008 Bar Question) SUGGESTED ANSWER: a) Giving Domeng the benefit of a milder criminal responsibility of an accomplice, not of a co-principal by indispensable cooperation of Manolo, Mayor Tan could not be liable as an accessory to Cece's murder. To incur criminal liability of an accessory for helping or assisting in the escape of an offender, he must be a principal of the crime committed. Unless Domeng would be considered as a coprincipal by indispensable cooperation in the commission of the murder, the Mayor, by assisting him to escape, would be an accessory to the felony. a) Decree Penalizing Obstruction of Apprehension and Prosecution of Criminal Offenders (P.D.1829) (i) Punishable acts (ii) Compare with Art. 20, RPC (accessories exempt from criminal liability) ART. 19- Accessories (2008) Mancolo revealed to his friend Domeng his desire to kill Cece. He likewise confided to Domeng his desire to borrow his revolver. Domeng lent it. Manolo shot Cece in Manila
100
ART. 19- Accessories (2010)
Mancolo revealed to his friend Domeng his desire to kill Cece. He likewise confided to Domeng his desire to borrow his revolver. Domeng lent it. Manolo shot Cece in Manila with Domeng's revolver. As his gun was used in the killing, Domeng asked Mayor Tan to help him escape. The mayor gave Domeng P5,000 and told him to proceed to Mindanao to hide. Domeng went to Mindanao. The mayor was later charged as an accessory to Cece's murder.
Page
relationship with the principal does not cover accessories who themselves profited from or assisted the offender to profit by the effects or proceeds of the crime. This nonexemption of an accessory, though related to the principal of the crime, is expressly provided in Art. 20 of the Revised Penal Code.
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
SUGGESTED ANSWER: b) Although the Mayor may not be held liable as an accessory to the killing of Cece, he may be held liable for obstruction of justice under Presidential Decree No. 1829 for assisting Domeng, who was involved in the commission of a crime, to escape from Manila to Mindanao. PENALTIES ART 25- PENALTIES WHICH MAY BE IMPOSED A. State the two classes of penalties under the revised Penal Code. Define each. (1988 Bar Question) B. May censure be included in a sentence of acquittal? Why or why not? (1988 Bar Question) C. What offenses, if any, may be punished with the death penalty in our jurisdiction at present? Explain. (1988 Bar Question) SUGGESTED ANSWER: A. The two classes of penalties under Article 25 of the Revise Penal Code are as follows: Principal Accessory
B. Censure may not be included in a sentence of acquittal, because a censure is a penalty. Censure is repugnant and is essentially inconsistent and contrary to an acquittal (People vs. Abellera, 69 Phil. 623.) C. At present, no offense may be punished with the death penalty in our jurisdiction at present. The 1987 Constitution has abolished the death penalty and the abolition affects even those who has already been sentenced to death penalty. Therefore, unless Congress enacts a law, no offense may be punished with the death penalty at present. But until today, Congress has not yet passed a law to this effect. Duration and Effect Imposition (1991)
of
Penalties,
Imagine that you are a Judge trying a case, and based on the evidence presented and the applicable law, you have decided on the guilt of two (2) accused. Indicate the five (5) steps you would follow to determine the exact penalty to be imposed. Stated differently, what are the factors you must consider to arrive at the correct penalty? (1991 Bar Question) SUGGESTED ANSWER: 1. Determine the crime committed; 2. Stage of execution and degree of participation; 3. Determine the penalty;
101
Can he be held liable for any other offense? Explain fully. (3%)
A principal penalty is defined as that provided for a felony and which is imposed by court expressly upon conviction. An accessory penalty is defined as that deemed included in the imposition of the principal penalty.
Page
with Domeng's revolver. As his gun was used in the killing, Domeng asked Mayor Tan to help him escape. The mayor gave Domeng P5,000 and told him to proceed to Mindanao to hide. Domeng went to Mindanao. The mayor was later charged as an accessory to Cece's murder.
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
4. Consider the modifying circumstances; 5. Determine whether Indeterminate Sentence Law is applicable or not. Penalties,
A and B pleaded guilty to the crime of parricide. The court found three mitigating circumstances, namely, plea of guilty, lack of instruction and lack of intent to commit so grave a wrong as that committed. The prescribed penalty for parricide is reclusion perpetua to death. Impose the proper principal penalty. (1997 Bar Question) SUGGESTED ANSWER: The proper penalty is reclusion perpetua. Even if there are two or more mitigating circumstances, a court cannot lower the penalty by one degree (Art. 63. par. 3, Revised Penal Code; People vs. Formigones, 87 Phil. 685). In U.S. vs. Relador, 60 Phil. 593, where the crime committed was parricide with the two (2) mitigating circumstances of illiteracy and lack of intention to commit so grave a wrong, and with no aggravating circumstance, the Supreme Court held that the proper penalty to be imposed is reclusion perpetua. Duration and Effect of Penalties, Imposition (1997) A was convicted of the complex crime of death through falsification of public document. Since the amount involved did not exceed P200.00, the penalty prescribed by law for estafa is arresto mayor in its medium and maximum periods. The penalty prescribed by law for
SUGGESTED ANSWER: The proper penalty is ANY RANGE WITHIN prision correccional (six (6) months and one (1) day to six (6) years) as MINIMUM, to ANY RANGE within prision mayor maximum (ten (10) years and one (1) day to twelve (12) years) as MAXIMUM. This is in accordance with People vs. Gonzales, 73 Phil. 549. where it was ruled that for the purpose of determining the penalty next lower in degree, the penalty that should be considered as a starting point is the whole of prision mayor, it being the penalty prescribed by law, and not prision mayor in its maximum period, which is only the penalty actually applied because of Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code. The penalty next lower in degree therefor is prision correctional and it is within the range of this penalty that the minimum should be taken. Duration and Effect Imposition (1997)
of
Penalties,
Assume In the preceding problem that there were two mitigating circumstances and no aggravating circumstance. Impose the proper prison penalty. (1997 Bar Question) SUGGESTED ANSWER: There being two (2) mitigating circumstances without any aggravating circumstance, the proper prison penalty is arresto mayor (in any of Its periods, le. ranging from one (1) month and one (1) day to six (6) months) as MINIMUM to prision
102
of
Impose the proper prison penalty. (1997 Bar Question)
Page
Duration and Effect Imposition (1997)
falsification of public document is prision mayor plus fine not to exceed P5.000.00.
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
correctional in its maximum period four (4) years, two (2) months, and one (1) day to six (6) years as MAXIMUM. Under Art. 64, par. 5 of the Revised Penal Code, when a penalty contains three periods, each one of which forms a period In accordance with Article 76 and 77 of the same Code, and there are two or more mitigating circumstances and no aggravating circumstances, the penalty next lower in degree should be Imposed. For purposes of the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the penalty next lower In degree should be determined without regard as to whether the basic penalty provided by the Revised Penal Code should be applied In its maximum or minimum period as circumstances modifying liability may require. The penalty next lower In degree to priskm correctional Therefore, as previously stated, the minimum should be within the range of arresto mayor and the maximum is within the range of prision correccional maltnits maximum period.
accused who is insolvent and unable to pay the fine, shall serve the subsidiary imprisonment. b) The judge may not validly impose an alternative penalty. Although the law may prescribe an alternative penalty for a crime, it does not mean that the court may impose the alternative penalties at the same time. The sentence must be definite, otherwise the judgment cannot attain finality. Civil Indemnity The accused was found guilty of 10 counts of rape for having carnal knowledge with the same woman. In addition to the penalty of imprisonment, he was ordered to pay indemnity in the amount of P50,000.00 for each count. On appeal, the accused questions the award of civil indemnity for each count, considering that the victim is the same woman. How would you rule on the contention of the accused? Explain. (3%) (2005 Bar Question)
Alternative Penalty SUGGESTED ANSWER:
SUGGESTED ANSWER: a) Imposing the penalty of fine jointly and severally on the two convicted accused is not proper. The penalty should be imposed individually on every person accused of the crime. Any of the convicted
Reclusion Perpetua Imprisonment (1994)
vs
Life
Differentiate reclusion perpetua from life imprisonment. SUGGESTED ANSWER:
103
a) Is the penalty proper? Explain. b) May the judge impose an alternative penalty of fine or imprisonment? Explain. (4%) (2005 Bar Question)
The contention of the accused is without merit. Each count of rape is a violation of the person of the victim and thus gives rise to corresponding criminal and civil liabilities. The trial court is correct in imposing a penalty for each rape and awarding corresponding civil indemnity for each count even though the victim is the same woman. Rape is not a continued crime.
Page
E and M are convicted of a penal law that imposes a penalty of fine or imprisonment or both fine and imprisonment. The judge sentenced them to pay the fine, jointly and severally, with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency.
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
vs
Life
After trial. Judge Juan Laya of the Manila RTC found Benjamin Garcia guilty of Murder, the victim having sustained several bullet wounds In his body so that he died despite medical assistance given in the Ospital ng Maynlla Because the weapon usfed by Benjamin was unlicensed and the qualifying circumstance of treachery was found to be present, Judge Laya rendered his decision convicting Benjamin and sentencing him to "reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment". Are "reclusion perpetua" and life imprisonment the same and can be imposed interchangeably as in the foregoing sentence? Or are they totally different? State your reasons. (3%)
Life imprisonment, on the other hand, is a penalty prescribed by special laws, with no fixed duration of imprisonment and without any accessory penalty. Reclusion Perpetua Imprisonment (2009)
vs
Life
TRUE or FALSE. Answer TRUE if the statement is true, or FALSE if the statement is false. Explain your answer in not more than two (2) sentences. (5%) (2009 Bar Question) Life imprisonment is a penalty more favorable to the convict than reclusion perpetua. SUGGESTED ANSWER: False. Life imprisonment is unfavorable to a convict because the penalty is without a fixed duration, unlike the penalty of reclusion perpetua which has a fixed duration of 40 years and the convict may be eligible for pardon after 30 years of imprisonment (People v. Penillos, 205 SCRA 546 (1992). ART 27 – Penalties – perpetua; pecuniary pecuniary liabilities
Reclusion penalties;
SUGGESTED ANSWER: Under Article 27 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act (RA)
104
Reclusion Perpetua Imprisonment (2001)
Reclusion perpetua is a penalty prescribed by the Revised Penal Code, with a fixed duration of imprisonment from 20 years and 1 day to 40 years, and carries it with accessory penalties.
Page
Reclusion perpetua is that penalty provided for in the Revised Penal Code for crimes defined in and penalized therein except for some crimes defined by special laws which impose reclusion perpetua, such as violations of Republic Act 6425, as amended by Republic Act 7659 or of PD 1860; while life imprisonment is a penalty usually provided for in special laws. Reclusion perpetua has a duration of twenty (20) years and one (1) day to forty (40) years under Republic Act 7659, while life imprisonment has no duration; reclusion perpetua maybe reduced by one or two degrees; reclusion perpetua has accessory penalties while life imprisonment does not have any accessory penalties (People vs. Baguio. 196 SCRA 459, People vs. Panellos, 205 SCRA 546).
The penalty of reclusion perpetua and the penalty of life imprisonment are totally different from each other and therefore, should not he used interchangeably.
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
No. 7659, reclusion perpetua shall be from 20 years and 1 day to 40 years. Does this mean that reclusion perpetua is now a divisible penalty? Explain. (2%) (2005 Bar Question)
The first two liabilities (nos. 1 and 2) are payable as civil indemnity to the private parties offended by the crime; while the last two (nos. 3 and 4) are payable to the Government.
SUGGESTED ANSWER: ART 39-SUBSIDIARY PENALTY
Distinguish pecuniary penalties from pecuniary liabilities. (2%) (2005 Bar Question) SUGGESTED ANSWER: Pecuniary penalties are those which a convicted offender may be required to pay in money to the Government. These are: -
fine; and costs of the proceedings.
Pecuniary liabilities, on the other hand, are those which a convicted offender is required to pay in money to the offended party and to the Government. They are: reparation of the damage caused; indemnification of consequential damages; fine; and costs of the proceedings (Art. 38, RPC)
SUGGESTED ANSWER: The petition for habeas corpus will prosper. Subsidiary penalty is not an accessory penalty which inheres to a principal penalty and may therefore be imposed even if it is not expressly provided in the sentence. It is a penalty in lieu of the penalty imposed in the sentence. Hence, unless the judgment or sentence expressly provides for subsidiary imprisonment, the culprit cannot be made to undergo the same (People vs. Fajardo, 65 Phil. 639). In this case, the court merely sentenced Pedro to pay a P3,000.00 fine. It was only LATER that the Court ordered the incarceration of Pedro to serve subsidiary imprisonment AFTER Pedro failed to pay the amount of the fine. Subsidiary imprisonment cannot be imposed unless it is expressly provided in the sentence.
105
ART 38- PECUNIARY LIABILITIES
Pedro was convicted of the crime of damage to property through reckless imprudence for bumping the car of Jose and the court of sentenced him to pay a fine of P3,Q00. Pedro failed to pay die amount of the fine for he was insolvent. Later, the court ordered the incarceration of Pedro so that the latter could serve subsidiary imprisonment to satisfy the fine. Pedro filed a petition for habeas corpus alleging that his confinement is illegal. Will the petition prosper? Give your reasons. (1989 Bar Question)
Page
No, reclusion perpetua is still an indivisible penalty although it has been given a fixed duration by R.A. No. 7659 (an act to impose the Death Penalty on certain Heinous crimes). In an en banc ruling of the Supreme Court in People v. Conrado Lucas 240 SCRA 66 (1995), it was held that reclusion perpetua has remained an indivisible penalty as there is no clear legislative intention to make the penalty divisible.
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
What are the instances when the death penalty could not be imposed, although it should otherwise ordinarily be meted out? (1997 Bar Question) ANSWER: 1. When the guilty party is below 18 years of age at the time of the commission of the crime or when the offender is more than 70 years of age. 2. When upon appeal or automatic review of the case by the Supreme Court, the required majorityvoteisnot obtained for the imposition of the penalty, in which case the penalty shall be reclusion perpetua. Proscription on Death Penalty A. When was the constitutional proscription against the imposition of the death penalty lifted? (1995 Bar Question) B. When is the execution of the death penalty suspended under the Revised Penal Code? (1995 Bar Question) C. When is the death penalty commuted under the same Code? (1995 Bar Question) SUGGESTED ANSWER: A. The constitutional proscription against the imposition of the death penalty was lifted with the enactment of RA 7659, otherwise known as the Heinous Crimes Law, which took effect fifteen (15) days after publication on December 16,1993,thatisonDecember31,1993 {People vs. Martin Simon, 234 SCRA 555). B. Death penalty shall not be executed (a) upon a woman within three years after
Death Penalty The death penalty cannot be inflicted under which of the following circumstances: 1. When the guilty person is at least 18 years of age at the time of the commission of the crime. 2. When the guilty person is more than 70 years of age. 3. When, upon appeal to or automatic review by the Supreme Court, the required majority for the imposition of the death penalty is not obtained. 4. When the person is convicted of a capital crime but before execution becomes insane. 5. When the accused is a woman while she is pregnant or within one year after delivery. Explain your answer or choice briefly. (5%) (2004 Bar Question) SUGGESTED ANSWER: Understanding the word “inflicted" to mean the imposition of the death penalty, not its execution, the circumstance in which the death penalty cannot be inflicted is no. 2: “when the guilty person is more than 70 years of age” (Art. 47, Revised Penal Code). Instead, the penalty shall be commuted to reclusion perpetua, with the accessory penalties provided in Article 40, RPC.
106
(Note: no longer of any force or effect because of the substantive provisions thereof being inconsistent with RA 9346)
date of the sentence, (b) while she is pregnant, (c) upon a person over 70 years old (Art. 83 RPC), or (d) upon a convict who becomes insane after final sentence (Art. 79. RPC). C. When the convict reaches the age of 70 years the death sentence is commuted to reclusion perpetua (Art. 83, RPC).
Page
ART 47- CASES WHEREIN THE DEATH PENALTY SHALL NOT BE IMPOSED
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
In circumtances nos. 4 & 5, the death penalty can be imposed if prescribed by the law violated although its execution shall be suspended when the convict becomes insane before it could be executed and while he is insane. Likewise, the death penalty can be imposed upon a woman but its execution shall be suspended during her pregnancy and for one year after her delivery.
ART.48- Special Complex Crime (2016) A, an OFW, worked in Kuwait for several years as a chief accountant, religiously sending to his wife, B, 80% of all his earnings. After his stint abroad, he was shocked to know that B became the paramour of a married man, C, and that all the monies he sent to B were given by her to C. To avenge his honor, A hired X, Y and Z and told them to kidnap C and his wife, D, so that he can inflict injuries on C to make him suffer, and humiliate him in front of his wife. X, Y and Z were paid P20,000.00 each and were promised a
At midnight, A, with the fully armed X, Y and Z, forcibly opened the door and gained entrance to the house of C and D. C put up a struggle before he was subdued by A's group. They boarded C and D in a van and brought the two to a small hut in a farm outside Metro Manila. Both hands of C and D were tied. With the help of X, Y and Z, A raped D in front of C. X, Y and Z then took turns in raping D, and subjected C to torture until he was black and blue and bleeding profusely from several stab wounds. A and his group set the hut on fire before leaving, killing both C and D. X, Y and Z were paid their reward. Bothered by his conscience, A surrendered the next day to the police, admitting the crimes he committed. As the RTC judge, decide what crime or crimes were committed by A, X, Y and Z, and what mitigating and aggravating circumstances will be applied in imposing the penalty. Explain. (5%) A, X, Y and Z are liable for two counts of kidnapping with murder qualified by means of fire, since C and D were killed in the course of the detention. In a special complex crime of kidnapping with murder, it is immaterial that other crimes were committed such as multiple rapes and arson. Since multiple rapes and arson are committed by reason or on occasion of kidnapping, they shall be integrated into one and indivisible felony of kidnapping with murder (People v. Larranaga, 13887475, 31 January 2004). The mitigating circumstances of passion and voluntary surrender can be appreciated in favor of A. The aggravating circumstances of unlawful entry, by means
107
Circumstance no. 3 no longer operates, considering the decision of the Supreme Court in People vs. Etfren Mateo (G.R. 147678-87, July 7, 2004) providing an intermediate review for such cases where the penalty imposed is death, reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment before they are elevated to the Supreme Court.
reward of P50,000.00 each once the job is done.
Page
In circumstance no. I when the guilty person is at least 18 years of age at the time of the commission of the crime, the death penalty can be imposed since the offender is already of legal age when he committed the crime.
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
Pedro, Pablito, Juan and Julio, all armed with bolos, robbed the house where Antonio, his wife, and three (3) daughters were residing. While the four were ransacking Antonio's house, Julio noticed that one of Antonio's daughters was trying to escape. He chased and caught up with her at a thicket somewhat distant from the house, but before bringing her back, raped her. [a] What crime or crimes, if any, did Pedro, Pablito, Juan and Julio commit? Explain. (2.5%) Julio is liable for special complex crime of robbery with rape since he raped the daughter of Antonio on occasion or by reason of robbery. Even if the place of robbery is different from that of rape, the crime is still robbery with rape since what is important is the direct connection between the two crimes (People v. Canastre, GR No. L-2055, 24 December 1948). Rape was not separated by distance and time from the robbery. Pedro, Pablito and Juan are liable for robbery by band. There is band in this case since more than three armed malefactors took part in the commission of robbery. Under Art. 296 of the RPC, any member of a band, who is present at the commission of a robbery by the band, shall be punished as principal of any of the assaults committed by the band unless it be shown that he attempted to prevent the same. The assault mentioned in Art. 296 includes rape (People v. Hamiana, GR Nos. L-3491094, 30 May 1971). They are not liable,
[b] Suppose, after the robbery, the four took turns in raping the three daughters inside the house, and, to prevent identification, killed the whole family just before they left. What crime or crimes, if any, did the four malefactors commit? (2.5%) ( 2016 BAR) They are liable for a special complex crime of robbery with homicide. In this special complex crime, it is immaterial that several persons are killed. It is also immaterial that aside from the homicides, rapes are committed by reason or on the occasion of the crime. Since homicides are committed by or on the occasion of the robbery, the multiple rapes shall be integrated into one and indivisible felony of robbery with homicide (People v. Diu, GR No. 201449, 3 April 2013). Art. 48. Complex Crimes In relation to Art. 294 (1) Robbery with homicide; direct assault with multiple attempted homicide While Alfredo, Braulio, Ciriaco, and 'Domingo were robbing a bank, policemen arrived. A firefight ensued between the bank robbers and the responding policemen, and one of the policemen was killed. What crime or crimes, if any, had been committed? Explain. (3%) (2009 Bar Question) SUGGESTED ANSWER:
108
ART. 48 in rel ART. 296 (2016)
however, for rape under Art. 296 since they were not present when the victim was raped and thus, they had no opportunity to prevent the same. They are only liable for robbery by band (People v. Anticamaray, GR No. 178771, 8 June 2011).
Page
of fire, and treachery can be appreciated against A, X, Y and Z.
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
Art 48 Complex Crimes, Art 294 Robbery, Art 249 Homicide, Art 320 Arson Criminal law – Felonies - Complex crime of arson with quadruple homicide and robbery; improper charge of offense Harry, an overseas contract worker, arrived from Saudi Arabia with considerable savings. Knowing him to be “loaded", his friends Jason, Manuel and Dave invited him to poker session at a rented beach cottage. When he was losing almost all his money which to him was his savings of a lifetime, he discovered that he was being cheated by his friends. Angered by the betrayal he decided to take revenge on the three cheats. Harry ordered several bottles of Tanduay Rhum and gave them to his companions to drink, as they did, until they all fell asleep. When Harry saw his companions already sound asleep he hacked all of them to
After preliminary investigation, the Provincial Prosecutor charged Harry with the complex crime of arson with quadruple homicide and robbery. Was Harry properly charged? Discuss fully. (1995 Bar Question) SUGGESTED ANSWER: No, Harry was not properly charged. Harry should have been charged with three (3) separate crimes, namely: murder, theft and arson. Harry killed Jason, Manuel and Dave with evident premeditation, as there was considerable lapse of time before he decided to commit the crime and the actual commission of the crime. In addition, Harry employed means which weakened the defense of Jason, Manuel and Dave. Harry gave them the liquor to drink until they were drunk and fell asleep. This gave Harry the opportunity to cany out his plan of murder with impunity. The taking of the money from the victims was a mere afterthought of the killings. Hence, Harry committed the separate crime of theft and not the complex crime of robbery with homicide. Although theft was committed against dead persons, it is still legally possible as the offended party are the estates of the victims.
109
Robbery with Homicide was committed because one of the responding policemen was killed by reason or on occasion of the robbery being committed. The complex crime of Direct Assault with Multiple Attempted Homicide was committed in respect of the offender's firing guns at the responding policemen who are agents of person in authority performing their duty when fired at to frustrate such performance. (People vs. Ladjaalam, G.R. Nos. 136149-51, Sept 19, 2000)
death. Then he remembered his losses. He rifled through the pockets of his victims and got back all the money he lost. He then ran away but not before burning the cottage to hide his misdeed. The following day police investigators found among the debris the charred bodies of Jason, Manuel, Dave and the caretaker of the resort.
Page
The crimes committed are Robbery with homicide (Art. 294(1], RPC), a single indivisible offense, and Direct Assault with Multiple Attempted Homicide, a complex crime (Art. 48, Art. 148 and Art. 249, RPC; People v. Gayrama, 60 Phil. 796 (1934]).
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
Art. 48: Complex crime of Murder, qualified by explosion, with direct assault
Aldrich was dismissed from his job by his employer. Upon reaching home, his pregnant wife, Carmi, nagged him about money for her medicines. Depressed by his dismissal and angered by the nagging of his wife, Aldrich struck Carmi with his fist. She fell to the ground. As a result, she and her unborn baby died.
Two (2) Philippine National Police (PNP) officers, X and Y, on board on motorboat with Z, a civilian as motorman, arrested A and B who were in a banca, for dynamite fishing. The latter’s banca was towed towards the municipality. On the way, the PNP motorboat was intercepted by a third banca whose occupants, C, D. and E, tried to negotiate for the release of A and B and their banca. The PNP officers refused and instead shouted at C, D, and E that they are all under arrest. Thereupon, C, D, and E simultaneously threw dynamite sticks at the PNP motorboats. The first explosion killed X. A and B also reacted by throwing dynamite at the PNP motorboat: its explosion killed Y and Z.
What crime was committed by Aldrich? (1994 Bar Question)
What crime or crimes did A, B, C, D and E commit? (1991 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Aldrich committed the crime of parricide with unintentional abortion. When Aldrich struck his wife, Carmi with his fist, he committed the crime of maltreatment under Art. 266, par. 3 of the Revised Penal Code. Since Carmi died because of the felonious act of Aldrich, he is criminally liable of parricide under Art. 246, RPC in relation to Art. 4, par. 1 of the same Code. Since the unborn baby of Carmi died in the process, but Aldrich had no intention to cause the abortion of his wife, Aldrich committed unintentional abortion as defined in Art.
C, D and E are liable for the complex crime of Murder, qualified by explosion, with direct assault for the death of X. A and B are liable for the complex crime of Murder Qualified by explosion as to death of Y, and simple Murder qualified by explosion for the death of Z.
Art. 48: Complex crime of parricide with unintentional abortion
No crime of direct assault can be filed insofar as the death of Z is concerned, he being a civilian.
110
Hence, Harry was improperly charged with the complex crime of arson with quadruple homicide and robbery. Harry should have been charged with three (3) separate crimes, murder, theft and arson.
257, RPC. Inasmuch as the single act of Aldrich produced two grave or less grave felonies, he falls under Art 48, RPC, i.e. a complex crime [People vs. Salufrancia, 159 SCRA 401).
Page
In burning the cottage to hide his misdeed. Harry became liable for another separate crime, arson. This act of burning was not necessary for the consummation of the two (2) previous offenses he committed. The fact that the caretaker died from the blaze did not qualify Harry’s crime into a complex crime of arson with homicide for there is no such crime.
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
Diego and Pablo were both farmers residing in Barangay Damayan. On one occasion, Diego called Pablo to come down from his house in order to ask him why he got his (Diego’s) plow without permission. One word led to another. Diego, in a fit of anger, unsheathed his bolo and hacked Pablo to death. Pablo’s 9-year old son, Mario, who was inside the house, saw the killing of his father. Afraid that he might also be killed by Diego, Mario covered himself with a blanket and hid in a comer of the house. To conceal the killing of Pablo, Diego brought Pablo’s body inside the house and burned it. Mario was also burned to death. What crime or crimes did Diego commit? (1989 Bar Question) SUGGESTED ANSWER: Diego committed two crimes (1) homicide for the death of Pablo and (2) the special complex crime of arson with homicide as provided in PD 1613 for the burning of the house and the death of Mario. The hacking of Pablo to death is homicide, the killing not being attended by any of the qualifying circumstances of murder. It was killing in the course of a quarrel. The burning of the house to conceal the killing of Pablo is a separate crime. Were it not for the death of Mario, this separate offense would have been arson. But inside
If Diego knew that Mario was house when he set it on fire, committed, instead of arson, MURDER, with fire as the circumstance.
inside the the crime would be qualifying
Art. 48 Special Complex crime of Robbery with Rape After raping the complainant in her house, the accused struck a match to smoke a cigarette before departing from the scene. The brief light from the match allowed him to notice a watch in her wrist. He demanded that she hand over the watch. When she refused, he forcibly grabbed it from her. The accused was charged with and convicted of the special complex crime of robbery with rape. Was the Question)
court
correct?
(1997
Bar
SUGGESTED ANSWER: No, the court erred in convicting the accused of the special complex crime of robbery with rape. The accused should instead be held liable for two (2) separate crimes of robbery and rape, since the primary intent or objective of the accused was only to rape the complainant, and his commission of the robbery was merely an afterthought. The robbery must precede the rape, in order to give rise to the special
111
Art 48: Special Complex Crime In relation to Art. 14: Qualifying Aggravating Circumstance
the house was unknown to Diego, the resulting crime is under PD No. 1613, because the death resulted from the arson. If by reason or on the occasion of the arson, death results, the offense is the special complex or arson with homicide (Sec. 5, PD 1613, which expressly repealed Art. 320 and consequently the ruling case therein, People v. Paterno (L-2665, March 6, 1950).
Page
This, of course, assumes that there is no conspiracy among A, B, C, D and E, otherwise all would have the same criminal liability as the act of one becomes the act of all.
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
court
Art. 48 – Continuing crimes in relation to BP 22
Art. 48 Criminal law – Complex crimes Robbery with Homicide in relation to Art. 297
Angelo devised a Ponzi Scheme in which 500 persons were deceived into investing their money upon a promise of a capital return of 25%, computed monthly, and guaranteed by post-dated checks. During the first two months following the investment, the investors received their profits, but thereafter, Angelo vanished.
Jose, Domingo. Manolo, and Fernando, armed with bolos, at about one o'clock in the morning, robbed a house at a desolate place where Danilo, his wife, and three daughters were living. While the four were in the process of ransacking Danilo’s house, Fernando, noticing that one of Danilo’s daughters was trying to get away, ran after her and finally caught up with her in a thicket somewhat distant from the house. Fernando, before bringing back the daughter to the house, raped her first. Thereafter, the four carted away the belongings of Danilo and his family. Suppose, after the robbery, the four took turns in raping the three daughters of Danilo inside the latter's house, but before they left, they killed the whole family to prevent identification, what crime did the four commit? Explain. (1996 Bar Question) SUGGESTED ANSWER: The crime would be Robbery with Homicide because the killings were by reason (to prevent identification) and on the occasion of the robbery. The multiple rapes committed and the fact that several persons were killed (homicide), would be considered as aggravating circumstances. The rapes are synonymous with ignominy and the additional killing synonymous with cruelty. [People vs. Solis, 182 SCRA: People vs. Plagcu 202 SCRA 531)
Angelo was charged with 500 counts of estafa and 2,000 counts of violation of Batas Pambansa (BP) 22. In his motion to quash, Angelo contends that he committed a continued crime, or delito continuado, hence, he committed only one count of estafa and one count of violation of BP 22. [a] What is delito continuado? (1%) (2009 Bar Question) SUGGESTED ANSWER: Delito continuado refers to a crime constituted by several overt acts committed by the offender in one place, at about the same time, and all such overt acts violate one and the same provision of penal law, thus demonstrating that all such acts are the product of a single indivisible criminal resolution. Hence, all said acts are considered as one crime only. [b] Is Angelo's contention tenable? Explain. (4%) (2009 Bar Question) SUGGESTED ANSWER: No. His contention is not tenable. He committed as many counts of estafa against the 500 victims and 2000 counts of violation of BP 22, since each swindling is achieved through distinct fraudulent machinations contrived at different times or dates, and in different amounts. Moreover,
112
the
Page
complex crime for which convicted the accused.
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
his drawing separate checks payable to each payee is a separate criminal resolution, as they must be of different amounts and of different dates. He acted with separate fraudulent intent against each swindling victim and had distinct criminal intent in drawing and issuing each check. It cannot be maintained that his acts are the product of one criminal resolution only. Art 48 - Complex crime; requirement of two or more grave or less grave felonies as a result of single act Rodolfo, a policeman, was cleaning his service pistol inside his house when it fell from his hand and fired. The bullet hit a neighbor on the stomach and a second neighbor on the leg. The injuries sustained by the two neighbors required thirty-five (35) days and nine (9) days of medical attendance, respectively. The investigating fiscal later filed an information for frustrated homicide and slight physical injuries through reckless imprudence against Rodolfo. Is the charge correct? Explain. (1989 Bar Question)
latter a check in the said amount. The following day, Pedro deposited the check, but it was returned dishonored because it was drawn against a closed account. Notwithstanding written demands, Jose failed to make good said check. Atty. Saavedra, counsel for Pedro, filed two complaints against Jose with the Office of the Provincial Fiscal, one for estafa under Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code and another for violation of Batas Pambansa Big. 22. Atty. San Pascual, counsel for Jose, claimed that if his client was at all liable, he could only be liable for violation of Batas Pambansa Big. 22 and not for estafa under Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code because one precludes the other and because Batas Pambansa Big. 22 is more favorable to the accused as it carries a lighter penalty. The investigating fiscal, on his resolution, stated that only one crime was committed, namely, the complex crime of estafa under Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code and violation of Batas Pambansa Big. 22 because the single act of issuing the bouncing check constitutes two offenses, one under Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code and another under Batas Pambansa Big. 22.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Art 48 – Complex crimes; when proper Jose purchased roofing materials worth P20,000.00 from PY & Sons Construction Company owned by Pedro, and paid the
SUGGESTED ANSWER: The resolution of the investigating fiscal is erroneous. There is no complex crime of estafa under Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code and the violation of BP 22. A complex crime refers only to felonies which are punished in the Revised Penal Code. Batas 22 which punishes the offense of issuing a worthless check is a special law. The contention of Atty. San Pascuai, counsel of Jose that his client should be
113
One single act of accidental shooting cannot give rise to two felonies. One of which is intentional and the other negligent. Frustrated homicide presupposes intent to kill. The facts do not show any intent to kill on the part of Rodolfo. At most, he was careless, and therefore only negligent.
Page
The charge is not correct.
If you were the Provincial Fiscal asked to review the matter, how would you resolve it? (1987 Bar Question)
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
crimes,
what
1. A, actuated by malice and with the use of a fully automatic M-14 submachine gun, shot a group of persons who were seated in a cockpit with one burst of successive, continuous, automatic fire. Four (4) persons were killed thereby, each having hit by different bullets coming from the submachine gun of A. Four (4) cases of murder were filed against A. The trial court ruled that there was only one crime committed by A for the reason that, since A performed only one act, he having pressed the trigger of his gun only once, the crime committed was murder. Consequently, the trial judge sentenced A to just one penalty of reclusion perpetua. Was the decision of the trial judge correct? Explain. (4%) (1999 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER: 1. The decision of the trial judge is not correct. When the offender made use of an automatic firearm, the acts committed are determined by the number of bullets discharged inasmuch as the firearm being automatic, the offender need only press the trigger once and it would fire continually. For each death caused by a distinct and separate bullet, the accused incurs distinct criminal liability. Hence, it is not the act of pressing the trigger which should be considered as producing the several felonies, but the number of bullets which actually produced them. 2. A complex crime is constituted when a single act caused two or more grave or less grave felonies or when an offense is committed as a necessary means to commit another offense (Art. 48, RPC). At least two (2) crimes are involved in a complex crime; either two or more grave or less grave felonies resulted from a single act, or an offense is committed as a necessary means for committing another. The penalty for the more serious crime shall be imposed and in its maximum period. (Art. 48, RPC) Art. 48 Complex crime; Special complex crime; complex crime of coup d’etat with rebellion; complex crime of coup d'etat with sedition A. Distinguish between an ordinary complex crime and a special complex crime as to their concepts and as to the
114
Art 48 –Complex constitutes, penalty
2. What constitutes a complex crime? How many crimes maybe involved in a complex crime? What is the penalty therefor? (4%) (1999 Bar Question)
Page
liable only for Batas 22 and for estafa under the Revised Penal Code because one precludes the other and because Batas 22 is more favorable to the accused as it carries a lighter penalty cannot also be sustained. Batas 22 specifically provides that liability under said act is without prejudice to any liability for estafa under the Revised Penal Code. The check issued by Jose in payment of roofing materials from PY and Sons was worthless. Said bouncing check having been issued in payment of a simultaneous obligation constitutes estafa under the Revised Penal Code and also the offense punished under Batas 22. There is no identity of offenses. Damage is not an element of the offense punished in Batas 22 whereas in estafa damage is an element. Estafa is an act mala in se in which requires intent as an element while the offense punished in Batas 22 is an act mala prohibita where intent is not an element.
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
(a) In conceptAn ordinary complex crime is made up of two or more crimes being punished in distinct provisions of the Revised Penal Code but alleged in one Information either because they were brought about by a single felonious act or because one offense is a necessary means for committing the other offense or offenses. They are alleged in one Information so that only one penalty shall be imposed. A special complex crime, on the other hand, is made up of two or more crimes which are considered only as components of a single indivisible offense being punished in one provision of the Revised Penal Code. As to penalties In ordinary complex crime, the penalty for the most serious crime shall be imposed and in its maximum period. In special complex crime, only one penalty is specifically prescribed for all the component crimes which are regarded as one indivisible offense. The component crimes are not regarded as distinct crimes and so the penalty for the most serious crime is not the penalty to be imposed nor in its maximum period. It is the penalty specifically provided for the special
B. Yes, if there was conspiracy between the offender/ offenders committing the coup d’etat and the offenders committing the rebellion. By conspiracy, the crime of one would be the crime of the other and vice versa. This is possible because the offender in coup d'etat may be any person or persons belonging to the military or the national police or a public officer, whereas rebellion does not so require. Moreover, the crime of coup d’etat may be committed singly, whereas rebellion requires a public uprising and taking up arms to overthrow the duly constituted government. Since the two crimes are essentially different and punished with distinct penalties, there is no legal impediment to the application of Art. 48 of the Revised Penal Code. C. Yes, coup d’etat can be complexed with sedition because the two crimes are essentially different and distinctly punished under the Revised Penal Code. Sedition may not be directed against the Government or non-political in objective, whereas coup d’etat is always political in objective as it is directed against the Government and led by persons or public officer holding public office belonging to the military or national police. Art. 48 of the Code may apply under the conditions therein provided. Art. 48 Compound and complex crimes Distinguish clearly but briefly: (10%) (2004 Bar Question) Between compound and complex crimes as concepts in the Penal Code. SUGGESTED ANSWER:
115
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
complex crime that shall be applied according to the rules on imposition of the penalty.
Page
imposition of penalties. (2003 Bar Question) B. Can there be a complex crime of coup d’etat with rebellion? (2003 Bar Question) C. Can there be a complex crime of coup d'etat with sedition? (2003 Bar Question)
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
Art 48 Complex crime of estafa thru falsification of a commercial document In relation to Art 315 Swindling (2) DD purchased a television set for P50,000.00 with the use of a counterfeit credit card. The owner of the establishment had no inkling that the credit card used by DD was counterfeit. What crime or crimes did DD commit? Explain. (5%) (2005 Bar Question) SUGGESTED ANSWER: (2) DD committed a complex crime of estafa thru falsification of a commercial document. As a user of a false or fake credit card, a commercial document, DD is presumed to have falsified the same; Hence he does not only commit the crime of using a false document but also the crime of falsification. Since he used such false or fake credit card to defraud the owner of the store from whom he purchased the television set, the crime of swindling or estafa was perpetrated thru the falsification of said commercial
Distinguish the following from each other: 1. Complex crime under Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code; 2. Special complex crime; and 3. Delito continuado. (3%) (2005 Bar Question) SUGGESTED ANSWER: 1. a) In a complex crime, the component crimes are defined and penalized under separate and distinct Articles of the Revised Penal Code but are allowed to be alleged in one Information as an exception to Sec. 13, Rule 110 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure, because they are committed under the circumstances provided in Article 48 of same Code, i.e., two or more grave or less grave felonies resulted from a single act, or one offense was a necessary means for committing the other offense. In a special complex crime, also known as composite crime, the component crimes constitute a single indivisible offense and are thus penalized as one crime under one Article of the Revised Penal Code, such as robbery with homicide under Art. 294 of the Code. Delito continuado, also known as continued crime, is constituted by a series of overt acts committed by the offender in one place a penal law, and therefore regarded as impelled by a single, indivisible criminal resolution; hence, punished as one crime offense
116
Complex crimes result when the offender has to commit an offense as a necessary means for committing another offense. Only one information shall be filed and if proven, the penalty for the more serious crime shall be imposed
Art. 48 – Complex crime; Special complex crime; Delito continuado
Page
Compound crimes result when the offender committed only a single felonious act from which two or more crimes resulted. This is provided for in modified form in the first part of Article 48, Revised Penal Code, limiting the resulting crimes to only grave and/or less grave felonies. Hence, light felonies are excluded even though resulting from the same single act.
document. He, therefore, committed the complex crime of estafa thru falsification of a commercial document.
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
b) What is the criminal liability of Paolo, if any? Explain. (4%) (2008 Bar Question) SUGGESTED ANSWER: b) Paolo is liable for the complex crime of frustrated robbery, with homicide and damage to property (tricycle) in trying to rob the car. This resulted in the shooting of the car by Carlos and the subsequent collision destroying the tricycle and the death of the driver. Art. 48 - Complex crime of attempted murder with homicide Despite the massive advertising campaign in media against firecrackers and gun-firing during the New Year's celebrations. Jonas and Jaja bought ten boxes of super lolo and pla-pla in Bocaue, Bulacan. Before midnight of December 31,1999, Jonas and Jaja started their celebration by having a drinking spree at Jona's place by exploding their high-powered firecrackers in their neighborhood. In the course of their conversation, Jonas confided to Jaja that he has been keeping a long-time grudge against his neighbor Jepoy in view of the tatter's refusal to lend him some money.
a) What crime or crimes can Jonas and Jaja be charged with? Explain. (2%) (2000 Bar Question) SUGGESTED ANSWER: a) Jonas and Jaja, can be charged with the complex crime of attempted murder with homicide because a single act caused a less grave and a grave felony (Art. 48, RPC). Attempted murder is a less grave felony, while consummated homicide is a grave felony: both are punishable by afflictive penalties.
117
While Carlos was approaching his car, he saw it being driven away by Paolo, a thief. Carlos tried to stop Paolo by shouting at him, but Paolo ignored him. To prevent his car from being carnapped, Carlos drew his gun, aimed at the rear wheel of the car and fired. The shot blew the tire which caused the car to veer out of control and collide with an oncoming tricycle, killing the tricycle driver.
Page
Art. 48 – Complex crimes - Frustrated robbery, with homicide and damage to property
While under the influence of liquor, Jonas started throwing lighted super lolos inside Jepoy's fence to irritate him and the same exploded inside the tatter's yard. Upon knowing that the throwing of the super lolo was deliberate, Jepoy became furious and sternly warned Jonas to stop his malicious act or he would get what he wanted. A heated argument between Jonas and Jepoy ensued but Jaja tried to calm down his friend. At midnight, Jonas convinced Jaja to lend him his .45 caliber pistol so that he could use it to knock down Jepoy and to end his arrogance. Jonas thought that after all, explosions were everywhere and nobody would know who shot Jepoy. After Jaja lent his firearm to Jonas, the latter again started started throwing lighted super lolos and pla-plas at Jepoy’s yard in order to provoke him so that he would come out of his house. When Jepoy came out, Jonas immediately shot him with Jaja’s .45 caliber gun but missed his target. Instead, the bullet hit Jepoy's five year old son who was following behind him, killing the boy instantaneously.
