CRIMINAL LAW
I.
(10%)
What are the penalties that may be served simultaneously?
Answer:
According to Article 70 of the Revised Penal Code, the penalties which could be simultaneously served are the principal penalties and the following:
1. perpetual absolute disqualification, 2. perpetual special disqualification,
3. temporary absolute
disqualification,
4. temporary special disqualification, 5. suspension,
6. destierro, 7. public censure,
8. fine and bond to keep the peace, 9. civil interdiction, and
10. confiscation and payment of costs.
Alternative Answer:
The penalties that may be served simultaneously are the principal with the accessory penalties. With the exception when you are penalized with two counts or more of death penalty. Several counts of death penalty is simultaneously served for the convict could only be executed once.
II.
(10%)
Tiburcio asked Anastacio to join their group for a "session". Thinking that it was for a mahjong session, Anastacio agreed. Upon reaching Tiburcio’s house, Anastacio 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.
Answer:
Based on the given facts, it would seem that Anastacio MAY BE CHARGED WITH violation of the comprehensive dangerous drugs act. but for his exculpation, he may assert that he had no intention to perpetrate the same.
The facts of the case show that Anastacio was invited by Tiburcio to go over their house (maybe by text or telephone) to join their group for a
“session”. Upon his arrival at Tiburcio’s house Anastacio discovered that it was actually a shabu session and at that very
moment the place was raided by police, indicating that he never took part in the pot session at all.
Alternative Answer:
Section 7 of RA 9165 is relevant to the case at bar.
Section 7. Employees and Visitors of a Den, Dive or Resort. - The penalty of imprisonment ranging from twelve (12) years and one (1) day to twenty (20) years and a fine ranging from One hundred thousand pesos (P100,000.00) to Five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00) shall be imposed upon:
(a) Any employee of a den, dive or resort, who is aware of the nature of the place as such; and
(b) Any person who, not being included in the provisions of the next preceding, paragraph, is aware of the nature of the place as such and shall knowingly visit the same
A den, dive or resort is defined in Section 1 of the said law as place where any dangerous drug and/or controlled precursor and essential chemical is administered, delivered, stored for illegal purposes, distributed, sold or used in any form.
III.
(10%)
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 customer’s 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.
What crime or crimes did Jervis, Marlon and Jonathan commit? Explain your answer.
Answer:
Jervis, Marlon and Jonathan committed a special complex crime of robbery with homicide.
It is robbery with homicide because the original design of the three malefactors was robbery and the homicide occurred during the robbery.
Settled is the rule that the crime is still robbery with homicide if the person killed was an innocent bystander and not the
1 0 0 % U P L A W 1 0 0 % U P L A W 1 0 0 % U P L A W
1 0 0 % U P L A W U P B A R O P S 2 0 0 8 Page 141141141141 of 155155155155 APPENDIX III: SUGGESTED ANSWERS TO THE 07 BAR QUESTIONS
CRIMINAL LAW II
person robbed and even if the death was supervened by mere accident.
Jervis and Marlon cannot claim that it was Jonathan who ran over and killed the pedestrian and therefore they are not liable for robbery with homicide because it is well entrenched in our jurisprudence that when a homicide takes place as a consequence of or on occasion of robbery, all those who took part in the robbery are guilty as principals in the special complex crime of robbery with homicide, even if they did not actually participate in the homicide.
IV.
(10%)
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.
The court found that Ken died under exceptional circumtances 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.
a. Did the court correctly order Macky to pay indemnity even though he was exonerated of murder? Explain your answer.
Answer:
Yes, the court is correct. Macky was exonerated of murder because of the benefit granted to him by law under Art.
247 of the Revised Penal Code, which is an absolutory cause or exempting circumstances.
As a rule, exemption from criminal liability by reason of an exempting circumstances does not include exemption from civil liability. There are only two circumstances which are allowed as exceptions to this rule, they are : 1) injury caused by mere accident , and 2) failure to perform an act required by law when prevented by some lawful or insuperable cause. The case at bar shows that the act committed by Macky is not one of these circumstances.
Therefore, he is not exempt from payment of indemnity although exempt from criminal liability.
b. While serving his sentenced, 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 the use of
prohibited substances? Explain your answer.
Answer:
Macky is not entitled to ISLAW.
One of the grounds for the disqualification for the application of ISLAW is evasion of sentence. As the fact provided, while he is serving his sentence, he entered the prohibited area, and such entry is already an evasion of his sentence of destierro, and while evading his sentence, he committed another crime. For this reason, he is not entitled to ISLAW.
Although destierro does not involve imprisonment, it is settled that a sentence imposing the penalty of destierro is evaded when the convict enters any of the place he is forbidden from entering under the sentence (PP vs.
Abilong, GR No. L-1960, 26 Nov. 1948)
V.
(10%)
a. Distinguish between an accomplice and a conspirator.
b. What are the three (3) classes of offender in the crime of qualified seduction? Give an example of each.
