() Under the facts given, would the bank be entitled to the retum of the money? Why? Answer: a) As legal counsel, I would advise Armando to file 2 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 partici- pated in the commission of the robbery by Jose, Pedro and Juan. The car, is therefore, not subject to confis- cation. b) The motion of the bank lawyer for the modification of the judgment with the prayer that the money be ordered retumed to the bank must be denied. The judgment is already fina! and so the court has no m “jurisdiction” over the case (People vs. Velez 15 SCRA 26) comphr Ht yy xv 2000 Despite the massive advertising eampalgn in media agatvel Precrackers and gun-fring during the New Year's edebrations, Jonas and Jaje bought ten baxes of super lolo and pla-pla. in Bocaue, Bulacan. Before midnight of December 31, 1999, Jonas and Jaja started thetr celebration by having a drinkdng 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 hhas been keeping a long-time grudge against his neighbor Jepoy in view of the latter's refusal to lend him some money. While under the influence of liquor, Jonas started throwing, lighted super lolos inside Jepoy's fence toirritate him and the same exploded inside the latter's yard. Upon knowing that the throwing of the super lolo was deliberate, Jepoy became farious and sternly warned Jonas to stop his malicious act rhe would get whathe wanted. Aheated argument between Gonas and Jepoy ensued but Jaja tried to calm down his fdend. Atmidnight, Jonas convinced Jaja tolend himhis 45 caliber pistol so that he could useitt to knock down Jepoy and toend his arrogance. Jonas thought that after all, expiosions ear menwhere ané nobody would kaow who shot Jepoy. ‘After daja lent his firearm to Jonas, the latter again started rarted throwing lighted super lolos and ple-plas at Jepoy's yard in order to provoke him so that he weuld 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 Dullet hit Jepoy’s five year old son who was following behind him, Liling the boy instantaneously. a} What crime or crimes can Jonas and Jaja be charged with? Expiain. (2%)b) fyouwere Jonas’ and Jaja’s lawyer, what possible defenses would you set up in favor of your clients? Explain. (298) ©) Ifyou were the judge, how would you decide the case? Explain. (19) with the complex crime of attemy because a single act caused less grave and a grave felony (Art. 48, RPC). Attempted murder is @ less grave felony, while consummated homicideis.@ grave felony: both are punishable by affictive penalties. bj If-] were Jonas’ and Jaje'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 impatring his will power o> capacity to understand the wrongfulness of his act, Non-intentionai intoxication is 2 mitigating circumstance (Feopie us. Fortich, 261 12997); Art. 15, RPG. aja should be ip accomplice because a+ knew of Jonas’ criminal design even before he len: his firearm to Jonas end still concurred in that criminal cesign by providing the firearm, xv fai A, actuated by malice ané with the use of a fully automatic M-14 sb-machine gun, shot a group 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 sub-machine gun of A. Four (4) cases of murder were fled 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%)(0) What constitutes « complex crime? How many crimes maybe involved in a complex crime? What is the penalty therefor? (4%) SUGGESTED ANSWER: 99 (@) The decision of the trial judge 1s 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 continuelly. For each death caused by a distinct and seperate bullet, the accused incurs distinct crimine! Uabillty, 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 pro- aticed them. (o} Acompiex crime is constituted when a singte ‘act caused two or more grave or less grave felonies or when an offense is committed ae a necessary means to commit enother offense (Art. <8, RPC), At least two (2) crimes are involved in x complex crime; either two or more greve or less grave felonies resulted from e single act, or an offense is committed as & necessary means for committing another. ‘The penalty for the more serious crime shall be imposed and in its maximum period. (Art. 48, RPC) Question No.2: qg9g 1) At the height of an altereation, 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, Ifyou were the judge, how would you decide the case? Answer: vers 1) If were the judge, | will convict Pedrito and find him gullty of the complex crime of Homicide with Attempted Eomicide, 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 asa defense asit isnot an exempling cucumstance. Pedrito is lable under the principle of Art. 4, RPC, which makes a person criminally Vable for all the natural and logical conse- ‘quences of his felonious act.[1998] 2. Pascual operated rice thresher in Barangay Napnud where he resided. Renato, a resident of the neighboring Barangay Guihaman, also operated a mobile rice thresher which he often brought to Barangay Napnud to thresh the palay of the farmers there. ‘This was bitterly resented by Pascual. One afternoon Pascual, and his twosons confronted Renato and his men who were operating their mobile rice thresher along a feeder road in Napnud. A heated argument ensued. A barangay captain who was fetched by one of Pascual’s men tried to appease Pascual and Renato to prevent a violent confrontation. However, Pascual resented the intervention of the barangay captain and hacked him to death ‘What crime was committed by Pascual? Discuss fully. Answers: 2. Pascual committed the complex crime of homicide with assault upon a person in authority (Arts. 148 and 249 in relation to Art, 48, RPC). A barangay chairman, fs in jaw (art, 152}, a person in authority and {fhe is attacked while in the performance of his official duties or on the occasion thereof the felony of direct assault 1s committed, Art, 48, RPC, on the other hand, provides that ifa single act produces two or more grave or less grave felonles, a complex crime is committed. Here, the single act of the offender in