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
Art. 48 – Complex crimes - Malversation through falsification Roger and Jessie, Municipal Mayor and Treasurer, respectively, of San Rafael, Leyte, caused the disbursement of public funds allocated for their local development programs for 2008. Records show that the amount of P2-million was purportedly used as financial assistance for a rice production livelihood project. Upon investigation, however, it was found that Roger and Jessie falsified the disbursement vouchers and supporting documents in order to make it appear that qualified recipients who, in fact, are non-existent individuals, received the money.
daughter working in the United States. With the intention of robbing B of those dollars, A entered B’s house at midnight, armed with a knife which he used to gain entry, and began quietly searching the drawers, shelves, and other likely receptacles of the cash. While doing that, B awoke, rushed out from the bedroom, and grappled with A for the possession of the knife which A was then holding. After stabbing B to death, A turned over B’s pillow and found the latter’s wallet underneath the pillow, which was bulging with the dollar bills he was looking for A took the bills and left the house.' What crime or crimes were committed? (2003 Bar Question) SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The charge of malversation through falsification is not correct because the falsifications of several documents were not necessary means to obtain the money that were malversed. The falsifications were committed to cover up or hide the malversation and therefore, should be separately treated from malversation. The given facts state that Roger and Jessie falsified disbursement vouchers and supporting documents "in order to make it appear" that qualified recipients received the money. Art. 48, RPC on complex crimes is not applicable.
Art. 48: Special complex crime of Robbery with homicide
Art 48 Special Complex Crimes Robbery with homicide
A, B, C and D all armed, robbed a bank, and when they were about to get out of the bank, policemen came and ordered them to surrender but they fired on the police officers who fired back and shot it out with them.
A learned two days ago that B had received dollar bills amounting to $10,000 from his
A. Suppose a bank employee was killed and the bullet which killed him came
118
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The crime committed is robbery with homicide, a composite crime. This is so because A’s primordial criminal intent is to commit a robbery and in the course of the robbery, the killing of B took place. Both the robbery and the killing were consummated, thus giving rise to the special complex crime of robbery with homicide. The primary criminal intent being to commit a robbery, any killing on the “occasion” of the robbery, though not by reason thereof, is considered a component of the crime of robbery with homicide as a single indivisible offense.
Page
Roger and Jessie are charged with malversation through falsification. Discuss the propriety of the charge filed against Roger and Jessie. Explain. (4%) (2009 Bar Question)
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
SUGGESTED ANSWER: A. A, B. C and D should be charged with the crime of robbery with homicide because the death of the bank employee was brought about by the acts of said offenders on the occasion of the robbery. They shot it out with the policeman, thereby causing such death by reason or on the occasion of a robbery; hence, the composite crime of robbery with homicide. The argument is valid, considering that a separate charge for Homicide was filed. It would be different if the charge filed was for the composite crime of robbery with homicide, which is a single, indivisible offense. SUGGESTED ANSWER: B. The argument raised by A. B and C is not correct because their liability is not only for Robbery but for the special complex crime of Robbery with homicide. But the facts stated impresses that separate crimes of Robbery “and" Homicide were charged, which is not correct. What was committed was a single indivisible offense of Robbery with homicide, not two crimes.
crimes-
Christopher, John, Richard, and Luke are fraternity brothers. To protect themselves from rival fraternities, they all carry guns wherever they go. One night, after attending a party, they boarded a taxicab, held the driver at gunpoint and took the latter's earnings. What crime, if any, did the four commit if they killed the driver? Explain. (2%) (2010 Bar Question) SUGGESTED ANSWER: No, the crime becomes robbery with homicide and all the fraternity brothers are liable. The existence of a band shall be appreciated only as generic aggravating circumstance. Also, if the firearms used were unlicensed, the same would only be taken as generic aggravating circumstance as provided by the Rep. Act No. 8294 (People v. Bolinget, G.R. Nos. 137949-52, December 11, 2003). Art. 48 Special Complex Crime In relation to Art 267 Serious illegal detention with homicide Paz Masipag worked as a housemaid and yaya of the one-week old son of the spouses Martin and Pops Kuripot. When Paz learned that her 70 year-old mother was seriously ill, she asked Martin for a cash advance of PI,000.00 but Martin refused. One morning, Paz gagged the mouth of Martin's son with stockings; placed the child in a box; sealed it with masking tape and placed the box in the attic. Later in the afternoon, she demanded P5.000.00 as ransom for the release of his son. Martin did not pay the ransom. Subsequently, Paz disappeared.
119
B. Suppose it was robber D who was killed by the policemen and the prosecutor charged A. B and C with Robbery and Homicide. They demurred arguing that they (A, B and C were not the ones who killed robber D, hence, the charge should only be Robbery. How would you resolve their argument? (2%) (1998 Bar Question)
Art. 48: Special complex Robbery with homicide
Page
from the firearm of the police officers, with what crime shall you charge A, B, C and D? [3%] (1998 Bar Question)
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
Paz committed the crime of serious illegal detention because the victim is a minor and because the victim died as a consequence of the detention, the special complex crime of serious illegal detention with homicide under the last paragraph of Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code is committed. Art 48Special complex crime In relation to Art. 266 - B rape through sexual assault with homicide On July 1, 2004, Jet Matulis, a pedophile, gave P1,000.00 to Sherly, an orphan and a prostitute and brought her to a motel. He inserted a rusty and oversized vibrator into her vagina with such force that she bled profusely. Jet panicked and fled. Sherly was brought to the hospital and died a few days later because of shock caused by hemorrhage.
Art 48 Special Crime In relation to Art. 266 - B - of rape with homicide, Penalties Dang was a beauty queen in a university. Job, a rich classmate, was so enamored with her that he persistently wooed and pursued her. Dang, being in love with another man, rejected him. This angered Job. Sometime in September 2003, while Dang and her sister Lyn were on their way home, Job and his minor friend Nonoy grabbed them and pushed them inside a white van. They brought them in an abandoned warehouse where they forced them to dance naked. Thereafter, they brought them to a hill in a nearby barangay where they took turns raping them. After satisfying their lust, Job ordered Nonoy to push Dang down a ravine, resulting in her death. Lyn ran away but Job and Nonoy chased her and pushed her inside the van. Then the duo drove away. Lyn was never seen again. What crime or crimes were committed by Job and Nonoy? 2.5% (2006 Bar Question)
If Sherly were a minor when she died, would your answer be the same? Explain. (5%) (2005 Bar Question)
PENALTIES: What penalties should be imposed on them? 2.5% (2006 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
If Sherly were a minor when she died, the crimes of homicide and child abuse in violation of Rep. Act 7610 (Special Protection of Children against abuse, exploitation, discrimination and for other purposes), are committed by Jet Matulis, provided Sherly is not less than 12 years
Job and Nonoy each committed two (2) counts of the special complex crime of rape with homicide under Art. 266-B for the rapes respectively committed on Dang and on Lyn. Their felonious acts of grabbing and pushing the victims inside their van and later forcing them to dance naked may
120
What crime or crimes did Paz commit? Explain. (5%) (2005 Bar Question) SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Page
After a couple of days, Martin discovered the box in the attic with his child already dead. According to the autopsy report, the child died of asphyxiation barely three minutes after the box was sealed.
old. If Sherly was less than 12 years old then, the crime committed by Matulis is rape (through sexual assault) with Homicide, a special complex crime under Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code.
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
Although the penalty for the crime of rape with homicide was death at the time the accused committed them, and the law (Rep. Act No. 9346) prohibiting the imposition of the death penalty took effect only this year (2006), said new law should be given retroactive effect because it is favorable to the culprits who are not habitual delinquents and there being no provision of law to the contrary. Hence, reclusion perpetua for each count of rape with homicide. The accessory penalty under Art. 40 of the Revised Penal Code will not follow because RA 9346 Art. 48 Special Complex Crime In relation to Art 267. Kidnapping for ransom with homicide Jaime, Andy and Jimmy, laborers in the noodles in the noodles factory of Luke Tan, agreed to kill him due to his arrogance and miserliness. One afternoon, they seized him and loaded him in a taxi driven by Mario. They told Mario they will only teach Luke a lesson in Christian humility. Mario drove them to-a fishpond in Navotas where
What crime or crimes did the 6 suspects commit? 5% (2006 Bar Question) SUGGESTED ANSWER: Jaime, Andy and Jimmy committed the special complex crime of kidnapping for ransom with homicide because their purpose was to kill Luke when they seized him. Mario, the taxi driver, does not incur criminal liability for the acts of Jaime, Andy and Jimmy because he had no participation therein. Emil and Louie should be liable only for murder for killing Luke in a defenseless position, but not for keeping Luke since it was not their intention to detain him.
121
Although, there is no indication that the same culprits killed Lyn who was never seen again, it is reasonable to assume from what the culprits did to Dang, and from the acts of violence they employed on Lyn, that they are answerable also for the presumed death of Lyn whom the culprits took with them by force and was never seen again. Hence, the rape committed against her is attended by homicide giving rise to the special complex crime of rape with homicide also. It would be different if Lyn was not subjected to physical violence. (R.A. 7659)
Luke was entrusted to Emil and Louie, the fishpond caretakers, asking them to hide Luke in their shack because he was running from the NBI. The trio then left in Mario’s car for Manila where they called up Luke’s family and threatened them to kill Luke unless they give a ransom within 24 hours. Unknown to them, because of a leak, the kidnapping was announced over the radio and TV. Emil and Louie heard the broadcast and panicked, especially when the announcer stated that there is a shootto-kill order for the kidnappers. Emil and Louie took Luke to the seashore of Dagatdagatan where they smashed his head with a shovel and buried him in the sand. However, they were seen by a barangay kagawad who arrested them and brought them to the police station. Upon interrogation they confessed and pointed to Jaime, Andy, Jimmy and Mario as those responsible for the kidnapping. Later, the 4 were arrested and charged.
Page
only be appreciated as part of the violence and lewd desires attending the rape, and are therefore absorbed by the rape.
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
Art 48 Special Complex Crime in relation to Art. 304 Rape with homicide Wenceslao and Loretta were staying in the same boarding house, occupying different rooms. One late evening, when everyone in the house was asleep, Wenceslao entered Loretta's room with the use of a picklock. Then, with force and violence, Wenceslao ravished Loretta. After he had satisfied his lust, Wenceslao stabbed Loretta to death and, before leaving the room, took her jewelry. [a] What crime or crimes, if any, did Wenceslao commit? Explain. (4%) (2009 Bar Question)
No, the answer will be different. In that case, the crimes committed would be four separate crimes of (1) rape (2) frustrated homicide or 'murder (3) theft and (4) unlawful possession and use of picklocks under Art. 304, RPC. The special complex crime of rape with homicide is constituted only when both the rape and the killing are consummated; when one or both of them are not consummated, they are to be charged and punished separately. In any event, the possession of the picklock "without lawful cause", more so its use in an unlawful entry is punished as a crime by itself. Penalties – Disqualified offenders for parole; heinous crimes Because of the barbarity and the hideousness of the acts committed by the suspects/ respondents in cutting off their victims’ appendages, stuffing their torsos, legs, body parts into oil drums and bulletriddled vehicles and later on burying these oil drums, vehicles with the use of backhoes and other earthmoving machinery, the Commission on Human Rights (CHR) investigating team recommended to the panel of public prosecutors that all respondents be charged with violation of the Heinous Crimes Law. The prosecution panel agreed with the CHR. As the chief prosecutor tasked with approving the filing of the information, how will you pass upon the recommendation? Explain? (5%) (2010 Bar Question)
[c] Would your answer to [a] be the same if, despite the serious stab wounds she sustained, Loretta survived? Explain. (3%) (2009 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The CHR is correct in describing the crimes committed as “heinous crimes”, as defined in the preamble of the “Heinous Crimes Law” (Rep. Act No. 7659), despite the
Page
Wenceslao committed the following crimes: (1) the special complex crime of rape with homicide (2) theft and (3) unlawful possession of picklocks and similar tools under Art. 304, RPC. His act of having carnal knowledge of Loretta against her will and with the use of force and violence constituted rape, plus the killing of Loretta by reason or on the occasion of the rape, gave rise to the special complex crime of rape with homicide. Since the taking of the jewelry was an afterthought as it was done only when he was about to leave the room and when Loretta was already dead, the same constitutes theft. His possession and use ofthe picklock "without lawful cause" is by itself punishable under Art. 304, RPC.
122
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
ART. 48--Delito continuing offense
continuado
and
Differentiate delito continuado from a continuing offense. (1994 Bar Question) SUGGESTED ANSWER: Delito continuado or continuous crime, is a term used to denote as only one crime a series of felonious acts arising from a single criminal resolution, not susceptible of division, which are carried out in the same place and at about the same time, and violating one and the same penal provision. The acts done must be impelled by one criminal intent or purpose, such that each act merely constitutes a partial execution of a particular crime, violating one and the same penal provision. It involves a concurrence of felonious acts violating a common right, a common penal provision, and impelled by a single criminal impulse (People vs, Ledesma, 73 SCRA 77).
The term “continued crime" or delito continuado mandates that only one information should be filed against the offender although a series of felonious acts were performed; the term “continuing crime" is more pertinently used with reference to the venue where the criminal action may be instituted. ART. 48--Doctrine of aberratio ictus At the height of an altercation, Pedrito shot Paulo but missed, hitting Tiburcio instead, resulting in the death of the latter. Pedrito, invoking the doctrine of aberratio ictus, claims exemption from criminal liability. If you were the judge, how would you decide the case? (1996 Bar Question) SUGGESTED ANSWER: If I were the judge, I will convict Pedrito and find him guilty of the complex crime of Homicide with Attempted Homicide. The single act of firing at Paulo resulted in the commission of two felonies, one grave (homicide) and the other less grave (attempted homicide) thus falling squarely under Art. 48, RPC; hence, the penalty would be for the more serious crime (homicide) in its maximum period (17 years 4 months and 1 day to 20 years). Aberratio ictus (mistake in the blow) could not be used as a defense as it is not an exempting circumstance. Pedrito is liable
123
However, the “Heinous Crimes Law” does not define crimes; it is only an amendatory law increasing the penalty for the crimes specified therein as heinous, to a maximum of death. Thus, the heinous crimes committed shall be prosecuted under the penal law they are respectively defined and penalized, such as the Revised Penal Code as the case may be. The circumstances making the crimes heinous may be alleged as qualifying or generic aggravating, if proper. The crime shall be designated as defined and punished under the penal law violated and the penalty shall be reclusion perpetua without the benefit of parole or life imprisonment without the benefit of parole, as the case maybe in lieu of the death penalty.
On the other hand, a continuing offense is one whose essential Ingredients took place in more than one municipality or city, so much so that the criminal prosecution may be instituted and the case tried in the competent court of any one of such municipality or city.
Page
passage of Rep. Act No. 9346 prohibiting the imposition of the death penalty.
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
under the principle of Art. 4, RPC. which makes a person criminally liable for all the natural and logical consequences of his felonious act.
homicide, which is a single, indivisible offense.
Art. 48: Special complex crime of Robbery with homicide
2. The argument raised by A. B and C is not correct because their liability is not only for Robbery but for the special complex crime of Robbery with homicide. But the facts stated impresses that separate crimes of Robbery “and" Homicide were charged, which is not correct. What was committed was a single indivisible offense of Robbery with homicide, not two crimes.
Suppose it was robber D who was killed by the policemen and the prosecutor charged A. B and C with Robbery and Homicide. They demurred arguing that they (A, B and C were not the ones who killed robber D, hence, the charge should only be Robbery. How would you resolve their argument? (2%) (1998 Bar Question)
Art. 48: Special complex crimes- Robbery with homicide Christopher, John, Richard, and Luke are fraternity brothers. To protect themselves from rival fraternities, they all carry guns wherever they go. One night, after attending a party, they boarded a taxicab, held the driver at gunpoint and took the latter's earnings. What crime, if any, did the four commit if they killed the driver? Explain. (2%) (2010 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
A, B. C and D should be charged with the crime of robbery with homicide because the death of the bank employee was brought about by the acts of said offenders on the occasion of the robbery. They shot it out with the policeman, thereby causing such death by reason or on the occasion of a robbery; hence, the composite crime of robbery with homicide.
No, the crime becomes robbery with homicide and all the fraternity brothers are liable. The existence of a band shall be appreciated only as generic aggravating circumstance. Also, if the firearms used were unlicensed, the same would only be taken as generic aggravating circumstance as provided by the Rep. Act No. 8294 (People v. Bolinget, G.R. Nos. 137949-52, December 11, 2003).
The argument is valid, considering that a separate charge for Homicide was filed. It would be different if the charge filed was for the composite crime of robbery with
Art. 6 (consummated carnapping) Art. 249; Art. 263; Homicide, Serious Physical
124
Suppose a bank employee was killed and the bullet which killed him came from the firearm of the police officers, with what crime shall you charge A, B, C and D? [3%] (1998 Bar Question)
Page
A, B, C and D all armed, robbed a bank, and when they were about to get out of the bank, policemen came and ordered them to surrender but they fired on the police officers who fired back and shot it out with them.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
Injuries and Damage to property resulting from reckless imprudence.
Dodoy, possessing only a student driver's permit, found a parked car with the key left in the ignition, he proceeded to drive it away, intending to sell it. Just then Ting, the owner of the car, arrived. Failing to make Dodoy stop. Ting boarded a taxi and pursued Dodoy, who in his haste to escape, and because of his inexperience, violently collided with a jeepney full of passengers. The jeepney overturned and was wrecked. One passenger was killed: the leg of the other passenger was crushed and had to be amputated. The car of Ting was damaged to the tune of P20.000.00. What offense or offenses may Dodoy be charged with? Discuss. (1993 Bar Question)
guilty of vagrancy and imprisoned for ten (10) days of arresto menor and fined fifty pesos (P50.00). Is he eligible for probation? Why? (3%) (2002 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER: No, he is not eligible. The benefits of the Probation Law (PD 968, as amended) does not extend to those sentenced to serve a maximum term of imprisonment of more than six years (Sec. 9a). It is of no moment that in his previous conviction A was given a penalty of only ten (10) days of arresto mayor and a fine of P50.00. Special law – Probation law – Period; termination
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
1. A was charged with homicide. After trial, he was found guilty and sentenced to six years and one (1) day in prision mayor, as minimum, to twelve (12) years and one (1) day of reclusion temporal, as maximum. Prior to his conviction, he had been found
1. What is the proper period of probation?
125
Please take note that with respect to Espiritu Case, taking hold of the object is enough to consummate the crime: although in the Dino case, it is still frustrated because there is inability to dispose freely the object. Criminal law – Execution and service – Probation Law (PD 968, as amended); Disqualified offenders
Page
Consummated carnnaping. Homicide, Serious Physical Injuries and Damage to property resulting from reckless imprudence.
(1) Maganda was charged with violation of Bouncing Checks Law (BP 22) punishable by imprisonment of not less than 30 days but not more than 1 year or a fine of not less than but not more than double the amount of the check, which fine shall not exceed P200.000.00, or both. The court convicted her of the crime and sentenced her to pay a fine of P50,000.00 with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, and to pay the private complainant the amount of the check. Maganda was unable to pay the fine but filed a petition for probation. The court granted the petition subject to the condition, among others, that she should not change her residence without the court’s prior approval.
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
2. Supposing before the Order of Discharge was issued by the court but after the lapse of the period of probation, Maganda transferred residence without prior approval of the court. May the court revoke the Order of Probation and order her to serve the subsidiary imprisonment? Explain. (5%) (2005 Bar Question) SUGGESTED ANSWER: 1. The period of probation shall not be less than the total number of days of subsidiary imprisonment or more than twice the said number of days as computed at the rate established under the Revised Penal Code, which is one (1) day imprisonment for every P8.00 fine but not to exceed six (6) months. (P.D. 968, Sec. 14[b] (establishing a Probation System) in correlation with Art. 39, RPC) 2. Yes, the court may revoke the Order of Probation and order the convicted accused to serve the subsidiary imprisonment, because she violated the condition of her probation before the Order of Discharge was issued by the court. The conditions of probation are not coterminous with the period of probation; such conditions continue even after the period of probation had ended and thus requires faithful compliance or fulfillment, for as long as the court which placed the convict on probation has not issued the Order of Discharge that would release her from probation. {Bala v. Martinez, 181 SCRA 459 [1990D
applied in imposing a sentence? (2012 BAR) Answer: The fundamental principle in interpreting and applying penal laws is the principle of pro reo. The phrase “in dubio pro reo” means “when in doubt, for the accused.” (Intestate Estate of Gonzales v. People, G.R. No. 181409, February 11, 2010). In dubio pro reo, is in consonance with the constitutional guarantee that the accused ought to be presumed innocent until and unless his guilt is established beyond reasonable doubt (People v. Temporada, G.R. No. 173473, December 17, 2008). If crime is punishable under the RPC, the court shall sentence the accused to an indeterminate sentence the maximum term of which shall be that which, in view of the attending circumstance, could be properly imposed under the rules of the said Code, and the minimum of which shall be within the range of the penalty next lower to that prescribed by the Code for the offense. If the offense is punishable under a special law, the court shall sentence the accused to an indeterminate sentence, the maximum term of which shall not exceed the maximum fixed by said law, and the minimum shall not be less than the minimum term prescribed in the same (R.A. 4103, Sec. 1). QUESTION: A. Under what circumstances is the Indeterminate Sentence Law not applicable? (2%) (1999 Bar Question) B. A was convicted of illegal possession of grease guns and two Thompson sub-machine guns punishable under the old law (RA No.4) with imprisonment of from five (5) to ten (10)
Page
What is the fundamental principle in applying and interpreting criminal laws, including the Indeterminate Sentence Law? How is the Indeterminate Sentence Law
126
INDETERMINATE SENTENCE LAW
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
SUGGESTED ANSWER: Indeterminate Sentence Law does not apply to: 1. Persons convicted of offenses punished with death penalty or life imprisonment* 2. Those convicted of treason, conspiracy or proposal to commit treason; 3. Those convicted of misprision of treason, rebellion, sedition or espionage; 4. Those convicted of piracy; 5. Those who are habitual delinquents; 6. Those who shall have escaped from confinement or evaded sentence; 7. Those who violated the terms of conditional pardon granted to them by the Chief Executive; 8. Those whose maximum term of imprisonment does not exceed one year; 9. Those who, upon the approval of the law (December 5, 1933), had been sentenced by final judgment; 10. Those sentenced to the penalty of destierro or suspension. The penalty imposed, being only a straight penalty, is not correct because it does not comply with the Indeterminate Sentence Law which applies to this case. Said law requires that if the offense is punished by any law other than the Revised Penal Code, the court shall sentence the accused to an indeterminate sentence, the maximum term of which shall not exceed the maximum penalty fixed by the law and the minimum shall not be less than the minimum prescribed by the same.
State the application of the Indeterminate Sentence Law. (1988 Bar Question) SUGGESTED ANSWER: The Indeterminate Sentence Law applies in cases where the penalty imposed is more than one year and the ISL shall apply where there is a minimum penalty which is not lower than the penalty next lower in degree provided by law and the maximum not higher than the maximum penalty provided by law in cases of felonies but when it comes to statutory offenses it must be lower than the minimum penalty provided by law and not higher than the maximum penalty provided by law except in the following cases as provided by section 2 of Art. 4103: 1. life imprisonment 2. those convicted of treason, conspiracy or proposal to commit treason 3. to those convicted of misprision of treason, rebellion, sedition or espionage 4. to those convicted of piracy 5. those who are habitual delinquents 6. to those who shall have escaped from confinement or evaded sentence 7. to those who having been granted conditional pardon by the Chief Executive shall have violated the terms thereof 8. to those whose maximum term of imprisonment does not exceed one year, not to those already sentenced by final judgment at the time of approval of this Act, except as provided in Section 5 hereof. QUESTION: Andres is charged with an offense defined by a special law. The penalty prescribed for the offense is imprisonment of not less than five (5) years but not more than ten (10) years. Upon arraignment, he entered the
127
Is the penalty thus imposed correct? Explain. (3%) (1999 Bar Question)
QUESTION:
Page
years. The trial court sentenced the accused to suffer imprisonment of five (5) years and one (1) day.
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
The Indeterminate Sentence Law should be applied in this case. By express provision of said law (section 1) it is applicable to offenses punished by special laws. The indeter-minate sentence in such cases shall consist of a maximum term which shall not exceed the maximum fixed by the special law and a minimum term which shall not be less than the minimum term pescribed by the same. If I were the judge trying the case, I would impose a penalty consisting of any duration not less than 5 years as minimum term and any duration not more than 10 years as maximum term. It could be five years and 1 day to 7 years; 7 years, six months and 1 day to 9 years; or any other sentence where the minimum term is not less than 5 years and the maximum term not more than 10 years. The plea of guilty cannot be considered as a mitigating circumstance in this case. The imposition of the indeterminate penalty in a special law rests upon the discretion of the court. Also, the pleas of guilty as a mitigating circumstance under the Revised Penal Code is appre-ciated only in a divisible penalty. It cannot be applied to a penalty which is not divisible into periods of fixed duration, like the penalty provided in special laws. QUESTION:
SUGGESTED ANSWER: I would take the maximum term of the indeterminate sentence from the range of prision mayor in its minimum period. This is so because while there are two ordinary mitigating circumstances present, one of them is offset by an aggravating circumstance. Consequently, it is as if the crime is attended by only one ordinary circumstance and this will result in the imposition of the minimum period of the penalty prescribed by law. The presence of two or more ordinary mitigating circumstances will give rise to a privileged mitigating circumstance only if there is no aggravating circumstance present and the penalty prescribed by law is divisible. In this case, while the penalty of prision mayor is divisible, and while there are two ordinary mitigating circumstances present, there is an aggravating circumstance. This precludes the reduction of the penalty by one degree lower inasmuch as the two ordinary mitigating circumstances cannot be considered as a privileged mitigating circumstance. QUESTION:
128
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Jose is charged with bigamy. The Revised Penal Code prescribes the penalty of prision mayor for this offense. The information filed against Jose alleged one aggravating cir-cumstance. Upon being arraigned, he entered the plea of guilty and invoked the additional mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender which the trial fiscal admitted. If you were the judge trying the case, from what range of the prescribed penalty would you determine the proper penalty (to constitute the maximum term of an indeterminate sentence) to be imposed on Jose? (1989 Bar Question)
Page
plea of guilty. In the imposition of the proper penalty, should the Indeterminate Sentence Law be applied? If you were the judge trying the case, what penalty would you impose on Andres? (1989 Bar Question)
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
A was charged with homicide. During the trial, uncontradicted evidence consisting of medical certificates were presented showing that the accused had sustained injuries in ten (10) previous occasions while engaged in fisticuffs with different persons. He was also confined at the National Mental Hospital for mental ailment diagnosed as “homicidal and suicidal instincts.” During his second confinement thereat, he escaped. Upon conviction, the prosecutor objected to the application of the Indeterminate Sentence Law contending that the accused is a habitual delinquent and an escapee from the National Mental Hospital.
3. those convicted of misprision of treason, rebellion, sedition or espionage; 4. those convicted of piracy; 5. those who are habitual delinquents; 6. those who shall have escaped from confinement or evaded sentence; 7. those who having been granted conditional pardon by the Chief Executive shall have violated the terms thereof; 8. those whose maximum term of imprisonment does not exceed one year; 9. those already sentenced by final judgment at the time of approval of this Act; and 10. those whose sentence imposes penalties which do not involve imprisonment, like distierro.
If you are the Judge, rule on the objection. (1991 Bar Question)
QUESTION:
Being an escapee from the Mental Hospital will not disqualify him from the application of the ISL as Section 2 thereof contemplates having escaped from confinement or evaded sentence. Confinement presupposes imprisonment by virtue of a final judgment.
Carlos was charged and convicted of murder. He was sentenced to life imprisonment and to indemnify the offended party in the amount of P30.000. He sought a reconsideration of the penalty on the ground that he should be entitled to the benefits of the Indeterminate Sentence Law. Decide with reasons. (1990 Bar Question)
QUESTION:
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
When would the Indeterminate Sentence Law be inapplicable? (2003 Bar Question)
Carlos is not entitled to avail of the Indeterminate Sentence Law because Section 2 of said law specifically disqualifies and disallows application thereof to persons sentenced to life imprisonment.
The Indeterminate Sentence Law is not applicable to: 1. those persons convicted of offenses punished with death penalty or lifeimprisonment or reclusion perpetua; 2. those convicted of treason, conspiracy or proposal to commit treason;
QUESTION: Macky, a security guard, arrived home late one night after rendering overtime. He was shocked to see Joy, his wife, and Ken, his best friend, in the act of having sexual
129
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Page
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
While serving his sentence, Macky entered the prohibited area and had a pot session with Ivy, (Joy's sister). Is Macky entitled to an indeterminate sentence in case he is found guilty of use of prohibited substances? Explain your answer. (2007 Bar Question) SUGGESTED ANSWER: No, Macky is not entitled to the benefit of the Indeterminate Sentence Law (Act 4103, as amended) for having evaded the sentence which banished or placed him on destierrro. Sec. 2 of the said law expressly provides that the law shall not apply to those who shall have "evaded sentence".
Special law - Indeterminate Sentence Law – application on the imposed sentence Itos was convicted of an offense penalized by a special law. The penalty prescribed is not less than six years but not more than twelve years. No modifying circumstance attended the commission of the crime. If you were the judge, will you apply the Indeterminate Sentence Law? (1994 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER: If I were the judge, I will apply the provisions of the Indeterminate Sentence Law, as the last sentence of Section I Act 4103, specifically provides the application thereof for violations of special laws. Under the same provision, the minimum must not be less than the minimum provided therein (six years and one day) and the maximum shall not be more than the maximum provided therein, i.e. twelve years. (People vs. Rosalind Reyes, 186 SCRA 184) Special law - Indeterminate Sentence Law – Application on the imposed sentence Harold was convicted of a crime defined and penalized by a special penal law where the imposable penalty is from 6 months, as minimum, to 3 years, as maximum. State with reasons whether the court may correctly impose the following penalties: a. a straight penalty of 10 months; b. 6 months, as minimum, to 11 months, as maximum; c. a straight penalty of 2 years. (5%) (2005 Bar Question) SUGGESTED ANSWER: a) The court may validly impose a straight penalty of 10 months imprisonment because the penalty prescribed by law is imprisonment of 6 months to 3 years, and the Indeterminate Sentence Law does not apply when the penalty imposed is imprisonment which does not exceed one year.
130
The court found that Ken died under exceptional circumstances and exonerated Macky of murder but sentenced him to destierro, conformably with Article 247 of the Revised Penal Code. The court also ordered Macky to pay indemnity to the heirs of the victim in the amount of P50,000.
If so, how will you apply it? (1994 Bar Question)
Page
intercourse. Macky pulled out his service gun and shot and killed Ken. Macky was charged with murder for the death of Ken.
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
b) A prison term of 6 months as minimum, to 11 months, as maximum may not be imposed by the court because the Indeterminate Sentence Law does not apply when the penalty imposed as maximum of the sentence is imprisonment which does not exceed one (1) year. Obviously the Indeterminate Sentence Law has been applied where the sentence imposed reflects a minimum and a maximum. c) The court may not validly impose a straight penalty of two years because the Indeterminate Sentence Law requires the court to set a minimum and a maximum of the sentence where the imprisonment to be imposed already exceeds one (1) year, unless the offender is disqualified from the benefits of the said Law.
by law and the minimum shall not be less than the minimum penalty prescribed by the same. I have the discretion to impose the penalty within the said minimum and maximum.
Special law - Indeterminate Sentence Law – Application on the imposed sentence as defined by special law
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes, the Indeterminate Sentence Law should be applied because the minimum imprisonment is more than one (I) year. If I were the Judge, I will impose an indeterminate sentence, the maximum of which shall not exceed the maximum fixed
Under the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the minimum of the sentence shall be anywhere within the range of 6 years and 1 day to 12 years imprisonment while the maximum of the sentence shall be anywhere within the range of Reclusion Temporal minimum i.e., not lower than 12 yrs. and 1 day to not more than 14 yrs. and 8 months. [b] Will your answer be the same if it is a conviction for illegal possession of drugs under R.A. 9165 (Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002), the prescribed penalty of which is also imprisonment for a term of twelve (12) years and one (1) day to twenty (20) years? Why or why not? (3%) (2009 Bar Question) SUGGESTED ANSWER: No. My answer will not be the same because violations of Rep. Act 9165 are mala prohibita in which mitigating and
131
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
[a] In a conviction for homicide, the trial court appreciated two (2) mitigating circumstances and one (1) aggravating circumstance. Homicide under Article 249 of the Revised Penal Code is punishable by reclusion temporal, an imprisonment term of twelve (12) years and one (1) day to twenty (20) years. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, determine the appropriate penalty to be imposed. Explain. (3%) (2009 Bar Question)
Page
Andres is charged with an offense defined by a special law. The penalty prescribed for the offense is imprisonment of not less than five (5) years but not more than ten (10) years. Upon arraignment, he entered a plea of guilty. In the imposition of the proper penalty, should the Indeterminate Sentence Law be applied? If you were the judge trying the case, what penalty would you impose on Andres? (4%) (1999 Bar Question)
Special law - Indeterminate Sentence Law – Application on the imposed sentence
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
How are the maximum and the minimum terms of the indeterminate sentence for offenses punishable under the Revised Penal Code determined? (3%) (2002 Bar Question) SUGGESTED ANSWER: For crimes punished under the Revised Penal Code, the maximum term of the indeterminate sentence shall be the penalty properly imposable under the same Code after considering the attending mitigating and/or aggravating circumstances according to Art. 64 of said Code. The minimum term of the same sentence shall be fixed within the range of the penalty next lower in degree to that prescribed for the crime under the said Code.
Special law- Indeterminate Sentence Law (R.A. No. 4103, as amended) – Penalty imposable for the crime of homicide
The public prosecutor objected to the sentence on the ground that the proper penalty should have been TWELVE (12) YEARS and ONE (1) DAY of reclusion temporal. The defense counsel chimed in, contending that application of the Indeterminate Sentence Law should lead to the imposition of a straight penalty of SIX (6) months and ONE (1) day of prision correccional only. Who of the three is on the right track? Explain (3%) (2010 Bar Question) SUGGESTED ANSWER: None of the contentions is correct because the Indeterminate Sentence Law (Act 4103, as amended) has not been followed. The imposition of penalty for the crime of homicide, which is penalized by imprisonment exceeding one (1) year and is divisible, is covered by the Indeterminate Sentence Law. The said law requires that the sentence in this case should reflect a minimum term for purposes of parole, and a maximum term fixing the limit of the imprisonment. Imposing a straight penalty is incorrect.
Roman and Wendy are neighbors. On Valentine's Day, without prior notice, Roman visited Wendy at her condo to invite her to dinner, but Wendy turned him down and abruptly left, leaving her condo door
132
Special law – Penalties – Indeterminate Sentence Law (RA 4103); Maximum and the minimum terms of the indeterminate sentence
An agonizing and protracted trial having come to a close, the judge found A guilty beyond reasonable doubt of homicide and imposed on him a straight penalty of SIX (6) YEARS and ONE (1) day of prision mayor.
Page
aggravating circumstances are not appreciated. Although in People v. Simon (234 SCRA 555 [1994]), it was held that Art. 64 can be applied if the special law adopted the nomenclature of penalties provided under the RPC, such pronouncement cannot be applied in the instant case because the penalties for illegal possession of drugs under RA 9165 do not follow the technical nomenclature of penalties in the RPC and thus, cannot be divided into periods. Hence, the existence of mitigating and aggravating circumstances cannot be appreciated.
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
unlocked. Roman attempted to follow, but appeared to have second thoughts; he simply went back to Wendy's condo, let himself in, and waited for her return. On Wendy's arrival later that evening, Roman grabbed her from behind and, with a knife in hand, forced her to undress. Wendy had no choice but to comply. Roman then tied Wendy's hands to her bed and sexually assaulted her five (5) times that night. Roman was charged with, and was convicted of, five (5) counts of rape, but the judge did not impose the penalty of reclusion perpetua for each count. Instead, the judge sentenced Roman to 40 years of imprisonment on the basis of the three-fold rule. Was the judge correct? (2013 BAR) Answer: No, the three-fold rule is applicable only in connection with the service of the sentence not in the imposition of the proper penalties. The court must impose all penalties for all the crimes for which the accused have been found guilty. Thus, the court should not make a computation in it decision and sentence the accused to not more than the threefold of the most severe of the penalties imposable. The computation under the threefold rule is for the prison authorities to make.
order of probation directed him to pay in installment, at the rate of P1,000.00 a month, the damages awarded to the offended party. Jose was able to pay only three (3) monthly installments. Because of such failure, the offended party filed a motion for the execution of the civil aspect of the decision. Is the order directing the payment of the damages in installment valid? Did it not modify the decision after it had become final? (1991 Bar Question) SUGGESTED ANSWER: Yes, the order directing payment in installment is proper. It did not modify the final decision but only in the manner of its execution. (Similarly situated in the case of Agustin vs. Court of Appeals). Should the motion for execution be granted? (1991 Bar Question) SUGGESTED ANSWER: Execution should be granted as the decision is final and executory, following the dissenting opinion of Justice I. Cruz in said case. ART 78-88 – EXECUTION OF PENALTIES – Simultaneous service of penalties
SUGGESTED ANSWER: The penalties that may be served simultaneously are imprisonment/ destierro and: 1. Perpetual absolute disqualification; 2. Perpetual special disqualification; 3. Temporary absolute disqualification;
133
Jose Lopez was convicted for the crime of serious physical injuries and, taking into account two (2) mitigating circumstances, was sentenced to suffer imprisonment of four (4) months and twenty (20) days, and to indemnify the victim in the amount of P25,000.00 as actual and compensatory damages. He applied for probation, which was granted by the court; however, the
What are the penalties that may be served simultaneously? (2007 Bar Question)
Page
Criminal law – Penalties - Execution of the civil aspect of the decision.
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
Under which of the following circumstances is probation not applicable? (2012 BAR) a) Probation is not applicable when the accused is sentenced to serve a maximum of six (6) years. b) Probation is not applicable when the accused has been convicted by final judgment of an offense punished by imprisonment of less than one (1) month and/or fine of less than P200.00. c) Probation is not applicable when accused is convicted of indirect assault. d) Probation is not applicable when accused is convicted of indirect bribery. ** No correct answer. In 2012 when this exam was given, the correct answer is “c” because Indirect Assault is a Crime against Public Order. Under Section 9 of the Probation Law, PD 968 as amended, probation shall not extend to those
However, The Probation Law has been recently amended by RA 10707, which was approve last Nov. 26, 2015. Under RA 10707, those “offenders convicted of any crime against th public order” have been excluded from the list of disqualified offenders to avail of probation. The period of probation of the offender sentenced to a term of one (1) year shall not exceed: (2012 BAR) a) two (2) years; b) six (6) years; c) one (1) year; d) three (3) years. Andres was convicted of frustrated homicide and was sentenced to 6 years and 1 day as minimum, to 8 years of prision mayor as maximum. Andres appealed his conviction to the Court of Appeals, which convicted him of attempted homicide, and sentenced him to 6 months of arresto mayor as minimum, to 4 years of prision correccional as maximum. Instead of appealing his conviction, Andres filed an application for probation with the Regional Trial Court. Is Andres qualified to avail of the benefits of the probation law? (2013 BAR) (A) No, because when he filed a notice of appeal with the Court of Appeals, he waived his right under the probation law. (B) Yes, because after his appeal, he qualified for probation as the sentence imposed on him was less than 6 years. (Colinares vs. People, GR 182748, December 13, 2011) (C) Yes, because the probation law is meant to favor the accused. (D) No, because his previous sentence of more than 6 years disqualified him so
134
(i) Probation Law (P.D. 968, as amended by R.A. No. 10707) (a) Definition of terms (b) Purpose (c) Grant of probation, manner and conditions (d) Criteria of placing an offender on probation (e) Disqualified offenders (f) Period of probation (g) Arrest of probationer (h) Termination of probation; exception see also: The Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002 (R.A. No. 9165) PROBATION LAW OF 1976
offenders convicted of any crime against the national security and the public order.
Page
4. Temporary special disqualification; 5. Suspension from public office, the right to vote and be voted for, and the right to follow a profession or calling; 6. Fine; and any principal penalty with its accessory penalties.
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
that he can no longer avail of probation as an alternative remedy. (E) None of the above.
Special law – Probation law - Legal effect of application for probation on the judgment of conviction
Juancho owns a small piggery in Malolos, Bulacan. One Saturday afternoon, he discovered that all his pigs had died. Suspecting that one of his neighbours had poisoned the pigs, Juancho went home, took his rifle, went around the neighbourhood, and fired his rifle in the air while shouting, "makakatikim sa akin ang naglason ng mga baboy ko." Barangay officials requested police assistance and Juancho was apprehended. Juancho was charged with and convicted of the crime of alarms and scandals. Juancho did not appeal his conviction. Is Juancho qualified for probation? (2013 BAR) (A) Yes, because the penalty for alarms and scandals is less than six (6) years. (B) Yes, because Juancho did not appeal his conviction. (C) No, because the crime of alarms and scandals carries with it a fine ofP200. (D) No, because the crime of alarms and scandals affects public order. (E) None of the above. ** In 2013 when this exam was given, the correct answer was “D” because Alarms and Scandal is a Crime against Public Order. Under Section 9 of the Probation Law, PD 968 as amended, probation shall not extend to those offenders convicted of any crime against the national security and the public order. However, The Probation Law has been recently amended by RA 10707, which was approved last Nov. 26, 2015. Under RA 10707, those “offenders convicted of any crime against the public order” have been excluded from the list of disqualified offenders to avail of probation.
Johnny Gitara was convicted of the crime of estafa by the Regional Trial Court of Manila. He was imposed the indeterminate penalty of imprisonment of 3 years, 2 months and 1 day as minimum and six years as maximum, both of prision correccional and was ordered to imdemnify the offended party in the amount of P3.000.00. He filed an application for probation upon the promulgation of the judgment. What is the legal effect of his application for probation on the judgment of conviction? Does said application interrupt the running of the period of appeal? (1992 Bar Question) SUGGESTED ANSWER: The filing of the application for probation is considered as a waiver of the right of the accused to appeal; the decision has become final. In view of the finality of the decision there is no period of appeal to speak of.
Page
“A” was charged with theft and upon arraignment, pleaded guilty to the charge. He was detained for failure to post bail. After “two (2) months, a decision was rendered, sentencing “A” to an indeterminate sentence of six (6) months and one (1) day as a minimum, to one (1) year and one (1) month as maximum, and to pay the offended party the amount of P700. On January 16, 1985, the very day the sentence was read to “A,” the Judge
135
Special law – Probation law – Purpose of probation law
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
issued a Commitment Order addressed to the Provincial Jail Warden. On January 28, 1985, “A applied for probation but his application was denied on the ground that the sentence of conviction became final and executory on January 16, 1985, when “A” commence to serve his sentence, a) Is “A” eligible for probation? b) What is the purpose of the probation law? (1989 Bar Question)
prison terms, the totality of the prison terms should not be taken into account for the purposes of determining the eligibility of the accused for the probation. The law uses the word "maximum term", and not total term. It is enough that each of the prison terms does not exceed six years. The number of offenses is immaterial for as long as the penalties imposed, when taken individually and separately, are within the probationable period.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The accused was found guilty of grave oral defamation in sixteen (16) Informations which were tried jointly and was sentenced in one decision to suffer in each case a prison term of one (1) year and one (1) day to one (1) year and eight (8) months of prision correccional. Within the period to appeal, he filed an application for probation under the Probation Law of 1976, as amended. Could he possibly qualify for probation? (1997 Bar Question) SUGGESTED ANSWER: Yes. In Francisco vs. Court of Appeals, 243 SCRA 384, the Supreme Court held that in case of one decision imposing multiple
SUGGESTED ANSWER: No. Under Section 4 of the Probation Law, as amended, an order granting or denying probation is not appealable. Special law – Probation law – improper denial thereof Boyet Mar was charged with consented abduction by a 17-year old complainant. The accused made wedding arrangements with the girl, but her parents insisted on the prosecution of the case. To avoid further embarrassment of a court trial for him and the girl, the accused entered a plea of guilty. He then filed a petition for probation before serving sentence, but the court denied the petition on the ground that “it would be better for the accused to serve sentence so that he would reform himself and avoid the scandal in the community that would be caused by the grant of the petition."