Answer:
(a) An accomplice is one who knew the criminal design of the principal and knowingly or intentionally
participated therewith by an act which even if not rendered, the crime would be committed just the same; a
conspirator is one who enters into an agreement with one or more person to commit a crime and decide to commit it.
(b) The three classes of offender in the crime of qualified seduction are : 1. Those of abuse their authority (ex.
teacher)
2. Those who abuse the confidence reposed in them (ex. priest) 3. Those who abuse their
relationship (ex. brother who seduced his sister)
VI.
(10%)
What are the different acts of inciting to sedition?
Answer:
1. Inciting others to the accomplishment of any of the acts which constitute sedition by means of speeches, proclamations, writings, emblems etc;
1 0 0 % U P L A W 1 0 0 % U P L A W 1 0 0 % U P L A W
1 0 0 % U P L A W U P B A R O P S 2 0 0 8 Page 142142142142 of 111155555555 APPENDIX III: SUGGESTED ANSWERS TO THE 07 BAR QUESTIONS
CRIMINAL LAW II
2. Uttering seditious words or speeches which tend to disturb the public peace;
3. Writing, publishing, or circulating scurrilous libels against the government or any of the duly constituted authorities thereof, which tend to disturb the public peace, or 4. Knowingly concealing such evil
practice
VII.
(10%)
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 faith healer and three others who were part of the healing ritual were charged with murder and convicted by the lower court. If you are appellate court Justice, would you sustain the conviction upon appeal? Explain your answer.
Answer:
Note: The facts of the case are exactly same as those in People of the Philippines vs. Carmen, et al., G.R. No.
137268, 26 March 2001. The examiner only changed the actors.
No, I would not sustain the conviction of the lower court.
In the case at bar, it must be observed that the “treatment” performed over the victim was consented to by Eddie, the boy’s father. With the permission of Eddie, the faithhealer and three others proceeded to subject the boy to a “treatment” calculated to drive the bad spirit from the boy’s body.
Unfortunately, the “treatment” resulted in the death of the boy. Thus, the accused-appellants had no criminal intent to kill the boy. Their liability arises from reckless imprudence because they ought that to know their actions would not bring about the cure.
Moreover, the elements of reckless imprudence are evident in the acts done by accused-appellants which consists in voluntarily, but without malice, doing or failing to do an act from which material damage results by reason of inexcusable lack of precaution on the part of the person performing such act. The facts show the accused-appellants lack medical skill in treating the boy’s alleged
ailment and none of whom is a medical practitioner.
They are, therefore, guilty of reckless imprudence resulting in homicide and NOT of murder.
VIII (10%)
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.
Answer:
Fe committed a complex crime of qualified theft through falsification of
commercial document.
It is qualified theft because the facts of the case show that Fe took a personal property belonging to the rice mill owner without the latter’s consent;
she did it with intent to gain (she pocketed the money and used it to support her gambling debt); she accomplished the crime without the use of violence against or intimidation of persons or force upon things; and she committed the theft with grave abuse of confidence, which qualified the crime of theft. The fact that she as manager had custody of the ledger and had access in the preparation of financial report suffices to designate the crime as qualified theft as she gravely abused the confidence reposed in her by the rice mill owner.
The crime of qualified theft was complexed with the falsification of commercial document because the latter crime was a necessary means to commit the crime of qualified theft. There was an evident falsification of commercial document since Fe, a private individual, made an untruthful financial statement in the ledger (a private document).
Alternative Answer:
My answer is anchored on the principle that a servant, domestic or employee who misappropriates a thing of his master is guilty of qualified theft, not estafa.
It cannot be estafa (through unfaithfulness and abuse of confidence) because the element of “demand made by offended party against the malefactor” is not present in the case at bar. Not only that. Fe has no onerous obligation to deliver something of value, which is an essential element.
1 0 0 % U P L A W 1 0 0 % U P L A W 1 0 0 % U P L A W
1 0 0 % U P L A W U P B A R O P S 2 0 0 8 Page 143143143143 of 155155155155 APPENDIX III: SUGGESTED ANSWERS TO THE 07 BAR QUESTIONS
CRIMINAL LAW II
There is no crime of estafa through falsification of private document because the immediate effect of the latter is same as that of estafa. [A. Gregorio, Fundamentals of Criminal Law Review (9th ed., 1997), p. 464]
Another Alternative Answer:
Fe committed a crime of falsification of private document.
It is falsification of private document because of the presence of all elements of this crime in the case at bar, which are : (1) that the offender committed an act of falsification [making untruthful statement of facts on the ledger]; (2) that the falsification was committed in any private document [ledger]; and (3) that the falsification caused damage to a third party [rice mill owner suffered pecuniary loss].
The crime is not estafa because falsification of private document was committed as a means to commit estafa.
Unchallenged is the rule that if the falsification of a private document is committed as a means to commit estafa, the proper crime to be charged is falsification of private document only.