hacking the victim to death resulted im two felonies, homicide which is grave and direct assault which 5, less grave. Question No. 7: 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 wile, Aldrich struck Carmi with his fist. She fell to the ground. Asa result, she and her unborn baby died. What crime was committed by Aldrich? Answer: FE: 94 Aldrich committed the crime of parricide with uninten- tional abortion. When Aldrich struck his wile, Carmi, with his fist. he committed the crime of maltreatment under Art. 2 of the Revised Penal Code. Since Carm: died because of the felonious act of Aldrich, he is crunicially kable of parricide under Ar. 246, RPC in relation to An. 4, par. 1 ofthe same Code. Since the unborn baby of Carmi diedin the process, but Aldrich had no intention to cause the abortion of his wife, Aldrich committed unintentional abortion as defined in Art, 257. RPC. nuch as the single act of Aldrich produced two grave or less grave felonies, he falls under Art, 48, RPC. Le. a complex crime (People vs. Salufran cla, 159 SCRA 40)1994 2) Differentiate delito continuado from a continuing offense. 2} Delito continuado, or continuous crime, is a term used to denote as only one crime 2 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 partlal 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 pena! provision, and impellec by a single criminal impulse (People vs. Le desma, 73 SCRA 77}, Or the other hand, & continuing offense iy one whose essential ingredients took place in more tian one munictp: sty or eity, 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. ‘The tern “€ontinued crime’ of dellto continuado man- dates that only ord Warman should beled against the offender although a series of felonious acts were performed: the term “continuing erim@” is more pertinently used with reference to the venue where the criminal action may be instituted. Rodolfo, e policeman, was cleaning his service pistol inside his house when it fell from his hand and fired. T bullet hit a neighbor on the stomach anda second neighbor on the leg. The injuries sustained by the two neighbors re- uired thirty-five (35) days and nine (9) days of medical at- tendance, respectively. The investigating fiscal later filed an information for frustrated homicide and slight physical in- juries through reclless imprudence against Rodolfo. Is the charge correct? Explain. Answer: ‘The charge is not correct. ‘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 kil. The facts do si.show. any Inteat to kill on the part of Rodolfo. At most, he was caréless, and therefore only negligent. ‘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 commit- ted 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 felony, ae Question No. VII: | 19@7 Jose purchased roofing materials worth P20,000.00 from PY & Sons Construction Company owned by Pedro, and paid the latter @ check in the said amount. The following day, Pedro deposited the check, but it was retumed dis- onored because it was drawn against a closed account Notwithstanding written demands, Jose failed to make good said check. Atty. Saavedra, counse! 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 covld only be liable f violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 and not for estafe under Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code because one precludes the other and because Bates Pambansa Ble. 22 is nore favorable to the accused as it carries a lighter penlty ‘The investigating fiscal, on his resolution, stated that only cone crime was committed, namely, the complex crime of estefa under Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code anc violation of Batas Pambansa Big. 22 because the singlt of issuing the bouncing check constitutes two offenses, fone under Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code and another under Batas Pambanse Big. 22. If you were the Provincial Fisca) asked to review the matter, how would you resolve it? Answer: ‘The resolution of the investigating fiscal is Seronedus. ‘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 fe the Revised Penal Code. Batas 22 which punishes the offense of fesuing_a worthless check is a special Jaw. The contention of Atty. San Pascuat, counsel of Jose that his Client should be lieble only for Batas 22 and for sstafe Undarthe-Revised_Penal Code because one precludés the other and because Bata 27 i mRge levorable to Me wtcusee ae it cerrigs @ lighter penalty Sones sustainec. Bates 43) specifically provides that liability under sai¢ acts without prejudice to any liability for estafe under the Revised Penal Code. The check issued by Jose in payment of roofingmaterizis from PY and Sons was worthless, Said bouncing check having been issued in payment of 2 simultaneous obligation constitutes estafa under the Revised Penal Code and also the offense punished under Batas 22. There is no identity of offenses. Damage AGot an element of the offen punisbed-in-Betes-22 whereas in estafé damage is an element Estafa is an act matain sé In Which requires intent as an clement while the offense punished in Batas 22 is-an-act-mala prohibita where intent is not an element. | 1998 sh between rest wism, [298i 2, In recidivism - a) The convictions of the offender are for crimes embyneed in the same Title of the Revised Penel Code; and b) This circumstance is genericy aggravatiny and therefore can be offset by en ordinary mitigating circumstance, Whereas in'quasi-recigivism + 2) The convictions are not for crimes em- braced in the same Title of the Revised Penal Code, provided that it is a felony that was committed by the offender before serv- ing sentence by final judgment for another crime or while Serving sentence for another erie; an >) This circumstance is a aggravating circumstance which c set by any mitigating elrcumstands- deden| Bubi ng aad Question No. 6: | 4ggq_ ‘A was charged with homicide, During the trial, un- contradicied evidence consisting of medical certificates were presented showing that the