136
Special law - Probation Law of 1976 - Grant of probation
May a probationer appeal from the decision revoking the grant of probation or modifying the terms and conditions thereof? (2%) (2002 Bar Question)
Page
The purposes of the Probation Law are: 1. to promote the correction and rehabilitation of an offender by providing him with individualized treatment; 2. to provide an opportunity for the reformation of a penitent offender which might be less probable if he were to serve a prison sentence; and 3. to prevent the commission of offenses.
Special law –Execution and service – Probation Law (PD 968, as amended); grant of probation, manner and conditions
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
SUGGESTED ANSWER: The trial court acted incorrectly. In Balleta vs. Leviste, 92 SCRA 719, the Judge precisely denied the petition for probation on the same excuse stated in the problem. The Supreme Court held that an accused must fall within any one of the disqualifications stated in Section 9 of P.D. 960 in order to be denied probation. Special law – Probation law – Criteria of placing an offender on probation PX was convicted and sentenced to imprisonment of thirty days and a fine of one hundred pesos. Previously, PX was convicted of another crime for which the penalty imposed on him was thirty days only. Is PX entitled to probation? Explain briefly. (5%) (2004 Bar Question) SUGGESTED ANSWER: Tes, PX may apply for probation. His previous conviction for another crime with a penalty of thirty days imprisonment or not exceeding one (1) month does not disqualify him from applying for probation; the penalty for his present conviction does not disqualify him either from applying for probation, since the imprisonment does not exceed six (6) years (Sec. 9, Pres. Decree No. 968).
SUGGESTED ANSWER: A is still eligible for probation since he filed his application for probation within 15 days from the promulgation of the judgment. Under the Probation Law; the accused may apply for probation WITHIN THE PERIOD FOR PERFECTING AN APPEAL which is 15 days from promulgation or notice thereof. The judge committed an error in issuing a Commitment Order on the same day of promulgation. A commitment order for the convict to begin serving his sentence can be validly issued only if the period for perfecting an appeal has expired with no appeal being taken. The fact that in compliance with such-order, which is void, the accused commenced to serve his
137
Did the trial court act correctly in denying the petition for probation? (1991 Bar Question)
“A” was charged with theft and upon arraignment, pleaded guilty to the charge. He was detained for failure to post bail. After “two (2) months, a decision was rendered, sentencing “A” to an indeterminate sentence of six (6) months and one (1) day as a minimum, to one (1) year and one (1) month as maximum, and to pay the offended party the amount of P700. On January 16, 1985, the very day the sentence was read to “A,” the Judge issued a Commitment Order addressed to the Provincial Jail Warden. On January 28, 1985, “A applied for probation but his application was denied on the ground that the sentence of conviction became final and executory on January 16, 1985, when “A” commence to serve his sentence, a) Is “A” eligible for probation? b) What is the purpose of the probation law? (1989 Bar Question)
Page
The accused served sentence but he brought the matter to the Supreme Court in a petition for certiorari.
Special law – Probation law - Eligibility for probation
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
sentence does not bar him from availing himself of the benefits of the Probation Law. It is true that under the new Rules on Criminal Procedure it is provided that a judgment in a criminal case becomes final after the lapse of the period for perfecting an appeal, or when the sentence has been partially or totally satisfied or served, or the accused has applied for probation (Sec. 7, Rule 120). But Section 9 of the same Rule provides that “nothing in this Rule shall be construed as affecting any existing provision in the law governing suspension of sentence, probation or parole.”
charged in May 2007. Since Republic Act 9344 (Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of 2006) was already in effect, Joe moved to avail of the process of intervention or diversion. [e] Suppose Joe was convicted of attempted murder with a special aggravating circumstance and was denied suspension of sentence, would he be eligible for probation under Presidential Decree (PD) 968, considering that the death penalty is imposable for the consummated felony? Explain. (2%) (2009 Bar Question) SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Special law – Probation law – Eligibility for probation Joe was 17 years old when he committed homicide in 2005. The crime is punishable by reclusion temporal. After two years in hiding, he was arrested and appropriately
Special law – Probation Law – Disqualified offenders Carlos was charged and convicted of murder. He was sentenced to life imprisonment and to indemnify the
138
What the Probation Law provides is that no application for probation shall be entertained or granted if the defendant has perfected an appeal from the judgment or conviction. It does not say that no application shall be entertained if the judgment has become final because the convict has commenced to serve his sentence.
Yes. He would be eligible for probation because the penalty imposable on Joe will not exceed 6 years imprisonment. Even if it would be considered that the crime committed was punishable by death, the penalty as far as Joe is concerned can only be reclusion perpetua because Rep. Act 9344 forbids the imposition of the capital punishment upon offenders thereunder. The murder being attempted only, the prescribed penalty is two degree lower than reclusion perpetua; hence, prision mayor. Because Joe was 17 years old when he committed the crime, the penalty of prision mayor should be lowered further by one degree because his minority is a privileged mitigating circumstance; hence, prision correccional or imprisonment within the range of six months and 1 day to 6 years is the imposable.
Page
The probation law does not speak of filing an application for probation BEFORE judgment has become final. It only speaks of filing the application WITHIN THE PERIOD FOR PERFECTING AN APPEAL. There is nothing in the Probation Law that bars an accused who has commenced to serve his sentence from filing an application for probation provided he does so WITHIN THE PERIOD FOR PERFECTING AN APPEAL.
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
Criminal law – Probation law – Disqualified offenders Who are the offenders disqualified from availing themselves of the benefits of the probation law (P.D. 968, as amended)? (1988 Bar Question) SUGGESTED ANSWER: The following offenders are disqualified from availing of the benefits of the Probation Law: • those sentenced to serve maximum term of imprisonment of more than six years; • those convicted of subversion or any crime against the national security of the public order; • those who have previously been convicted by final judgment of an offense punished by imprisonment of not less than one month and one day and or a fine of not less than two hundred pesos; • those who have been once on probation under the provisions of this decree; and • those who are already serving sentence at the time the substantive
Special law – Probation law – Disqualified offenders On February 3, 1986, Roberto was convicted of arson through reckless imprudence and sentenced to pay a fine of P15,000.00, with subsidiary imprisonment in case of in-solvency By the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City. On February 10, 1986, he appealed to the Court of Appeals. Several months later, he filed a motion to withdraw the appeal on the ground that he is applying for probation. On May 7, 1987, the Court of Appeals granted the motion and considered the appeal withdrawn. On June 10, 1987, the records of the case were remanded to the trial court. Roberto filed a “Motion for Probation" praying that execution of his sentence be suspended, and that a probation officer be ordered to conduct an investigation and to submit a report on his probation. The judge denied the motion on the ground that pursuant to Presidential Decree No. 1990, which took effect on July 16, 1986, no application for probation shall be entertained or granted if the defendant has perfected an appeal from the judgment of conviction. Is the denial of Roberto’s motion correct? (1994 Bar Question) SUGGESTED ANSWER: Yes. Even if at the time of his conviction Roberto was qualified for probation but that at the time of his application for probation, he is no longer qualified, he is not entitled to probation. The qualification for probation must be determined as of the time the
139
SUGGESTED ANSWER: I will not grant the application for probation as it is clear in the Probation Law that the benefits thereof shall not apply to those sentenced to serve a maximum term of imprisonment of more than six (6) years. (P.D. 1990).
provisions of this decree applicable pursuant to Section 33 of P.D. 968.
Page
offended party in the amount of P30.000. And instead of filing a motion for reconsideration he applies for probation. If you were the judge, will you grant the same? Explain your answer. (1990 Bar Question)
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
Juanito was found guilty of Robbery by the RTC of Manila and sentenced to four (4) Years, two (2) months and one (1) day of prision correctional as minimum to eight (o) years and twenty (20) days of prision mayor as maximum. Juanito appealed to the Court of Appeals which found him guilty only of Theft and sentenced him to a straight penalty of one (1J Year. The decision of the appellate court was promulgated in May, 1993. 1. Is Juanito entitled to the benefits of the Probation Law which became effective on Jan. 3, 1978? Why? 2. Suppose the prison term imposed by the RTC in the above example is only two (2) years as minimum to six (6) years as maximum and Juanito did not appeal. When he applied for probation, it was discovered that in March, 1960, a Municipal Court has sentenced him to a six-month imprisonment for less serious physical injuries which he fully served. May his application for probation be granted? Reason out.(1993 Bar Question) SUGGESTED ANSWER: 1. Juanito is not entitled to probation because the law, as amended, requires the filing of the application within the period for perfecting an appeal.
Special law – Probation law – Disqualified offenders In a case for violation of Sec. 8, RA 6425, otherwise known as the Dangerous Drugs Act, accused Vincent was given the benefit of the mitigating circumstances of voluntary plea of guilt and drunkenness not otherwise habitual. He was sentenced to suffer a penalty of six (6) years and one (1) day and to pay a fine of P6.000.00 with the accessory penalties provided by law, plus costs. Vincent applied for probation. The probation officer favorably recommended his application. If you were the judge, what action will you take on the application? Discuss fully. (1995 Bar Question) Suppose that Vincent was convicted of a crime for which he was sentenced to a maximum penalty of ten (10) years. Under the law, he is not eligible for probation. He seasonably appealed his conviction. While affirming the judgment of conviction, the appellate court reduced the penalty to a maximum of four (4) years and four (4) months taking into consideration certain modifying circumstances. Vincent now applies for probation. How will you rule on his application? Discuss fully. (1995 Bar Question) SUGGESTED ANSWER:
140
Special law – Probation Law – Disqualified offenders
2. He is not entitled to the Probation Law because Section 9 (c) provides that probation shall not be extended to those "who have previously been convicted by final judgment of an offense punishable by imprisonment of not less than one (1) month and one (1) day or a fine of not more than P200.00."
Page
application is filed in Court (Ber-nardo vs. Judge. etal, GRNo. L86561, Nov. 10, 1992; Edwtn de la Cruz vs. Judge CaUejo, et al, SP-19655, April 18, 1990, citing Llamado vs. CA, et al., GR No. 84859, June 28. 1989; Bernardo vs. Judge Balagot, et aL GR 86561, Nov. 10.1992
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
N.B to No. 2 This Is the second consecutive year that this question was asked. It is the sincere belief of the Committee that there is a need to re-examine the doctrine. Firstly, much as the accused wanted to apply for probation he is proscribed from doing so as the maximum penalty is NOT PROBATIONABLE. Secondly, when the maximum penalty was reduced to one which aUows probation it is but fair and j ust to grant him that right because it is apparent that the trial judge committed an error and for which the accused should not be made to suffer. Judicial tribunals in this jurisdiction are not only courts of law but also of equity. Thirdly, the judgment of the appellate court should be considered a new decision as the trial court’s decision was vacated: hence, he could take advantage of the law when the decision is remanded to the trial court for execution (Please see Dissenting opinion in Francisco us. CA). It is suggested, therefore, that an examinee answering in this tenor should be credited with some points.
A, a subdivision developer, was convicted by the RTC of Makati for failure to issue the subdivision title to a lot buyer despite full payment of the lot, and sentenced to suffer one year imprisonment. A appealed the decision of the RTC to the Court of Appeals but his appeal was dismissed. May A still apply for probation? Explain. (5%) (2001 Bar Question) SUGGESTED ANSWER: No. A is no longer qualified to apply for probation after he appealed from the judgment of conviction by the RTC. The probation law (PD 968. as amended by PD1990) now provides that no application for probation shall be entertained or granted if the accused has perfected an appeal from the judgment of conviction (Sec. 4. PD 968). Special law – Probation Law – Disqualified offenders Juan was convicted of the Regional Trial Court of a crime and sentenced to suffer the penalty of imprisonment for a minimum of eight years. He appealed both his conviction and the penalty imposed upon him to the Court of Appeals. The appellate court ultimately sustained Juan's conviction but reduced his sentence to a maximum of four years and eight months imprisonment. Could Juan forthwith file an application for probation? Explain. (2003 Bar Question) SUGGESTED ANSWER:
141
The law and jurisprudence are to the effect that appeal by the accused from a sentence of conviction forfeits his right to probation.(Sec. 4. PD No. 968, as amended by PD 1990; Bernardo vs. Balagot; Francisco vs. CA; Llamado vs. CA; De la Cruz vs. Judge Callejo. CA case).
Special law – Probation Law – Disqualified offenders
Page
If I were the judge, I will deny the application for probation. The accused is not entitled to probation as Sec. 9 of the Probation Law. PD NO. 968, as amended, specifically mentions that those who “are sentenced to serve a maximum term of imprisonment of more than six years" are not entitled to the benefits of the law.
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
SUGGESTED ANSWER: Instances when sentence may suspended are: (at least 7 instances)
be
1. where the accused became insane before sentence could be promulgated (Art. 79, RPC); 2. where the offender, upon conviction by the trial court, filed an application for probation which has been granted (Baclayon v. Mutia, 129 SCRA 148119841); 3. where the offender needs to be confined in a rehabilitation center because of drug-dependency although convicted of the crime charged; 4. where the offender is a youthful offender under Art. 192, PD 603, otherwise referred to as the Child and Youth Welfare Code; and 5. where the, crime was committed when the offender is under 18 years of age and he is found guilty thereof in accordance with Rep. Act 9344, otherwise known as the "Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of 2006", but the trial court subjects him to
SECTION 66. Suspension of Sentence of a First-Time Minor Offender. - An accused who is over fifteen (15) years of age at the time of the commission of the offense mentioned in Section 11 of this Act, but not more than eighteen (18) years of age at the time when judgment should have been promulgated after having been found guilty of said offense, may be given the benefits of a suspended sentence, subject to the following conditions: a. He/she has not been previously convicted of violating any provision of this Act, or of the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972, as amended; or of the Revised Penal Code; or of any special penal laws; b. He/she has not been previously committed to a Center or to the care of a DOH-accredited physician; and c. The, Board favorably recommends that his/her sentence be suspended xxx" "SECTION 66. Suspension of Sentence of a First-Time Minor Offender. - An accused 8. When the sentence is death, its execution may be suspended or postponed by the Supreme Court, through the issuance of a RO upon the ground of supervening events (Echegaray v. Secretary of Justice, 301 SCRA 96 [19991).
142
There are at least 7 instances or situations in criminal cases wherein the accused, either as an adult or as a minor, can apply for and/or be granted a suspended sentence. Enumerate at least 5 of them. 5% (2006 Bar Question)
appropriate disposition measures as prescribed by the Supreme Court in the Rule on Juveniles in Conflict with the Law. 6. the death sentence shall be suspended upon a woman while she is pregnant or within one year after delivery. (Art. 83, Revised Penal Code) 7. Section 66 of RA 9165 (Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002)
Page
No, Juan can no longer avail of the probation because he appealed from the judgment of conviction of the trial court, and therefore, cannot apply for probation anymore. Section 4 of the Probation Law, as amended, mandates that no application for probation shall be entertained or granted if the accused has perfected an appeal from the judgment of conviction. ART.7-Execution and service – Application for suspended sentence
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
Explain the application of the Indeterminate Sentence Law (ISL). (5%)
contending that the accused is a habitual delinquent and an escapee from the National Mental Hospital. If you are the Judge, rule on the objection.
A was charged with homicide. During the trial, uncontradicted evidence consisting of medical certificates were presented showing that the accused had sustained injuries in ten (10) previous occasions while engaged in fisticuffs with different persons. He was also confined at the National Mental Hospital for mental ailment diagnosed as “homicidal and suicidal instincts.” During his second confinement thereat, he escaped. Upon conviction, the prosecutor objected to the application of the Indeterminate Sentence Law
The objection should be overruled. A could not be legally considered a habitual delinquent. Habitual delinquency cannot be validly invoked without being alleged in the Information and proven during the trial. Besides there is no indication that A was convicted within ten (10) years from last conviction or release, three times or oftener of the crimes of robbery, theft, estafa, physical injuries or falsification.
ART 62 – EFFECTS OF THE ATTENDANCE OF MITIGATING OR AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANES AND OF HABITUAL DELINQUENCY Homer was convicted of homicide. The trial court appreciated the following modifying circumstances: the aggravating circumstance of nocturnity and the mitigating circumstances of passion and obfuscation, no intent to commit so grave a wrong, illiteracy and voluntary surrender. The imposable penalty for homicide is reclusion temporal the range of which is twelve (12) years and one (1) day to twenty (20) years. Taking into account the attendant aggravating and mitigating circumstances, and applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, determine the proper penalty to be imposed on the accused. (1995 Bar Question) SUGGESTED ANSWER:
143
Art. 62 Habitual delinquency (1991)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Page
Suggested answer The court shall sentence the accused to an indeterminate sentence the maximum term of which shall be that which, in view of the attending circumstances, could be properly imposed under the rules of the Revised Penal Code, and the minimum of which shall be within the range of the penalty next lower to that prescribed by the Code for the offense; and if the offense Is punished by any other law (special law), the court shall sentence the accused to an indeterminate sentence, the maximum term of which shall not exceed the maximum fixed by said law and the minimum shall not be less than the minimum term prescribed by the same, (Sec. 1, ISL., Act No. 4103 as amended by Act No. 4225) The court must instead of a single fixed penalty, except where the imposable penalty is one (1) year or less, determine two penalties, referred to in the Indeterminate Sentence Law as the “maximum” and “minimum” terms.
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
Since the crime committed is Homicide and the penalty therefor is reclusion temporal, the MAXIMUM sentence under the Indeterminate Sentence Law should be the minimum of the penalty, which is 12 years and 1 day to 14 years and 8 months. The MINIMUM penalty will thus be the penalty next lower in degree, which is prision mayor in its full extent (6 years and 1 day to 12 years). Ergo, the proper penalty would be 6 years and 1 day, as minimum, to 12 years and 1 day, as maximum. I believe that because of the remaining mitigating circumstances after the off-setting it would be very logical to impose the minimum of the MINIMUM sentence under the ISL and the minimum of the MAXIMUM sentence.
Bruno was charged with homicide for killing the 75-year old owner of his rooming house. The prosecution proved that Bruno stabbed the owner causing his death; and that the killing happened at 10 in the evening in the house where the victim and Bruno lived. Bruno, on the other hand, successfully proved that he voluntarily surrendered to the authorities; that he pleaded guilty to the crime charged; that it was the victim who first attacked and did so without any provocation on his (Bruno's) part, but he prevailed because he managed to draw his knife with which he stabbed the victim. The penalty for homicide is reclusion temporal. Assuming a judgment of conviction and after considering the attendant circumstances, what penalty should the judge impose? (2013 BAR) ANSWER Bruno should be sentenced to an indeterminate sentence penalty of arresto mayor in any of its period to prision correccional in its medium period as maximum. Bruno was entitled to two privileged mitigating circumstances of incomplete self-defense and the presence of at least two ordinary mitigating circumstances (voluntary surrender and plea of guilt) without any aggravating circumstance under Art. 69 and 64(5) of the RPC respectively, which lowers the prescribed penalty for homicide which is reclusion temporal to prision correccional.
144
The existence of an aggravating circumstance, albeit there are four aggravating, will not justify the lowering of the penalty to the next lower degree under paragraph 5 of said Article, as this is applicable only if THERE IS NO AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCE present.
ART 62 – EFFECTS OF THE ATTENDANCE OF MITIGATING OR AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANES AND OF HABITUAL DELINQUENCY
Page
It appears that there is one aggravating circumstance (noctumity), and four mitigating circumstances (passion and obfuscation, no intent to commit so grave a wrong as that committed and voluntary surrender). Par. 4, Art. 64 should be applied. Hence there will be off-setting of modifying circumstances, which will now result in the excess of three mitigating circumstances. This will therefore justify in reducing the penalty to the minimum period.
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
Taylor was convicted of a violation of the Election Code, and was sentenced to suffer imprisonment of one year as minimum, to three years as maximum. The decision of the trial court was affirmed on appeal and became final and executory. Taylor failed to appear when summoned for execution of judgment, prompting the judge to issue an order for his arrest. Taylor was able to use the backdoor and left for the United States. Fifteen years later, Taylor returned to the Philippines and filed a Motion to Quash the warrant of arrest against him, on the ground that the penalty imposed against him had already prescribed. (2015 BAR) a) If you were the judge, would you grant Taylor's Motion to Quash? Explain. Answer: If I were the judge, I will deny the motion to quash. Article 93 of the Revised Penal Code provides when the prescription of penalties shall commence to run. Under said provision, it shall commence to run from the date the felon evades the service of his sentence. Pursuant to Article 157 of the same Code, evasion of service of sentence can be committed only by those who have been convicted by final judgment by escaping during the term of his sentence. Taylor never served a single minute of his sentence, and thus, prescription never started to run in his favor. Clearly, one who has not been committed to prison cannot be said to have escaped therefrom (Del Castillo v. Torrecampo, G.R. No. 139033, December 18, 2002).
Answer: Even if Taylor was able to go to another country which the Philippines had no extradition treaty, I will deny the motion to quash. Going to a foreign country with which this Government has no extradition treaty to interrupt the running of prescription is not applicable nor even material because the period of prescription is not applicable nor even material because the period of prescription had not commenced to run in the first place; hence, there is nothing to interrupt. ART. 89-93 Extinction of criminal liability- prescription of crimes (1993 Bar Question) B imitated the signature of A, registered owner of a lot, in special power of attorney naming him (B) as the attorneyin-fact of A On February 13, 1964, B mortgaged the lot to a bank using the special power of attorney to obtain a loan of P8.500.00. On the same day, both the special power of attorney and the mortgage contract were duly registered in the Registry of Deeds. Because of B’s failure to pay. The bank foreclosed the mortgage and the lot was sold to X in whose name a new title was issued. In March, 1974, A discovered that the property was already registered in the name of X because of an ejectment case filed against him by X. If you were the lawyer of A, with what crime or crimes would you charge B? Explain.
145
Art. 93 in relation to Art 157
b) Assuming that instead of the United States, Taylor was able to go to another country with which the Philippines had no extradition treaty, will your answer be the same? Explain.
Page
EXTINCTION OF CRIMINAL LIABILITY
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
which is in the name of his wife and children? Reason out.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The crime committed is estafa thru falsification of public document.
A. Andy will not be criminally liable because Section 6 of RA 7080 provides that the crime punishable under this Act shall prescribe in twenty years and the problem asked whether Andy can still be charged with the crime of plunder after 20 years.
A. May Andy still be held criminally liable? Why? B. Can the State still recover the properties and assets that he illegally acquired, the bulk of
B. Yes, because Section 6 provides that recovery of properties unlawfully acquired by public officers from them or their nominees or transferees shall not be barred by prescription, laches or estoppel. (1995 Bar Question) Joe and Marcy were married in Batanes in 1955. After two years, Joe left Marcy and settled in Mindanao where he later met and married Linda on 12 June 1960. The second marriage was registered in the civil registry of Davao City three days after its celebration. On 10 October 1975 Marcy who remained in Batanes discovered the marriage of Joe to Linda. On 1 March 1976 Marcy filed a complaint for bigamy against Joe. The crime of bigamy prescribed in fifteen years computed from the day the crime is discovered by the offended party, the authorities or their agents. Joe raised the defense of prescription of the crime, more than fifteen years having elapsed from the celebration of the bigamous marriage up to the filing of Marcy’s complaint. He contended that the registration of his second marriage in the civil registry of Davao City was constructive notice to the whole world of the celebration thereof thus binding upon Marcy.
146
My defense will be prescription because the crime was committed in 1964 and almost twenty nine years had already elapsed since then. Even if we take Falsification and Estafa individually, they have already prescribed. It is to be noted that when it comes to discovery, the fact that the crime was discovered in 1964 will be of no moment because the offended party is considered to have constructive notice on the forgery after the Deed of Sale where his signature had been falsified was registered in the office of the Register of Deeds (Cabral vs. Pu.no, 70 SCRA 606) (1993 Bar Question) Through kickbacks, percentages or commissions and other fraudulent schemes/conveyances and taking advantage of his position, Andy, a former mayor of a suburban town, acquired assets amounting to P10 billion which is grossly disproportionate to his lawful income. Due to his influence and connections and despite knowledge by the authorities of his ill-gotten wealth, he was charged with the crime of plunder only after twenty (20) years from his defeat in the last elections he participated in.
Page
If you were the counsel of B. what would be your defense? Discuss.
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
Resolve the motion for reconsideration.
No. The prescriptive period for the crime of bigamy is computed from the time the crime was discovered by the offended party, the authorities or their agents. The principle of constructive notice which ordinarily applies to land or property disputes should not be applied to the crime of bigamy, as marriage is not property. Thus when Marcy filed a complaint for bigamy on 7 March 1976, it was well within the reglamentary period as it was barely a few months from the time of discovery on 10 October 1975. (Sermonia vs. CA, 233 SCRA 155) (1997 Bar Question) A was charged in an information with the crime of grave oral defamation but after trial, the court found him guilty only of the offense of simple slander. He filed a motion for reconsideration contending that, under the law, the crime of simple slander would have prescribed in two months from commission, and since the information against him was filed more than four months after the alleged commission of the crime, the same had already prescribed. The Solicitor General opposed the motion on two grounds: first, in determining the prescriptive period, the nature of the offense charged in the information should be considered, not the crime proved; second, assuming that the offense had already prescribed, the defense was waived by the failure of A to raise it in a motion to quash.
The motion for reconsideration should be granted. The accused cannot be convicted of the offense of simple slander although it is necessarily included in the offense of grave slander charged in the information, because, the lesser offense had already prescribed at the time the information was filed (People vs. Rarang, (CA) 62 O.G. 6468; Francisco vs. CA, 122 SCRA 538; Magat vs. People, 201SCRA 21) otherwise prosecutors can easily circumvent the rule of prescription in light offenses by the simple expediment of filing a graver offense which includes such light offense. While the general rule is the failure of an accused to file a motion to quash before he pleads to the complaint or information, shall be deemed a waiver of the grounds of a motion to quash, the exceptions to this are: (1) no offense was charged in the complaint or information; (2) lack of jurisdiction; (3) extinction of the offense or penalty; and (4) double jeopardy. Since the ground invoked by the accused in his motion for reconsideration is extinction of the offense, then it can be raised even after plea. In fact, it may even be invoked on appeal (People vs. Balagtas) (2000 Bar Question) One fateful night in January 1990, while 5-year old Albert was urinating at the back of their house, he heard a strange noise coming from the kitchen of their neighbor and playmate, Ara. When he peeped inside, he saw Mina, Ara’s stepmother, very angry and strangling the 5-year old Ara to death. Albert saw Mina carry the dead body of Ara, place it inside the trunk of her car and drive away. The dead body of Ara was never
147
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Page
Has the crime of bigamy charged against Joe already prescribed? Discuss fully.
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
Yes, the State can still prosecute Mina for the death of Ara despite the lapse of 20 & 1/2 years. Under Article 91. RPC, the period of prescription commences to run from the day on which the crime is discovered by the offended party, the authorities or their agents. In the case at bar, the commission of the crime was known only to Albert, who was not the offended party nor an authority or an agent of an authority. It was discovered by the NBI authorities only when Albert revealed to them the commission of the crime. Hence, the period of prescription of 20years for homicide commenced to run only from the time Albert revealed the same to the NBI authorities. (2001 Bar Question) On June 1, 1988, a complaint for concubinage committed in February 1987 was filed against Roberto in the Municipal Trial Court of Tanza, Cavite for purposes of preliminary investigation. For various reasons, it was only on July 3, 1998 when the Judge of said court decided the case by dismissing it for lack of jurisdiction since the crime was committed in
Was the dismissal by the fiscal correct? Explain. (5%) SUGGESTED ANSWER: No, the Fiscals dismissal of the case on alleged prescription is not correct. The filing of the complaint with the Municipal Trial Court, although only for preliminary investigation, interrupted and suspended the period of prescription in as much as the jurisdiction of a court in a criminal case is determined by the allegations in the complaint or information, not by the result of proof. (People vs. Galano, 75 SCRA 193) (2004 Bar Question) OW is a private person engaged in cattle ranching. One night, he saw AM stabbed CV treacherously, then throw the dead man’s body into a ravine. For 25 years, CVs body was never seen nor found; and OW told no one what he had witnessed. Yesterday after consulting the parish priest, OW decided to tell the authorities what he witnessed, and revealed that AM had killed CV 25 years ago. Can AM be prosecuted for murder despite the lapse of 25 years? Reason briefly. (5%) SUGGESTED ANSWER: A. Yes, AM can be prosecuted for murder despite the lapse of 25 years, because the
148
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Manila. The case was subsequently filed with the City Fiscal of Manila but it was dismissed on the ground that the crime had already prescribed. The law provides that the crime of concubinage prescribes in ten (10) years.
Page
found. Mina spread the news in the neighborhood that Ara went to live with her grandparents in Ormoc City. For fear of his life, Albert did not tell anyone, even his parents and relatives, about what he witnessed. Twenty and a half (20 & 1/2) years after the incident, and right after his graduation in Criminology, Albert reported the crime to NBI authorities. The crime of homicide prescribes in 20 years. Can the state still prosecute Mina for the death of Ara despite the lapse of 20 & 1/2 years? Explain. (5%)
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
(2009 Bar Question) Baldo killed Conrad in a dark corner, at midnight, on January 2, 1960. Dominador witnessed the entire incident, but he was so scared to tell the authorities about it. On January 2, 1970, Dominador, bothered by his conscience, reported the matter to the police. After investigation, the police finally arrested Baldo on January 6, 1980. Charged in court, Baldo claims that the crime he committed had already prescribed. Is Baldo's contention correct? Explain. (3%) SUGGESTED ANSWER: No, Baldo's contention is not correct because the crime committed has not yet prescribed. The prescriptive period of the crime committed commenced to run only after it was reported to the police on January 2, 1970, not on the date it was clandestinely committed on January 2, 1960. Under the discovery rule, which governs when a crime is not publicly committed, the prescriptive period of a crime commences to run only from the day on which the crime is discovered by the
(2010 Bar Question) A killed his wife and buried her in their backyard. He immediately went into hiding in the mountains. Three years later, the bones of A's wife were discovered by X, the gardener. Since X had a standing warrant of arrest, he hid the bones in an old clay jar and kept quiet about it. After two years, Z, the caretaker, found the bones and reported the matter to the police. After 15 years of hiding, A left the country but returned three years later to take care of his ailing sibling. Six years thereafter, he was charged with parricide but raised the defense of prescription. A. Under the Revised Penal Code, when does the period of prescription of a crime commence to run? (1%) B. When is it interrupted? (1%) C. Is A's defense tenable? Explain. (3%) SUGGESTED ANSWER: A. Generally, the period of prescription of a crime commences to run from the date it was committed; but if the crime was committed clandestinely, the period of prescription of the crimes under the Revised Penal Code commence to run from the day on which the crime was
149
The period of prescription of a crime shall commence to run only from the day on which the crime has been discovered by the offended party, the authorities or their agents (Art. 91, Revised Penal Code). OW, a private person who saw the killing but never disclosed it, is not the offended party nor has the crime been discovered by the authorities or their agents.
offended party, the authorities or their agents: in this case, from January 2, 1970 when it was made known to the police authorities until January 6, 1980, when Baldo was arrested and charged. The killing committed, whether it be homicide or murder, is punishable by an afflictive penalty which prescribes in twenty (20) years, whereas only around ten (10) years had lapsed from January 2, 1970 (when the authorities discovered the commission of the crime) to January 6, 1920 (when the accused was charged in court).
Page
crime has not yet prescribed and legally, its prescriptive period has not even commenced to run.
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
discovered by the offended party, the authorities or their agents (Art 91, RPC).
prescriptive period had lapsed. Hence the crime has not yet prescribed
B. The running of the prescriptive period of the crime is interrupted when "any kind of investigative proceeding is instituted against the guilty person which may ultimately lead to his prosecution" (Panaguiton, Jr. v. Dept. of Justice, G.R. No. 167571, Nov. 25, 2008).
ART.89/ART. 94 Total and partial extinguishment – Acquittal in relation to civil liability (1988 Bar Question) a) How is criminal liability totally extinguished? b) How is criminal liability extinguished partially? c) If an accused is acquitted, does it necessarily follows that no civil liability arising from the acts complained of may be awarded in the same judgment?
Since A had been in hiding for 15 years after the commission of the crime and the prescriptive period started running only after 5 years from such commission when the crime was discovered, only 10 years lapsed and 3 years thereof should be deducted when the prescriptive period was interrupted and suspended. Hence, the 3 years when A was out of the Philippines should be deducted from the 10 years after the prescription starts running. Adding the 7 years of prescription and the 6 years that lapsed before the case was filed, only a total of thirteen (13) years of the
SUGGESTED ANSWER a) Article 89 of the Revised Penal Code provides for the following causes of total extinction of criminal liability: 1. Death of the convict as to personal penalties, as to the pecuniary liabilities, liability therefore is extinguished only when death occurs before final judgment. 2. Service of Sentence 3. Amnesty 4. Absolute pardon 5. Prescription of the crime 6. Prescription of the penalty 7. Marriage of the offended woman as provided in Article 344. b) Article 94 of the Revised Penal Code provides for the following causes of partial extinction of criminal liability: 1. Condition pardon 2. Communication of sentence 3. Good conduct allowances during confinement 4. Parole 5. Probation
150
When A left the country and returned only after three (3) years, the running of the prescriptive period of the crime is interrupted and suspended because prescription shall not run when the offender is absent from the Philippine Archipelago (Art. 91, RPC).
Explain briefly.
Page
C. No, the defense of prescription of the crime is not tenable. The crime committed is parricide which prescribes in twenty (20) years (Art 90, RPC). It was only when the care-taker, Z, found the victim's bones and reported the matter to the police that the crime is deemed legally discovered by the authorities or their agents and thus the prescriptive period of the crime commenced to run.
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
For defrauding Loma, Alma was charged before the Municipal Trial Court of Malolos, Bulacan. After a protracted trial, Alma was convicted. While the case was pending appeal in the Regional Trial Court of the same province, Loma who was then suffering from breast cancer, died. Alma manifested to the court that with Loma's death, her (Alma's) criminal and civil liabilities are now extinguished. Is Alma’s contention correct? What if it were Alma who died, would it affect her criminal and civil liabilities? Explain. (3%) (2000 Bar Question) a. Name at least two exceptions to the general rule that in case of acquittal of the accused in a criminal case, his civil liability is likewise extinguished. (2%) (2000 Bar Question) SUGGESTED ANSWER: No. Alma's contention is not correct. The death of the offended party does not extinguish the criminal liability of the offender, because the offense is committed against the State (People vs. Misola, 87 Phil. 830, 833). Hence, it follows that the civil liability of Alma based on the offense committed by her is not extinguished. The estate of Loma can continue the case.
b. Exceptions to the rule that acquittal from a criminal case extinguishes civil liability, are: 1. When the civil action is based on obligations not arising from the act complained of as a felony; 2. When acquittal is based on reasonable doubt or acquittal is on the ground that guilt has not been proven beyond reasonable doubt (Art. 29, New Civil Code); 3. Acquittal due to an exempting circumstance, like insanity; 4. Where the court states in its judgment that the case merely involves a civil obligation; 5. Where there was a proper reservation forthe filing of a separate civil action; 6. In cases of independent civil actions provided for in Arts. 31,32,33 and 34 of the New Civil Code; 7. When the judgment of acquittal includes a declaration that the fact from which the civil liability might arise did not exist (Saplera vs. CA. 314 SCRA370); 8. Where the civil liability is not derived or based on the criminal act of which the accused is acquitted (Saplera vs. CA, 314 SCRA 370). Note : Only two (2) exceptions are asked.
151
ART. 89--Extinguishment of criminal liability; civil liability
On the other hand, if it were Alma who died pending appeal of her conviction, her criminal liability shall be extinguished and therewith the civil liability under the Revised Penal Code (Art. 89, par. 1, RPC). However, the claim for civil indemnity may be instituted under the Civil Code (Art. 1157) if predicated on a source of obligation other than delict, such as law, contracts, quasi-contracts and quasidelicts (People vs. Bayotas 236 SCRA 239, G.R. 152007, September 2, 1994).
Page
If an accused acquitted, it does not necessarily follow that no civil liability arising from the acts complained of may be awarded in the same judgment except: If there is an express waiver of the liability; and if there is a reservation of file a separate civil action (Rule 107; Padilla vs. CA People vs. Jalandoni).
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
Court, PM died. The defense counsel manifested that PM’s death extinguished not only the criminal liability but also the pecuniary liability because the death occurred before the final judgment, since the case was pending appeal. He invoked Art. 89 of the Revised Penal Code which provides that “criminal liability is totally extinguished: 1. By the death of the convict, as to the personal penalties; and as to pecuniary penalties, liability therefor is extinguished only when the death of the offender occurs before the final judgment*’ As a Solicitor in the Office of the Solicitor General, do you agree with the defense counsel’s argument? (1987 Bar Question) SUGGESTED ANSWER: As Solicitor General, I will not agree to the argument of the defense counsel that the death of PM while his appeal was pending extinguished not only his criminal liability but also his pecuniary liability Article 89 of the Revised Penal Code which provides that the “pecuniary liability of the accused is extinguished only when the death of the offender occurred before the final judgment”, refers to his liability to pay the fine. (People vs. Sendaydiego, 81 SCRA 120). The civil liability, however, survives the death of the offender because death is not a valid cause of the extinguishment of
Rico was convicted of raping Letty, his former sweetheart by the Regional Trial Court of Manila and he was ordered to serve the penalty of life imprisonment, to indemnify Letty in the amount of P30.000.00 and to support their offspring. Pending appeal in the Supreme Court. Rico died. His widow, Bemie, moved for a dismissal of the case A. What is the legal effect of Rico’s death on his criminal liability? Explain your answer. (1990 Bar Question) B. How about on his civil liability? State your reasons. (1990 Bar Question) SUGGESTED ANSWER: A. The criminal liability of Rico is extinguished on the basis of Article 89 of the Revised Penal Code which provides that: “ How criminal liability is extinguished - Criminal liability is totally extiguished: 1. By the death of the convict, as to the personal penalties; and as to pecuniary penalties, liability therefor is extinguished only when the death of the offender occurs before final judgement. B. The civil liability of Rico survives. (People v. Sen- davdiego, January 20, 1978, 74 O.G. 4371; People v. Tirol G.R. No. L-30588, January 31, 1981; People v. Naboa, et, al.,132 SCRA 410).
152
PM, a rich businessman, was convicted of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment by the Regional Trial Court, and to pay the heirs of the victim the total amount of P250,000.00. While his appeal was pending before the Supreme
ART. 89/ART. 112--Effect of death of accused on criminal and civil liability
Page
ART. 89--Effect of death of the accused on civil liability
civil obligation. (Tonijos vs. Court of Appeals 67 SCRA 394).
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
ART. 89--effect death of the accused pending appeal on his criminal and pecuniary liabilities Librado was convicted of malversation for which he has imposed the indeterminate penalty of imprisonment with the following accessory penalties provided by law - a fine of P6.000.00 without subsidiary imprisonment in case of in-solvency; perpetual special disqualification; indemnification to the government in the amount of P6.000.00 and to pay the costs. If he dies pending appeal, what is the legal effect of his death on his criminal and pecuniary liabilities? (1992 Bar Question) SUGGESTED ANSWER: Under Art. 89. RPC and jurisprudence (People vs. Jose. 71 SCRA 273, People vs. Alison. 44 SCRA 523; etc.) death of the accused pending appeal extinguishes his criminal and civil liabilities. Civil liability includes pecuniary liabilities, such as fine. Hence, the same, together with the disqualification and the costs are extinguished.
TRY was sentenced to death by final judgment. But subsequently he was granted pardon by the President. The pardon was silent on the perpetual disqualification of TRY to hold any public office.
liability;
AX was convicted of reckless imprudence resulting in homicide. The trial court sentenced him to a prison term as well as to pay P150.000 as civil indemnity and damages. While his appeal was pending, AX met a fatal accident. He left a young widow, 2 children, and a million-peso estate. What is the effect, if any, of his death on his criminal as well as civil liability? Explain briefly. (5%) (2004 Bar Question) SUGGESTED ANSWER:
ART. 89 Criminal law – Modification and extinction of criminal liability – Pardon and Amnesty
After his pardon, TRY ran for office as Mayor of APP, his hometown. His opponent sought to disqualify him. TRY contended he is not disqualified because he was already pardoned by the President unconditionally. Is TRY’S contention correct? Reason briefly. (5%) (2004 Bar Question) SUGGESTED ANSWER: No, TRY's contention is not correct. Article 40 of the Revised Penal Code expressly provides that when the death penalty is not
153
civil
Civil indemnity and damages under the Revised Penal Code are recoverable only if the accused had been convicted with finality before he died.
Page
ART.89--Criminal and when extinguished
The death of AX while his appeal from the judgment of the trial court is pending, extinguishes his criminal liability. The civil liability insofar as it arises from the crime and recoverable under the Revised Penal Code is also extinguished; but indemnity and damages may be recovered in a civil action if predicated on a source of obligation under Art. 1157, Civil Code, such as law, contracts, quasi-contracts and quasi-delicts, but not on the basis of delicts. (People v. Bayotas, 236SCRA 239 11994B.
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
SUGGESTED ANSWER: A. The differences between pardon and amnesty: In pardon: The convict is excused from serving the sentence but the effects of conviction remain unless expressly remitted by the
In amnesty; The criminal complexion of the act constituting the crime is erased, as though such act was innocent when committed; hence, the effects of the conviction are obliterated. Amnesty is granted is in favor of a class of convicted offenders, not to individual convicted offenders; and the crimes involved are generally political offenses, not common crimes. Amnesty is a public act that requires the conformity or concurrence of the Philippine Senate. B. Crimes covered by the grant of amnesty, under Presidential Proclamation No. 724: (at least 5)
a. Rebellion or insurrection b. Coup d'etat c. Conspiracy and proposal to commit rebellion, insurrection or coup d'etat d. Disloyalty' of public officers or employs e. Inciting to rebellion or insurrection f. Sedition g. Conspiracy to commit sedition h. Inciting to sedition i. Illegal assembly j. Illegal association k. Direct Assault l. Indirect Assault
154
Pardon vs Amnesty A. Enumerate the differences between pardon and amnesty. 2.5% (2006 Bar Question) B. Under Presidential Proclamation No. 724, amending Presidential Proclamation No. 347, certain crimes are covered by the grant of amnesty. Name at least 5 of these crimes. 2.5% C. Can former DSWD Secretary Dinky Soliman apply for amnesty? How about columnist Randy David? (You are supposed to know the crimes or offenses ascribed to them as published in almost all newspapers for the past several months.) 2.5% (2006 Bar Question) D. General Lim and General Querubin of the Scout Rangers and Philippine Marines, respectively, were charged with conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentleman under the Articles of War. Can they apply for amnesty? 2.5% (2006 Bar Question)
pardon; hence, for pardon to be valid there must be a sentence already final and executory at the time the same is granted. Moreover, the grant is in favor of individual convicted offenders, not to a class of convicted offenders; and the crimes subject of the grant may be common crimes or political crimes. Finally, the grant is a private act of the Chief Executive which does not require the concurrence of any other public officer or office.