Neither the crime is a complex crime of estafa through falsification of private document because it is settled that there is no such complex crime.
IX.
(10%)
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 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.
Answer:
It was reckless imprudence resulting to less serious physical injuries.
I was tempted to answer illegal discharge of firearm and have it complexed but I refrained since his discharge of firearm was lawful and that is to warn the crowd and prevent them from rushing to the stage but he lacked the necessary care in disregarding that the bullet might ricochet and hit the people.
X.
(10%)
Pinky was a lessee of a market stall owned by Giovanni. When Pinky refused to pay her rental, Giovanni nailed some wooden barricades on one of the sides of the market stall and posted this warning: "We have closed this portion of the door. Do not open it or else something may happen to you."
What crime/s did Giovanni commit, if any? Explain your answer.
Answer:
Note: This is an old CA case, People vs.
Banzon, 66 OG 10533, in toto copied from Reyes Book 2, page 599.
There is a recent case having similar facts with the case at bar. We may refer to Maderazo vs. People, G.R.
No. 165065, 26 September 2006. In this case the SC ruled that the crime is not grave coercion but unjust vexation.
The act of the accused is not such a serious threat amounting to coercion but merely the crime of unjust vexation.
The crime merely annoys the victim.
Source:
2007 Bar Questions. Bar Exams Forum (Philippines).
Available
http://phbar.org/viewforum.php?f=33&
sid=02b73c31f470c9889204de4fa6ea4cff . 09 June 2008.
1 0 0 % U P L A W 1 0 0 % U P L A W 1 0 0 % U P L A W
1 0 0 % U P L A W U P B A R O P S 2 0 0 8 Page 144144144144 of 155155155155
APPENDIX IV: Q&A CRIMINAL LAW II
APPENDIX IV: Q&A
Q1. In the course of the hi-jack, a passenger or complement was shot and killed. What crime or crimes were committed?
A. The crime remains to be a violation of the anti hi-jacking law, but the penalty thereof shall be higher because a passenger or complement of the aircraft had been killed. The crime of homicide or murder is not committed.
Q2. The hi-jackers threatened to detonate a bomb in the course of the hi-jack.
What crime or crimes were committed?
A. Again, the crime is violation of the anti hi-jacking law. The separate crime of grave threat is not committed. This is considered as a qualifying circumstance that shall serve to increase the penalty.
Q3. A janitor at the Quezon City Hall was assigned in cleaning the men’s room.
One day, he noticed a fellow urinating so carelessly that instead of urinating at the bowl, he was actually urinating partly on the floor. The janitor resented this. He stepped out of the men’s room and locked the same. He left. The fellow was able to come out only after several hours when people from the outside forcibly opened the door. Is the janitor liable for arbitrary detention?
A. No. Even if he is a public officer, he is not permitted by his official function to arrest and detain persons.
Therefore, he is guilty only of illegal detention. While the offender is a public officer, his duty does not include the authority to make arrest;
hence, the crime committed is illegal detention.
Q4. A municipal treasurer has been courting his secretary. However, the latter always turned him down.
Thereafter, she tried to avoid him.
One afternoon, the municipal treasurer locked the secretary inside their office until she started crying.
The treasurer opened the door and allowed her to go home. What crime was committed?
A. Illegal detention. This is because the municipal treasurer has no authority to detain a person although he is a public officer.
Q5. The offended party was brought to a place which he could not leave because he does not know where he is, although free to move about. Was arbitrary or illegal detention committed?
A. Either arbitrary detention or illegal detention was committed. If a person is brought to a safe house, blindfolded, even if he is free to move as he pleases, but if he cannot leave the place, arbitrary detention or illegal detention is committed.
Q6. A had been collecting tong from drivers. B, a driver, did not want to contribute to the tong. One day, B was apprehended by A, telling him that he was driving carelessly.
Reckless driving carries with it a penalty of immediate detention and arrest. B was brought to the Traffic Bureau and was detained there until the evening. When A returned, he opened the cell and told B to go home.
Was there a crime of arbitrary detention or unlawful arrest?
A. Arbitrary detention. The arrest of B was only incidental to the criminal intent of the offender to detain him.
But if after putting B inside the cell, he was turned over to the investigating officer who booked him and filed a charge of reckless imprudence against him, then the crime would be unlawful arrest. The detention of the driver is incidental to the supposed crime he did not commit. But if there is no supposed crime at all because the driver was not charged at all, he was not given place under booking sheet or report arrest, then that means that the only purpose of the offender is to stop him from driving his jeepney because he refused to contribute to the tong.
Q7. Within what period should a police officer who has arrested a person under a warrant of arrest turn over the arrested person to the judicial authority?
A. There is no time limit specified except that the return must be made within a reasonable time. The period fixed by law under Article 125 does not apply
A. There is no time limit specified except that the return must be made within a reasonable time. The period fixed by law under Article 125 does not apply