Page
executed by reason of commutation or pardon, the accessory penalties of perpetual absolute disqualification and civil interdiction during thirty (30) years from the date of the sentence shall remain as effects thereof, unless such accessory penalties have been expressly remitted in the pardon. This is because pardon only excuses the convict from serving the sentence but does not relieve him of the effects of the conviction unless expressly remitted in the pardon.
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
D. Yes. General Lim and General Querubin of the Scout Rangers and Philippine Marines can apply for amnesty. Violation of conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentleman under Article 96 of the Articles of War is explicitly enumerated in Section 1 of Presidential Proclamation No 724 as one of the crimes that are covered by the grant of amnesty. Pardon: Reinstatement Rina, who was a suspended Clerk of Court, was convicted of malversation and was sentenced to imprisonment, to pay a fine of P5.000.00 and to indemnify the government in the same amount. Pending appeal in the Court of Appeals, she was
Decide the issue with reasons. (1990 Bar Question) SUGGESTED ANSWER: Rina cannot apply for reinstatement, etc. as there was no effective pardon by the President. It is basic that pardon can only be granted after final conviction (Barrioquinto v. Fernandez, 85 Phil. 642 Modification and extinction of criminal liability – Pardon by the Chief Executive Linda was convicted by the Sandiganbayan of estafa through falsification of public document. She was sentenced accordingly and ordered to pay, among others, P5,000.00 representing the balance of the amount defrauded. The case reached the Supreme Court which affirmed the judgment of conviction. During the pendency of Linda’s motion for reconsideration in the said Court, the President extended to her an absolute pardon which she accepted. By reason of such pardon, she wrote the Department of Finance requesting that she be restored to her former post as assistant treasurer, which is still vacant. The Department ruled that Linda may be reinstated to her former position without the necessity of a new appointment and directed the City Treasurer to see to it that the sum of P5.000.00 be satisfied.
155
C. Both Dinky Soliman and Randy David may apply for amnesty because the crime respectively imputed to them are crimes against public order which are among the crimes covered by amnesty.
extended an absolute pardon by the President. Thus, she applied for reinstatement, payment of backwages, and absolution from payment of the One and indemnify.
Page
m. Resistance and disobedience to a person in authority or agents of such persons n. Tumults and other disturbances of public order o. Unlawful use of means of publication and unlawful utterances p. Alarms and scandals q. Illegal poSsession of firearms, ammunitions, and explosives, committed in furtherance of, incident to, or in connection with the crimes of rebellion and insurrection r. Violations of Articles of War: r.1. Art. 59 (Desertion) r.2. Art. 62 (Absence without Leave) r.3. Art. 67 (Mutiny or Sedition) r.4. Art. 68 (Failure to Suppress Mutiny or Sedition) r.5. Art. 94 (Various Crimes) r.6. Art. 96 (Conduct unbecoming an officer and gentleman) r.7. Art. 97 (General Article)
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
IS Linda entitled to reinstatement? (1994 Bar Question) SUGGESTED ANSWER: No, Linda is not entitled to reinstatement to her former position inasmuch as her right thereto had been relinquished or forfeited by reason of her conviction. The absolute pardon merely extinguished her criminal liability, removed her disqualification, and restored her eligibility for appointment to that office. She has to reapply for such position and under the usual procedure required for a new appointment. Moreover, the pardon does not extinguish the civil liability arising from the crime. (Monsanto vs. Factoran, Jr., 170 SCRA 191); see Art. 36. RPC) Amnesty Antero Makabayan was convicted of the crime of Rebellion. While serving sentence, he escaped from jail. Captured, he was charged with, and convicted of, Evasion of Service of Sentence. Thereafter, the President of the Philippines issued an amnesty proclamation for the offense of Rebellion. Antero applied for and was granted the benefit of the amnesty proclamation. Antero then filed a petition for habeas corpus, praying for his immediate release
SUGGESTED ANSWER: Yes, I will grant the petition because the sentence that was evaded proceeded from the crime of Rebellion which has been obliterated by the grant of amnesty to the offender (Art. 89 [3], RPC). Since the amnesty erased the criminal complexion of the act committed by the offender as a crime of rebellion and rendered such act as though innocent, the sentence lost its legal basis. The purported evasion thereof therefore cannot subsist (People v. Patriarca, 341 SCRA 464[2000]). Amnesty obliterates, not only the basis of conviction, but also all the legal effects thereof. Modification and extinction of criminal liability – Amnesty Senator Adamos was convicted of plunder. About one year after beginning to serve his sentence, the President of the Philippines granted him absolute pardon. The signed pardon states: "In view hereof, and in pursuance of the authority vested upon me by the Constitution, I hereby grant absolute pardon unto Adamos, who was convicted of plunder in Criminal Case No. XV32 and upon whom the penalty of reclusion perpetua was imposed." He now comes to you for advice. He wants to know if he could run for senator in the next election. (2015 BAR)
156
The Office of the President dismissed the appeal and held that acquittal, not absolute pardon, is the only ground for reinstatement to one's former position and that the absolute pardon does not exempt the culprit from payment of civil liability.
from confinement. He claims that the amnesty extends to the offense of evasion of Service of Sentence. As judge, will you grant the petition? Discuss fully. (4%) (2009 Bar Question)
Page
Claiming that she should not be made to pay P5,000.00, Linda appealed to the Office of the President.
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
If I were the counsel of Senator Adamos, I will give him the advice that he cannot run in the Senatorial race since the terms of the pardon has not expressly restored his right to hold public office or remitted the accessory penalty of perpetual absolute disqualification. Under Article 36 of the Revised Penal Code, a pardon shall not work the restoration of the right to hold public office unless such right be expressly restored by terms of the pardon. Under Article 41, the penalty of reclusion perpetua shall carry with it perpetual absolute disqualification which the offender shall suffer even though pardoned as to the principal penalty, unless the same shall have been expressly remitted in the pardon (Risos-Vidal v. Lim, G.R. No. 206666, January 21, 2015). b) Assuming that what Adamos committed was heading a rebellion for which he was imposed the same penalty of reclusion perpetua, and what he received was amnesty from the government, will your answer be the same? Explain. Answer: If Senator Adamos was convicted of rebellion and he received amnesty, I will give him the advice that he can run in the Senatorial race. Under Article 89 of the Revised Penal Code, criminal liability is totally extinguished by amnesty, which completely extinguishes the penalty and all its effects. Thus, the amnesty extinguishes not only the principal penalty of reclusion perpetua but also its effects such as the accessory penalty of perpetual absolute disqualification. Amnesty looks backward
CIVIL LIABILITY ART. 103--Execution of the employer’s subsidiary liability Juan Cruz, driver of a cargo truck owned and operated by VICMICO a sugar central, while driving recklessly caused Jorge Abad to fall from the truck resulting in injuries which caused his death. Juan Cruz was convicted of homicide thru reckless imprudence and was ordered to pay the heirs of the deceased Ahad P12,000.00. The respondent judge issued an order granting a motion for execution of the civil service liability of the accused Juan Cruz, but the return of the Sheriff showed that the accused was insolvent. Petitioners, heirs of the deceased Abad, now filed a motion for execution of the employers subsidiary liability under Art. 103 of the Revised Penal Code. Respondent judge denied the motion, stating that the employer VICMICO, not having been notified that his driver was facmg a criminal charge, a separate action had to be filed. Hence, a petition for mandamus was filed. Decide the case. (1988 Bar Question) SUGGESTED ANSWER: Mandamus will lie. There is no need for a separate civil action because the driver was convicted (Martinez vs. Barredo). All you need is a motion for execution with a notice to the employer that states compliance with the requisites imposed by
157
Answer:
and abolishes and puts into oblivion the offense itself, it so overlooks and obliterates the offense with which he is charged, so that the person released by amnesty stands before the law precisely as though he had committed no offense (Barrioquinto v. Fernandez, G.R. No. L1278, January 21, 1949).
Page
a) What advice will you give Adamos? Explain.
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
Guy, while driving a passenger jeepney owned and operated by Max, bumped Demy, a pedestrian crossing the street. Demy sustained injuries, which required medical attendance for three months. Guy was charged with reckless imprudence resulting to physical injuries. Convicted by the Metropolitan Trial Court, Guy was sentenced to suffer a straight penalty of three months of arresto mayor and ordered to indemnify Demy in the sum of P5.000 and to pay PI,000 as attorney's fees. Upon finality of the decision, a writ of execution was served upon Guy, but was returned unsatisfied due to his insolvency. Demy moved for a subsidiary writ of execution against Max. The latter opposed the motion on the ground that the decision made no mention of his subsidiary liability and that he was not impleaded in the case. How will you resolve the motion? [5%] (1998 Bar Question) SUGGESTED ANSWER: The motion is to be granted. Max as an employer of Guy and engaged in an industry (transportation business) where said employee is utilized, is subsidiarily civilly liable under Article 103 of the Revised Penal Code. Even though the decision made no mention of his subsidiary liability, the law violated (Revised Penal Code) itself mandates for such liability and Max is deemed to know it because ignorance of the law is never excused. And
Art. 104-Civil reparation
liability
-Restitution;
Allan, the Municipal Treasurer of the Municipality of Gerona, was in a hurry to return to his office after a day-long official conference. He alighted from the government car which was officially assigned to him, leaving the ignition key and the car unlocked, and rushed to his office. Jules, a bystander, drove off with the car and later sold the same to his brother, Danny for P20.000.00, although the car was worth P800,000.00. What, if any, are their respective civil liabilities? Explain. (5%) (2005 Bar Question) SUGGESTED ANSWER: Allan, Jules and Danny are all civilly liable for restitution of the car to the government, or if no longer possible, reparation of the damages caused by payment of the replacement cost of the car minus allowance for depreciation, and to indemnify consequential damages. Criminal law –Civil liability - Indemnity Macky, a security guard, arrived home late one night after rendering overtime. He was shocked to see Joy, his wife, and Ken, his best friend, in the act of having sexual intercourse. Macky pulled out his service gun and shot and killed Ken. Macky was charged with murder for the death of Ken.
158
Art. 103--Civil liability – Subsidiary liability of the employer
since his liability is not primary but only subsidiary in case his employee cannot pay, he need not be impleaded in the in the criminal case. It suffices that he was duly notified of the motion for issuance of a subsidiary writ of execution and thus given the opportunity to be heard.
Page
Article 103 of the Revised Penal Code (that there is employer-employee relationship, that the employer is engaged in an industry and that the driver is insolvent).
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
The court found that Ken died under exceptional circumstances and exonerated Macky of murder but sentenced him to destierro, conformably with Article 247 of the Revised Penal Code. The court also ordered Macky to pay indemnity to the heirs of the victim in the amount of P50,000. Did the court correctly order Macky to pay indemnity even though he was exonerated of murder? Explain your answer. (2007 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER: The damages that the trial court may award are: a. civil indemnity for the loss of life of the victim which jurisprudence has set at P50,000.00; b. Moderate/temperate damages for the expenses incurred for the wake and burial of the victim as the trial court may consider reasonable; and c. Moral damages for the sufferings of the family of the victim emotionally and mentally.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
In a crime of homicide, the prosecution failed to present any receipt to substantiate the heirs’ claim for an award of actual damages, such as expenses for the wake and burial.
A was a 17-year old working student who was earning his keep as a cigarette vendor. B was driving a car along busy Espana Street at about 7:00 p.m. Beside B was C. The car stopped at an intersection because of the red signal of the traffic light While waiting for the green signal, C beckoned A to buy some cigarettes. A approached the car and handed two sticks of cigarettes to C. While the transaction was taking place, the traffic light changed to green and the car immediately sped off. As the car continued to speed towards Qulapo, A clung to the window of the car but lost his grip and fell down on the pavement. The car did not stop. A suffered serious injuries which eventually caused his death. C was charged with ROBBERY with HOMICIDE. In the end, the Court was not convinced with moral certainty that the guilt of C has been established beyond reasonable doubt and, thus, acquitted him on the ground of reasonable doubt.
What kind of damages may the trial court award to them and how much? 5% (2006 Bar Question)
Can the family of the victim still recover civil damages in view of the acquittal of C? Explain. (5%) (2000 Bar Question)
ART. 104--Civil liability - Damages
159
ART. 104--Acquittal in a criminal prosecution; Institution of civil action
Page
No, the court did not act correctly in ordering the accused to indemnify the victim. Since the killing of Ken was committed under the exceptional circumstances in Article 247, Revised Penal Code, it is the consensus that no crime was committed in the light of the pronouncement in People v. Cosicor (79 Phil. 672 [1947]) that banishment (destierro) is intended more for the protection of the offender rather than as a penalty. Since the civil liability under the Revised Penal Code is the consequence of criminal liability, there would be no legal basis for the award of indemnity when there is no criminal liability.
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
If A’s family can prove the negligence of B by preponderance of evidence, the civil action for damages against B will prosper based on quasi-delict. Whoever by act or omission causes damage to another, there being fault or negligence, is obliged to pay for the damage done. Such fault or negligence, about pre-existing contractual relation between the parties, is called a quasi-delict (Art. 2176, CC). This is entirely separate and distinct from civil liability arising from negligence under the Penal Code (Arts. 31, 2176. 2177, CC). Civil action for recovery of property not subject to confiscation; jurisdiction Jose. Pedro and Juan, robbed ABC Bank of P200,000.00 and using a stolen car, immediately proceeded to Quezon City. The police recovered the money and the car. After the trial, during which the bank lawyer intervened as private prosecutor, the court convicted Jose, Pedro and Juan of robbery and ordered the forfeiture of the money (P200,000.00) and the car in favor of the government as proceeds and instrument of the crime, respectively. The bank lawyer received copy of the judgment, but did not do anything. Jose, Pedro and Juan did not appeal the judgment, and began service of sentence. Two months later, realizing that the court did not order the return of the money to the bank, the
A. As legal counsel, what will you tell him? Explain briefly. (1987 Bar Question) B. Under the facts given, would the bank be entitled to the return of the money? Why? (1987 Bar Question) SUGGESTED ANSWER: A. As legal counsel, I would advise Armando to file a civil action for the recovery of his car against its legal custodian. The car was stolen and therefore it belonged to Armando, an innocent party, who has not participated in the commission of the robbery by Jose, Pedro and Juan. The car, is therefore, not subject to confiscation. B. The motion of the bank lawyer for the modification of the judgment with the prayer that the money be ordered returned to the bank must be denied. The judgment is already final and so the court has no more “jurisdiction” over the case (People vs. Velez 15 SCRA 26). (2015 BAR) The Regional Trial Court (RTC) found Tiburcio guilty of frustrated homicide and sentenced him to an indeterminate penalty of four years and one day of prision correccional as minimum, to eight years of prision mayor as maximum, and ordered him to pay actual damages in the amount of P25,000.00. Tiburcio appealed to the Court of Appeals which sustained his
160
Yes, as against C, A's family can still recover civil damages despite C's acquittal. When the accused in a criminal prosecution is acquitted on the ground that his guilt has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt, a civil action for damages for the same act or omission may be instituted. Such action requires only a preponderance of evidence (Art. 29, CC).
bank lawyer filed a motion for modification of the judgment and prayed that the money be ordered returned to the bank. Two months later, Armando, the owner of the stolen car, learned of the judgment even much later. He comes to you seeking your well considered opinion on whether it is still possible to recover his car.
Page
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
Answer: The RTC may not grant the motion to dismiss because the Court of Appeals, having issued an Entry of Judgment, the decision has become final and executory. However, the pecuniary penalty, such as the civil liability arising from the crime consisting of actual damages of P25,000 survives the death of Tiburcio. b) Assuming that Tiburcio's death occurred before the Court of Appeals rendered its decision, will you give a different answer? Answer: Yes. The RTC decision must be set aside and the case against Tiburcio must consequently be dismissed. The demise of Tiburcio which occurred before the Court of Appeals rendered its decision causes his criminal liability, as well as his civil liability ex delicto, to be totally extinguished inasmuch as there is no longer a defendant to stand as the accused, the civil action is instituted therein for recovery of civil liability ex delicto is ipso facto extinguished, grounded as it is on criminal case.
ART. 116 Crimes against National Security – Misprision of treason Because peace negotiations on the Spratlys situation had failed, the People's Republic of China declared war against the Philippines. Myra, a Filipina who lives with her Italian expatriate boyfriend, discovered e-mail correspondence between him and a certain General Tung Kat Su of China. On March 12, 2010, Myra discovered that on even date her boyfriend had sent an email to General Tung Kat Su, in which he agreed to provide vital information on the military defense of the Philippines to the Chinese government in exchange for P1 million and his safe return to Italy. Two weeks later, Myra decided to report the matter to the proper authorities. Did Myra commit a crime? Explain. (3%) (2010 Bar Question) SUGGESTED ANSWER: Yes, Myra committed the crime of Misprision of Treason under Art. 116 of the Revised Penal Code, for failing to report or make known "as soon as possible" to the governor or provincial fiscal or to the mayor or fiscal of the City where she resides, the conspiracy between her Italian boyfriend and the Chinese General to commit treason against the Philippine Government in time of war. She decided to report the matter to the proper authorities only after two (2) weeks. ART. 123-Qualified Piracy The Royal S.S. Maru, a vessel registered in Panama, was 300 nautical miles from
161
a) Should the RTC grant the Motion to Dismiss the case? Explain.
CRIMES AGAINST NATIONAL SECURITY AND THE LAW OF NATIONS
Page
conviction as well as the penalty imposed by the court a quo. After sixty days, the Court of Appeals issued an Entry of Judgment and remanded the records of the case to the RTC. Three days thereafter, Tiburcio died of heart attack. Atty. Abdul, Tiburcio's counsel, filed before the RTC a Manifestation with Motion to Dismiss, informing the court that Tiburcio died already, and claiming that his criminal liability had been extinguished by his demise.
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
national
The inter-island vessel M/ V Viva Lines I, while cruising off Batanes, was forced to seek shelter at the harbor of Kaoshiung, Taiwan because of a strong typhoon. While anchored in said harbor, Max, Baldo and Bogart arrived in a speedboat, fired a bazooka at the bow of the vessel, boarded it and divested the passengers of their money and jewelry. A passenger of M/ V Viva Lines I, Dodong, took advantage of the confusion to settle an old grudge with another passenger, and killed him. After their apprehension, all four were charged with qualified piracy before a Philippine court. a) Was the charge of qualified piracy against the three persons (Max, Baldo and Bogart) who boarded the inter-island vessel correct? Explain. (4%) (2008 Bar Question) SUGGESTED ANSWER: a) The charge is correct. Qualified Piracy was committed when the offenders seized the vessel by firing on or boarding the same. In the problem, they even went further by divesting the passengers of their money and jewelry. The vessel was anchored in the harbor of Kaoshiung, Taiwan and it is submitted that the crime was committed within the territorial jurisdiction of another country. The Supreme Court has ruled that the high seas contemplated under Art. 122 of the Revised Penal Code includes the three-mile limit of any state (People v. Lol-lo, et al., 43 Phil. 1911922]). Moreover, piracy is an offense that can be tried anywhere because it is a crime against the Law of Nations.
162
What crime or crimes, if any, were committed? Explain. (5%) (2016 BAR) SUGGESTED ANSWER The crime of Qualified Piracy under Art. 123 of the Revised Penal Code has been committed, the elements of piracy being present, namely; (1) that the vessel is on the high seas; (2) that the offenders are not members of its complement or passenger of the vessel; and (3) that the offenders (a) attack or seize that vessel or (b) seize the whole or part of the cargo of said vessel, its equipment or personal belongings of its complement or passengers. The latter act is committed when the offenders took away several crates containing valuable items and loaded them in their own motorboat. The crime of piracy is qualified because: (1) the offenders have seized the vessel by boarding; and (2) the crime of piracy was accompanied by murder and physical injuries. The facts show that the offenders planted an explosive in the vessel which they detonated from a safe distance and the explosion killed ten (10) crewmen and injured fifteen (15) others. The number of persons killed on the occasion of piracy is not material. The law considers qualified piracy as a special complex crime regardless of the number of victims (People v. Siyoh, GR No. L-57292, 18 February 1986).
ART. 123 Crimes against security – Qualified piracy
Page
Aparri, Cagayan when its engines malfunctioned. The Captain ordered his men to drop anchor and repair the ship. While the officers and crew were asleep, armed men boarded the vessel and took away several crates containing valuable items and loaded them in their own motorboat. Before the band left, they planted an explosive which they detonated from a safe distance. The explosion damaged the hull of the ship, killed ten (10) crewmen, and injured fifteen (15) others.
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
a. If you were the public prosecutor, would you charge the ten (10) men who hijacked the postal van with violation of Presidential Decree No. 532, otherwise known as the Anti-Piracy and Anti Highway Robbery Law of 1974? Explain your answer. Answer: No, I would not charge the 10 men with the crime of highway robbery. The mere fact that the offense charged was committed on a highway would not be the determinant for the application of P.D. 532. If a motor vehicle, either stationary or moving on a highway, is forcibly taken at gun point by the accused who happened to take a fancy thereto, the location of the vehicle at the time of the unlawful taking would not necessarily put the offense within the ambit of P.D. 532. In this case, the crime committed is violation of the AntiCarnapping Act of 1972 (People v. Puno, G.R. No. 97471, February 17, 1993). Moreover, there is no showing that the 10 men were a band of outlaws organized for the purpose of depredation upon the persons and properties of innocent and defenseless inhabitants who travel from one place to another. What was shown is one isolated hijacking of a postal van. It
b. If you were the defense counsel, what are the elements of the crime of highway robbery that the prosecution should prove to sustain a conviction? Answer: Under Section 2 of P.D. 532, highway robbery is defined as “the seizure of any person for ransom, extortion or other unlawful purposes, or the taking away of the property of another by means of violence against or intimidation of person or force upon things or other unlawful means, committed by any person on any Philippine highway.” Hence, the elements of highway robbery are: 1. intent to gain; 2. unlawful taking of the property of another; 3. violence against or intimidation of any person; 4. committed on a Philippine highway 5. indiscrimate victim; To obtain a conviction for highway robbery, the prosecution must prove that the accused were organized for the purpose of committing robbery indiscriminately. If the purpose is only particular robbery, the crime is only robbery, or robbery in band if there are at least four armed participants. (See People v. Mendoza, G.R. No. 104461, February 23, 1996) ART.122, 123--Crimes against National Security and Law of Nations – Piracy; Qualified piracy
163
A postal van containing mail matters, including checks and treasury warrants, was hijacked along a national highway by ten (10) men, two (2) of whom were armed. They used force, violence and intimidation against three (3) postal employees who were occupants of the van, resulting in the unlawful taking and transportation of the entire van and its contents. (2012 BAR)
was not stated in the facts given that the 10 men previously attempted similar robberies by them to establish “indiscriminate” commission thereof (Filoteo Jr. v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 79543, October 16, 1993).
Page
a) Anti-Piracy and Anti-Highway Robbery (P.D. 532) (i) Definition of terms (ii) Punishable acts
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
2. Supposing that while the robbery was taking place, the culprits stabbed a member of the crew while sleeping. What crime was committed? Explain. 2.5% (2006 Bar Question) SUGGESTED ANSWER: 1. The crime committed was piracy under Art. 122, Revised Penal Code, the essence of which is robbery directed against a vessel and/or its cargoes. The taking of the several heavy crates of electrical equipment from a vessel at sea, was effected by force and undoubtedly with intent to gain. It is of no moment that the vessel was anchored when depredated so long as it was at sea.
CRIMES AGAINST THE FUNDAMENTAL LAW OF THE STATE ART. 128Criminal law – Crimes against the fundamental law of the State - Violation of domicile Alberto, Bernado and Carlos were looking for a person named Virgilio whom Carlos suspected of stealing his fighting cock. Alberto and Bernardo were policemen, while Carlos was a caretaker of fighting cocks. Carlos requested Alberto and Bernardo, then in uniform, to accompany him to Virgilio’s house to look for the fighting cock. Alberto, Bernardo and Carlos went to Virgilio’s house. When the policemen knocked on the door, Virgilio’s wife, Maria, opened it. The policemen told Maria that they came to inquire about a lost fighting cock. Before Maria could utter a word, the trio barged inside, the house. Once inside, the policemen told Maria that Carlos was suspecting her husband, Virgilio, to have stolen his fighting cock. Maria protested and immediately required the three to leave. The policemen refused. Instead, they started searching the house for the fighting cock over the objections of Maria who said that she would file a complaint against them after her husband comes from work. As they did not see any fighting cock, the three left. What crimes, if any, did Alberto, Bernardo and Carlos commit? (1989 Bar Question) SUGGESTED ANSWER:
2. The crime was qualified piracy under Art. 123 of the Revised Penal Code because it was attended by a killing
Alberto and Bernardo, being policemen, committed the crime of VIOLATION OF
164
What crime was committed? Explain. 2.5% (2006 Bar Question)
committed by the same culprits against a member of the crew of the vessel.
Page
1. While SS Nagoya Mani was negotiating the sea route from Hongkong towards Manila, and while still 300 miles from Aparri, Cagayan, its engine malfunctioned. The Captain ordered the ship to stop for emergency repairs lasting for almost 15 hours. Due to exhaustion, the officers and crew fell asleep. While the ship was anchored, a motorboat manned by renegade Ybanags from Claveria, Cagayan, passed by and took advantage of the situation. They cut the ship's engines and took away several heavy crates of electrical equipment and loaded them in their motorboat. Then they left hurriedly towards Aparri. At daybreak, the crew found that a robbery took place. They radioed the Aparri Port Authorities resulting in the apprehension of the culprits.
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
Insofar as Carlos is concerned, not being a public officer or employee, he cannot commit the crime of VIOLATION OF DOMICILE. He is not guilty of trespass to dwelling, either because he did not enter the dwelling AGAINST THE WILL of the owner, which is the essential element of Trespass. What is the difference between violation of domicile and trespass to dwelling? (2%) (2002 Bar Question) SUGGESTED ANSWER:
of
The offender in violation of domicile is a public officer acting under color of authority; in trespass to dwelling, the offender is a private person or public officer acting in a private capacity. Violation of domicile is committed in 3 different ways: (1) by entering the dwelling of another against the will of the latter; (2) searching papers and other effects inside the dwelling without the previous consent of the owner; or (3) refusing to leave the premises which he entered surreptitiously, after being required to leave the premises. Trespass to dwelling is committed only in one way; that is, by entering the dwelling of another against the express or implied will of the latter. TRUE or FALSE. Answer TRUE if the statement is true, or FALSE if the statement is false. Explain your answer in not more than two (2) sentences. (5%) (2009 Bar Question) [e] A policeman who, without a judicial order, enters a private house over the owner's opposition is guilty of trespass to dwelling. SUGGESTED ANSWER: False. The crime committed by the policeman in this case is violation of domicile because the official duties of a policeman carry with it an authority to make searches and seizure upon judicial order. He is therefore acting under color of his official authority (Art. 128, RPC). ART. 125 Criminal law – Crimes against fundamental law of the State - Delay on the
165
a. By entering any dwelling against the will of the owner. The door having been opened by Maria, although Alberto, Bernardo and Carlos barged inside the house before Maria could utter a word, they did not enter against Maria’s will, there being no opposition or prohibition against entrance whether express or implied. Without the consent is not against the will (People vs. Sane, CA 40 OG Supp 5, 113). b. By searching papers or other effects found therein without the previous consent of such owner. Maria had objected to the search for the fighting cock inside her dwelling, but despite said objection, the policemen searched the house. This makes them criminally liable for the second way of committing the crime of VIOLATING OF DOMICILE. c. By refusing to leave the premises, after having surreptitiously entered said dwelling and after having been required to leave the same. Although the policemen were ordered to leave the house, they did not enter it surreptitiously, meaning clandestinely or secretly.
The differences between violation domicile and trespass to dwelling are:
Page
DOMICILE (Art. 128, RPC). There are three ways by which a public officer or employee may commit this crime, namely:
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
Delivery of Detained Persons to the Proper Judicial Authorities; in relation with Slight disobedience which is a crime against public order
When is an arrest by a peace officer or by a private person considered lawful? Explain. 5% (2006 Bar Question) SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Amy was apprehended and arrested by Patrolman Bart for illegal parking. She was detained at the police precint, underwent investigation, and released only after hours. 1. Patrolman Bart liable for any offense? Explain your answer. (1990 Bar Question) 2. Suppose Amy resisted the arrest and grappled with patrolman Bart, is she criminally liable thereby? State your reasons. (1990 Bar Question)
1. Three (3) ways of committing arbitrary detention are: a. by detaining or locking up a person without any legal cause or ground therefor purposely to restrain his liberty (RPC, Art. 124); b. by delaying delivery to the proper judicial authority of a person lawfully arrested without a warrant (RPC, Art. 125); and c. by delaying release of a prisoner whose release has been ordered by competent authority (RPC, Art. 126).
SUGGESTED ANSWER: 1. Patrolman Bart is liable for violation of Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code Delay on the Delivery of Detained Persons to the Proper Judicial Authorities. 2. She is criminally liable for slight disobedience under Article 151 of the Revised Penal Code - Resistance and disobedience to a person in authority or the agents of such person.
In all the above-stated ways, the principal offender should be a public officer acting under color of his authority. SUGGESTED ANSWER: The legal grounds for detention are; 1. commission of a crime; 2. violent insanity or other ailment requiring compulsory confinement in an institution established for such purpose. SUGGESTED ANSWER:
What are the legal grounds for detention? 2.5% (2006 Bar Question)
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 just been committed and he has probable, cause to believe based on personal knowledge of
166
What are the 3 ways of committing arbitrary detention? Explain each. 2.5% (2006 Bar Question)
Arrest by a peace officer or by a private person is lawful –
Page
ART. 124 Criminal law – Crimes against the Fundamental Law of the State – Arbitrary detention
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
b) Anti-Torture Act of 2009 (R.A. No. 9745) (i) Punishable acts (ii) Who are liable
CRIMES AGAINST PUBLIC ORDER ART 148: DIRECT ASSAULTS QUESTION
ART. 148: DIRECT ASSAULTS QUESTION
Because of the approaching town fiesta in San Miguel, Bulacan, a dance was held in Barangay Camias. A, the Barangay Captain, was invited to deliver a speech to start the dance. While A was delivering his speech, B, one of the guests, went to the middle of the dance floor making obscene dance movements, brandishing a knife and challenging everyone present to a fight. A approached B and admonished him to keep quiet and not to disturb the dance and peace of the occasion. B, instead of heeding the advice of A, stabbed the latter at his back twice when A turned his back to proceed to the microphone to continue his speech. A fell to the ground and died. At the time of the incident A was not armed. What crime was committed? Explain. (2%) (2000 Bar Question)
Rigoberto gate-crashed the 71st birthday party of Judge Lorenzo. Armed with a piece of wood commonly known as dos por dos, Rigoberto hit Judge Lorenzo on the back, causing the latter's hospitalization for 30 days. Upon investigation, it appeared that Rigoberto had a grudge against Judge Lorenzo who, two years earlier, had cited Rigoberto in contempt and ordered his imprisonment for three (3) days. [a] Is Rigoberto guilty of Direct Assault? Why or why not? (3%) (2009 Bar Question) SUGGESTED ANSWER: No, Rigoberto is not guilty of Direct Assault because Judge Lorenzo has ceased to be
167
a) Human Security Act of 2007 (R.A. No. 9372) (i) Period of detention
SUGGESTED ANSWER: The complex crime of direct assault with murder was committed. A, as a Barangay Captain, is a person in authority and was acting in an official capacity when he tried to maintain peace and order during the public dance in the Barangay, by admonishing B to keep quiet and not to disturb the dance and peace of the occasion. When B, instead of heeding A's advice, attacked the latter, B acted in contempt and lawless defiance of authority constituting the crime of direct assault, which characterized the stabbing of A And since A was stabbed at the back when he was not in a position to defend himself nor retaliate, there was treachery in the stabbing. Hence, the death caused by such stabbing was murder and having been committed with direct assault a complex crime of direct assault with murder was committed by B.
Page
facts or 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 penal establishment or place where he is serving sentence or is temporarily confined while his case is pending, or has escaped while being transferred from one confinement to another (Rules on Criminal Procedure, Rule 113, Sec. 5).
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
SUGGESTED ANSWER: Yes. Rigoberto is guilty of Direct Assault because the employment of violence was by reason of an actual performance of a duty by the offended party acting as a practicing lawyer. Lawyers are considered persons in authority by virtue of Batas Pambansa Big. 873, which states that lawyers in the actual performance of their professional duties or on the occasion of such performance shall be deemed persons in authority. But the crime having been committed 10 years ago, may have already prescribed because it is punishable by a correctional penalty. ART 152. PERSONS IN AUTHORITY AND AGENTS OF PERSONS IN AUTHORITY Who are deemed to be persons in authority and agents of persons in authority? (3%) (2000 Bar Question) SUGGESTED ANSWER: B. Persons in authority are persons directly vested with jurisdiction, whether as an individual or as a member of some court or government corporation, board, or commission. Barrio captains and barangay
Agents of persons in authority are persons who by direct provision of law or by election or by appointment by competent authority, are charged with maintenance of public order, the protection and security of life and property, such as barrio councilman, barrio policeman, barangay leader and any person who comes to the aid of persons in authority (Art.. 152, RPC). In applying the provisions of Articles 148 and 151 of the Rev Penal Code, teachers, professors and persons charged with the supervision of public or duly recognized private schools, colleges and universities, and lawyers in the actual performance of their professional duties or on the occasion on such performance, shall be deemed persons in authority. (P.D. No. 299, and Batas Pambansa Big. 873). Service of Sentence; Delivery of Prisoners from Jail; Falsification of Public Document Art 156: Delivering Prisoners from Jail; Art 157: Evasion of Service of Sentence; 171: Falsification by public officer, employee, or notary or ecclesiastical officer; 210: Direct Bribery; 223: Coniving with or consenting to evasion
Art 156: Delivering Prisoners from Jail; 171: Falsification by public officer, employee, or notary or ecclesiastical officer; 172: Falsification by private individuals and use of falsified documents; 210: Direct Bribery; 212: Corrution of Public officials
Filthy, a very rich businessman, convinced Loko, a clerk of court, to issue an order of release for Takas, Filthy’s cousin, who was
168
Would your answer be the same if the reason for the attack was that when Judge Lorenzo was still a practicing lawyer ten years ago, he prosecuted Rigoberto and succeeded in sending him to jail for one year? Explain your answer. (3%) (2009 Bar Question)
chairmen are also deemed persons in authority. (Article 152, RPC)
Page
a judge when he was attacked. He has retired (71 yrs. old) from his position as a person in authority when he was attacked. Hence, the attack on him cannot be regarded as against a person in authority anymore.
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
The guard is liable of: (1) Direct Bribery, Article 210, RPC, because he agreed to open the gate and let Takas out in consideration of P10,000.00. (2) Infidelity in the Custody of Prisoners, Article 223, RPC, because he, as the custodian of Takas, connived or consented to his escape by opening the gate.
Filthy is liable of: (2) Delivery of prisoners from Jail, Article 156, RPC, because he assisted in the removal of Takas, a detention prisoner, from jail. (3) Corruption of Public Officials, Article 212, RPC, because he gave P500,000.00 to the clerk of court, under circumstances in which said public officer would be liable of direct bribery. (4) Falsification of Public Document, Article 172(1), RPC, as a principal by inducement because he gave the clerk of court P500,000.00 to induce him to forge the signature of the judge in the order of release.
ART. 147 Criminal law – Crimes against public order – Illegal association
Loko is liable of: (1) Direct Bribery, Article 210, RPC, because he accepted P500,000.00 in consideration of the execution of an act which constitutes a crime, i.e., forging the signature of the judge in the order of release that would enable Takas to get out of jail, in connection with the performance of his duty as a clerk of court. (2) Falsification of Public Document, Article 171, RPC, because he took advantage of his position as a clerk of court in forging the signature of the judge in the order of relase. (3) Delivery of Prisoners from Jail, Article 156, RPC, because he assisted in the removal of Takas from jail by forging the
If the repeal of P.D. 1835 as amended by RA 1735, is absolute, without reviving RA. 1700, the original provision on illegal associations under Art. 147 of the Revised Penal Code would be the pertinent provision to be taken into account. Hence, it must be proved that the purpose of the organization is to commit any crime punishable by the code or for some purpose contrary to public morals. ART. 157 Criminal law – Crimes against public order – Evasion of sentence
What would have been the legal effect of the repeal of P.D. No. 1835 (Codifying The Various Laws on Anti- Subversion and Increasing the Penalties For Membership in Subversive Organizations) as amended by P.D. No. 1975, if RA. No. 1700 (An Act to Outlaw The Communist Party of the Philippines and Similar Associations. Penalizing Membership Therein and For Other Purposes) were not revived? (1991 Bar Question) SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Manny killed his wife under exceptional circumstances and was sentenced by the Regional Trial Court of Dagupan City to
169
ANSWER:
signature of the judge in the in the falsified order of release.
Page
in jail for a drug charge. After receiving P500,000.00, Loko forged the signature of the judge on the order of release and accompanied Filthy to the detention center. At the jail, Loko gave the guard P10,000.00 to open the gate and let Takas out. What crime or crimes did Filthy, Loko, and the guard commit? (2014 BAR)
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
SUGGESTED ANSWER: 1. Yes, Manny committed the crime of evasion of service of sentence when he went to Dagupan City, which he was prohibited from entering under his sentence of destierro. A sentence imposing the penalty of destierro is evaded when the convict enters any of the place/places he is prohibited from entering under the sentence or come within the prohibited radius. Although destierro does not involve imprisonment, it is nonetheless a deprivation of liberty. (People vs. Abilong, 82 Phil. 172). 2. Manny maybe prosecuted in Dagupan City or in Manila where he was arrested. This is so because evasion of service of sentence is a continuing offense, as the convict is a fugitive from justice in such case. (Parulan vs. Dir. of Prisons, L28519, 17 Feb. 668) ART. 156 Criminal law – Crimes against public order - Delivery of prisoner from jail A. A, a detention prisoner, was taken to a hospital for emergency medical treatment. His followers, all of whom were armed, went to the hospital to take him away or help him escape. The prison guards, seeing that they were outnumbered and that resistance would endanger the lives of
SUGGESTED ANSWER: A’s followers shall be liable as principals in the crime of delivery of prisoner from jail (Art 156, Revised Penal Code). The felony is committed not only by removing from any jail or penal establishment any person confined therein but also by helping in the escape of such person outside of said establishments by means of violence, intimidation, bribery, or any other means. ART. 148-152 Criminal law – Crimes against public order - Direct assault upon a person in authority; direct assault with serious physical injuries Pablo, disobeying a judicial order, was punished by an RTC Judge of Manila for contempt. He waited for the judge to go out into the street. Upon seeing the judge, Pablo hurriedly approached him, and without saying a word struck him with his fist causing a slight contusion on the face of the Judge. Rex came to the rescue of the Judge but because he was taller and bigger than Pablo, the latter used a knife in attacking Rex. Pablo limited his assault to the arms of Rex inflicting lesions graves which incapacitated Rex from labor for forty five (45) days. If you were the prosecutor called to institute a criminal action against Pablo, with what crime or crimes would you charge him? Explain. (1993 Bar Question) SUGGESTED ANSWER:
170
While serving sentence, Manny went to Dagupan City to visit his mother. Later, he was arrested in Manila. 1. Did Manny commit any crime? [3%] (1998 Bar Question) 2. If so, where should he be prosecuted? [2%] (1998 Bar Question)
other patients, decided to allow the prisoner to be taken by his followers. What crime, if any, was committed by A’s followers? Why? (3%) (2002 Bar Question)
Page
suffer the penalty of destierro during which he was not to enter the city.
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
Dancio, a member of a drug syndicate, was a detention prisoner in the provincial jail of X Province. Brusco, another member of the syndicate, regularly visited Dancio. Edri, the guard in charge who had been receiving gifts from Brusco everytime he visited Dancio, became friendly with him and became relaxed in the inspection of his belongings during his jail visits. In one of Brusco's visits, he was able to smuggle in a pistol which Dancio used to disarm the guards and destroy the padlock of the main gate of the jail, enabling Dancio to escape. What crime(s) did Dancio, Brusco and Edri commit? Explain. (2015 BAR) Answer: Dancio committed the crime of direct assault under Article 148 for disarming the guards with the use of pistol while they are engaged in the performance of their duties. Using a pistol to disarm the guards manifests criminal intention to defy the law and its representative at all hazard. [Note: Illegal possession of firearms may also be considered] Edri committed infidelity in the custody of prisoner or evasion through negligence under Article 224. As the guard in charge, Edri was negligent in relaxing the inspection of the Brusco’s belongings during jail visits allowing him to smuggle a pistol to Dencio, which he subsequently used to escape. By accepting gifts from Brusco, who was part of the syndicate to
Miss Reyes, a lady professor, caught Mariano, one of her students, cheating during an examination. Aside from calling Mariano's attention, she confiscated his examination booklet and sent him out of the room, causing Mariano extreme embarrassment. In class the following day, Mariano approached Miss Reyes and without any warning, slapped her on the face. Mariano would have inflicted grave injuries on Miss Reyes had not Dencio, another student, intervened. Mariano then turned his ire on Dencio and punched him repeatedly, causing him injuries. What crime or crimes, if any, did Mariano commit? (2013, 2002, 1993) Answer: Mariano is liable for two counts of direct assault. First, when he slapped Miss Reyes, who is a person in authority expressly mentioned in Art. 152 of the RPC, who was in the performance of her duties on the day of the commission of the assault. Second, when he repeatedly punched Dencio, who became an agent of the person in authority when he came to the aid of a person in authority, Miss Reyes (Celig v. People, G.R. No. 173150, July 28, 2010).
171
Direct assault with serious physical injuries with respect to the assault on Rex.
Brusco committed delivery of prisoner from jail under Article 156, qualified by his bribery of Edri. Helping a person confined in jail to escape constitutes this crime. “Helping” means furnishing the prisoner with the material means or tools which greatly facilitate his escape; hence, providing a pistol which helped Dencio to escape is delivery of prisoner from jail.
Page
The crime of direct assault upon a person in authority with respect to the slight contusion on the face of the Judge.
which Dancio belonged, he is also guilty of indirect bribery under Article 211.
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
B committed two (2) counts of direct assault: one for slapping the professor, A, who was then conducting classes and thus exercising authority; and another one for the violence on the student C, who came to the aid of the said professor. By express provision of Article 152, in relation to Article 148 of the Revised Penal Code, teachers and professors of public or duly recognized private schools, colleges and universities in the actual performance of their professional duties or on the occasion of such performance are deemed persons in authority for purposes of the crimes of direct assault and of resistance and disobedience in Articles 148 and 151 of said Code. And any person who comes to the aid of persons in authority shall be deemed an agent of a person in authority. Accordingly, the attack on C is, in the eyes of the law, an attack on an agent of a person in authority, not just an attack on a student.
If Emilio was not aware that Edgardo was a police officer who was going serve a warrant of arrest on him, Emilio would be guilty only of slight physical injuries on two counts, one against Edgardo and the second against Florencio. If Emilio knew Edgardo as a policeman and of the latter’s purpose to serve a warrant of arrest on him, and that is why he boxed Edgardo, then he will be guilty of either DIRECT ASSAULT UPON A PERSON IN AUTHORITY or RESISTANCE OR DISOBEDIENCE TO AN AGENT OF A PERSON in authority, depending on the degree of force employed by him. A person who attacks, employs force makes a serious intimidation or makes a serious resistance against a person in authority or his agent, if at the time of the assault the latter is engaged in the actual performance of his official duties, the offended party knowing that the person he is assaulting is a person in authority or his agent, it liable for the crime of DIRECT ASSAULT. A policeman is an agent of a person in authority. As for Florencio, the crime committed by Emilio against him would be indirect Assault provided that Emilio has committed
172
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Page
A, a lady professor, was giving an examination. She noticed B, one of the students, cheating. She called the student’s attention and confiscated his examination booklet, causing embarrassment to him. The following day, while the class was going on, the student, B, approached A and, without any warning, slapped her. B would have inflicted further injuries on A had not C, another student, come to A’s rescue and prevented B from continuing his attack. B turned his ire on C and ounched the latter. What crime or crimes, if any, did B commit? Why? (5%) (2002 Bar Question)
Edgardo, a policeman, accompanied by Florencio went ' to serve a warrant of arrest on Emilio, a professional boxer, at the latter’s apartment. Upon seeing Edgardo, Emilio immediately boxed him. Edgardo fell flat on the floor. As Florencio tried to help Edgardo on his feet, Emilio also boxed Florencio. The injuries inflicted upon Edgardo and Florencio required medical attendance for nine (9) days. What crime or crimes were committed by Emilio? Give your reasons. (1989 Bar Question)
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
Y and Z so that they could be investigated in the principal’s office. Before leaving, Z passed near A and threw a small flower pot at him but it was deflected by B.
B. Would your answer be the same if B were a barangay tanod only? (4%) (2001 Bar Question) SUGGESTED ANSWER: A. X is liable for Direct Assault only, assuming the physical injuries inflicted on B, the Barangay Chairman, to be only slight and hence, would be absorbed in the direct assault. A Barangay Chairman is a person in authority (Art. 152, RPC) and in this case, was performing his duty of maintaining peace and order when attacked. T is liable for the complex crimes of Direct Assault with Less Serious Physical Injuries for the fistblow on A, the teacher, which caused the latter to fall down. For purposes of the crimes in Arts. 148 and 151 of the Revised Penal Code, a.teacher is considered a person in authority, and having been attacked by Y by reason of his performance of official duty, direct assault is committed with the resulting less serious physical injuries completed. Z, the mother of X and wife of Y may only be liable as an accomplice to the complex crimes of direct assault with less serious physical injuries committed by Y. Her participation should not be considered as that of a coprincipal, since her reactions were only incited by her relationship to X and Y, as the mother of X and the wife of Y. B. If B were a Barangay Tanod only, the act of X of laying hand on him, being an agent of a person in authority only, would constitute the crime of Resistance and Disobedience under Article 151, since X, a high school pupil, could not be considered
173
A, a teacher at Mapa High School, having gotten mad at X, one of his pupils, because of the latter’s throwing paper clips at his classmates, twisted his right ear. X went out of the classroom crying and proceeded home located at the back of the school. He reported to his parents Y and Z what A had done to him. Y and Z immediately proceeded to the school building and because they were running and talking in loud voices, they were seen by the barangay chairman, B, who followed them as he suspected that an untoward incident might happen. Upon seeing A inside the classroom, X pointed him out to his father, Y, who administered a fist blow' on A, causing him to fail down. When Y was about to kick A, B rushed towards Y and pinned both of the latter’s arms. Seeing his father being held by B, X went near and punched B on the face, which caused him to lose his grip on Y. Throughout this incident, Z shouted words of encouragement at Y, her husband, and also threatened to slap A. Some security guards of the school arrived, intervened and surrounded X,
A. What, if any, are the respective criminal liability of X, Y and Z? (6%) (2001 Bar Question)
Page
DIRECT ASSAULT against Edgardo. This is so because any person who shall make use of force or intimidation upon any person coming to the aid of the authorities or their agents on occasion of the commission of the crime of DIRECT ASSAULT, is criminally liable for the crime of INDIRECT ASSAULT. However, if Emilio is guilty only of RESISTANCE or disobedience as against Edgardo; then his crime against Florencio would only be slight physical injuries.
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
What crime or crimes did Jose commit? (1987 Bar Question) SUGGESTED ANSWER: Jose is liable for Qualified Direct Assault with Serious Physical Injuries. The throwing of the ashtray at the Judge hitting him in the eye is laying of hands on the Judge who is a person in authority while in the performance of duties. Jose is also liable for qualified direct assault when he boxed his defense lawyer, knocking him down while in the act of restraining him. Under Batas 873 a lawyer is considered a person in authority if assaulted while in the performance of duties.
A. Who are deemed to be persons in authority and agents of persons in authority? (3%) (2000 Bar Question) B. Because of the approaching town fiesta in San Miguel, Bulacan, a dance was held in Barangay Camias. A, the Barangay
SUGGESTED ANSWER: C. Persons in authority are persons directly vested with jurisdiction, whether as an individual or as a member of some court or government corporation, board, or commission. Barrio captains and barangay chairmen are also deemed persons in authority. (Article 152, RPC) Agents of persons in authority are persons who by direct provision of law or by election or by appointment by competent authority, are charged with maintenance of public order, the protection and security of life and property, such as barrio councilman, barrio policeman, barangay leader and any person who comes to the aid of persons in authority (Art.. 152, RPC). In applying the provisions of Articles 148 and 151 of the Rev Penal Code, teachers, professors and persons charged with the supervision of public or duly recognized private schools, colleges and universities, and lawyers in the actual performance of their professional duties or on the occasion on such performance, shall be deemed
174
Jose was charged with slight physical injuries before a Municipal Trial Judge. He listened attentively as the Judge read the sentence. When the Judge reached the dispositive portion and pronounced Jose guilty, the latter was enraged, got hold of an ashtray, and threw it at the Judge hitting him in the eye. As his defense lawyer Pedro attempted to restrain him, Jose boxed him and knocked him down. The judge became blind in one eye as a consequence.
Captain, was invited to deliver a speech to start the dance. While A was delivering his speech, B, one of the guests, went to the middle of the dance floor making obscene dance movements, brandishing a knife and challenging everyone present to a fight. A approached B and admonished him to keep quiet and not to disturb the dance and peace of the occasion. B, instead of heeding the advice of A, stabbed the latter at his back twice when A turned his back to proceed to the microphone to continue his speech. A fell to the ground and died. At the time of the incident A was not armed. What crime was committed? Explain. (2%) (2000 Bar Question)
Page
as having acted out of contempt for authority but more of helping his father get free from the grip of B. Laying hand on an agent of a person in authority is not ipso facto direct assault, while it would always be direct assault if done to a person in authority in defiance to the latter is exercise of authority.
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
persons in authority. (P.D. No. 299, and Batas Pambansa Big. 873).
and all other acts committed in the further of this purpose are absorbed by rebellion.
The complex crime of direct assault with murder was committed. A, as a Barangay Captain, is a person in authority and was acting in an official capacity when he tried to maintain peace and order during the public dance in the Barangay, by admonishing B to keep quiet and not to disturb the dance and peace of the occasion. When B, instead of heeding A's advice, attacked the latter, B acted in contempt and lawless defiance of authority constituting the crime of direct assault, which characterized the stabbing of A And since A was stabbed at the back when he was not in a position to defend himself nor retaliate, there was treachery in the stabbing. Hence, the death caused by such stabbing was murder and having been committed with direct assault a complex crime of direct assault with murder was committed by B.
The armed group committed the crime of kidnapping and serious illegal detention in violation of Aticle 267 of the Revised Penal Code which provides that “kidnapping and serious illegal detention.— Any private individual who shall kidnap another, or in any other manner deprive him of his liberty, shall suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death...”
What crime or crimes had been committed? Reasons. (1988 Bar Question) SUGGESTED ANSWER: Rebellion was committed because their purpose was to overthrow the government
SUGGESTED ANSWER: The charge of illegal possession of firearms and explosives is deemed absorbed in the crime of rebellion, such possession being a necessary means for the perpetration of the latter crime. [EUas v. Rodriguez, 107 Phil. 659). The charges here could not be absorbed in the separate charge of rebellion as it is clear that the act of murder, coupled with
175
An armed group, avowed to overthrow the duly constituted authorities, captured five officers and five members of the armed forces and held them in their mountain lair for seventy-five days and then voluntarily released them in consideration of the promise of medical treatment to be given to some of their comrades who were under detention by the authorities.
Suppose Ka Jacinto, using one of the unlicensed firearms, shot and killed his neighbor in an altercation. May the charge of murder and illegal possession of firearms be deemed absorbed in the separate charge of rebellion filed against him? Resolve the matter with reasons. (1990 Bar Question)
Page
ART. 134 Criminal law – Crimes against public order - Rebellion
ART.134-Rebellion- Jacinto, who is an NPA commander, was apprehended with unlicensed firearms and explosives. He was accordingly charged with illegal possession of said firearms and explosives. He now questions the filing of the charges on the ground that they are deemed absorbed in a separate charge of rebellion filed against him. Decide the issue. (1990 Bar Question)
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
SUGGESTED ANSWER: If I were the prosecutor, I would charge Joselito and Vicente with the crime of rebellion, considering that the killers were members of the liquidation squad of the New People's Army and the killing was upon orders of their commander; hence, politicallymotivated. This was the ruling in People vs. Avila, 207 SCRA 1568, involving identical facts which is a movement taken judicial notice of as engaged in rebellion against the Government.
ART. 134-A Criminal law – Crimes against public order - Coup d’etat Distinguish clearly but briefly: (10%) (2004 Bar Question) Between rebellion and coup d’etat based on their constitutive elements as criminal offenses. SUGGESTED ANSWER: Rebellion is committed when a multitude of persons rise publicly in arms for the purpose of overthrowing the duly constituted government, to be replaced by a government of the rebels. It is carried out by force and violence, but need not be participated in by any member of the military, national police or any public officer.
Alternative Answer:
Coup d’etat is committed when members of the military, Philippine National Police, or public officer, acting as principal offenders, launched a swift attack thru strategy, stealth, threat, violence or intimidation against duly constituted authorities of the Republic of the Philippines, military camp or installation, communication networks, public facilities or utilities needed for the exercise and continued possession of governmental powers, for the purpose of seizing or diminishing state powers.
If I were the prosecutor, I would charge Joselito and Vicente for the crime of murder as the purpose of the killing was because of his “corrupt practices”, which does not appear to be politically motivated. There is no indication as to how the killing would promote or further the objective of the New
Unlike rebellion which requires a public uprising, coup d’etat may be carried out singly or simultaneously and the principal offenders must be members of the military, national police or public officer, with or without civilian support. The criminal objective need not be to overthrow the
176
On May 5, 1992, at about 6:00 a.m., while Governor Alegre of Laguna was on board his car traveling along the National Highway of Laguna, Joselito and Vicente shot him on the head resulting in his instant death. At that time, Joselito and Vicente were members of the liquidation squad of the New People's Army and they killed the governor upon orders of their senior officer. Commander Tiago. According to Joselito and Vicente, they were ordered to kill Governor Alegre because of his corrupt practices. If you were the prosecutor, what crime will you charge Joselito and Vicente? [5%] (1998 Bar Question)
Peoples Army. The killing is murder because it was committed with treachery.
Page
the possession of an unlicensed firearm, was not in furtherance of the rebellion.
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
existing government but only to destabilize the existing government
are they guilty of? (3%) (2002 Bar Question) SUGGESTED ANSWER:
SUGGESTED ANSWER: The crime of coup d'etat is committed by a swift attack, accompanied by violence, intimidation, threat, strategy or stealth against the duly constituted authorities of the Republic of the Philippines, military camps and installations, communication networks, public utilities and facilities needed for the exercise and continued possession of power, carried out singly or simultaneously anywhere in the Philippines by persons belonging to the military or police or holding public office, with or without civilian support or participation, for the purpose of seizing or diminishing state power. (Art. 134-A, RPC). The public school teacher committed only coup d'etat for his participation therein. His use of an unlicensed firearm is absorbed in the coup d'etat under the hew firearms law (Rep. Act No. 8294). A prosecution for illegal possession of firearm under the new law is allowed only if the unlicensed firearm was not used in the commission of another crime. A. If a group of persons belonging to the armed forces makes a swift attack, accompanied by violence, intimidation and threat against a vital military installation for the purpose of seizing power and taking over such installation, what crime or crimes
If the attack is quelled but the leader is unknown, who shall be deemed the leader thereof? (2%) (2002 Bar Question) SUGGESTED ANSWER: The leader being unknown, any person who in fact directed the others, spoke for them, signed receipts and other documents issued in their name, or performed similar acts, on behalf of the group shall be deemed the leader of said coup d'etat (Art 135, R.P.C.)
In the early morning of 25 October 1990, the troops of the Logistics Command (LOG COM) of the AFP at Camp General Emilio Aguinaldo headed by their Operations Officer, Col.Rito Amparo, withdrew firearms and bullets and, per prior agreement, attacked, in separate teams, the offices of the Chief of Staff, the Secretary of National Defense, the Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations, the Deputy Chief of Staff for Intelligence and other offices, held hostage the Chief of Staff of LOGCOM and other officers, killed three (3) pro-Govemment soldiers, inverted the
177
Supposing a public school teacher participated in a coup d’etat using an unlicensed firearm. What crime or crimes did he commit? [2%] (1998 Bar Question)
The perpetrators, being persons belonging to the Armed Forces, would be guilty of the crime of coup d’etat, under Article 134-A of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, because their attack was against vital military installations which are essential to the continued possession and exercise of governmental powers, and their purpose is to seize power by taking over such installations.
Page
How is the crime of coup d’etat committed? [3%] (1998 Bar Question)
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
Philippine flag, barricaded all entrances and exits to the camp, and announced complete control of the camp. Because of the superiority of the proGovemment forces, Col. Amparo and his troops surrendered at 7:00 o’clock in the morning of that day. a) Did Col. Amparo and his troops commit the crime of coup d'etat (Article 134-A, Revised Penal Code or of rebellion? (1991 Bar Question) SUGGESTED ANSWER: a) Under the facts stated, the crime committed would be coup d’etat (Republic Act No. 6988 incorporating Art. 134-A). However, since the law was not yet effective as of October 25, 1990, as the effectivity thereof (Section 8) is upon its approval (which is October 24, 1990) and publication in at least two (2) newspapers of general circulation, the felony committed would be rebellion.
coup d'etat public uprising is not necessary. The essence of the crime is a swift attack, accompanied by violence, intimidation, threat, strategy or stealth, directed against duly constituted authorities of the Government, or any military camp or installation, communication networks, public utilities or facilities needed for the exercise and continued possession of government power; OBJECTIVE OR PURPOSE: In rebellion, the purpose is to remove from the allegiance of the Philippines, the whole or any part or the Philippines or any military or naval camps, deprive the Chief Executive or Congress from performing their functions. In coup d'etat the objective is to seize or diminish state powers. PARTICIPATION In rebellion, any person. In coup d'etat any person belonging to the military or police or holding public office, with or without civilian participation.
Comment: If the answer given is coup d’etat substantial credit should be given as the tenor of the question seems to indicate that coup d’etat as a felony was already existing.
ART. 142 Criminal law – Crimes against public order – Inciting to sedition What are the different acts of inciting to sedition? (2007 Bar Question) SUGGESTED ANSWER:
b) Distinguish rebellion d'etat (1991 Bar Question)
from
coup The different acts which constitute the crime of inciting to sedition are:
AS TO OVERT ACTS: In rebellion, there is public uprising and taking up arms against the Government. In
1. Inciting others through speeches, writings, banners and other media of representation to commit acts which constitute sedition; 2. Uttering seditious words, speeches or circulating scurrilous libels against the Government of the Philippines or any of its
Page
b) Rebellion distinguished from coup d’etat:
178
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
PUBLIC INTEREST ART.181-Crimes against public interest – False testimony; when incurred; when prescribed Paolo was charged with homicide before the Regional Trial Court of Manila. Andrew, a prosecution witness, testified that he saw Paolo shoot Abby during their heated argument. While the case is still pending, the City Hall of Manila burned down and the entire records of the case were destroyed. Later, the records were reconstituted. Andrew was again called to the witness stand. This time he testified that his first testimony was false and the truth was he was abroad when the crime took place. The judge immediately ordered the prosecution of Andrew for giving a false testimony favorable to the defendant in a criminal case. A. Will the case against Andrew prosper? (1994 Bar Question) B. Paolo was acquitted. The decision became final on January 10. 1987. On June 18. 1994 a case of giving false
SUGGESTED ANSWER: Yes. For one to be criminally liable under Art. 181. RPC, it is not necessary that the criminal case where Andrew testified is terminated first. It is not even required of the prosecution to prove which of the two statements of the witness is false and to prove the statement to be false by evidence other than the contradictory statements (People vs. Arazola, 13 Court of Art. 169 and Art 315. Art 169: How forgery is committed; Art 315: Swindling(estafa) Upon opening a letter containing 17 money orders, the mail carrier forged the signatures of the payees on the money orders and encashed them. What crime or crimes did the mail carrier commit? Explain briefly. (6%) (2008 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER: The mail carrier's act of forging the signatures of the payees of said money orders constitutes falsification of commercial documents. It was made to appear that the payees signed them when in fact they did not. When the mail carrier encashed the money orders, he defrauded and caused damage to the remitters who gave the cash. The mail carrier further incurred the crime of estafa through falsification of commercial documents. Criminal law – Crimes against public interest – Falsification of private document
179
CRIMES AGAINST PUBLIC INTERESTCRIMES AGAINST
testimony was filed against Andrew. As his lawyer, what legal step will you take? (1994 Bar Question)
Page
duly constituted authorities, which tend to disturb or obstruct the performance of official functions, or which tend to incite others to cabal and meet for unlawful purposes; 3. Inciting through the same media of representation rebellious conspiracies or riots; 4. Stirring people to go against lawful authorities, or disturb the peace and public order of the community or of the Government; or 5. Knowingly concealing any of the aforestated evil practices (Art. 142, Rev. Penal Code).
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
Art 172: Falsification by private individuals and use of falsified documents; Art 308: Who are liable for theft Fe is the manager of a rice mill in Bulacan. In order to support a gambling debt, Fe made it appear that the rice mill was earning less than it actually was by writing in a "talaan" or ledger a figure lower than what was collected and paid by their customers. Fe then pocketed the difference. What crime/s did Fe commit, if any? Explain your answer. (2007 Bar Question)
The mail carrier's act of forging the signatures of the payees of said money orders constitutes falsification of commercial documents. It was made to appear that the payees signed them when in fact they did not. When the mail carrier encashed the money orders, he defrauded and caused damage to the remitters who gave the cash. The mail carrier further incurred the crime of estafa through falsification of commercial documents. Art. 171. Falsification by public officer, employee ; or notary or ecclesiastical officer
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Art. 169: How forgery is committed; Art 315: swindling Upon opening a letter containing 17 money orders, the mail carrier forged the signatures of the payees on the money orders and encashed them. What crime or crimes did the mail carrier commit? Explain briefly. (6%) (2008 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Answer: Mayor Abral is liable for falsification of public document by a public officer under Article 171. Making an untruthful statement by stating in a marriage contract, a public document, that the marriage was solemnized by him, is an act of falsification. The crime of illegal marriage is not
180
Criminal law – Crimes against public interest - Falsification of commercial documents
Page
The crimes committed by Fe are theft and falsification of private document because Fe’s possession of the proceeds of the rice mill was only physical, not juridical, possession, and having committed the crimes with grave abuse of confidence, it is qualified theft. The falsification is a separate crime from the theft because it was not committed as a necessary means to commit the theft but resorted to only to hide or conceal the unlawful taking.
Erwin and Bea approached Mayor Abral and requested him to solemnize their marriage. Mayor Abral agreed. Erwin and Bea went to Mayor Abral's office on the day of the ceremony, but Mayor Abral was not there. When Erwin and Bea inquired where Mayor Abral was, his chief of staff Donato informed them that the Mayor was campaigning for the coming elections. Donato told them that the Mayor authorized him to solemnize the marriage and that Mayor Abral would just sign the documents when he arrived. Donato thereafter solemnized the marriage and later turned over the documents to Mayor Abral for his signature. In the marriage contract, it was stated that the marriage was solemnized by Mayor Abral. What crime(s) did Mayor Abral and Donato commit? Explain. (2015 BAR)
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
Art. 171. Falsification by public officer, employee ; or notary or ecclesiastical officer Andrea signed her deceased husband’s name in endorsing his three treasury warrants which were delivered to her directly by the district supervisor who knew that her husband had already died, and she used the proceeds to pay for the expenses of her husband’s last illness and his burial. She knew that her husband had accumulated vacation and sick leaves the money value of which exceeded that value of the three treasury warrants, so that the government suffered no damage. Andrea’s appeal is based on her claim of absence of criminal intent and of good faith. Should she be found guilty of falsification? Discuss briefly. SUGGESTED ANSWER: Andrea should be held guilty of falsification of public documents. Her claim of absence of criminal intent and of good faith cannot
Executive clemency can however be sought for by Andrea. Criminal law – Crimes against public interest – Falsification of a private document Art 172. Falsification by private individuals and use of falsified documents
Dennis leased his apartment to Myla for P10,000 a month. Myla failed to pay the rent for 3 months. Gabriel, the son of Dennis, prepared a demand letter falsely alleging that his father had authorized him to collect the unpaid rentals. Myla paid the unpaid rentals to Gabriel who kept the payment. a) Did Gabriel commit a crime? Explain. (4%) (2008 Bar Question) SUGGESTED ANSWER: Yes. Gabriel committed a crime; it was either the crime of falsification of a private document (if damage or at least intent to cause damage could be proved) or the crime of swindling only. It could not be both falsification and swindling or a complex crime of estafa through falsification since the document falsified is a private document. The two crimes cannot go together. ART. 172 Criminal law – Crimes against public interest - forgery of a private document; falsification of a private document
181
Donato committed the crime of usurpation of function under Article 177 of the Revised Penal Code because he performed the act of solemnizing marriage, which pertained to the mayor, a person in authority, without being lawfully entitled to do so. The crime of illegal marriage is not committed, because the element that “the offender is authorized to solemnize marriage” is lacking (Ronulo v. People, G.R. No. 182438, July 2, 2014).
be considered because she is presumed to know that her husband is dead. The element of damage required in falsification does not refer to pecuniary damage but damage to public interest.
Page
committed because element that “the offender has performed an illegal marriage ceremony” is lacking (Ronulo v. People, G.R. No. 182438, July 2, 2014).
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
SUGGESTED ANSWER: No, B should not be liable for the crime of using a falsified document, under the last paragraph of Art. 172, Revised Penal Code. He would be liable for forgery of a private document under the second mode of falsification under Art. 172, Revised Penal Code. Being the possessor and user of the falsified document he is presumed to be the forger or falsifier and the offense of introducing falsified document is already absorbed in the main offense of forgery or falsification. If he is not, what offense or offenses may he be charged with? (1991 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER: b) B should be charged for the crime of falsification of a private document, since the document falsified is a private
If he testified on the genuineness of the document, he should also be held liable under Art. 182, which is false testimony in civil cases. ART. 166-176 Criminal law – Crimes against public interest - Forgery and falsification A. How are “forging” and “falsification” committed? (3%) (1999 Bar Question) B. Is mere possession of false money bills punishable under Article 168 of the Revised Penal Code? Explain. (3%) (1999 Bar Question) C. The accused was caught in possession of 100 counterfeit P20 bills. He could not explain how and why he possessed the said bills. Neither could he explain what he intended to do with the fake bills. Can he be held criminally liable for such possession? Decide. (3%) (1999 Bar Question) D. A falsified official or public document was found in the possession of the accused. No evidence was introduced to show that the accused was the author of the falsification. As a matter of fact, the trial court convicted the accused of falsification of official or public document mainly on the proposition that “the only person who could have made the erasures and the superimposition mentioned is the one who will be benefited by the alterations thus
182
a) Is B liable for the crime of using a falsified document in a judicial proceeding (last paragraph of Article 172 of the Revised Penal Code)? (1991 Bar Question)
Additional Answer:
Page
In a civil case for recovery of a sum of money filed against him by A. B interposed the defense of payment. In support thereof, he identified and offered in evidence a receipt which appears to be signed by A On rebuttal. A denied having been paid by B and having signed the receipt. He presented a handwriting expert who testified that the alleged signature of A on the receipt is a forgery and that a comparison thereof with the specimen signatures of B clearly shows that B himself forged the signature of A.
document and done with intent to cause damage. Although there was an attempt on the part of B to defraud A thru the use of the false document, such deceit cannot give rise to estafa because this crime cannot co-exist or be complexed with the crime of falsification when the docu-ment falsified is a private document.
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
SUGGESTED ANSWER: A. Forging or forgery is committed by giving to a treasury or bank note or any instrument payable to bearer or to order the appearance of a true and genuine document; or by erasing, substituting, counterfeiting, or altering by any means the figures, letters, words or signs contained therein. Falsification, on the other hand, is committed by: 1. Counterfeiting or imitating any handwriting, signature or rubric; 2. Causing it to appear that persons have participated in any act or proceeding when they did not in fact so participate; 3. Attributing to persons who have participated in an act or proceeding statements other than those in fact made by them 4. Making untruthful statements in a narration of facts; 5. Altering true dates; 6. Making any alteration or intercalation in a genuine document which changes its meaning; 7. 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 copy a statement contrary to, or different from, that of the genuine original; or 8. Intercalating any instrument or note relative to the issuance thereof in a protocol, registry, or official book.
C. Yes. Knowledge that the note is counterfeit and intent to use it may be shown by the conduct of the accused. So, possession of 100 false bills reveal: (a) knowledge that the bills are fake; and (b) intent to utter the same. D. Yes, the conviction is proper because there is a presumption in law that the possessor and user of a falsified document is the one who falsified the same. Mr. Gray opened a savings account with Bank A with an initial deposit of P50,000.00. A few days later, he deposited a check for P200,000.00 drawn from Bank B and endorsed by Mr. White. Ten days later, Mr. Gray withdrew the P200,000.00 from his account. Mr. White later complained to Bank B when the amount of P200,000.00 was later debited to his account, as he did not issue the check and his signature thereon was forged. Mr. Gray subsequently deposited another check signed by Mr. White for P200,000.00, which amount he later withdrew. Upon receiving the amount, Mr. Gray was arrested by agents of the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI). Mr. Gray was convicted of estafa and attempted estafa, both through the use of commercial documents. (2014 BAR) (A) Mr. Gray claims as defense that, except for Mr. White’s claim of forgery, there was no evidence showing that he was the author of the forgery and Mr. White did not suffer any injuries as to the second
183
Was the conviction of the accused proper although the conviction was premised merely on the aforesaid ratiocination? Explain your answer. (3%) (1999 Bar Question)
B. No. Possession of false treasury or bank note alone without an intent to use it, is not punishable. But the circumstances of such possession may indicate intent to utter, sufficient to consummate the crime of illegal possession of false notes.
Page
made” and that “he alone could have the motive for making such alterations”.
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
check (attempted estafa). Rule on the defense of Mr. Gray. (B) Mr. Gray claims that he was entrapped illegally because there was no showing that the second check was a forgery and, therefore, his withdrawal based on the second check was a legal act. Is Mr. Gray correct?
against Oscar? Question)
ANSWER: (B) The first defense of Mr. Gray that there was no evidence showing that he was the author of the forgery has no merit. The law presumes that the possessor and user of a falsified document is the falsifier or forger thereof. Likewise, his second defense that Mr. White did not suffer any injuries as to the second check (attempted estafa) has no merit. Damage or intent to cause damage is not considered in attempted estafa. It is considered only in consummated estafa. (C) Mr. Gray is not correct. The fact that the first check is forged justifies the entrapment of Mr. Gray since there is already probable cause that the second check is also a forgery. Further, granting for the sake of argument that the entrapment was illegal, such will not validate the withdrawal based on the second check which is also forged. His criminal liability in forging the second check is not affected by the alleged illegality of the entrapment procedure.
By forging the signature of Arturo on the typewritten purchase order for two cans of car paint, Oscar committed the crime of falsification. The document falsified by him, how-ever, is a private document. A typewritten purchase order is neither a public, official or commercial document. It is a private document. Falsification of a private document, however, is not a crime unless there is' damage or intent to cause damage. When Oscar used the falsified private document to obtain the two cans of paint from the hardware store, the element of damage arose, thus consummating the crime of FALSIFICATION OF A PRIVATE DOCUMENT.
(1989
Bar
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Precisely because damage is an essential element of the crime of falsification of a private document, Oscar cannot be convicted of the complex.crime of ESTAFA THRU FALSIFICATION OF PRIVATE DOCUMENT. Only one single crime of FALSIFICATION OF PRIVTE DOCUMENT is committed here. The damage to another is caused by the commission of said crime. The intent to defraud in using falsified private document is part and parcel of said crime and cannot give rise to the crime of estafa, because damage, which is also an essential element of estafa, is caused by, and becomes the element of, the crime of falsification of private document. The crime of estafa is not committed, as it cannot exist without its own element of damage.
184
The proper charge against Oscar is Falsification of a Private Document. This is so for the following reasons:
Page
Oscar, a former welder and painter at the Caloocan Motor Works owned by Arturo, went to the Downtown Hardware Store where Arturo gets materials on credit, and presented to its manager a typewritten order for two (2) cans of “Dietsler” car paint. The signature of Arturo on the order was falsified. After receiving the paint, Oscar sold them and kept the proceeds therefrom. If you were the investigating fiscal, what charge or charges will you file
Explain.
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
If the private document in the case was falsified, not to induce the offended party to part with something of value but to cover up or conceal a defraudation previously made, then the crime committed would be ESTAFA. The falsification would be absorbed in said offense, the element of damage in one being the same as that required in the other.
three minutes and provide them with an opportunity to escape. Thus, Willy and Vincent were able to escape. What crime or crimes, if any, had been committed by the Branch Clerk of court, Edwin, and the jail warden? Explain your answer. (5%) (2009 Bar Question) SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Arts. 156, 157, 171, 210,223: To secure a release of his brother Willy, a detention prisoner, and his cousin Vincent, who is serving sentence for homicide, Chito asked the RTC Branch Clerk of Court to issue an Order which would allow the two prisoners to be brought out of jail. At first, the Clerk refused, but when Chita gave her P50,000.00, she consented. She then prepared an Order requiring the appearance in court of Willy and Vincent, ostensibly as witnesses in a pending case. She forged the judge's signature, and delivered the Order to the jail warden who, in turn, allowed Willy and Vincent to go out of jail in the company of an armed escort, Edwin. Chito also gave Edwin P50,000.00 to leave the two inmates unguarded for
Edwin, the jail guard who escorted the prisoners in getting out of jail, committed the crimes of – 1. Infidelity in the Custody of Prisoners, specifically conniving with or consenting to Evasion for leaving unguarded the prisoners escorted by him and provide them an opportunity to escape (Art. 223, RPC); 2. Direct Bribery for receiving the P50,000.00 as consideration for leaving the
185
[a] Define malfeasance, misfeasance and nonfeasance. (2.5%) (2016) Suggested answer a) Malfeasance is the doing of an act which a person ought not to do at all. Misfeasance is the improper doing of an act which a person may/might lawfully do. Nonfeasance is the omission of an act which a person ought to do.
Page
CRIMES COMITTED BY PUBLIC OFFICERS
The crimes committed in this case are as follows: The Branch Clerk of Court committed the crimes of: 1. Direct Bribery (Art. 210, RPC) for accepting the P50,000.00 - in consideration of the order she issued to enable the prisoners to get out of jail; 2. Falsification of Public Document for forging the judge's signature on said Order (Art. 171, RPC); 3. Delivery of Prisoners from Jail (Art. 156, RPC), as a co-principal of Chito by indispensable cooperation for making the false Order and forging the judge's signature thereon, to enable the prisoners to get out of jail; 4. Evasion of Service of Sentence (Art. 157, RPC); as a co-principal of Vincent by indispensable cooperation for making the false Order that enabled Vincent to evade service of his sentence;
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
During a PNP buy-bust operation, Cao Shih was arrested for selling 20 grams of methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu) to a poseur-buyer. Cao Shih, through an intermediary, paid Patrick, the Evidence Custodian of the PNP Forensic Chemistry Section, the Evidence Custodian of the PNP Forensic Chemistry Section, the amount of P500.000.00 in consideration for the destruction by Patrick of the drug. Patrick managed to destroy the drug. State with reasons whether committed the following crimes:
Patrick
Direct bribery; Indirect bribery; Section 3(e) of RA 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act); Obstruction of Justice under PD 1829; (7%) (2005 Bar Question) SUGGESTED ANSWER: Patrick committed the crimes of direct bribery under Article 210 of the Revised Penal Code, Violation of Section 3(e) of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act (R.A. 3019), and Obstruction of Justice under Section 1(b) of PD 1829.
Indirect bribery is not committed, because he received the P500,000.00 as a consideration for destroying the evidence against the offender, which was under his official custody as a public officer. The money was not delivered to him simply as a gift or present by reason of his public office. Patrick also violated Section 3(e), R.A. 3019 causing undue injury to the government through evident bad faith, giving unwarranted benefit to the offender by destroying evidence of a crime. Obstruction of justice under Section 1 (b) of P.D. 1829 is committed by destroying evidence intended to be used in official proceedings in criminal case. a) The Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002 (R.A. No. 9165) (i) Punishable acts (ii) Who are liable (iii) Attempt or conspiracy, effect on liability (iv) Immunity from prosecution and punishment (v) Custody and disposition of confiscated, seized and/or surrendered dangerous drugs (Section 21, R.A. No. 9165) Criminal law - Crimes committed by public officers – Direct bribery; indirect bribery; corruption of Public Officials Arts. 210: Direct Bribery Deputy Sheriff Ben Rivas received from the RTC Clerk of Court a Writ of Execution in the case of Ejectment filed by Mrs. Maria Estrada vs. Luis Ablan. The judgment being in favor of Estrada, Rivas went to her
186
The jail warden did not commit nor incur a crime there being no showing that he was aware of what his subordinates had done nor of any negligence on his part that would amount to infidelity in the custody of prisoners. Art. 210: Direct Bribery; Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act (R.A. 3019), and Obstruction of Justice under Section 1(b) of PD 1829.
Direct bribery was committed by Patrick when, for a consideration of P500.000.00, he committed a violation ofPD 1829 by destroying the drugs which were evidence entrusted to him in his official capacity.
Page
prisoners unguarded and allowing them the opportunity to escape (Art. 210, RPC);
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
lawyer’s office where he was given the necessary amounts constituting the sheriffs fees and expenses for execution in the total amount of P550.00, aside from P2.000.00 in consideration of prompt enforcement of the writ from Estrada and her lawyer. The writ was successfully enforced.
charged simultaneously or successively for the crime of direct bribery under Art. 210 of the Revised Penal Code, because two crimes are essentially different and are penalized under distinct legal philosophies. Whereas violation of Sec. (b) of R.A. 3019 is a malum prohibitum, the crime under Art. 210 of the Code is a malum in se.
a) Art. 210 What crime, if any, did the sheriff commit? (3%) (2001 Bar Question) Art 211-A: Qualified Bribery SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Art 210: Direct Bribery May a public officer charged under Section 3(b) of Republic Act No. 3019 [“directly or indirectly requesting or receiving any gift, present, share, percentage or benefit, for himself of 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”] also be simultaneously or successively charged with direct bribery under Article 210 of the Revised Penal Code? Explain. (4%) (2010 Bar Question)
Charina was charged with violation of Section 3 (b) of Republic Act No. 3019, prohibiting any public officer from directly or indirectly requesting or receiving any gift, present, percentage, or benefit in connection with any contract or transaction x x x wherein the public officer, in his official capacity, has to intervene under the law. While the case was being tried, the Ombudsman filed another information against Charina for Indirect Bribery under the Revised Penal Code. Charina demurred to the second information, claiming that she can no longer be charged under the Revised Penal Code having been charged for the same act under R.A. 3019. Is Charina correct? Explain. (3%) (2009 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes, a public officer charges under Sec. 3 (b) of Rep. Act 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act) may also be
No, Charina is not correct. Although the charge for violation of Rep. Act No. 3019 and the charge for Indirect Bribery (Art.
187
Criminal law – Crimes committed by public officers - direct bribery; Special penal law Republic Act No. 3019
Charina, Clerk of Court of an RTC Branch, promised the plaintiff in a case pending before the court that she would convince the Presiding Judge to decide the case in plaintiff's favor. In consideration therefor, the plaintiff gave Charina P20,000.00.
Page
a) The sheriff committed the crime of Direct Bribery under the second paragraph of Article 210, Revised Penal Code, since the P2,000.00 was received by him "in consideration" of the prompt enforcement of the writ of execution which is an official duty of the sheriff to do.
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
What is the crime of qualified bribery? (2%) (2010 Bar Question) SUGGESTED ANSWER: Qualified bribery is a crime committed by a public officer who is entrusted with law enforcement and who, in consideration of any offer, promise, gift of offer, refrains from arresting or prosecuting an offender who has committed a crime punishable by reclusion perpetua and/ or death (art. 211A, RPC) Art 211-A. Qualified Bribery May a judge be charged and prosecuted for such felony? How about a public prosecutor? A police officer? Explain (5%) (2010 Bar Question) SUGGESTED ANSWER: No, a judge may not be charged of this felony because his official duty as a public officer is not law enforcement but the determination of cases already filed in court. On the other hand, a public prosecutor may be prosecuted for this crime in respect of the bribery committed, aside from
Meanwhile, a police officer who refrains from arresting such offender for the same consideration above stated, may be prosecuted for this felony since he is a public officer entrusted with law enforcement. a) Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act (R.A. No. 3019, as amended) (i) Coverage (ii) Punishable acts (iii) Exceptions Art 211-A: Qualified Bribery Malo, a clerk of court of a trial court, promised the accused in a drug case pending before the court, that he would convince the judge to acquit him for a consideration of P5 million. The accused agreed and delivered the money, through his lawyer, to the clerk of court. The judge, not knowing of the deal, proceeded to rule on the evidence and convicted the accused. (2014 BAR) a. Art 211-A: Malo was charged with violation of Section 3(b), Republic Act (R.A.) No. 3019, which prohibits a public officer from directly or indirectly requesting or receiving any gift, present, share percentage or benefit wherein the public officer, in his official capacity, has to intervene under the law. He was later charged also with indirect bribery under the Revised Penal Code. Malo claims he can no longer be charged under the Revised Penal Code for the same act under R.A. 3019. Is he correct?
188
Art 211-A. Qualified Bribery
dereliction of duty committed in violation of Art. 208 of the Revised Penal Code, should be refrain from prosecuting an offender who has committed a crime punishable by reclusion perpetua and / or death in consideration of any offer, promise, gift or present.
Page
211, RPC) arose from the same act, the elements of the violation charged under Rep. Act No. 3019 are not the same as the felony charged for Indirect Bribery under the Rev. Penal Code (Mejia v. Pamaran, 160 SCRA 457 [1988]). Hence, the crimes charged are separate and distinct from each other, with different penalties. The two charges do not constitute a ground for a motion to dismiss or motion to quash, as there is no jeopardy against the accused.
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
Art 212: Corruption of Public officials Deputy Sheriff Ben Rivas received from the RTC Clerk of Court a Writ of Execution in the case of Ejectment filed by Mrs. Maria Estrada vs. Luis Ablan. The judgment being in favor of Estrada, Rivas went to her lawyer’s office where he was given the necessary amounts constituting the sheriffs fees and expenses for execution in the total amount of P550.00, aside from P2.000.00 in consideration of prompt enforcement of the writ from Estrada and her lawyer. The writ was successfully enforced. b) Art 212 Was there any crime committed by Estrada and her lawyer and If so, what crime? (2%) (2001 Bar Question) SUGGESTED ANSWER: b) The sheriff committed the crime of Direct Bribery under the second paragraph of Article 210, Revised Penal Code, since the P2,000.00 was received by him "in consideration" of the prompt enforcement of the writ of execution which is an official duty of the sheriff to do. c) On the part of the plaintiff and her lawyer as giver of the bribe-money, the
Don Gabito, a philanthropist, offered to fund several projects of the Mayor. He opened an account in the Mayor’s name and regularly deposited various amounts ranging from P500,000.00 to PI Million. From this account, the Mayor withdrew and used the money for constructing feeder roads, barangay clinics, repairing schools and for all other municipal projects. It was subsequently discovered that Don Gabito was actually a jueteng operator and the amounts he deposited were proceeds from his jueteng operations. What crime/s were committed? Who are criminally liable? Explain. (6%)(2005 Bar Question) SUGGESTED ANSWER: 1. Corruption of public officials under Article 212 of the Revised Penal Code for having given the amounts that were deposited in an account which he opened in the Mayor’s name for no reason but the public position or office held by the Mayor; (crime committed by Don Gabito) 2. Indirect Bribery for accepting such moneys deposited in his account by using them when they were given to him for no other reason except for his public position as a Mayor. (crime committed by the Mayor) 3. Violation of Rep. Act 6713 (Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees) for receiving such gift from someone who may be affected by
189
No. One may be charged with violation of R.A. 3019 in addition to a felony under the RPC for the same delictual act, either concurrently or subsequent to being charged with a felony under the RPC. This is very clear from Sec. 3 of R.A. 3019. Also, R.A. 3019 is a special law, the elements of the crime is not the same as those punished under the RPC.
crime is Corruption of Public Officials under Article 212, Revised Penal Code. Criminal law – Crimes committed by public officers – Malversation by abandonment or negligence
Page
Answer:
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
the functions of his office. (crime committed by the Mayor)
Art. 217: Malversation of Public Funds and Property Allan, the Municipal Treasurer of the Municipality of Gerona, was in a hurry to return to his office after a day-long official conference. He alighted from the government car which was officially assigned to him, leaving the ignition key and the car unlocked, and rushed to his office. Jules, a bystander, drove off with the car and later sold the same to his brother, Danny for P20.000.00, although the car was worth P800,000.00. A. What is the crime committed by Allan? Explain. (2005 Bar Question) SUGGESTED ANSWER: Allan committed the crime of malversation by abandonment or negligence in leaving the government car assigned to him for his official use and for which he was accountable, with the ignition key in the car unlocked.
Philippine Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), another government-owned and controlled corporation. In 1995, after the PNB management unearthed many irregularities and violations of the bank's rules and regulations, dela Renta was found to have manipulated certain accounts involving trust funds and time deposits of depositors. After investigation. he was charged with malversation of public funds before the Sandiganbayan. He filed a motion to dismiss contending he was no longer an employee of the PNB but of the PDIC. Is dela Renta's contention tenable? 2.5% (2006 Bar Question) 1. After his arraignment, the prosecution filed a motion for his suspension pendente lite, to which he filed an opposition claiming that he can no longer be suspended as he is no longer an employee of the PNB but that of the PDIC. 2. Explain whether he may or may not be suspended. 2.5% (2006 Bar Question) SUGGESTED ANSWER: 1. No, dela Renta's contention is not tenable for these reasons:
In 1982, the Philippine National Bank (PNB), then a government banking institution, hired Henry dela Renta, a CPA, as Regional Bank Auditor. In 1992, he resigned and was employed by the
2. Resignation or office is not a ground criminal liability under Revised Penal Code,
separation from for extinguishing Art. 89 of the for any crime
190
Art 217: Malversation of Public Funds and Property
1. His contention that he is no longer an employee of PNB but of PDIC has no merit since both PNB and FDIC are government institutions and the funds thereof belong to the same Government who suffers from the malversation; (Sec. 4, PD 1606, as amended).
Page
Criminal law – Crimes committed by public officers – Malversation; defenses; prescription; suspension from office
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
committed while the offender connected with the office; and
was
3. The crime of malversation was discovered only in 1995 and so, the prescriptive period of the crime only commenced to run from then. Obviously, the amount misappropriated exceeds P200.00 and so the prescribed penalty is within the range of prision mayor already. Crimes punishable by prision mayor prescribes in 15 years. From 1995 to the present is only around 11 years. Hence the crime can still be prosecuted.
satisfy the judgment against him in favor of ABC Corporation, a government-owned or controlled corporation with an original charter. However, the representative of the corporation failed to attend the auction sale. Gonzalo, the winning bidder, purchased the property for P100,000 which he paid to Eliseo. Instead of remitting the amount to the Clerk of Court as ex-officio Provincial Sheriff, Eliseo lent the amount to Myrna, his officemate, who promised to repay the amount within two months, with interest thereon. However, Myrna reneged on her promise. Despite demands of ABC Corporation, Eliseo failed to remit the said amount.
SUGGESTED ANSWER: 2. The accused may be validly suspended from office in PDIC because PDIC is a government-owned and controlled corporation; hence a public office. When the Information charges the accused with acts of fraud involving Government funds, the suspension of the accused pendente lite assumes a mandatory character and the court may order the suspension of the accused regardless of whether the prosecution files a motion for the preventive suspension of the accused, or the motion is filed by the counsel of the government agency concerned, with or without the conformity of the public prosecutor (Robles et al., v. Layosa et al., 436 SCRA 337 12 Aug 04).
State with reasons, the crime or crimes, if any, committed by Eliseo. (4%) (2008 Bar Question) SUGGESTED ANSWER: The crime committed by Eliseo is malversation since he is a public officer who received the amount in his official capacity; thus he is accountable for it. Art 217: Malversation of Public Funds and Property Would your answer to the first question be the same if ABC Corporation were a private corporation? Explain. (3%) (2008 Bar Question)
Art 217: Malversation of Public Funds and Property Eliseo, the deputy sheriff, conducted the execution sale of the property of Andres to
The crime would still be malversation even if ABC Corporation, in whose favor the judgment was rendered, were a private corporation. This is because the P100,000.00 came from the sale of property levied upon or seized upon execution ordered by the court. The property was in custodia legis. Although not
Page
Criminal law – Crimes committed by public officers - Malversation
191
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
A typhoon destroyed the houses of many of the inhabitants of X Municipality. Thereafter, X Municipality operated a shelter assistance program whereby construction materials were provided to the calamity victims, and the beneficiaries provided the labor. The construction was partially done when the beneficiaries stopped helping with the construction for the reason that they needed to earn income to provide food for their families. When informed of the situation, Mayor Maawain approved the withdrawal of ten boxes of food from X Municipality's feeding program, which were given to the families of the beneficiaries of the shelter assistance program. The appropriations for the funds pertaining to the shelter assistance program and those for the feeding program were separate items on X Municipality's annual budget. (2015 BAR) a) Art 220. What crime did Mayor Maawain commit? Explain. Answer: Mayor Maawain committed the crime of Illegal use of public funds or property punishable under Article 220 of the RPC. This offense is also known as Technical Malversation. The crime has 3 elements: a.) that the offender is an accountable
b) Art 220. May Mayor Maawain invoke the defense of good faith and that he had no evil intent when he approved the transfer of the boxes of food from the feeding program to the shelter assistance program? Explain. Answer: No. Mayor Maawain cannot invoke good faith when he approved the transfer of the boxes of food from the feeding program to the Shelter Assistance program. “Criminal intent is not an element of technical malversation. The law punishes the act of diverting public property earmarked by law or ordinance for a particular purpose to another public purpose. The offense is mala prohibita, meaning that the prohibited act is not inherently immoral but becomes a criminal offense because positive law forbids its commission based on considerations of public policy, order and convenience. It is the commission of an act as defined by the law, and not the character or effect thereof that determines whether or not the provision has been violated. Hence, malice or criminal intent is completely
192
Art 220. Illegal Use of Public Funds or Property
public officer; b) that he applies public funds or property under his administration to some public use; and c) that the public use for which such funds or property were applied is different from the purpose for which they were originally appropriated by law or ordinance. The funds for the feeding program are not specifically appropriated for the beneficiaries of the shelter assistance program in X Municipality’s annual budget. Mayor Maawain ought to use the boxes of food earmarked particularly for the feeding program, which would cater only to the malnourished among his constituents who needed the resources for proper nourishment.
Page
strictly public property, it has become impressed with the character of public property when Eliseo, in his official capacity, conducted the execution sale and received it proceeds. As long as Eliseo has not accounted for and turned over the proceeds officially, he is not relieved of his official accountability.
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
Art. 222: Officers included in malversion of public funds or property Accused Juan Santos, a deputy sheriff in a Regional Trial Court, levied on the personal properties of a defendant in a civil case before said court, pursuant to a writ of execution duly issued by the court. Among the properties levied upon and deposited inside the "evidence room" of the Clerk of Court for Multiple KIC Salas were a refrigerator, a stock of cassette tapes, a dining table set of chairs and several lampshades. Upon the defendant’s paying off the judgment creditor, he tried to claim his properties but found out that several items were missing, such as the cassette tapes, chairs and lampshades. After due and diligent sleuthing by the police detectives assigned to the case, these missing items were found in the house of accused Santos, who reasoned out that he only borrowed them temporarily. If you were the fiscal/prosecutor, what would be the nature of the information to be filed against the accused? Why? (5%) (2001 Bar Question) SUGGESTED ANSWER: If I were the fiscal/prosecutor, I would file an Information for Malversation against Juan Santos for the cassette tapes, chairs and lampshades which he, as deputy sheriff, levied upon and thus under his accountability as a public officer. Said
Juan Santos misappropriated such properties when, in breach of trust, he applied them to his own private use and benefit. His allegation that he only borrowed such properties is a lame excuse, devoid of merit as there is no one from whom he borrowed the same. The fact that it was only "after due and diligent sleuthing by the police detectives assigned to the case", that the missing items were found in the house of Santos, negates his pretension.
Art. 222: Officers included in malversion of public funds or property
Alex Reyes, together with Jose Santos, were former warehousemen of the Rustan Department Store. In 1986, the PCGG sequestered the assets, fund and properties of the owners-incorporators of the store, alleging that they constitute “illgotten wealth" of the Marcos family. Upon their application, Reyes and Santos were appointed as fiscal agents of the sequestered firm and they were given custody and possession of the sequestered building and its contents, including various vehicles used in the firm's operations. After a few months, an inventory was conducted and it was discovered that two (2) delivery vans were missing. After demand was made upon them, Reyes and Santos failed to give any satisfactory explanation why the vans were missing or to turn them over to the PCGG; hence, they were charged with Malversation of Public Property. During the
193
Criminal law - Crimes committed by public officers - Malversation of public property
properties being under levy, are in custodia legis and thus impressed with the character of public property, misappropriation of which constitutes the crime of malversation although said properties belonged to a private individual (Art. 222, RPC).
Page
irrelevant”. (Ysidoro v. People, G.R. No. 192330, 14 November 2012).
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
What is the proper offense committed? State the reason(s) for your answer. (5%) (2001 Bar Question)
B started hitting A with his fists, A suddenly complained of severe chest pains. B, realizing that A was indeed in serious trouble, immediately brought her to the hospital. Despite efforts to alleviate A’s pains, she died of heart attack. It turned out that she had been suffering from a lingering heart ailment. What crime, if any, could B be held guilty of? (2003 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The proper offense committed was Malversation of public property, not estafa, considering that Reyes and Santos, upon their application, were constituted as fiscal agents" of the sequestered firm and were "given custody and possession" of the sequestered properties, including the delivery vans which later they could not account for. They were thus made the depositary and administrator of properties deposited by public authority and hence, by the duties of their office/position, they are accountable for such properties. Such properties, having been sequestered by the Government through the PCGG, are in custodia Iegis and therefore impressed with the character of public property, even though the properties belong to a private individual (Art. 222, RPC).
B could be held liable for parricide because his act of hitting his wife with fist blows and therewith inflicting physical injuries on her, is felonious. A person committing a felonious act incurs criminal liability although the wrongful consequence is different from what he intended (Art. 4, par. 1, Revised Penal Code).
CRIMES AGAINST PERSONS Art. 246: Parricide The conduct of wife A aroused the ire of her husband B. Incensed with anger almost beyond his control, B could not help but inflict physical injuries on A. Moments after
Art. 246: Parricide Procopio, a call center agent assigned at a graveyard shift, went home earlier than usual. He proceeded immediately to their bedroom to change his clothes. To his surprise, he found his wife Bionci in bed making love to another woman Magna. Enraged, Procopio grabbed a knife nearby and stabbed Bionci, who died. (2015 BAR)
194
The failure of Reyes and Santos to give any satisfactory explanation why the vans were missing, is prima facie evidence that they had put the same to their personal use.
Although A died of heart attack, the said attack was generated by B’s felonious act of hitting her with his fists. Such felonious act was the immediate cause of the heart attack, having materially contributed to and hastened A’s death. Even though B may have acted without intent to kill his wife, lack of such intent is of no moment when the victim dies. However, B may be given the mitigating circumstance of having acted without intention to commit so grave a wrong as that committed (Art. 13, par. 3, Revised Penal Code).
Page
trial, the two accused claimed that they are not public accountable officers and, if any crime was committed, it should only be Estafa under Art. 315, par. 1(b) of the Revised Penal Code.
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
What crime did Procopio commit, and what circumstance attended the case? Explain.
Answer: The crime committed by Procopio is parricide qualified by the circumstance of relationship. Killing a spouse after having been surprised in the act of committing sexual intercourse with another woman is death under exceptional circumstance under Article 247 of the Revised Penal Code. However, in this case this is not death under exceptional circumstance because Bionci was having homosexual intercourse with another woman and not sexual intercourse with a man. “Homosexual intercourse “is not within the contemplation of the term “sexual intercourse” in Article 247. However, the crime of parricide is attended by the circumstance of passion arising from a lawful sentiment as a result of having caught his wife in the act of infidelity with another woman (People v. Belarmino, G.R. No. L-4429, April 18, 1952, En Banc). Assuming that Procopio and Bionci were common-law spouses, will your answer be the same? Explain.
Cebu City, Marco surprised his wife, Rosette, and her former boyfriend, Raul, both naked and in the act of illicit copulation. Raul got his revolver and, upon seing the revolver, Marco ran toward the street, took a pedicab and proceeded to the house of his brother, a policeman, from whom he borrowed a revolver. With the weapon, he returned to his residence. Unable to find Raul and Rosette, Marco proceeded to a disco jointly owned and operated by Raul. It was already 11:00 o’clock that evening when he arrived at the joint. Upon seeing Raul with two (2) male companions, A and B, drinking beer at one of the tables, Marco fired two (2) shots at Raul, who was hit on his forehead with one of the bullets; the other bullet hit A, injuring him on his stomach. As a consequence of the gunshot wound, Raul died instantaneously. Due to the timely medical attention given to him, A survived; he was, however, hospitalized for 45 days. Marco was prosecuted for Murder for the death of Raul and for frustrated murder in the case of A. The informations in both cases allege the qualifying circumstances of evident premeditation and treachery and the generic aggravating circumstance of nighttime. You are Marco’s lawyer. What would be your defense(s)? (1991 Bar Question)
Art 247: Death circumstances
under
exceptional
At 10:00 o’clock in the evening of 10 November 1990, upon his arrival from
SUGGESTED ANSWER: The defense with respect to the death of Raul is death under exceptional circumstances (Art. 247, People vs. Abarca, 153 SCRA 735). Although the killing happened one hour after having surprised the spouse, that would still be within the context of “immediately thereafter”. With respect to the wounding of the stranger, the defense of lawful exercise of
Page
No, the answer is not the same. The crime committed is Homicide if Procopio and Bionci were common law spouses. Parricide contemplates killing by spouse who are legally married.
195
Answer:
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
Pedro Orsal and the wife of accused Juan Santos started having illicit relations while the accused was in Manila reviewing for the 1983 Bar Examinations and his wife was left behind in Davao City. In the morning of July 15, 1984, the accused went to the bus station in Davao City to go to Cagayan de Oro City to fetch his daughter, but after he failed to catch the first trip in the morning, and because the 2:00 o’clock bus had engine trouble and could not leave, the accused, afer passing the residence of his father, went home and arrive at his residence at around six o’clock in the afternoon. Upon reaching his home, the accused found his wife Laura, and Pedro Orsal in the act of sexual intercourse. When the wife and Pedro Orsal noticed the accused, the wife pushed her paramour who got his revolver. The accused, who has then peeping above the built in cabinet in their room, jumped down and ran away. He went to the house of his PC soldier-friend, and neighbor, got his (soldier’s) M-16 rifle and immediately, it was almost 6:30 p.m. then, went back to his house. Not finding his wife there, he went to the hangout of Pedro Orsal and found the latter playing mahjong there. The accused fired at Pedro three times with his rifle, hit him and two bystanders. Pedro died instantaneously of wounds in the head, trunk, and abdomen. The two
Can Juan Santos be held guilty for homicide for the death of Pedro Orsal? Explain. (1988 Bar Question) What offense did Juan Santos commit with regard to the two bystanders? Explain. (1988 Bar Question) SUGGESTED ANSWER: Juan Santos cannot be held guilty' of homicide for the death of Pedro Orsal. Instead, Juan is liable for violation of Article 247 “Death inflicted under exceptional circumstances because there was one continuous act. (People vs. Abarca). With regards to the two bystanders, Juan Santos committed the crime of serious physical injuries inflicted under exceptional circumstances. (Art. 247 Revised Penal Code; People vs. Abarca). Art 247: Exceptional circumstances A and B are husband and wife. A is employed as a security guard at Landmark, his shift being from 11 :00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. One night, he felt sick and cold, hence, he decided to go home around midnight after getting permission from his duty officer. Upon reaching the front yard of his home, he noticed that the light in the master bedroom was on and that the bedroom window was open. Approaching the front door, he was surprised to hear sighs and giggles inside the bedroom. He opened the door very carefully and peeped inside where he saw his wife B having sexual intercourse with their neighbor C. A rushed inside and grabbed C but the latter managed to wrest himself free and jumped out of the window. A followed suit and managed to catch C again and after a
196
Criminal law – Crimes against persons Death inflicted under exceptional circumstances; serious physical injuries inflicted under exceptional circumstances
bystanders were seriously injured but survived.
Page
a right is a justifying circumstance. Under Article 11, par. 5 could be invoked. At the time accused shot Raul, he was not committing a felonious act and therefore could not have been criminality liable under Art. 4. RPC.
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
SUGGESTED ANSWER: Yes, A is liable for C's death but under the exceptional circumstances in Article 247 of the Revised Penal Code, where only destierro is prescribed. Article 247 governs since A surprised his wife B in the act of having sexual intercourse with C, and the killing of C was "immediately thereafter" as the discovery, escape, pursuit arid killing of C form one continuous act. (U.S. vs. Vargas, 2 Phil. 194) Likewise, A is liable for the serious physical injuries he inflicted on his wife B but under the same exceptional circumstances in Article 247 of the Revised Penal Code, for the same reasons. Criminal law – Crimes against persons – Death inflicted under exceptional circumstances Pete, a security guard, arrived home late one night after rendering overtime. He was shocked to see Flor, his wife, and Benjie, his best friend, completely naked having sexual intercourse. Pete pulled out his service gun and shot and killed Benjie. Pete was charged with murder for the
The court found that Benjie died under exceptional circumstances and exonerated Pete of the crime, but sentenced him to destierro, conformably with Article 247 of the Revised Penal Code. The court also ordered Pete to pay indemnity to the heirs of the victim in the amount of P50,000.00. Is the defense of Pete meritorious? Explain. Under Article 247 of the Revised Penal Code, is destierro a penalty? Explain. Did the court correctly order Pete to pay indemnity despite his exoneration under Article 247 of the Revised Penal Code? Explain. (5%) (2005 Bar Question) SUGGESTED ANSWER: The defense of Pete lacks merit. He could not have acted in defense of honor, because there was no unlawful aggression against him. At most, what Benjie did could be regarded only as sufficient provocation to Pete. The Court correctly ruled that Benjie’s killing was done under the exceptional circumstances provided for in Article 247 of the Revised Penal Code. Destierro is one of the principal penalties under Article 25 of the Revised Penal Code, but under the exceptional circumstances provided for in Article 247 of the Code, destierro is not intended as a penalty but a means to remove the accused from the vicinity, for his protection against possible reprisal from the family or relatives of the other spouse or those of the paramour or mistress. (People v. Coricort 79 Phil 672 [1947]). Yes, the court correctly ordered Pete to pay indemnity, because the legal consequence
197
Is A liable for C’s death? Why? (5%) (2001 Bar Question) Is A liable for B's injuries? Why? (5%) (2001 Bar Question)
death of Benjie. Pete contended that he acted in defense of his honor and that, therefore, he should be acquitted of the crime.
Page
furious struggle, managed also to strangle him to death. A then rushed back to his bedroom where his wife B was cowering under the bed covers. Still enraged, A hit B with fist blows and rendered her unconscious. The police arrived after being summoned by their neighbors and arrested A who was detained, inquested and charged for the death of C and serious physical injuries of B.
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
Juan had a land dispute with Pedro for a number of years. As Juan was earning down his house, he saw his brother, Rodolfo attack Pedro with a bolo from behind. Rodolfo was about to hit Pedro a second time while the latter was prostrate on the ground, when Carling, Pedro’s son, shouted, “I’ll kill you.” This distracted Rodolfo who then turned ter Carling. Rodolfo and Carling fought with their bolos. While the two were fighting, Juan shouted to his brother Rodolfo: “Kill them both, they are our enemies.” Calling suffered a number of wounds and died on the spot, Pedro who was in serious condition was rushed to the hospital. He died five days later for loss of blood because the blood purchased from Manila which could have saved him, according to the doctor, did not arrive on time, Jose, father of Juan and Rodolfo, told his sons to hide in Manila and he gave them money for the purpose. When the police investigators saw Jose, he told the police investigators that Juan and Rodolfo went to Mindanao. What crimes, if any, did (a) Rodolfo, (b) Juan and Jose commit? Explain your answer and state whether the acts committed are accompanied by circumstances affecting criminal liability. (1987 Bar Question) SUGGESTED ANSWER: Rodolfo committed murder regarding the killing of Pedro since Pedro was attacked from behind. The killing was attended by
Although Pedro died five days later, since the blood purchased which would have saved him did not arrive on time, Rodolfo is still liable for the death of Pedro as that is the direct, natural and logical result of the wound inflicted by him. Juan, the brother of Rodolfo, has no criminal liability. What he shouted to Rodolfo “Kill them both, they are our enemies,” when Rodolfo and Carling were fighting, was not the only reason why Carling was killed; and hence, he cannot be a principal by inducement. The doctrine is to be a principal by inducement, the inducement must be the only reason why the crime is committed. (People vs. Kiichi et. al. 61 Phil. 609) Art. 248: Murder Boy Bala was a notorious gang leader who had previously killed a policeman. The Chief of Police ordered his vice squad headed by Captain Aniceto, to arrest Boy Bala and shoud he resist arrest, to shoot and kill him. Acting upon an informer's tip, Aniceto and two (2) of his trusted men went to the Corinthian nightclub where they saw Boy Bala dancing with a hostess. Without any warning, Aniceto shot Boy Bala who slumped on the dance floor. As Aniceto aimed another shot at Boy Bala, the brother of the latter, Pedro, who was seated at a table nearby, got hold of a table knife and stabbed Aniceto killing him instantly. The Chief of Police filed a homicide case against Pedro for the death
198
Art 248:Murder
the qualifying circumstance of treachery. The mode of attack deprived Pedro of any chance to defend himself or to retaliate. Rodolfo is also liable for homicide regarding the killing of Calling, Pedro’s son as that is the result of a right, both of them being aimed with bolos.
Page
of the exceptional circumstance in Article 247 of the Code is that of an exempting circumstance where generally there is civil liability although there may be no criminal liability.
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
of Aniceto. On the other hand, Pedro filed a complaint for murder against the Chief of Police for the death of Boy Bala alleging that the issuance of the shoot-to-kill order was illegal and the Chief of Police was liable as a principal by inducement. How tenable are the respective claims of the Chief of Police and Pedro? Explain. (1989 Bar Question)
Aniceto is a police officer and Boy Bala is notorious gangster. By shooting Boy Bala without warning instead of attempting to arrest him first, Aniceto became an unlawful agressor. There was reasonable necessity of the means employed by Pedro to prevent or repel unlawful aggression. The use of a knife against a gun for defense is reasonable.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Pedro acted in legitimate defense of relative, he being the brother of Boy Bala. All the requisites of this justifying circumstance are present. Thus: There was unlawful aggression. At the time that Pedro stabbed Aniceto, the latter had already shot at Boy Bala and was in the act of shooting him for the second time. The aggression is unlawful although
Art.248: Murder; Art 263: Serious Physical Injuries Mang Jose, a septuagenarian, was walking with his ten- year old grandson along Paseo de Roxas and decided to cross at the intersection of Makati Avenue but both were hit by a speeding CKV Honda van and were sent sprawling on the pavement, a meter apart. The driver, a Chinese mestizo stopped his car after hitting the two victims but then reversed his gears and ran over Mang Jose’s prostrate body anew and third time by advancing his car forward. The grandson suffered broken legs only and survived but Mang Jose suffered multiple fractures and broken ribs, causing his instant death. The driver was arrested and charged with Murder for the death of Mang Jose and Serious Physical Injuries through Reckless Imprudence with respect to the grandson. Are the charges correct? Explain. (5%) (2001 Bar Question)
199
On the other hand, the charge of homicide against Pedro for the stabbing of Aniceto is likewise not tenable.
Assuming that Boy Bala had provoked that attack on his person by Aniceto because of his having earlier killed a policeman, it does not appear that Pedro, the one making the defense had taken any part in said provocation.
Page
The charge for murder against the Chief of Police for the death of Boy Bala is not tenable. Although, the Chief of Police is the superior on Captain Aniceto who shot Boy Bala in cold blood, he cannot be held accountable for the act of Aniceto. His order was specific; to arrest Boy Bala and should he resist arrest, to shoot and kill him. Aniceto did not act in compliance with this order. He shot Boy Bala without warning, without even attempting to make an arrest. Consequently, it could not be said that the killing of Bala by Aniceto was induced by the Chief of Police so as to make the latter criminally liable as a coprincipal by inducement. The liability for the death of Bala is individual and not collective.
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
SUGGESTED ANSWER: Yes, the charges are correct. For deliberately running over Mang Jose's prostrate body after having bumped him and his grandson, the driver indeed committed Murder, qualified by treachery. Said driveris deliberate intent to kill Mang Jose was demonstrated by his running over the latteris body twice, by up the van and driving it forward, whereas the victim was helpless and not in a position to defend himself or to retaliate.
Candido should be charged with murder qualified by treachery because the suddenness of the stabbing caught the victim by surprise and was totally defenseless. Being under the influence of dangerous drugs is a qualifying aggravating circumstance in the commission of a crime (Sec. 25, Rep Act 9165 Comprehensive Dangerous Drug Act of 2002); hence, the penalty for murder shall be imposed in the maximum.
Art. 249: Homicide
Candido stabbed an innocent bystander who accidentally bumped him. The innocent bystander died as a result of the stabbing. Candido was arrested and was tested to be positive for the use of “shabu" at the time he committed the stabbing. What should be the proper charge against Candido? Explain. (3%) (2005 Bar Question) SUGGESTED ANSWER:
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 JunJun, who had an unsavory reputation, came to her store to buy bottles of beer. Lucresia noticed her bracelet wound around the right arm of Jun-Jun. As soon as the latter left, Lucresia went to a 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
200
Art. 248: Murder
Criminal law – Crimes against persons – Homicide; when justified; when aggravated
Page
As to the serious physical injuries sustained by Mang Jose's 10-year old grandson, as a result of having been hit by the speeding vehicle of said driver, the same were the result of reckless imprudence which is punishable as a quasi-offense in Article 365 of the Revised Penal Code. The charge of Reckless Imprudence Resulting to Serious Physical Injuries is correct. The penalty next higher in degree to what ordinarily should be imposed is called for, since the driver did not lend help on the spot, which help he could have given to the victims.
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
SUGGESTED ANSWER: 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 us. Oanis, etaL, 74PhiL 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. Pocholo should be convicted of the crime of homicide only because the aggravating circumstances which should qualify the crime to murder were not alleged in the information.
Art 249: Homicide On July 1, 2004, Jet Matulis, a pedophile, gave P1,000.00 to Sherly, an orphan and a prostitute and brought her to a motel. He inserted a rusty and oversized vibrator into her vagina with such force that she bled profusely. Jet panicked and fled. Sherly was brought to the hospital and died a few days later because of shock caused by hemorrhage. What crime or crimes did Jet Matulis commit? Explain. (2005 Bar Question) SUGGESTED ANSWER: Jet Matulis should be liable only for the crime of homicide for the death of Sherly, assuming that she was not a minor (in the light of the following question) since the sexual assault was committed without any of the circumstances mentioned in of Article 266-A (1) of the Revised Penal Code as rape. It appears that the offender and the offended party went to the hotel for mutual sexual gratification. Criminal law – Crimes against persons – Homicide; Special penal law - Child abuse; Special Protection of Children Against Child Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination (RA 7610, as amended)
201
a) Rico, a member of the Alpha Rho fraternity, was killed by Pocholo, a member of the rival group, Sigma Phi Omega. Pocholo was prosecuted for homicide before the Regional Trial Court in Binan, Laguna. During the trial, the prosecution was able to prove that the killing was committed by means of poison in consideration of a promise or reward and with cruelty. If you were the Judge, with what crime will you convict Pocholo? Explain. (2%) (2000 Bar Question)
The circumstances of using poison, in consideration of a promise or reward, and cruelty which attended the killing of Rico could only be appreciated as generic aggravating circumstances since none of them have been alleged in the Information to qualify the killing to murder. A qualifying circumstance must be alleged in the Information and proven beyond reasonable doubt during the trial to be appreciated as such.
Page
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, that he acted in the fulfillment of a duty. Is the defense tenable? Explain. (3%)
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
Art. 249: Homicide On July 1, 2004, Jet Matulis, a pedophile, gave P1,000.00 to Sherly, an orphan and a prostitute and brought her to a motel. He inserted a rusty and oversized vibrator into her vagina with such force that she bled profusely. Jet panicked and fled. Sherly was brought to the hospital and died a few days later because of shock caused by hemorrhage. If Sherly were a minor when she died, would your answer be the same? Explain. (5%) (2005 Bar Question)
you sustain the conviction upon appeal? Explain your answer. ANSWER: No, because none of the circumstances qualifying the killing to murder in Art. 248 attended the crime. The faithhealer and his co-accused should only be liable for homicide, because they are not authorized by law to practice medicine and were therefore acting illegally although the wrongful act done was different from what they intended. Criminal law – Crimes against persons – Attempted homicide; Slight physical injury
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The faithhealer and three others who were part of the healing ritual were charged with murder and convicted by the lower court. If you were the appellate court Justice, would
SUGGESTED ANSWER: No. I beg to disagree with A’s contention that his liability should be limited to slight physical injury only. He should be held liable for attempted homicide because he inflicted said injury with the use of a firearm which is a lethal weapon. Intent to kill is
202
Eddie brought his son Randy to a local faithhealer known as "Mother Himala." He was diagnosed by the faithhealer as being possessed by an evil spirit. Eddie thereupon authorized the conduct of a "treatment" calculated to drive the "spirit" from the boy's body. Unfortunately, the procedure conducted resulted in the boy's death.
In a free-for-all brawl that ensued after some customers inside a night club became unruly, guns were fired by a group, among them A and B, that finally put the customers back to their senses. Unfortunately, one customer died. Subsequent investigation revealed that A's gunshot had inflicted on the victim a slight wound that did not cause the deceased’s death nor materially contribute to it. It was B’s gunshot that inflicted a fatal wound on the deceased. A contended that his liability should, if at all, be limited to slight physical injury. Would you agree? Why? (2003 Bar Question)
Page
If Sherly were a minor when she died, the crimes of homicide and child abuse in violation of Rep. Act 7610 (Special Protection of Children against abuse, exploitation, discrimination and for other purposes), are committed by Jet Matulis, provided Sherly is not less than 12 years old. If Sherly was less than 12 years old then, the crime committed by Matulis is rape (through sexual assault) with Homicide, a special complex crime under Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code.
Arts. 250: Penalty for Frustrated Parricide, Murder, or homicide ; Art.254: Discharge of Firearms; Art. 266: Slight Physical Injury
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
A, B and C are members of SFC Fraternity. While eating in a seaside restaurant, they were attacked by X, Y and Z members of a rival fraternity. A rumble ensued in which the above-named members of the two fraternities assaulted each other in confused and tumultuous manner resulting in the death of A. As it cannot be ascertained who actually killed A, the members of the two fraternities who took part in the rumble were charged for death caused in a tumultuous affray. Will the charge prosper? Explain. (4%) (2010 Bar Question) SUGGESTED ANSWER: No, the charge of death caused in a tumultuous affray will not prosper. In death caused by tumultuous affray under Art. 251 of the Revised Penal Code, it is essential that the persons involved did not compose groups organized for the common purpose of assaulting and attacking each other reciprocally. In this case, there is no tumultuous affray since the participants in the rumble belong to organized fraternities. The killer of A, a member of SFC Fraternity could not be any other but member of the rival fraternity. Conspiracy is therefore present among the attackers from the rival fraternity and thus rules out the idea of an affray. The liability of the attackers should be collective for the crime of homicide or murder as the case may be.
Art. 255: Infanticide Ana has been a bar girl/GRO at a beer house for more than 2 years. She fell in love with Oniok, the bartender, who impregnated her. But Ana did not inform him about her condition and instead, went to Cebu to conceal her shame. However, her parents drove her away. So, she returned to Manila and stayed with Oniok in his boarding house. Upon learning of her pregnancy, already in an advanced state, Oniok tried to persuade her to undergo an abortion, but she refused. Because of their constant and bitter quarrels, she suffered birth pangs and gave birth prematurely to a live baby girl while Oniok was at his place of work. Upon coming home and learning what happened, he prevailed upon Ana to conceal her dishonor. Hence, they placed the infant in a shoe box and threw it into a nearby creek. However, an inquisitive neighbor saw them and with the help of others, retrieved the infant who was already dead from drowning. The incident was reported to the police who arrested Ana and Oniok. The 2 were charged with parricide under Article 246 of the Revised Penal Code. After trial, they were convicted of the crime charged. Was the conviction correct? 5% (2006 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER: The conviction for parricide was correct if the infant was already three (3) days old or more when killed because Ana and Oniok are the parents of the child. But if the child was less than 3 days old when killed, the crime of both Ana and Oniok is infanticide
203
Art. 251: Death caused in a tumultuous affray
Criminal law – Crimes against persons – Abortion; infanticide
Page
inherent in the use of a firearm. (Araneta, Jr. v. Court of Appeals. 187 SCRA 123 [1990])
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
for
Will your answers to (a) and (b) be the same if before the incident Gavino and Alma were legally separated? Explain. (1995 Bar Question)
Art 266-A: Rape
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
A complaint for rape was filed by the victim against her father. When the victim was about to finish her testimony, she and her aunt (her closest relative) executed separate affidavits of desistance wherein they stated that they are forgiving the accused. The judge dismissed the case. Is the dismissal proper? (1991 Bar Question)
No. A husband cannot be charged with the rape of his wife because of the matrimonial consent which she gave when she assumed the marriage relation, and the law will not permit her to retract in order to charge her husband with the offense (Sate vs. Haines, 11 La. Ann. 731 So. 372; 441 RA 837). Yes. He may be guilty of serious physical injuries. This offense is specially mentioned in Art. 263 (4), paragraph 2 which imposes a higher penalty for the crime of physical injuries in cases where the offense shall have been committed against any of the persons enumerated in Art 246 (the crime of parricide). C. No. my answer will not be the same.
SUGGESTED ANSWER: No, the dismissal of the case is not proper. While the affidavit of desistance executed by the victim amounts to a pardon, the same does not extinguish criminal liability. In the crime of rape and other private crimes, pardon by the offended party only bars prosecution if given before the institution of the criminal action. After the criminal action had been instituted, such pardon only waives the civil liability but not the criminal liability of the offender. Art 266-A: Rape; Art 263: Serious Physical Injuries
Gavino boxed his wife Alma for refusing to sleep with him. He then violently threw her on the floor and forced her to have sexual intercourse with him. As a result Alma suffered serious physical injuries. Can Gavino be charged with rape? Explain. (1995 Bar Question) Can Gavino be charged with serious physical injuries? Explain. (1995 Bar Question)
C. If Gavino, and Alma were legally separated at the time of the incident, then Gavino could be held liable for rape. A legal separation is a separation of the spouses from bed and board [U.S. vs. Johnson 27 Phil. 477, cited in II Reyes, RPC, p. 853, 1981 edition). In the crime of rape, any crime resulting from the infliction of physical injuries suffered by the victim on the occasion of the rape, is absorbed by the crime of rape. The injuries suffered by the victim may, however, be considered in determining the proper penalty which shall be imposed on the offender. Serious physical injuries cannot be absorbed in rape; it can be so if the injury is slight. Art 266-A: Rape
204
convicted
Page
and they should be infanticide, not parricide.
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
SUGGESTED ANSWER: Yes, I would convict the accused of rape. Since the victim is a mental retardate with an intellectual capacity of a child less than 12 years old, she is legally incapable of giving a valid consent to the sexual intercourse. The sexual intercourse is tantamount to a statutory rape because the level of intelligence is that of a child less than twelve years of age. Where the victim of rape is a mental retardate, violence or intimidation is not essential to constitute rape. (People vs. Ttimor, G.R. 10654142,31 Mar 95) As a matter of fact, RA No. 7659, the Heinous Crimes Law, amended Art. 335, RPC, by adding the phrase "or is demented.”
Art. 266-A: Rape Flordeluna boarded a taxi on her way home to Quezon City which was driven by Roger. Flordeluna noticed that Roger was always placing his car freshener in front of the car aircon ventilation but did not bother asking Roger why. Suddenly. Flordeluna felt dizzy and became unconscious. Instead of
SUGGESTED ANSWER: No, Roger may not be charged and convicted of the crime of rape with serious illegal detention. Roger may be charged and convicted of multiple rapes. Each rape is a distinct offense and should be punished separately. Evidently, his principal intention was to abuse Flordeluna; the detention was only incidental to the rape. Criminal law – Crimes against persons – Rape through sexual assault Art 266-A: Rape A. A, a male, takes B, another male, to a motel and there, through threat and intimidation, succeeds in inserting his penis into the anus of B. What, if any, is A’s criminal liability? Why? (3%) (2002 Bar Question) SUGGESTED ANSWER: A shall be criminally liable for rape by committing an act of sexual assault against B, by inserting his penis into the anus of the latter. Even a man may be a victim of rape by sexual assault under par. 2 of Article 268Aof the Revised Penal Code, as amended, “when the offender’s penis is inserted into his mouth or anal orifice.”
205
With the claim of the accused that the complainant consented for a fee to the sexual intercourse, and with the foregoing answer of the complainant, would you convict the accused of rape if you were the Judge trying the case? Explain. (1996 Bar Question)
Page
The complainant, an eighteen-year old mental retardate with an intellectual capacity between the ages of nine and twelve years, when asked during the trial how she felt when she was raped by the accused, replied “Masarap, it gave me much pleasure."
bringing her to Quezon City, Roger brought Flordeluna to his house in Cavite where she was detained for two (2) weeks. She was raped for the entire duration of her detention. May Roger be charged and convicted of the crime of rape with serious illegal detention? Explain. (5%) (2000 Bar Question)
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
SUGGESTED ANSWER: Hazing, as defined by law, is an initiation rite or practice as a prerequisite for admission into membership In a fraternity, sorority or organization by placing the recruit, neophyte or applicant in some embarrassing or humiliating situations such as forcing him to do menial, silly, foolish and similar tasks or activities or otherwise subjecting him to physical or psychological suffering or injury. A. What does the law require before initiation rites may be performed? (3%) (2002 Bar Question) SUGGESTED ANSWER: Section 2 of Rep. Act No. 8049 (AntiHazing Law) requires that before hazing or initiation rites may be performed, notice to the school authorities or head of organizations shall be given seven (7) days before the conduct of such rites. The written notice shall indicate (a) the period of the initiation activities, not exceeding three (3) days; (b) the names of those to be subjected to such activities, and (c) an undertaking that no physical violence shall be employed by anybody during such initiation rites. Special law - Child abuse; Special Protection of Children Against Child Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination (RA 7610, as amended)
If Sherly were a minor when she died, would your answer be the same? Explain. (5%) (2005 Bar Question) SUGGESTED ANSWER: If Sherly were a minor when she died, the crimes of homicide and child abuse in violation of Rep. Act 7610 (Special Protection of Children against abuse, exploitation, discrimination and for other purposes), are committed by Jet Matulis, provided Sherly is not less than 12 years old. If Sherly was less than 12 years old then, the crime committed by Matulis is rape (through sexual assault) with Homicide, a special complex crime under Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code. Special law – Special Protection of Children against Child abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination Act – RA 7610; “Child trafficking” A childless couple, A and B, wanted to have a child they could call their own. C, an unwed mother, sold her newborn baby to them. Thereafter, A and B caused their names to be stated in the birth certificate of the child as his parents. This was done in connivance with the doctor who assisted in the delivery of C. What are the criminal liabilities, if any, of the couple A and B, C and the doctor? (2002 Bar Question)
206
A. What is hazing as defined by law? (2%) (2002 Bar Question)
Page
Special law - Rep. Act No. 8049 (AntiHazing Law) – Hazing; initiation rites
On July 1, 2004, Jet Matulis, a pedophile, gave P1,000.00 to Sherly, an orphan and a prostitute and brought her to a motel. He inserted a rusty and oversized vibrator into her vagina with such force that she bled profusely. Jet panicked and fled. Sherly was brought to the hospital and died a few days later because of shock caused by hemorrhage.
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
S. A, with lewd designs, took a 13-year old girl to a nipa hut in his farm and there had sexual intercourse with her. The girl did not offer any resistance because she was infatuated with the man, who was good looking and belonged to a rich and prominent family in the town. What crime, if any, was committed by A? Why? (2%) (2002 Bar Question) SUGGESTED ANSWER: A committed "Child Abuse” under Rep. Act No. 7610. As defined in said law, "child abuse” includes sexual abuse or any act which debases, degrades or demeans the intrinsic worth and dignity of a child as a human being, whose age is below eighteen (18) years. Special penal law – RA 7610 - Child abuse or exploitation, punishable acts Sometime in December, 1992, retired Lt. Col. Agaton, celebrating the first year of his compulsory retirement from the Armed Forces of the Philippines, had in his company a fourteen (14) year-old girl whose parents were killed by the Mt. Pinatubo eruption and being totally orphaned has been living or fending for
SUGGESTED ANSWER: The retired colonel may be charged with child abuse, in violation of Rep. Act 7610, a law providing special protection against child abuse, exploitation, and discrimination. One of the acts of child abuse or exploitation penalized under Article VI of RA 7610 is that of keeping company of a minor who is ten (10) years or more younger than the offender in a hotel, motel, beer house, disco joint, pension house, cabaret, sauna or massage parlor, beach resort, and similar places. Considering that Lt Col. Agaton is a retiree pursuant to a compulsory retirement, while the child he kept company within a private room in the beach resort, is only 14 years old, there must be an age difference of more than 10 years between them. This fact plus the circumstance that Lt. Col. Agaton stayed with the child, a girl, in one room at such beach resort for two nights, and thereafter he gave her PI,000.00 “for her services", constitutes the very evil punished, among other acts, in said law. The possible defenses Lt. Col. Agaton may interpose are that the child is related to him by affinity, or by consanguinity within the fourth degree, or by a bond recognized in law, or local customs and traditions, or that
207
Special law – Special Protection of Children against Child abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination Act (RA 7610 – “Child abuse,” punishable acts
herself in the streets in Manila. They were alone in one room in a beach resort and stayed there for two (2) nights. No sexual intercourse took place between them. Before they parted, retired Lt. Col. Agaton gave the girl PI,000.00 for her services. She gladly accepted it. What crime may the retired colonel be charged with, if any? Discuss. (1993 Bar Question) What possible defenses can he interpose? Explain. (1993 Bar Question)
Page
SUGGESTED ANSWER: C, the unwed mother is criminally liable for “child trafficking”, a violation of Article IV, Sec. 7 of Rep. Act No. 7610. The law punishes inter alia the act of buying and selling of a child.
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
A. Mrs. MNA was charged of child abuse. It appears from the evidence that she failed to give immediately the required medical attention to her adopted child, BPO, when he was accidentally bumped by her car, resulting in his head injuries and impaired vision that could lead to night blindness. The accused, according to the social worker on the case, used to whip him when he failed to come home on time from school Also, to punish him for carelessness in washing dishes, she sometimes sent him to bed without supper. She moved to quash the charge on the ground that there is no evidence she maltreated her adopted child habitually. She added that the accident was caused by her driver's negligence. She did punish her ward for naughtiness or carelessness, but only mildly. Is her motion meritorious? Reason briefly. (5%) (2004 Bar Question) SUGGESTED ANSWER: No, the motion to quash is not meritorious. It is not necessary that movant's maltreatment of a child be “habitual" to constitute child abuse. The wrongful acts penalized as "Child Abuse" under Rep. Act No. 7610 refers to the maltreatment of the child, "whether habitual or not": this is expressly stated in Sec. 2(b) of the said Law. Mrs. MNA should be liable for child abuse.
Lina worked as a housemaid and yaya of the one-week old son of the spouses John and Joana. When Lina learned that her 70year old mother was seriously ill, she asked John for a cash advance of P20,000.00, but the latter refused. In anger, Lina gagged the mouth of the child with stockings, placed him in a box, sealed it with masking tape, and placed the box in the attic. Lina then left the house and asked her friend Fely to demand a P20,000.00 ransom for the release of the spouses' child to be paid within twenty-four hours. The spouses did not pay the ransom. After a couple of days, John discovered the box in the attic with his child already dead. According to the autopsy report, the child died of asphyxiation barely minutes after the box was sealed. What crime or crimes, if any, did Lina and Fely commit? Explain. (5%) (2016 BAR) Lina is liable for murder. Gagging the mouth of the child with stockings, placing him in a box, sealing it with masking tape, and placed the box in the attice were only methods employed by the defendant in committing murder qualified by the circumstance of treachery (People v. Lora, GR No, L-49430, 30 March 1982). Taking advantage of the defenseless condition of the victim by reason of his tender age in killing him is treachery (People v. Fallorina, GR No. 137347, 4 March 2004). She is not liable for kidnapping with murder, the essence of which is the actual confinement or restraint of the victim or the deprivation of his liberty. In this case, the victim was not deprived of liberty since he immediately died. The demand for ransom did not covert the offense in to kidnapping with murder. The defendant was well aware that the child would be suffocated to death in a
208
Special law –Republic Act No. 7610 – Child abuse; maltreatment, punishable acts
ART.248-Murder
Page
he was only acting in pursuance of a moral, social, or legal duty (Sec. 10(b), Art. VI. RA 7610).
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
few moments after she left. The demand for ransom is only a part of the diabolic scheme of the defendant to murder the child, to conceal his body and then demand money before the discovery of the cadaver (People v. Lora, supra). Fely is not liable for murder as principal or accomplice. Since Fely did not participate in the actual killing of the child, she can only be held liable for murder as principal or accomplice on the basis of conspiracy or community of design. But in this case, there is neither conspiracy nor community of design to commit murder since her criminal intention pertains to kidnapping for ransom. Moreover, her participation of demanding ransom for the release of the child is not connected to murder. Neither is Fely liable for kidnapping for ransom. Her criminal mind to assist Lina in committing kidnapping for ransom is not constitutive of a felony. Mens rea without actus reus is not a crime. ART.247 and 333 Jojo and Felipa are husband and wife. Believing that his work as a lawyer is sufficient to provide for the needs of their family, Jojo convinced Felipa to be a stay at- home mom and care for their children. One day, Jojo arrived home earlier than usual and caught Felipa in the act of having sexual intercourse with their female nanny, Alma, in their matrimonial bed. In a fit of rage, Jojo retrieved his revolver from inside the bedroom cabinet and shot Alma, immediately killing her.
SUGGESTED ANSWER No. Art. 247 of the Revised Penal Code is not applicable. Under the Revised Penal Code, for Art. 247 to apply, the offender must catch his or her spouse in the act of committing sexual intercourse with another person. In People of the Philippines v. Marciano Gonzales (G.R. No. 46310, 31 October 1939), the Supreme Court held that to avail of the privilege under Art. 247, the accused should surprise his wife in the “very act of sexual intercourse”. Sexual intercourse generally presupposes the penetration of the man’s sexual organ into that of a woman’s. In this case, the paramour was of the same gender as the erring spouse. As such, there is legally, no sexual intercourse to speak of, hence, Art. 247 is not applicable. b] Is Felipa liable for adultery for having sexual relations with Alma? (2.5%) SUGGESTED ANSWER No. Under Article 333 of the Revised Penal Code, adultery is committed by any married woman who shall have sexual intercourse with a “man” not her husband, Thus, Felipa in having homosexual intercourse with Alma, a “woman”, is not committing adultery.
CRIMES AGAINST PERSONAL LIBERTY AND SECURITY AND SECURITY
Page
Angelino, a Filipino, is a transgender who underwent gender reassignment and had implants in different parts of her body. She changed her name to Angelina and was a finalist in the Miss Gay International. She
209
ART.267 [a] Is Art. 247 (death or physical injuries inflicted under exceptional circumstances) of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) applicable in this case given that the paramour was of the same gender as the erring spouse? (2.5%) (2016 BAR)
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
Having sexual intercourse with Angelino is not rape through sexual intercourse since the victim in this crime must be a woman. This act is not rape through sexual assault either, Razzy did not insert his penis into the anal orifice or mouth of Angelino or an instrument or object into the latter’s anal orifice or genital orifice, hence this act constitutes acts of lasciviousness under Art. 336. Since the acts of lasciviousness is committed by reason or on occasion of kidnapping, it will be integrated into one and indivisible felony of kidnapping with homicide (People v. De Leon, GR No. 179943, June 26, 2009; People v. Jugueta, GR No. 202124, April 05, 2016; People v. Laog, GR No. 178321,
ART. 267 - KIDNAPPING AND SERIOUS ILLEGAL DETENTION; RELEASE OF VICTIM, NOT ABSOLUTORY B. DAN, a private individual, kidnapped CHU, a minor. On the second day, DAN released CHU even before any criminal information was filed against him. At the trial of his case, DAN raised the defense that he did not incur any criminal liability since he released the child before the lapse of the 3-day period and before criminal proceedings for kidnapping were instituted. Will DAN’S defense prosper? Reason briefly. (5%) (2004 Bar Question) SUGGESTED ANSWER: B. No. DAN's defense will not prosper. Voluntary release by the offender of the offended party in kidnapping is not absolutory. Besides, such release is irrelevant and immaterial in this case because the victim being a minor, the crime committed is kidnapping and serious illegal detention under Art. 267, Revised Penal Code, to which such circumstance does not apply. The circumstance may be appreciated only in the crime of Slight Illegal Detention in Art. 268 Asistio v. San Diego 10 SCRA 673 [1964D]
210
Razzy is liable for kidnapping with homicide. Abducting Angelino is not forcible abduction since the victim in this crime must be a woman. Gender reassignment will not make him a woman within the meaning of Art. 342 of the RPC. There is no showing, moreover, that at the time of abduction is committed with lewd design; hence, his abduction constitutes illegal detention. Since Angelino was killed in the course of the detention, the crime constitutes kidnapping and serious illegal detention with homicide under Art. 267.
October 5, 2011; People v. Larranaga, 138874-75, February 3, 2004). Max is liable for kidnapping with homicide as an accomplice since he concurred in the criminal design of Razzy in depriving Angelino his liberty and supplied the former material aid in an efficacious way by helping him beat the latter.
Page
came back to the Philippines and while she was walking outside her home, she was abducted by Max and Razzy who took her to a house in the province. She was then placed in a room and Razzy forced her to have sex with him at knife's point. After the act, it dawned upon Razzy that Angelina is actually a male. Incensed, Razzy called Max to help him beat Angelina. The beatings that Angelina received eventually caused her death. What crime or crimes, if any, were committed? Explain. (5%) (2016 BAR) SUGGESTED ANSWER
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
ART.315- Val, a Nigerian, set up a perfume business in the Philippines. The investors would buy the raw materials at a low price from Val. The raw materials consisted of powders, which the investors would mix with water and let stand until a gel was formed. Val made a written commitment to the investors that he would buy back the gel at a higher price, thus assuring the investors of a neat profit. When the amounts to be paid by Val to the investors reached millions of pesos, he sold all the equipment of his perfume business, absconded with the money, and is nowhere to be found. What crime or crimes were committed, if any? Explain. (5%) (2016 BAR)
SUGGESTED ANSWER The crime committed in estafa through false pretenses (Art. 315 par. 2(a)). Val defrauded the investors by falsely pretending to possess business or imaginary transactions. The fact that he sold all the equipment of his perfume business, and absconded with the money when the amounts to be paid by him to the investors reached millions of pesos shows that the transaction or his business is imaginary, and he defrauded the victims.
ART. 308 and 3015-EstafaDomingo is the caretaker of two (2) cows and two (2) horses owned by Hannibal. Hannibal told Domingo to lend the cows to Tristan on the condition that the latter will give a goat to the former when the cows are returned. Instead, Tristan sold the cows
and pocketed the money. Due to the neglect of Domingo, one of the horses was stolen. Knowing that he will be blamed for the loss, Domingo slaughtered the other horse, got the meat, and sold it to Pastor. He later reported to Hannibal that the two horses were stolen. [a] What crime or crimes, if any, did Tristan commit? Explain. (2.5%) (2016 BAR) SUGGESTED ANSWER Tristan is liable for Estafa through Misappropriation under Art. 315 of the RPC. He received the cows under obligation involving the duty to return the same thing deposited, and acquired legal or juridical possession in so doing, since their transaction is a commodatum. Selling the cows as if he owned it constitutes misappropriation or conversion within the contemplation of Art. 315. [b] What crime or crimes, if any, were committed by Domingo? Explain. (2.5%) SUGGESTED ANSWER Domingo is liable for qualified theft under Art. 308 of the RPC. Although Tristan received the horse with the consent of the owner, Hannibal, his possession is merely physical or de facto since the former is an employee of the latter. Slaughtering the horse, which he physically possessed, and selling its meat to Pastor shall be considered as taking without consent of the owner with intent to gain, which constitutes theft (Balerta v. People, GR No. 205144, 26 November 2014). Since the horse is accessible to him, the theft is qualified by the circumstance of abuse of confidence (Yangco v. People, GR No. 209373, 30 July 2014).
211
AGAINST
Page
CRIMES PROPERTY
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
A. An armed band tried to stop a passenger bus, and the driver who sensed that the band might commit robbery, did not stop the bus but drove it faster. The members of the band then fired at the bus, killing one passenger who was hit in the head. B. As the malefactor were about to enter the house of A, the latter hid himself inside the ceiling. Once inside the house, the malefactor took from A’s wife cash and pieces of jewelry. One of the malefactors stood on a table and fired his gun at the ceiling. After they had left A’s wife called for him and receiving no answer, she went up the ceiling and found him already dead. What crime was committed? Explain. (1988 Bar Question) C. In the course of robbery there was confusion and in the exchange of shots between the robbers and the victims, one of the robbers happened to shoot one of his own companions. What crime was committed? Explain. (1988 Bar Question)
B. Robbery with homicide was committed by the malefactors. Article 297 of the Revised Penal Code provides that “Attempted and frustrated robbery committed under certain circumstances.— When by reason...of an attempted or frustrated robbery a homicide is committed the person guilty of such offenses shall be punished by reclusion temporal. . C. The robber committed the crime of robbery with homicide in violation of Article 297 of the Revised Penal Code which provides that “ ... when ... on the occasion of an attempted robbery a homicide is committed the person guilty of such offenses shall be punished by reclusion temporal.
Art 308: Who are liable for theft Fe is the manager of a rice mill in Bulacan. In order to support a gambling debt, Fe made it appear that the rice mill was earning less than it actually was by writing in a "talaan" or ledger a figure lower than what was collected and paid by their customers. Fe then pocketed the difference. What crime/s did Fe commit, if any? Explain your answer. (2007 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER: SUGGESTED ANSWER:
212
Art. 297 Robbery with homicide
A. They committed the crime of attempted robbery with homicide with band as a generic aggravating circumstance. Article 297 of the Revised Penal Code provides that “Attempted... robbery committed under certain circumstances.— When on the occasion of an attempted robbery a homicide is committed the person guilty of such offenses shall be punished by reclusion temporal
Page
Further, Domingo committed the crime of violation of the Anti-Cattle Rustling Law of 1974 (PD No. 533). Cattle rustling is the taking away by any means, method or scheme, without the consent of the owner/raiser, of large cattle, which includes cows and horses, whether or not for profit or gain, or whether committed with or without violence against or intimidation of any person or force upon things. It includes the killing of large cattle, or taking its meat or hide without the consent of the owner/raiser.
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
Malo, a clerk of court of a trial court, promised the accused in a drug case pending before the court, that he would convince the judge to acquit him for a consideration of P5 million. The accused agreed and delivered the money, through his lawyer, to the clerk of court. The judge, not knowing of the deal, proceeded to rule on the evidence and convicted the accused. (2014 BAR) b. Art 315: Malo was charged with estafa under Article 315 because he misrepresented that he had influence, when he actually had none. Is the charge correct? Answer: Yes, estafa is committed by any person who shall ask for money from another for the alleged purpose of bribing a government employee when in truth the offender intended to convert the money to his own personal use and benefit (Art. 315(2)(c), RPC).
AGAINST
ART.336 in rel to RA 7610Braulio invited Lulu, his 11-year old stepdaughter, inside the master bedroom. He pulled out a knife and threatened her with harm unless she submitted to his desires. He was touching her chest and sex organ when his wife caught him in the act. The prosecutor is unsure whether to charge Braulio for acts of lasciviousness under Art. 336 of the RPC; for lascivious conduct under RA 7610 (Special Protection against Child Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination Act); or for rape under Art. 266-A of the RPC. What is the crime committed? Explain. (5%) (2016 BAR) The acts of Braulio of touching the chest and sex organ of Lulu, who is under 12 years of age, are merely acts of lasciviousness and not attempted rape because intent to have sexual intercourse is not clearly shown (People v. Banzuela, GR No. 202060,11 December 2013). To be held liable of attempted rape, it must be shown that the erectile penis is in the position to penetrate (Cruz v. People GR no. 166441, 8 October 2014) or the offender actually commenced to force his penis into the victim’s sexual organ (People v. Banzuela, supra). The same acts of touching the chest and sex organ of Lulu under psychological coercion or influence of her stepfather, Braulio constitutes sexual abuse under Sec. 5 (b) of RA No. 7610 (People v. Optana, GR No. 133922, 12 February 2001). Since the requisites for acts of lasciviousness under Art. 336 of the RPC are met, in addition to the requisites for sexual abuse under Sec. 5 of RA No. 7610, and the victim is under 12 years of age,
213
Art 315: Swindling
CRIMES CHASTITY
Page
The crimes committed by Fe are theft and falsification of private document because Fe’s possession of the proceeds of the rice mill was only physical, not juridical, possession, and having committed the crimes with grave abuse of confidence, it is qualified theft. The falsification is a separate crime from the theft because it was not committed as a necessary means to commit the theft but resorted to only to hide or conceal the unlawful taking.
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
[a] Is Art. 247 (death or physical injuries inflicted under exceptional circumstances) of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) applicable in this case given that the paramour was of the same gender as the erring spouse? (2.5%) SUGGESTED ANSWER No. Art. 247 of the Revised Penal Code is not applicable. Under the Revised Penal Code, for Art. 247 to apply, the offender must catch his or her spouse in the act of committing sexual intercourse with another person. In People of the Philippines v. Marciano Gonzales (G.R. No. 46310, 31 October 1939), the Supreme Court held that to avail
In this case, the paramour was of the same gender as the erring spouse. As such, there is legally, no sexual intercourse to speak of, hence, Art. 247 is not applicable. b] Is Felipa liable for adultery for having sexual relations with Alma? (2.5%) (2016 BAR) SUGGESTED ANSWER No. Under Article 333 of the Revised Penal Code, adultery is committed by any married woman who shall have sexual intercourse with a “man” not her husband, Thus, Felipa in having homosexual intercourse with Alma, a “woman”, is not committing adultery.
CRIMES AGAINST THE CIVIL STATUS OF PERSONS CRIMES AGAINST HONOR ART.353-Libel-A is the president of the corporate publisher of the daily tabloid, Bulgar; B is the managing editor; and C is the author/writer. In his column, Direct Hit, C wrote about X, the head examiner of the BIR-RDO Manila as follows: "Itong si X ay talagang BUWAYA kaya ang logo ng Lacoste T shirt niya ay napaka suwapang na buwaya. Ang nickname niya ay si Atty. Buwaya. Ang PR niya ay 90% sa bayad ng taxpayer at ang para sa RP ay
214
ART.247 and 333--Jojo and Felipa are husband and wife. Believing that his work as a lawyer is sufficient to provide for the needs of their family, Jojo convinced Felipa to be a stay at- home mom and care for their children. One day, Jojo arrived home earlier than usual and caught Felipa in the act of having sexual intercourse with their female nanny, Alma, in their matrimonial bed. In a fit of rage, Jojo retrieved his revolver from inside the bedroom cabinet and shot Alma, immediately killing her.
of the privilege under Art. 247, the accused should surprise his wife in the “very act of sexual intercourse”. Sexual intercourse generally presupposes the penetration of the man’s sexual organ into that of a woman’s.
Page
Braulio shall be prosecuted for acts of lasciviousness under the RPC but the penalty imposable is that prescribed by RA No. 7610 (Amployo v. People, GR No. 157718, 26 April 2005). Under Sec. 5 (b) of RA No. 7610, when the victim (child subjected to sexual abuse) is under 12 years of age, the perpetrators shall be prosecuted (for acts of lasciviousness) under Art. 336 of the RPC, provided, that the penalty for lascivious conduct when the victim is under 12 years of age shall be reclusion temporal in its medium period.
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
Was the crime of libel committed? If so, are A, B, and C all liable for the crime? Explain. (5%) (2016 BAR)
Yes. The crime of libel is committed. Fair comment on acts of public officers related to the discharge of their duties is a qualified privileged communication, hence, the accused can still be held liable for libel if actual malice is shown. In fair comment, actual malice can be established by showing that comment was made with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not (Guingguing v. the Honorable Court of Appeals, GR No. 128959, 30 September 2005). Journalists bear the burden of writing responsibly when practicing their profession, even when writing about public figures or matters of public interest. The report made by C describing a lawyer in the Bureau of Customs as corrupt cannot be considered as “fair” and “true” since he did not do research before making his allegations, and it has been shown that these allegations were baseless. The articles are not “fair and true reports,” but merely wild accusations. He has written and published the subject articles with
ART.355-Crimes against honor - libel by theatrical exhibition In the course of proceeding during a socalled “public hearing held before a crowd in a place open to the public, the leaders of the meeting “tried” certain public officials and thereafter “sentenced” them to “death by assassination or ambuscades.” Are the leaders criminally liable? Decide the case. (1988 Bar Question) SUGGESTED ANSWER: The leaders are criminally liable for the crime of libel by theatrical exhibition. Article 355 of the Revised Penal Code provides: “libel by means of writing or similar means.— A libel committed by means of writing, printing lithography, engraving, radio, phornographs, painting, theatrical exhibition, cinematographic exhibition, or any similar means, shall be punished by prision correctional ART.358-Crimes against honor - slander or slight defamation A. Romeo Cunanan, publisher of the Baguio Daily, was sued by Pedro Aguas for libel for the public publication of his picture
215
A, B and C were charged with libel before the RTC of Manila. The three (3) defendants argued that the article is within the ambit of qualified privileged communication; that there is no malice in law and in fact; and, that defamatory comments on the acts of public officials which are related to the discharge of their official duties do not constitute libel.
reckless disregard of whether the same were false or not (Erwin Tulfo v. People, GR No. 161032, 16 September 2008). A, president of the publishing company, B, managing editor, and C, writer of the defamatory articles, are all liable for libel. Under Art. 360 of the RPC, the publisher, and editor of newspaper, shall be responsible for the defamation contained therein to the same extent. The law makes the publisher and editor liable for libel as if they were the author (Tulfo v. People, supra).
Page
10% lang. Kaya ang baba ng collection ng RDO niya. Masyadong magnanakaw si X at dapat tanggalin itong bundat na bundat na buwaya na ito at napakalaki na ng kurakot."
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
B. For some time, bad blood had existed beween the two families of Maria Razon and Judge Gadioma who were neighbors. First, there w&s a boundary dispute between them which was still pending in court. Maria’s mother also filed an administrative complaint against the judge which was however dismissed. The Razons also felt intimidated by the position and alleged influence of their neighbor. Fanning fire to the situation was the practice of the Gadiomas of throwing garbage and animal excrement into the Razon’s premises. In an explosion of anger, Maria called Judge Gadioma “land grabber'*, “shameless”, and “hypocrite." What crime was committed by Maria, if any? Explain briefly. (1988 Bar Question) SUGGESTED ANSWER: A. The publication is not defamatory because the element of intent to defame is absent. This is a mere announcement and does not carry any implication. B. Maria committed the crime of slander or slight defamation only because she was under the influence of anger. When Maria called Judge Gadioma a hypocrite and land grabber she imputed to him the commission of crimes. ART. 355, 358-Crimes against honor – Libel or slander
SUGGESTED ANSWER: I would grant the motion to quash on the ground that the facts charged do not constitute an offense, since there is no definite person or persons dishonored. The crime of libel or slander, is a crime against honor such that the person or persons dishonored must be identifiable even by innuendoes: otherwise the crime against honor is not committed. Moreover, A was not making a malicious imputation, but merely stating an opinion; he was delivering a lecture with no malice at all during a seminar workshop. Malice being inherently absent in the utterance, the statement is not actionable as defamatory. ART.355- Crimes against honor - Libel In an interview aired on television, Cindee uttered defamatory statements against Erika, a successful and reputable businesswoman.
216
Is the publication defamatory? Explain briefly. (1988 Bar Question)
During a seminar workshop attended by government employees from the Bureau of Customs and the Bureau of Internal Revenue, A, the speaker, in the course of his lecture, lamented the fact that a great majority of those serving in said agencies were utterly dishonest and corrupt. The following morning, the whole group of employees in the two bureaus who attended the seminar, as complainants, filed a criminal complaint against A for uttering what the group claimed to be defamatory statements of the lecturer. In court, A filed a motion to quash the information, reciting fully the above facts, on the ground that no crime were committed. If you were the judge, how would you resolve the motion? (2003 Bar Question)
Page
with the notice that: “This is to inform the public that Mr. Pedro Aguas whose picture appears above has ceased to be connected with the Sincere Insurance Company as underwriter as of December 31, 1987. Any transaction entered into by him after said date will not be honored.”
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
Cindee committed libel. Defamation made in a television program is penalized as libel under Art. 355 of the Revised Penal Code. Televison falls under “similar means" in the enumeration as “radio phonograph, theatrical exhibition, cinematographic exhibition, or any similar means" in said Article. [People v. Casten, et al.t CJL G.R. No. 07924 - CR., Dec. 13, 1974) ART.355-Crimes against honor – Proof of truth in the crime of libel TRUE or FALSE. Answer TRUE if the statement is true, or FALSE if the statement is false. Explain your answer in not more than two (2) sentences. (5%) (2009 Bar Question) In the crime of libel, truth is an absolute defense. SUGGESTED ANSWER: False. Article 361 of the RPC provides that proof of truth shall be admissible in libel cases only if the same imputes a crime or is made against a public officer with respect to facts related to the discharge of their official duties, and moreover must have been published with good motives and for justifiable ends. Hence, "truth" as a defense, on its own, is not enough. ART.355-Crimes against honor – Libel by means of writings or similar means Angeline maintains a website where visitors can give their comments on the posted pictures of the goods she sells in her exclusive boutique. Bettina posted a comment that the red Birkin bag shown in
SUGGESTED ANSWER: I will advise Angelina to file a criminal case of libel against Bettina because the imputations made by Bettina is libelous. Whether the imputation of a defect, status, or condition is real or imaginary, if it publicly tends to discredit, dishonor or place in contempt or ridicule a particular person who is identified, the imputation is presumed by law to be malicious and thus penalized as libel under Art 355 of the Revised Penal Code. Moreover, if Bettina is engaged in similar line of trade, her statement against the goods sold by Angelina may constitute a violation of the law on Unfair Competition (Rep. Act No. 8291.) ART.358-Crimes against honor - grave oral defamation; light slander Lando and Marco are candidates in the local elections. In his speeches Lando attacked his opponent Marco alleging that he is the son of Nanding, a robber and a thief who amassed his wealth through shady deals. May Marco file a case against Lando for grave oral defamation? State your reasons. (1990 Bar Question) Suppose Marco also delivered a speech stating therein that he had charged Lando of estafa through falsification in the Tanodbayan so much so that since his (Lando's) integrity is doubtful he should not be elected. May Marco also be held liable
217
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Angelina’s website is fake and that Angelina is known to sell counterfeit items. Angelina wants to file a case against Bettina. She seeks your advice. What advice will you give her? (4%) (2010 Bar Question)
Page
What crime or crimes did Cindee commit? Explain. (3%) (2005 Bar Question)
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
for grave oral defamation? State your reasons. (1990 Bar Question)
offended party. The individual defamed or slandered was not singled out (People vs. Uy Tioco, 32 Phil. 624).
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
ART.358-Crimes against honor - Oral defamation or slander Because of a pendency of a labor dispute, two (2) belligerent labor unions had a confrontation in a picket line during which the President and the Secretary of one union shouted to the members and officers of the rival union composed of men and women, the following: “Mga supot, mga walang bayag, mga kabit ng Intsik, mga tuta, mga segunda mano." Are the President and the Secretary of said union liable for oral defamation/slander? Explain. SUGGESTED ANSWER: No. The President and the Secretary of the Union are not liable for oral defamation or slander because there is no identity of the
SUGGESTED ANSWER: I will acquit the concerned citizens and the newspapers Involved, from the crime of libel, because obviously they made the denunciation out of a moral or social duty and thus there is absence of malice. Since A was a candidate for a very important public position of a Department Secretary, his moral, mental and physical fitness for the public trust in such position becomes a public concern as the interest of the public is at stake. It is pursuant to such
218
No, Marco cannot be held liable for grave oral defamation considering that Lando was merely stating what appears in a public record, referring to the exercise of a legal right to file suit. Moreover, his statement against Marco pertains to a person who is running for public office wherein a wider latitude is given.
A was nominated Secretary of a Department in the Executive Branch of the government. His nomination was thereafter submitted to the Commission on Appointments for confirmation. While the Commission was considering the nomination, a group of concerned citizens caused to be published in the newspapers a full-page statement objecting to A's appointment. They alleged that A was a drug dependent, that he had several mistresses, and that he was corrupt, having accepted bribes or favors from parties transacting business in his previous office, and therefore he was unfit for the position to which he had been nominated. As a result of the publication, the nomination was not confirmed by the Commission on Appointments. The official sued the concerned citizens and the newspapers for libel and damages on account of his nonconfirmation. How will you decide the case? (3%) (2002 Bar Question)
Page
Marco cannot file a case for grave oral defamation. If at all, he may file a case for light slander. In the case of People v. Laroga (40 O.G. 123), it was held that defamation in a political meeting, when feelings are running high and people could not think clearly, only amount to light slander.
ART.353-Crimes against honor – Libel; publication in the newspapers; broadcast over the radio
Distinguish clearly but briefly: (10%) (2004 Bar Question) Between oral defamation and criminal conversation.
Office a complaint for slander by deed against Maria. After preliminary investigation, the Fiscal forgot all about the case until the 179th day, which was a Saturday, from the commission of the crime. Since the following day was a Sunday, the fiscal filed the information in court on Monday, the 181st day from the commission of the crime. After trial, the Judge convicted Maria. She engaged another lawyer who on appeal asserted that the crime of slander by deed had prescribed because it was filed in court one day after the six-month period of prescription under Art. 90 of the Revised Penal Code. The Fiscal argued that since the 180th day fell on a Sunday, he could file the information the following Monday. He also said that, in any event, Maria waived the defense of prescription because she did not raise it during the trial of case.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Decide the case. (1987 Bar Question)
Oral defamation, known as slander, is a malicious imputation of any act, omission, condition or circumstance against a person, done orally in public, tending to cause dishonor, discredit, contempt, embarrassment or ridicule to the latter. This is a crime against honor penalized in Art. 358 of the Revised Penal Code.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
If defamatory imputations are made not by publication in the newspapers but by broadcast over the radio, do they constitute libel? Why? (2%) (2002 Bar Question) SUGGESTED ANSWER: Yes, because libel may be committed by radio broadcast Article 355 of the Revised Penal Code punishes libel committed by means, among others, of radio broadcast, Inasmuch as the broadcast made by radio is public and may be defamatory. ART.358-Crimes against honor - Slander
Criminal conversation. The term is used in making a polite reference to sexual intercourse as in certain crimes, like rape, seduction and adultery. It has no definite concept as a crime ART.359-Crimes against honor - slander by deed Maria called Lydia names and slapped her at the dance floor in the presence of many people because she suspected that Lydia was flirting with her boyfriend. The following day, Lydia filed with the Fiscal’s
The crime of slander by deed has already prescribed as it was tiled one day after the six month period of prescription. The rule is if the last day of the period of prescription of a crime falls on a Sunday, as in the problem, the information cannot be filed on the next working day, which is Monday as that will lengthen the period of prescription, which will not be favorable to the accused. (Japdiangco vs. Bartolome 122 SCRA 713) The contention of the Fiscal that Maria waived the defense of prescription because she did not raise it during the trial of die case is untenable. It has already been settled that prescription, although not raised in the trial may be invoked on appeal. (People vs. Balagtas 105 Phil. 1362; People vs. Castro 95 Phil 462).
Page
concern that the denunciation was made; hence, bereft of malice.
219
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
During a concert of Gary V., and in order to prevent the crowd from rushing to the stage, Rafael Padilla (a security guard) pointed his gun at the onrush of people. When the crowd still pushed forward, Rafael fired his gun into the air to scare them off. However, the bullet hit one of the metal roof supports, ricocheted and then hit one of the stage crew members, causing injuries which resulted in the latter's confinement in a hospital for twelve days. What crime/ s did Rafael commit? Explain your answer (2007 Bar Question) SUGGESTED ANSWER: The crime committed by Rafael is Simple Negligence Resulting in Less Serious Physical Injuries. Rafael is a security guard and was on duty when he discharged the firearm. The discharge of the firearm was not calculated to cause alarm or danger but simply to ward off the unruly crowd which persisted in pushing forward, thereby challenging the duty he was to fulfill there. The discharge of the firearm, therefore, should neither constitute a crime of Alarms and Scandal under Art. 155 of the Revised Penal Code nor may such discharge amount to a crime of Illegal Discharge of Firearms under Art. 254 of the Code since it was not directed towards a particular person when the firearm was discharged. However, the physical injuries resulting from the discharge of the firearm betrays a lack of precaution in a situation where the
ART. 365-Criminal negligence – Reckless imprudence resulting in homicide Eddie brought his son Randy to a local faithhealer known as "Mother Himala." He was diagnosed by the faithhealer as being possessed by an evil spirit. Eddie thereupon authorized the conduct of a "treatment" calculated to drive the "spirit" from the boy's body. Unfortunately, the procedure conducted resulted in the boy's death. The faithhealer and three others who were part of the healing ritual were charged with murder and convicted by the lower court. If you were the appellate court Justice, would you sustain the conviction upon appeal? Explain your answer. SUGGESTED ANSWER: No, the conviction for murder should not be sustained, because there is no indication that the accused acted with intent to kill Randy. On the contrary, the facts show that the accused acted to "treat" the victim in a way of driving the evil spirit which was believed to have "possessed" him. Considering that proximate cause of the victim's death was the healing ritual done by the accused which is, not recognized in law as legitimate, the accused are criminally liable for the victim's death. As they may have overdone the "healing ritual" they conducted on the victim's body, causing the latter's death, although the
220
ART. 365-Criminal negligence - Simple Negligence Resulting in Less Serious Physical Injuries; Simple Imprudence Resulting in Less Serious Physical Injuries; Reckless imprudence resulting in less serious physical injuries
danger to the discharge of the firearm is not clearly manifest, thus considered as simple imprudence only. The crime committed is Simple Imprudence Resulting In Less Serious Physical Injuries, since the physical injuries required only twelve (12) days of medical attention.
Page
QUASI-OFFENSES
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
Olimpio caught a cold and was running a fever. His doctor prescribed paracetamol. Olimpio went to a drug store with the prescription, and the pharmacist sold him three (3) tablets. Upon arriving home, he took a tablet. One hour later, he had a seizure and died. The autopsy showed that the tablet he had taken was not paracetamol but a pill to which he was allergic. The pharmacist was charged with murder. Is the charge proper? If not, what should it be? Explain. (6%) (2008 Bar Question) SUGGESTED ANSWER: The pharmacist committed a serious mistake. But the mistake could not characterize the death as murder because the specific intent to kill the victim was absent. The pharmacist could not be liable for murder. The pharmacist should be charged instead with reckless imprudence resulting in homicide (Art. 365, RPC) because Olimpio's death was the result of the pharmacist's serious negligence or imprudence as there is no specific intent to kill and no requisite qualifying circumstance.
SPECIAL PENAL LAWS SPECIAL LAW-R.A 9262 Romeo and Julia have been married for twelve (12) years and had two (2) children. The first few years of their marriage went
One night, Romeo came home drunk and went straight to bed. Fearing the onset of another violent fight, Julia stabbed Romeo while he was asleep. A week later, their neighbors discovered Romeo's rotting corpse on the marital bed. Julia and the children were nowhere to be found. Julia was charged with parricide. She asserted "battered woman's syndrome" as her defense. [a] Explain the "cycle (2.5%)(2016 BAR)
of
violence."
The battered woman syndrome is characterized by the so-called “cycle of violence,” which has three phases: (1) the tension building phase; (2) the acute battering incident; and (3) the tranquil, loving (or, at least, nonviolent) phase. During the tension-building phase, minor battering occurs- it could be verbal or slight physical abuse or another form of hostile behavior. The woman tries to pacify the batterer through a kind, nurturing behavior; or by simply staying out of his way. The acute battering incident is
221
ART. 365-Criminal negligence – Reckless imprudence resulting in homicide
along smoothly. However, on the fifth year onwards, they would often quarrel when Romeo comes home drunk. The quarrels became increasingly violent, marked by quiet periods when Julia would leave the conjugal dwelling. During these times of quiet, Romeo would "court" Julia with flowers and chocolate and convince her to return home, telling her that he could not live without her; or Romeo would ask Julia to forgive him, which she did, believing that if she humbled herself, Romeo would change. After a month of marital bliss, Romeo would return to his drinking habit and the quarrel would start again, verbally at first, until it would escalate to physical violence.
Page
intent to kill was absent, the accused may be held criminally liable for Reckless Imprudence Resulting in Homicide.
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
Yes. Under Sec. 3 (c) of RA No. 9262, “Battered Woman Syndrome” refers to a scientifically defined pattern of psychological and behavioral symptoms found in women living in battering relationships as a result of “cumulative abuse”. Under Sec. 3 (b), “Battery” refers to an act of inflicting physical harm upon the woman or her child resulting in physical and psychological or emotional distress (Sec. 3). In sum, the defense of Battered Woman Syndrome can be invoked if the woman in a marital relationship with the victim is subjected to cumulative abuse or battery involving the infliction of physical harm resulting to the physical and psychological or emotional distress. Cumulative means resulting from successive addition. In sum, there must be “at least two battering episodes” between the accused and her intimate partner and such final episode produced in the battered person’s mind an actual fear of an imminent harm from her batterer and an honest belief that she needed to use force in order to save her life (People v. Genosa, GR No. 135981, 15 January 2004). In this case, because of the battering episodes, Julia, feared the onset
SPECIAL LAW- RA 9165Dimas was arrested after a valid buy-bust operation. Macario, the policeman who acted as poseur-buyer, inventoried and photographed ten (10) sachets of shabu in the presence of a barangay tanod. The inventory was signed by Macario and the tanod, but Dimas refused to sign. As Macario was stricken with flu the day after, he was able to surrender the sachets to the PNP Crime Laboratory only after four (4) days. During pre-trial, the counsel de oficio of Dimas stipulated that the substance contained in the sachets examined by the forensic chemist is in fact methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu. Dimas was convicted of violating Section 5 of RA 9165. On appeal, Dimas questioned the admissibility of the evidence because Macario failed to observe the requisite "chain of custody" of the alleged "shabu" seized from him. On behalf of the State, the Solicitor General claimed that despite non-compliance with some requirements, the prosecution was able to show that the integrity of the substance was preserved. Moreover, even with some deviations from the requirements, the counsel of Dimas stipulated that the substance seized from
222
[b] Is Julia's "battered woman's syndrome" defense meritorious? Explain. (2.5%)
of another violent fight and honestly believed the need to defend herself even if Romeo had not commenced an unlawful aggression. Even in the absence of unlawful aggression, however, Battered Woman Syndrome is a defense. Under Sec. 27 of RA No. 9262, Battered Woman Syndrome is a defense notwithstanding the absence of any of the elements for justifying circumstances of self-defense under the RPC such as unlawful aggression (Sec. 26 of RA No. 9262).
Page
characterized by brutality, destructiveness and, sometimes, death. The battered woman deems this incident as unpredictable, yet also inevitable. During this phase, she has no control; only the batterer may put an end to the violence. The final phase of the cycle of violence begins when the acute battering incident ends. During this tranquil period, the couple experience profound relief.
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
Dimas was shabu so that the conviction should be affirmed. [a] What is the "chain of custody" requirement in drug offenses? (2.5%) (2016 BAR)
elected public official who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof and within twenty-four (24) hours upon such confiscation, the drug shall be submitted to the PDEA Forensic Laboratory for examination. [b] Rule on the contention of the State. (2.5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER SUGGESTED ANSWER
SPECIAL LAW– RA 6805; Instances of legal use of an alias by a Filipino citizen When can a Filipino citizen residing in this country use an alias legally? Give 3 instances. 2.5% (2006 Bar Question) SUGGESTED ANSWER: Yes, an alias may be legally used a. as a pseudonym in cinema and other entertainment field;
223
To establish the first link in the chain of custody, and that is the seizure of the drug from the accused, the prosecution must comply with Sec. 21 of RA No. 9165, which requires that the apprehending officer after the confiscation of drug must immediately physically inventory and photograph the same in the presence of the accused or the person from whom such items were confiscated, or his representative or counsel, a representative from the media and the DOJ, and any
The contention of the State is meritorious. Macario, the policeman failed to comply with Sec. 21 of RA No. 9165 since the inventory and photograph of the drugs was only made in the presence of barangay tanod and the same was not submitted to the PNP Crime Laboratory within 24 hours. The rule is settled that failure to strictly comply with Sec. 21(1), Article II of RA No. 9165 does not necessarily render an accused’s arrest illegal or the items seized or confiscated from him inadmissible. The most important factor is the preservation of the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized item. Moreover, the issue of non-compliance with Sec. 21 of RA No. 9165 cannot be raised for the first time on appeal (People v. Badilla, GR No. 218578, August 31, 2016).
Page
To establish the chain of custody, the prosecution must show the movements of the dangerous drugs from its confiscation up to its presentation in court. The purpose of establishing the chain of custody is to ensure the integrity of the corpus delicti (People v. Magat, GR No. 179939, 29 September 2008). The following links that must be established in the chain of custody in a buy-bust situation are: first, the seizure and marking, if practicable, of the illegal drug recovered from the accused by the apprehending officer; second, the turnover of the illegal drug seized by the apprehending officer to the investigating officer; third, the turnover by the investigating officer of the illegal drug to the forensic chemist for laboratory examination; and fourth, the turnover and submission of the marked illegal drug seized from the forensic chemist to the court (People v. Kamad, GR No. 174198, 29 January 2010).
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
Upon a laboratory examination of the fish seized by the police and agents of the Fisheries Commission, it was indubitably determined that the fish they were selling were caught with the use of explosives. Accordingly, the three vendors were criminally charged with the violation of Section 33 of P.D. 704 which makes it unlawful for any person to knowingly possess, deal in, or sell for profit any fish which have been illegally caught. During the trial, the three vendors claimed that they bought the fish from a fishing boat which they duly identified. The prosecution however claimed that the three vendors should nevertheless be held liable for the offense as they were the ones caught in possession of the fish illegally caught. On the basis of the above facts, if you were the judge, would you convict the three fish vendors? Explain. (1996 Bar Question) SUGGESTED ANSWER: No, I would not convict the three fish vendors if I were the judge. Mere possession of such fish without knowledge of the fact that the same were caught with the use of explosives does not by itself render the seller-possessor criminally liable under P.D. 704. Although the act penalized in said Decree may be a malum prohibitum, the law punishes the possession, dealing in or selling of such fish only when “knowingly" done that the fish were caught
SPECIAL LAW- Pres. Decree Nos. 704 and 1058 - Fishing with the use of explosives; punishable acts Two (2) Philippine National Police (PNP) officers, X and Y, on board on motorboat with Z, a civilian as motorman, arrested A and B who were in a banca, for dynamite fishing. The latter’s banca was towed towards the municipality. On the way, the PNP motorboat was intercepted by a third banca whose occupants, C, D. and E, tried to negotiate for the release of A and B and their banca. The PNP officers refused and instead shouted at C, D, and E that they are all under arrest. Thereupon, C, D, and E simultaneously threw dynamite sticks at the PNP motorboats. The first explosion killed X. A and B also reacted by throwing dynamite at the PNP motorboat: its explosion killed Y and Z. What crime or crimes did A, B, C, D and E commit? (1991 Bar Question) SUGGESTED ANSWER: Firstly, A and B committed a violation of Pres. Decree No. 534 (on illegal fishing) as amended by Pres. Decree Nos. 704 and 1058. Fishing with the use of explosives is punishable under said Decree.
224
SPECIAL LAW– PD 704 – punishable acts
with the use of explosives; hence criminal intent is essential. The claim by the fish vendors that they only bought the fish from fishing boats which they “duly identified", renders their possession of such fish innocent unless the prosecution could prove that they have knowledge that explosives were used in catching such fish, and the accused had knowledge thereof.
Page
b. as a pen name in literary composition or work; c. as a pseudonym in television and radio broadcasting (Ursua v. CA, 256 SCRA 147 11986); RA 6085, Secs. 1 & 2;
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
If you were the lawyer of Estafador, with what crime would you charge the NBI agent? Explain. .(1993 Bar Question) SUGGESTED ANSWER: Violation of RA 7438, defining rights of persons arrested.
[e] For a person who transacts an instrument representing the proceeds of a covered unlawful activity to be liable under the Anti-Money Laundering Act (R.A. 9160, as amended), it must be shown that he has knowledge of the identities of the culprits involved in the commission of the predicate crimes. SUGGESTED ANSWER: False. There is nothing in the law which requires that the accused must know the identities of the culprits involved in the commission of the predicate crimes. To establish liability under RA 9160, it is sufficient that proceeds of an unlawful activity are transacted, making them appear to have originated from legitimate sources.
Special Law. under Republic Act (RA) No. 9160, as amended (Anti- Money Laundering Act)
1. Failure to inform him of his right to counsel and to remain silent (Sec. 4, par. 1); and 2. Prevent an immediate member of his family which includes fiancee, to confer with Estafador (Sec. 4(b)
There being probable cause to believe that certain deposits and investments in a bank are related to an unlawful activity of smuggling by Alessandro as defined under Republic Act (RA) No. 9160, as amended (Anti- Money Laundering Act) an application for an order to allow inquiry into his deposit was filed with the Regional Trial Court.
Special law. RA 9160: Laundering Act
Anti-Money
After hearing the application, the court granted the application and issued a freeze order.
TRUE or FALSE. Answer TRUE if the statement is true, or FALSE if the
Pass upon the correctness of the court’s order. Explain. (3%) (2010 Bar Question)
225
Upon complaint of Baby, NBI agent Cesar invited estafador to the NBI headquarters where Cesar showed to Estafador the sworn complaint of Baby for estafa. He thereafter began questioning Estafador who told him that he (Estafador) is willing to submit to an Investigation since he has nothing to hide. Thereupon, Cesar got a typewriter and took down the statement of Estafador without informing the latter that he has a right to remain silent and to secure the services of a lawyer. After the statement was signed by Estafador, his fiancee, Fadora, came and asked Cesar to allow her to confer with Estafador but Cesar refused saying that after all. Fadora is not a lawyer, and that Estafador voluntarily gave his statement.
statement is false. Explain your answer in not more than two (2) sentences. (5%) (2009 Bar Question)
Page
SPECIAL LAW– Act Defining Certain Rights of Persons Arrested, Detained or Under Custodial Investigation (RA 7438) – Rights which can be violated
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
SUGGESTED ANSWER: The freeze order issued by the Regional Trial Court is not correct, because jurisdiction to issue said freeze order is now vested with the Court of Appeals under Rep Act 9194, amending the Anti-Money Laundering Act (Rep. Act No. 9160). The Regional Trial Court is without jurisdiction to issue a freeze order of the money involved. Define Money laundering. What are the three (3) stages in money laundering? (3%) (2010 Bar Question)
opened an account in the Mayor’s name and regularly deposited various amounts ranging from P500,000.00 to PI Million. From this account, the Mayor withdrew and used the money for constructing feeder roads, barangay clinics, repairing schools and for all other municipal projects. It was subsequently discovered that Don Gabito was actually a jueteng operator and the amounts he deposited were proceeds from his jueteng operations. What crime/s were committed? Who are criminally liable? Explain. (6%)(2005 Bar Question) SUGGESTED ANSWER:
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
1. Placement/ infusion or the physical disposal of criminal proceeds 2. Layering or the separation of the criminal proceeds from their source by creating layers of financial transactions to disguise such proceeds as legitimate and avoid audit trail; and 3. Integration or the provision of apparent legitimacy to the criminal proceeds.
Don Gabito, a philanthropist, offered to fund several projects of the Mayor. He
RA3019, PD 1829: During a PNP buy-bust operation, Cao Shih was arrested for selling 20 grams of methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu) to a poseur-buyer. Cao Shih, through an intermediary, paid Patrick, the Evidence Custodian of the PNP Forensic Chemistry Section, the Evidence Custodian of the PNP Forensic Chemistry Section, the amount of P500.000.00 in consideration for the destruction by Patrick of the drug. Patrick managed to destroy the drug.
226
The three (3) stages in money laundering are:
1) Money laundering under the same laws above- mentioned if after learning that the money deposited in his account were proceeds of jueteng, he still continued using said funds; (crime committed by the Mayor)
Page
Money Laundering is the process by which a person conceals the existence of unlawfully obtained money and makes it appear to have originated from lawful sources. The intention behind such a transaction is to hide the beneficial owner of said funds and allows criminal organizations or criminals to enjoy proceeds of such criminal activities.”
1) Money laundering under Rep. Act 9160 (Anti- Money Laundering Act of 2001), as amended by Rep. Act 9194, since the money proceeds from an unlawful activity, i.e., jueteng are transacted as though coming from a legitimate source; (crime committed by Don Gabito)
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
Direct bribery; Indirect bribery; Section 3(e) of RA 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act); Obstruction of Justice under PD 1829; (7%) (2005 Bar Question) SUGGESTED ANSWER:
c) Implementing Rules Regulations (IRR) of R.A. No. 9165
and
Patrick committed the crimes of direct bribery under Article 210 of the Revised Penal Code, Violation of Section 3(e) of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act (R.A. 3019), and Obstruction of Justice under Section 1(b) of PD 1829.
Special penal law - Crimes relative to opium and other prohibited drugs - Rep. Act No. 9165, the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002
Direct bribery was committed by Patrick when, for a consideration of P500.000.00, he committed a violation ofPD 1829 by destroying the drugs which were evidence entrusted to him in his official capacity.
MNO, who is 30 years old, was charged as a drug pusher under the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002. During pretrial, he offered to plead guilty to the lesser offense concerning use of dangerous drugs.
Indirect bribery is not committed, because he received the P500,000.00 as a consideration for destroying the evidence against the offender, which was under his official custody as a public officer. The money was not delivered to him simply as a gift or present by reason of his public office. Patrick also violated Section 3(e), R.A. 3019 causing undue injury to the government through evident bad faith, giving unwarranted benefit to the offender by destroying evidence of a crime. Obstruction of justice under Section 1 (b) of P.D. 1829 is committed by destroying evidence intended to be used in official proceedings in criminal case.
Should the Judge allow MNO’s plea to the lesser offense? Explain briefly. (5%) (2004 Bar Question) SUGGESTED ANSWER: No, the Judge should not allow MNO’s plea to a lesser offense, because pleabargaining in prosecutions of drugrelated cases is no longer allowed by Rep. Act No. 9165, the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, regardless of the imposable penalty.
Obie Juan is suspected to have in his possession an unspecified amount of methamphetamlne hydrochloride or “shabu". An entrapment operation was conducted by police officers, resulting in his
227
Patrick
Page
State with reasons whether committed the following crimes:
b) The Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002 (R.A. No. 9165) (i) Punishable acts (ii) Who are liable (iii) Attempt or conspiracy, effect on liability (iv) Immunity from prosecution and punishment (v) Custody and disposition of confiscated, seized and/or surrendered dangerous drugs (Section 21, R.A. No. 9165)
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
SUGGESTED ANSWER: A. The charge of possession of shabu is proper as the mere possession of such drug is punishable, but the charge of use of marijuana is not proper as Section 15 of Rep. Act 9165 (Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002) expressly excludes penalties for “use” of dangerous drugs when the person tested is also found to have in possession such quantity of any dangerous drug" provided for in Section 11 of such Act. B. No, because Section 23 of R.A. 9165 expressly provides that "Any person charged under any provision of this Act regardless of the imposable penalty shall not be allowed to avail of the provision on plea-bargaining. ” For this reason, Obie Juan cannot be allowed to plead guilty to a lesser offense.
After receiving a reliable information that Dante Ong, a notorious drug smuggler, was arriving on PAL Flight No. PR181, PNP Chief Inspector Samuel Gamboa formed a group of anti-drug agents. When
What are their respective criminal liabilities? 5% (2006 Bar Question) SUGGESTED ANSWER: The two police officers are criminally liable for violation of Sec. 27, R.A. 9165 of the same law for misappropriation and failure to account for the confiscated or seized dangerous drugs. On the other hand, Dante Ong is criminally liable for the illegal importation or bringing into the Philippines of the dangerous drugs. (Article 11, Sec. 4, RA 9165)
After receiving a reliable information that Dante Ong, a notorious drug smuggler, was arriving on PAL Flight No. PR181,
228
A. Are the charges proper? Explain. B. So as not to be sentenced to death, Obie Juan offers to plead guilty to a lesser offense. Can he do so? Why? (5%) (2005 Bar Question)
Ong arrived at the airport, the group arrested him and seized his attache case. Upon inspection inside the Immigration holding area, the attache case yielded 5 plastic bags of heroin weighing 500 grams. Chief Inspector Gamboa took the attache case and boarded him in an unmarked car driven by P03 Pepito Lorbes. On the way to Camp Crame and upon nearing White Plains comer Edsa. Chief Inspector Gamboa ordered P03 Lorbes to stop the car. They brought out the drugs from the case in the trunk and got 3 plastic sacks of heroin. They then told Ong to alight from the car. Ong left with the 2 remaining plastic sacks of heroin. Chief Inspector Gamboa advised him to keep silent and go home which the latter did. Unknown to them, an NBI team of agents had been following them and witnessed the transaction. They arrested Chief Inspector Gamboa and P03 Lorbes. Meanwhile, another NBI team followed Ong and likewise arrested him. All of them were later charged
Page
arrest following the discovery of 100 grams of the said dangerous drug in his possession. He was subjected to a drug test and was found positive for the use of marijuana, another dangerous drug. He was subsequently charged with two crimes: Violation of Section 11, Article II of RA 9165 for the possession of “shabu" and violation of Section 15, Article II of RA 9165 for the use of marijuana.
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
SUGGESTED ANSWER: Chief Inspector Samuel Gamboa and P03 Pepito Lorbes incur criminal liability under Art. 11, Sec. 4 last par., R.A. No. 9165, otherwise known as the “Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002”. They acted as “protector/coddler” to the unlawful bringing into the Philippines of the dangerous drugs. A “protector/ coddler” refers to any person who uses his power or position in, inter alia, facilitating the escape of any person whom he knows or believes, has violated the Dangerous Drugs Law, in
Tuburcio asked Anastacio to join their group for a "session". Thinking that it was for a mahjong session Anastacio agreed. Upon reaching Tiburcio's house, Anastacic discovered that it was actually a shabu session. At that precise time, the place was raided by the police, and Anastacio was among those arrested. What crime can Anastacio be charged with, if any? Explain your answer. (2007 Bar Question) SUGGESTED ANSWER: Anastacio may not be charged of any crime. Sec. 7 of Rep. Act. 9165 on the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs of 2002 punishes employees and visitors of a den, dive or resort where dangerous drugs are used in any form. But for a visitor of such place to commit the crime, it is a requisite that he "is aware of the nature of the place as such and shall knowingly visit the same." These requisites are absent in the facts given.
Special law – Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act (RA 3019, as amended) – Preventive suspension A month after the arraignment of Brad Kit Commissioner of the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board, who was charged with violation of Section 3 (h) of Republic Act 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act) before the Sandiganbayan, the Office of the Special Prosecutor filed a Motion to Suspend Accused Pendente Lite pursuant
229
What are their respective criminal liabilities? 5% (2006 Bar Question)
order to prevent the arrest, prosecution and conviction of the violator.
Page
PNP Chief Inspector Samuel Gamboa formed a group of anti-drug agents. When Ong arrived at the airport, the group arrested him and seized his attache case. Upon inspection inside the Immigration holding area, the attache case yielded 5 plastic bags of heroin weighing 500 grams. Chief Inspector Gamboa took the attache case and boarded him in an unmarked car driven by P03 Pepito Lorbes. On the way to Camp Crame and upon nearing White Plains comer Edsa. Chief Inspector Gamboa ordered P03 Lorbes to stop the car. They brought out the drugs from the case in the trunk and got 3 plastic sacks of heroin. They then told Ong to alight from the car. Ong left with the 2 remaining plastic sacks of heroin. Chief Inspector Gamboa advised him to keep silent and go home which the latter did. Unknown to them, an NBI team of agents had been following them and witnessed the transaction. They arrested Chief Inspector Gamboa and P03 Lorbes. Meanwhile, another NBI team followed Ong and likewise arrested him. All of them were later charged
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
The suspension order does not partake of a penalty and is thus not violative of Brad Kit's constitutional right to be presumed innocent. Under the law, the accused public officers shall be suspended from office while the criminal prosecution is pending in court (Sec. 13, R.A. 3019). Such preventive suspension is mandatory to prevent the accused from hampering the normal course of the investigation (Rios vs. Sandiganbayan, 279SCRA 581J1997): Bunye vs. Escareal 226 SCRA 332 [19931). Neither is there merit in Brad Kit's claim that the provision on suspension pendente lite applies only to elective officials and not to appointed ones like him. It applies to all public officials indicted upon a valid information under R. A. No. 3019, whether they be appointive or elective officials; or permanent or temporary employees, or pertaining to the career or non-career service (Segovia vs. Sandiganbayan, 288 SCRA 328 [1998]). Special law – RA 3019 - Attempted or frustrated stage of the violation charged is not punishable, but the accused be
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 and file with the Bureau of Customs the necessary Import Entiy and Internal Revenue Declaration covering Moonglow’s shipment Mr. Gabisi and Mr. Yto submitted to Mr. Ocuarto a packing list, a commercial invoice, a bill of lading and a Sworn Import Duty 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 Customs Senior Agent James Bandldo, 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 RA. 3019 which makes it unlawful among others, for public officers to cause any undue injuiy 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
230
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
nevertheless convicted for an offense punished by the Revised Penal Code
Page
to Section 13 of the Anti-Graft Law. The Court granted the motion and suspended accused Brad Kit for a period of 90 days. Accused assailed the constitutional validity of the suspension order on the ground that it partakes of a penalty before judgment of conviction is reached and is thus violative of his constitutional right to be presumed innocent. He also claimed that this provision of the law on suspension pendente lite applies only to electiye officials and not to appointed ones like him. Rule with reasons. (5%) (2000 Bar Question)
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
SUGGESTED ANSWER: A. Yes, the contention of the accused that the 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 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. Special penal law - Violation of Rep. Act 6713 (Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees) Don Gabito, a philanthropist, offered to fund several projects of the Mayor. He opened an account in the Mayor’s name and regularly deposited various amounts ranging from P500,000.00 to PI Million. From this account, the Mayor withdrew and used the money for constructing feeder roads, barangay clinics, repairing schools and for all other municipal projects. It was subsequently discovered that Don Gabito was actually a jueteng operator and the
What crime/s were committed? Who are criminally liable? Explain. (6%)(2005 Bar Question) SUGGESTED ANSWER: 4. Corruption of public officials under Article 212 of the Revised Penal Code for having given the amounts that were deposited in an account which he opened in the Mayor’s name for no reason but the public position or office held by the Mayor; (crime committed by Don Gabito) 5. Indirect Bribery for accepting such moneys deposited in his account by using them when they were given to him for no other reason except for his public position as a Mayor. (crime committed by the Mayor) 6. Violation of Rep. Act 6713 (Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees) for receiving such gift from someone who may be affected by the functions of his office. (crime committed by the Mayor) Criminal law – Crimes committed by public officers - Indirect bribery; Special penal law - Republic Act No. 3019directly or indirectly requesting or receiving any gift, present, percentage, or benefit in connection with any contract or transaction x x x wherein the public officer, in his official capacity, has to intervene under the law RA 3019: Charina, Clerk of Court of an RTC Branch, promised the plaintiff in a case pending before the court that she would convince the Presiding Judge to decide the case in plaintiff's favor. In
231
A. Is the contention of both accused correct? Explain.(3%) (2000 Bar Question) B. Art. 315: 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. (3%) (2000 Bar Question)
amounts he deposited were proceeds from his jueteng operations.
Page
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.
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
consideration therefor, the plaintiff gave Charina P20,000.00. Charina was charged with violation of Section 3 (b) of Republic Act No. 3019, prohibiting any public officer from directly or indirectly requesting or receiving any gift, present, percentage, or benefit in connection with any contract or transaction x x x wherein the public officer, in his official capacity, has to intervene under the law. While the case was being tried, the Ombudsman filed another information against Charina for Indirect Bribery under the Revised Penal Code. Charina demurred to the second information, claiming that she can no longer be charged under the Revised Penal Code having been charged for the same act under R.A. 3019. Is Charina correct? Explain. (3%) (2009 Bar Question)
programs for 2008. Records show that the amount of P2-million was purportedly used as financial assistance for a rice production livelihood project. Upon investigation, however, it was found that Roger and Jessie falsified the disbursement vouchers and supporting documents in order to make it appear that qualified recipients who, in fact, are non-existent individuals, received the money. Roger and Jessie are charged with violation of Section 3 (e) of R.A. 3019 for causing undue injury to the government. Discuss the propriety of the charge filed against Roger and Jessie. Explain. (4%) (2009 Bar Question) SUGGESTED ANSWER: They should be charged of violation of Section 3(e) of Rep. Act 3019 for the breach of public trust and undue injury caused to the Government. The violation is a crime malum prohibitum.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
RA 3019: May a public officer charged under Section 3(b) of Republic Act No. 3019 [“directly or indirectly requesting or receiving any gift, present, share, percentage or benefit, for himself of 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”] also be simultaneously or successively charged with direct bribery under Article 210 of the Revised Penal Code? Explain. (4%) (2010 Bar Question)
232
Roger and Jessie, Municipal Mayor and Treasurer, respectively, of San Rafael, Leyte, caused the disbursement of public funds allocated for their local development
Criminal law – Crimes committed by public officers - direct bribery; Special penal law - Republic Act No. 3019
Page
No, Charina is not correct. Although the charge for violation of Rep. Act No. 3019 and the charge for Indirect Bribery (Art. 211, RPC) arose from the same act, the elements of the violation charged under Rep. Act No. 3019 are not the same as the felony charged for Indirect Bribery under the Rev. Penal Code (Mejia v. Pamaran, 160 SCRA 457 [1988]). Hence, the crimes charged are separate and distinct from each other, with different penalties. The two charges do not constitute a ground for a motion to dismiss or motion to quash, as there is no jeopardy against the accused.
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
Criminal law – Crimes committed by public officer - Republic Act No. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act) The Central Bank (Bangko Sentralna Pilipinas), by a resolution of the monetary board, hires Thereof Sto. Tomas, a retired manager of a leading bank as a consultant. Thereof later receives a valuable gift from a bank under investigation by the Central Bank. May Thereof be prosecuted under Republic Act No. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act) for accepting such a gift? Explain. (2003 Bar Question) SUGGESTED ANSWER:
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER: Yes, Thereof may be prosecuted under Rep. Act 3019 because he is a “public officer' within the purview of said law, and Thereof received the valuable gift from a bank which is under investigation by the Central Bank where he is employed as a “public officer. Receiving gift, directly or indirectly by a public officer from a party who has a transaction with the Government is wrong, more so when the gift-giver is under investigation by the government office to which the public officer is connected. Proserfina, an assistant public high school principal, acted to facilitate the release of salary differentials and election duty per diem of classroom teachers with the agreement that they would reimburse her for her expenses. Did Proserfina commit a crime? Explain. (5%) (2010 Bar Question)
No, Thereof may not be prosecuted under Rep. Act 3019, but may be prosecuted for violation of Pres. Decree No. 46, under which such act of receiving a valuable gift is punished.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Although Thereof is a “public officer” within the application of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act (RA 3019), yet his act of receiving such gift does not appear to be included among the punishable acts under Rep. Act 3019), yet his act of receiving such gift does not appear to be included among the punishable acts under Rep. Act not to intervene in his official capacity in the
“(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. “
Yes, Proserfina committed violation of Sec. 3(b) of Rep. Act No. 3019 which considers as corrupt practice, the act of:
233
Yes, a public officer charges under Sec. 3 (b) of Rep. Act 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act) may also be charged simultaneously or successively for the crime of direct bribery under Art. 210 of the Revised Penal Code, because two crimes are essentially different and are penalized under distinct legal philosophies. Whereas violation of Sec. (b) of R.A. 3019 is a malum prohibitum, the crime under Art. 210 of the Code is a malum in se.
investigation of the bank which gave the gift. Penal laws must be strictly construed against the State. In any case, Thereof is administratively liable.
Page
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
Don Gabito, a philanthropist, offered to fund several projects of the Mayor. He opened an account in the Mayor’s name and regularly deposited various amounts ranging from P500,000.00 to PI Million. From this account, the Mayor withdrew and used the money for constructing feeder roads, barangay clinics, repairing schools and for all other municipal projects. It was subsequently discovered that Don Gabito was actually a jueteng operator and the amounts he deposited were proceeds from his jueteng operations. What crime/s were committed? Who are criminally liable? Explain. (6%)(2005 Bar Question) SUGGESTED ANSWER: 1. Corruption of public officials under Article 212 of the Revised Penal Code for having given the amounts that were deposited in an account which he opened in the Mayor’s name for no reason but the public position or office held by the Mayor; (crime committed by Don Gabito)
3. Violation of Rep. Act 6713 (Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees) for receiving such gift from someone who may be affected by the functions of his office. (crime committed by the Mayor) Special penal law– Violation of Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials (RA 6713) - Requesting donations of gifts Commissioner Marian Torres of the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) wrote solicitation letters addressed to the Filipino-Chinese Chamber of Commerce and Industry and to certain CEOs of various multinational corporations requesting donations of gifts for her office Christmas party. She used the Bureau's official stationery. The response was prompt and overwhelming so much so that Commissioner Torres' office was overcrowded with rice cookers, radio sets, freezers, electric stoves and toasters. Her staff also received several envelopes containing cash money for the employees' Christmas luncheon. Has Commissioner Torres committed any impropriety or irregularity? What laws or decrees did she violate? 5% (2006 Bar Question) SUGGESTED ANSWER: Yes, Commissioner Torres committed an impropriety. She violated Sec. 7(d) of Rep. Act 6713 otherwise known as the “Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public
234
Special penal law - Violation of Rep. Act 6713 (Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees)
2. Indirect Bribery for accepting such moneys deposited in his account by using them when they were given to him for no other reason except for his public position as a Mayor. (crime committed by the Mayor)
Page
Being the assistant public high school principal, it is her duty to intervene in the release of salary differentials and per diem of classroom teachers under her. Her act of doing so, made a request for a share or benefit therefor constitutes graft or corrupt practice under Sec 3(b) of Rep. Act No. 3019. Considering that the acts prohibited or punished under this law are mala prohibita, and thus punishable thereunder, whether done with criminal intent or not.
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
Officials and Employees”. Sec. 7(d) mandates that public officials and employees shall not solicit or accept directly or indirectly any gift, favor, entertainment, loan or anything of monetary value from any person in the course of£ her official duties or any transaction which may be affected by the functions of their office.
the crime of illegal possession of firearms and ammunition. What the law requires is merely possession, which includes not only actual physical possession but also constructive possession where the firearm and explosive are subject to one’s control and management. [People us. De Grecia, 233 SCRA 716; U.S. vs. Juan, 23 Phil, 105; People vs. Soyag, 110 Phil. 565).
Special Law. PD 1866, as amended by RA8294 and RA 10591 :
Special law – Penalties – Grave offense; life imprisonment
A has long been wanted by the police authorities for various crimes committed by him. Acting on an information by a tipster, the police proceeded to an apartment where A was often seen. The tipster also warned the policemen that A was always armed. At the given address, a lady who introduced herself as the elder sister of A, opened the door and let the policemen in. Inside, the team found A sleeping on the floor. Immediately beside him was a clutch bag which, when opened, contained a .38 caliber paltik revolver and a hand grenade. After verification, the authorities discovered that A was not a licensed holder of the .38 caliber paltik revolver. As for the hand grenade, it was established that only military personnel are authorized to carry hand grenades. Subsequently, A was charged with the crime of Illegal Possession of Firearms and Ammunition. During trial, A maintained that the bag containing the unlicensed firearm and hand grenade belonged to A, his friend, and that he was not in actual possession thereof at the time he was arrested. Are the allegations meritorious? Explain. (3%) (2000 Bar Question)
QUESTION A. RR represented to AA, BB, CC and DD that she could send them to London to work there as sales ladies and waitresses. She collected and received from them various amounts of money for recruitment and placement fees totalling P400.000. After their dates of departure were postponed several times, the four prospects got suspicious and went to POEA (Phil. Overseas Employment Authority). There they found out that RR was not authorized nor licensed to recruit workers for employment abroad. They sought refund to no avail.
A. Yes. RR is guilty of a grave offense, having engaged in illegal recruitment constituting the offense of economic sabotage which is punishable with life imprisonment and a fine of P100,000.00. Economic sabotage is an offense defined in 38(b) of the Labor Code, as amended by Pres. Decree No. 2018, which is incurred when the illegal recruitment is carried out in large scale or by a syndicate. It is in a large scale when there are three or more
235
A’s allegations are not meritorious. Ownership is not an essential element of
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Page
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Is RR guilty of any grave offense? Explain briefly. (5%) (2004 Bar Question)
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
Matt filed a petition for probation. Jeff appealed his conviction during the pendency of which he also filed a petition for probation. The brothers' counsel argued that they being first time offenders, their petitions for probation should be granted. How would you resolve the brothers' petitions for probation? Explain. (3%) (2010 Bar Question) SUGGESTED ANSWER: The brothers' petition for probation should both be denied. Matt's petition for probation shall be denied because he was convicted for drugtrafficking. Section 24 of RA 9165 (Comprehensive Dangerous Drug Act of 2002) expressly provides, "Any person convicted for drug trafficking or pushing under this Act, regardless of the penalty imposed by the court, cannot avail of the privilege granted by the Probation Law or Presidential Decree No. 968, as amended." On the other hand, Jeff's application for probation cannot also be entertained or granted because he has already appealed
Special law -Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act - Processes of intervention and diversion Joe was 17 years old when he committed homicide in 2005. The crime is punishable by reclusion temporal. After two years in hiding, he was arrested and appropriately charged in May 2007. Since Republic Act 9344 (Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of 2006) was already in effect, Joe moved to avail of the process of intervention or diversion. [a] What is intervention or diversion? Is Joe entitled to intervention or diversion? Explain. (3%) (2009 Bar Question) SUGGESTED ANSWER: The two terms are different. "Intervention" refers to a series of activities which are designed to address issues that caused the child to commit an offense. It may take the form of an individualized treatment program which may include counseling, skills training, education, and other activities that will enhance his/her psychological, emotional and psychosocial wellbeing. This is available to a child 15 years old or less at the time of the commission of the crime or although over 15 but below 18 years old at the time of commission of the crime, the child acted without discernment. "Diversion" refers to an alternative, childappropriate process of determining the responsibility and treatment of a child in conflict with the law on the basis of his/her social, cultural, economic, psychological or educational background without resorting
236
Matt was found guilty of drug trafficking while his younger brother Jeff was found guilty of possession of equipment, instrument, apparatus and other paraphernalia for dangerous drugs under Section 12 of Republic Act No. 9165.
his conviction by the trial court (Section 4, P.D. 968, as amended).
Page
aggrieved parties, individually or as a group. And it is committed by a syndicate when three or more persons conspire or cooperate with one another in carrying out the illegal transaction, scheme or activity. Special penal law - Section 24 of RA 9165 (Comprehensive Dangerous Drug Act of 2002)
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
to formal court proceedings. This process governs when the child is over 15 years old but below 18 at the time of the commission of the crime and he acted with discernment.
unlawfully acquired? Explain your answer. (1990 Bar Question)
Yes. Joe is entitled to diversion. Being only 17 years old at the time he committed the crime of homicide, he is treated as a child in conflict with the law under RA 9344
I would interpose the defense of prescription as the right to file a petition for forfeiture under Republic Act No. 1379 Section 2 prescribes in four (4) years from the date of resignation.
No. The judge should not suspend sentence anymore because Joe was already 21 years old. Suspension of sentence is availing under Rep. Act 9344 only until a child reaches the maximum age of twenty-one (21) years.
Prescription for violation of special laws - Petition for forfeiture under Republic Act No. 1379 Maloling is a public official who resigned from the service on February 1, 1984. On February 15, 1990, the Solicitor General filed a petition in court for the forfeiture of the property of Maloling which was allegedly unlawfully acquired. If you were the counsel of Maloling, what defense or defenses would you interpose? Explain your answer. (1990 Bar Question) Besides property unlawfully acquired found to be in the name of Maloling, what are the other properties not in his name which may nevertheless be considered
1. Property unlawfully acquired by the respondent but its ownership concealed by being recorded in the name of, or held by, the respondent’s spouse, ascendants, descendants, relatives or any other person; and 2. Property unlawfully acquired by the respondent, but transferred by him to another person/s. (R-A. 1379 Section 1(b)). Special law - Highway Robbery under Presidential Decree No. 532 a) Distinguish Highway Robbery under Presidential Decree No. 532 from Robbery committed on a highway. (3%) (2000 Bar Question) b) A, B, C, D and E were in a beerhouse along MacArthur Highway having a drinking spree. At about 1 o’clock in the morning, they decided to leave and so asked for the bill. They pooled their money together but they were still short of P2.Q00.00. E then orchestrated a plan whereby A, B, C and D would go out, flag a taxicab and rob the taxi driver of all his money while E would wait for them in the beerhouse. A, B, C and D agreed. All
237
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Property which may still be considered as unlawfully acquired, though not in the name of Maloling at the time of filing of the petition for forfeiture, shall include:
Page
[b] Suppose Joe's motion for intervention or diversion was denied, and he was convicted two (2) years later when Joe was already 21 years old, should the judge apply the suspension of sentence? Explain. (2%) (2009 Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
a) Highway Robbery under Pres. Decree 532 differs from ordinary Robbery committed on a highway in these respects: In Highway Robbery under PD 532, the robbery is committed indiscriminately against persons who commute in such highways, regardless of the potentiality they offer; while in ordinary Robbery committed on a highway, the robbery is committed only against predetermined victims; It is Highway Robbery under PD 532, when the offender is a brigand or one who roams in public highways and carries out his robbery in public highways as venue, whenever the opportunity to do so arises. It is ordinary Robbery under the Revised Penal Code when the commission thereof in a public highway is only incidental and the offender is not a brigand; and In Highway Robbery under PD 532, there is frequency in the commission of the robbery in public highways and against persons travelling thereat; whereas ordinary Robbery In public highways is only
b) A, B, C, D and E are liable for two (2) counts of robbery under Article 294 of the Rev. Penal Code; not for highway Robbery under PD 532. The offenders are not brigands but only committed the robbery to raise money to pay their bill because it happened that they were short of money to pay the same. Special law – Anti-Piracy and AntiHighway Robbery (PD 532) punishable acts Police Sgt. Diego Chan, being a member of the Theft and Robbery Division of the Western Police District and assigned to the South Harbor, Manila, was privy to and more or less familiar with the schedules, routes and hours of the movements of container vans, as well as the mobile police patrols, from the pier area to the different export processing zones outside Metro Manila. From time to time, he gave valuable and detailed information on these matters to a group interested in those shipments in said container vans. On several instances, using the said information as their basis, the gang hijacked and pilfered the contents of the vans. Prior to their sale to “fences” in Banawe, Ouezon City and Bangkal, Makati City, the gang informs Sgt. Chan who then inspects the pilfered goods, makes his choice of the valuable items and disposes of them through his own sources or “fences”. When the highjackers were traced on one occasion and arrested, upon custodial investigation, they implicated Sgt. Chan and the fiscal charged them all, including Sgt. Chan as co-principals. Sgt. Chan, in his defense, claimed that he should not be charged as a principal but only as an accessory after the fact under
238
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
occasional against a predetermined victim, without frequency in public highways.
Page
armed with balisongs, A, B, C and D hailed the first taxicab they encountered. After robbing X, the driver, of his earnings, which amounted to P1,000.00 only, they needed P1,000.00 more to meet their bill. So, they decided to hail another taxicab and they again robbed driver Y of his hard-eamed money amounting to PI,000.00. On their way back to the beerhouse, they were apprehended by a police team upon the complaint of X, the driver of the first cab. They pointed to E as the mastermind. What crime or crimes, if any, did A, B, C, D and E commit? Explain fully. (3%) (2000 Bar Question)
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
SUGGESTED ANSWER: No, the contention of Sgt. Chan is not valid or tenable because by express provision of P.D. 532, Section 4, a person who knowingly and in any manner, aids or protects highway robbers/brigands, such as giving them information about the movement of police officers or acquires or receives property taken by brigands, or who directly or indirectly abets the commission of highway robbeiy/brigandage, shall be considered as accomplice of the principal offenders and punished in accordance with the rules in the Revised Penal Code. Special penal law - The Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002 (R.A. No. 9165) – Chain of custody Following his arrest after a valid buy-bust operation, Tommy was convicted of violation of Section 5, Republic Act 9165. On appeal, Tommy questioned the admissibility of the evidence because the police officers who conducted the buybust operation failed to observe the requisite "chain of custody" of the evidence confiscated and/or seized from him. What is the "chain of custody" requirement in drug offenses? What is its rationale? What is the effect of failure to observe the requirement? (3%) (2009 Bar Question) SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Its rationale is to preserve the authenticity of the corpus delicti or body of the crime by rendering it improbable that the original item seized/confiscated in the violation has been exchanged or substituted with another or tampered with or contaminated. It is a method of authenticating the evidence as would support a finding beyond reasonable doubt that the matter is what the prosecution claims it to be. Failure to observe the "chain of custody" requirement renders the evidence questionable, not trustworthy and insufficient to prove the corpus delicti beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, Tommy would be acquitted on reasonable doubt. The Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) had intelligence reports about the drug pushing activities of Rado, but could not arresthim for lack of concrete evidence. SP03 Relio, a PDEA team leader, approached Emilo and requested him to act as poseur-buyer of shabu and transact with Rado. Emilo refused, saying that he had completely been rehabilitated and did not want to have anything to do with drugs anymore. But he was prevailed upon to help when SP03 Relio explained that only
239
Is the contention of Sgt. Chan valid and tenable? Explain. (5%) (2001 Bar Question)
"Chain of custody" requirement in drug offenses refers to the duly recorded, authorized movement and custody of seized dangerous drugs, controlled chemicals, plant sources of dangerous drugs, and laboratory equipment for dangerous drugs from the time of confiscation/seizure thereof from the offender, to its turn-over and receipt in the forensic laboratory for examination, to its safekeeping and eventual presentation/offer in court as evidence of the criminal violation, and for destruction. (Dangerous Drugs Board Regulation No.1 Series of 2002)
Page
P.D. 532, otherwise known as the AntiPiracy and AntiHighway Robbery Act of 1972.
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
Answer: Ernilo may invoke Section 33, Art. II of RA 9165 or the “Comprehensive Drugs Act of 2002”. He may have violated Section 11 of RA 9165 for possession of shabu but he is immune from prosecution and punishment because of his role as the poseur-buyer in the entrapment operation. There was virtually instigation. He is exempted from prosecution or punishment because the information obtained from him by the PDEA agents, who had no direct and concrete evidence of Rado’s drug-pushing activities, led to the whereabouts, identity and arrest of Rado. So long as the information and testimony given are pleaded and proven, Emililo cannot be prosecuted for violation of RA 9165. b) May Rado adopt as his own Emilo's defense? Explain. Answer: No. First, an entrapment operation is a valid means of arresting violators of RA 9165. It is an effective way of apprehending law offenders in the act of committing a
ART.220 in rel to RA 3019 Governor A was given the amount of PIO million by the Department of Agriculture for the purpose of buying seedlings to be distributed to the farmers. Supposedly intending to modernize the farming industry in his province, Governor A bought farm equipment through direct purchase from XY Enterprise, owned by his kumpare B, the alleged exclusive distributor of the said equipment. Upon inquiry, the Ombudsman discovered that B has a pending patent application for the said farm equipment. Moreover, the equipment purchased turned out to be overpriced. What crime or crimes, if any, were committed by Governor A? Explain. (5%)(2016 BAR)
SUGGESTED ANSWER Governor A committed the crimes of: (1) Technical Malversation; and (2) Violation of Sections 3(e) and (g) of Republic Act No. 3019. Governor A committed the crime of illegal use of public funds or property punishable under Art. 220 of the Revised Penal Code. This offense is also known as technical malversation. The crime has three elementsL: a) that the offender is an accountable public officer; b) that he applies public funds or property under his administration to some public use; and c) that the public use for which such funds or property had been applied is different from
240
a) What defense, if any, may Ernilo invoke to free himself from criminal liability? Explain.
crime. In a buy-bust operation, the idea to commit a crime originates from the offender, without anybody inducing or prodding him to commit the offense. Second, the immunity does not extend to violators of Section 5 of RA 9165 or the sale of shabu (sec. 33, RA 9165). Lastly, he was the offender of the crime and apparently the most guilty of the offense.
Page
he could help capture Rado because he used to be his customer. SP03 Relio then gave Emilo the marked money to be used in buying shabu from Rado. The operation proceeded. After Emilo handed the marked money to Rado in exchange for the sachets of shabu weighing 50 grams, and upon receiving the pre-arranged signal from Ernilo, SP03 Relio and his team members barged in and arrested Rado and Ernilo, who were both charged with violation of R.A. 9165, otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of2002. (2015 BAR)
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
Ofelia, engaged in the purchase and sale of jewelry, was charged with violation of PD 1612, otherwise known as the Anti-Fencing Law, for having been found in possession of recently stolen jewelry valued at Pl 00,000.00 at her jewelry shop. Her defense is that she merely bought the same from Antonia and produced a receipt covering the sale. She presented other receipts given to her by Antonia representing previous transactions. Convicted of the charge, Ofelia appealed, arguing that her acquisition of the jewelries resulted from a legal transaction and that the prosecution failed to prove that she knew or should have known that the pieces of jewelry which she bought from Antonia were proceeds of the crime of theft. [a] What is a "fence" under PD 1612? (2.5%) (2016 BAR) SUGGESTED ANSWER Fencing is the act of any person who, with intent to gain for himself or for another, shall buy, receive, possess, keep, acquire, conceal, sell or dispose of, or shall buy and sell, or in any other manner deal in any article, item, object or anything of value which he knows, or should be known to him, to have been derived from the proceeds of the crime of robbery or theft (Sec. 2 of PD 1612) [b] Is Ofelia liable under the Anti-Fencing Law? Explain. (2.5%) SUGGESTED ANSWER
241
The facts show that the first element is present. The second element is likewise present because, “through manifest partiality” in favoring his kumpare, Governor A did not hold a public bidding and directly purchased the farm equipment from the latter. With respect to the third element, Governor A’s actions caused undue injury to the government as well as the farmers who were deprived of the seedlings. His acts likewise gave his kumpare, a private party, the unwarranted benefit, advantage or preference, to the exclusion of other interested suppliers.
The act committed by Governor is also in violation of Sec. 3 (g) of RA No. 3019 for entering a contract on behalf of the government which is manifestly and grossly disadvantageous to the same. SPECIAL LAW- P.D 1612
Page
the purpose for which they were originally appropriated by law or ordinance (Ysidora v. People. G.R. No. 192330, 14 November 2012). The amount of P 10M granted by the Department of Agriculture to Governor A, an accountable public officer, is specifically appropriated for the purpose of buying seedlings to be distributed to the farmers. Instead, Governor A applied the amount to acquire modern farm equipment through direct purchase from XY Enterprise owned by his kumpare. The law punishes the act of diverting public funds earmarked by law or ordinance for a specific public purpose to another public purpose, hence, the liability for technical malversation. Governor A can also be held liable for Violation of Section 3 (e) of R.A. 3019 or the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, which has the following elements: (1) the accused is a public officer discharging administrative, judicial or official functions; (2) he must have acted with manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence; and (3) his action caused any undue injury to any party, including the government, or gave any private party unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference in the discharge of his functions.
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
RA
6539-Anti-
A is the driver of B's Mercedes Benz car. When B was on a trip to Paris, A used the car for a joy ride with C whom he is courting. Unfortunately, A met an accident. Upon his return, B came to know about the unauthorized use of the car and sued A for qualified theft. B alleged that A took and used the car with intent to gain as he derived some benefit or satisfaction from its use. On the other hand, A argued that he has no intent of making himself the owner of the car as he in fact returned it to the garage after the joy ride. What crime or crimes, if any, were committed? Explain. (5%)(2016 BAR) SUGGESTED ANSWER The crime commited by A is carnapping. The unlawful taking of motor vehicles is now covered by the AntiCarnapping Law (RA 6539 as amended) and not by the provisions on qualified theft or robbery (People v. Rustinera, GR No. 148233, 8 June 2004). The concept of carnapping is the same as that of robbery and theft. Hence, rules applicable to theft
Arnold, 25 years of age, was sitting on a bench in Luneta Park watching the statue of Jose Rizal when, without his permission, Leilani, I 7 years of age, sat beside him and asked for financial assistance, allegedly for payment of her tuition fee, in exchange for sex. While they were conversing, police operatives arrested and charged him with violation of Section l 0 of RA 76 I 0 (Special Protection of Children against Child Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination Act), accusing him of having in his company a minor, who is not related to him, in a public place. It was established that Arnold was
242
SPECIAL LAWcarnapping Law
or robbery are also applicable to carnapping (People v. Asamudding GR No. 213913, 2 September 2015). In theft, unlawful taking should be understood within the Spanish concept of apoderamiento. In order to constitute apoderamiento, the physical taking must be coupled with the intent to appropriate the object, which means intent to deprive the lawful owner of the thing, whether permanently or temporarily (People v. Valenzuela, GR No. 160188, 21 June 2007). In this case A took the car without the consent of B with intent to temporarily deprive him of the car. Although the taking was “temporary” and for a “joy ride”, the Supreme Court in People v. Bustinera, (supra), sustains as the better view that which holds that when a person, either with the object of going to a certain place, or learning how to drive, or enjoying a free ride, takes possession of a vehicle belonging to another, without the consent of its owner, he is guilty of theft because by taking possession of the personal property belonging to another and using it, his intent to gain is evident since he derives therefrom utility, satisfaction, enjoyment and pleasure. SPECIAL LAW- R.A Child exploitation—
Page
No. Ofelia is not liable under the Anti-Fencing Law. While under the said law mere possession of any good, article, item, object or anything of value which has been the subject of robbery or thievery shall be prima facie evidence of fencing, such evidence when sufficiently overturned constitutes a defense. In this case, Ofelia’s defense that she merely acquired the jewelries through a legitimate transaction is sufficient. Further, there is no other circumstance as regards the jewelries which would indicate to Ofelia, an innocent purchaser, that the jewelries were the subject of theft. There was even a receipt produced by Ofelia for the transaction.
CRIMINAL LAW BAR EXAM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS up to 2016
not in the performance of a social, moral and legal duty at that time. Is Arnold liable for the charge? Explain. (5%) (2016 Bar)
SUGGESTED ANSWER No. Arnold is not liable. Under Sec. 10 of RA No. 7610, any person who shall keep or have in his company a minor, twelve (12) year or under or who is ten (10) years or more his junior in any public or private place, hotel, motel, beer joint, discotheque, cabaret, pension house, sauna, or massage parlor, beach and/or other tourist resort or similar places is liable for child abuse. Arnold is not liable for the charge. To be held liable under Sec. 10 (b) of RA No. 7610, it is indispensable that the child in the company of the offender must be 12 years or under or who in 10 years or more his junior in a public place. In this case, Leilani is 17 years of age, and only 8 years younger than Arnold. Morever, Leilani sat beside Arnold without his permission, hence he is not in the company of a child in a public place.
Page
243
Lastly, applying the ejusdem generis principle, Arnold is not liable for child abuse because Luneta is not a place similar to hotel, motel, beer joint, discotheque, cabaret, pension house, sauna or massage parlor, beach and/or other tourist resort.
Related Documents
4a Crim Bq - Finalwpage
February 2021 1
Contoh Bq
January 2021 2
Piling Bq
March 2021 0
Crim Socio
January 2021 0
Bq Bajaringan.xlsx
February 2021 1
Tugas 4a
January 2021 2More Documents from "Rifaah Al Mahmudah"
4a Crim Bq - Finalwpage
February 2021 1
The Prosperous Coach In Pdf
January 2021 0
Tst Prep - 100 Toefl Reading Practice Questions
January 2021 1
Hungryleech_whisper_by_ken_dyne.pdf
January 2021 1