accused had sustained injuries in ten (10) previous occasions while engaged in fisticufls with different persons. He was also confined at the Na- tonal Mental Hospital for mental ‘ailment diagnosed as “homicidal and suicidal instincts.” Duning his second con: finement thereat, he escaped. Upon conviction, the prose~ cutor objected to the application of the Indeterminate Sen- tence Law contending that the accused is @ habitual delin- quent and an-escapee from the National Mental Hospital If you art the Judge, rule on the objection.Answer: ‘The objection should be overruled. A could not be legally considered a habitual delinquent. Habitual delin- quency cannot be validly invoked without being alleged in the Information and proven during the trial. Besides there is no indication thal A was convicted within ten (10) years. from last conviction or release, three times or oftener of the crimes of robbery. theft, estafa, physical mjuries or falsifi. ation, Being an escapee from the Mental Hospital will not disqualify him [rom 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. a Question No. 5. “4988. A Give at least four distinctions between habitual delin- quency and recidivism. Can a person be 2 habitual delinquent without being 2 recidivist?. Explain. Answer: ‘The four distinctions between habitual delinquency and recidivism are: 1. In habitual delinquency, the crimes are specified, which are robbery, theft, estafa, falsification, serious and less Serious physical injuries. In recidivism, the crimes are embraced in the same title of the Revised Penal Code. 2, In recidivism, no-period of time is fixed between the former conviction and the last conviction. In habitual delinquency, conviction of any of the specified crimes must take place within 10.years from the last conviction or release. 3, In recidivism, it is enough that there be 2 second con- vietion of any crime embraced in the same titie of the jast or the first crime. In habitual delinquency, there must be at least 2 third conviction of any of the speck fied crimes. a 4, Recidivism is an aggravating circumstance and if not offset serves to inérease ‘the penalty. Habitual delin- quency provides for the impositien_of an additional penalty. — ‘There may be habitual delinquency without recidivism if the three convictions refer to crimes not embraced in the ‘same title Code, like. robbery in the first conviction, a crime against property, falsification, the second conviction, a crime against public interest and serious physical injuries, the third conviction, a crime against persons.ya v3 juestion No. 6: |_1997 Aand 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 awrong as that committed. The prescribed penalty for arricide ts reclusion perpetua to death. Impose the proper principal penalty. S87 = ‘The proper penalty is reclusion perpetua. Even if there are two oF more mtigating circumstances, a court cannot lower the penalty by one degree (Art. 63. par. 3, Revised Penal Code: People us. Farmigones, 87 Phil. 685). In U.S. vs. Relador, 60 Phil. 593, where the crime committed was parricide with the two (2) mitigating circumstances of literacy and lack of Intention to commit so grave a wrong, and with no aggravat- ing circumstance, the Supreme Court held that the proper penalty to be imposed 1s reclusion perpetua. Question No.1 4985 \ Minority is generally @ privileged mitigating cir. ‘cumatance which entitles the minor offender to a suspend ed sentence. It may however, under certain cireumstances, be considered as 2 mere ordinary circumstance in which vase the offender may be immediately sentenced and made to serve the penalty imposed upon him instead of being placed under suspended sentence. Discuss. Answer Minority as « privileged mitigating cireumstance is considered in the imposition of the penalty. (Art. 68, Revised Penal Cole). However, the age of the minor at. ‘the time of the commission of the crime may be considered in suspending the sentence upon convietion, So under the Child and Youth Welfare Code (Presidential Decree 603, as amended) a minor under 18 years old at the time of the commission of the offense and at the time of the trial, if found guilty after trial may apply for the suspension of the sentence. The only instance where there is no us pension of the sentence in spite of minority is thet pro- vided in Article 80 of the Revised Penal Code where the minor under 16 years old at the time of the commission of a light feiony if found guilty, the sentence is imme- diately imposed. But Article 80 has been expressly re- pealed by Presidential Decree 1179 which took effect on August 15, 1977. As a matter of fact, the Supreme Court held in People vs. Sanches (182 SCRA 103 1984) that there are only two instances where there can be no sus- pended sentence, to wit: 1) if the offense committed by a minor is punisheble by death or life imprisonment; 2) if“pe Ro fla! he minor ie 8 years and cbove at the time of the com- mission of the offense and at the time of the trial. Question No.7 4985 Finding Carlos Torres guilty of ROBBERY as charged, Judge Cruz nevertheless dismissed the case against him it appearing from the evidence that Carlos Torres hec already been previously convicted in Aftesn (18) other crimini s and sentenced to a tot! penalty 305 yea his HONOR ruling that anyway the Lote! penalty which he may be compelied to serve cen case exceed forty (49) years under ¢ Comrs pronounes: on the legality of His HONOR'S aferosaid Answer: The dismissal of the robbery case by Judve Cruz ie improper and irregular. Dismissal is inconsistent vith the finding of guilt of the accused, The duty of the Court is to apply w and to impose the penalty provided upon the accused found guilty of the crime charged. The scr. that the accused, Carlos Torres, had been pre viously cot teen (15) other crimes and tenced to 4 total penzlty of three hundred five (305) years ané the total penalty that the accused may be com. pelied to serve cannot exceed forty (40) years under the three-fold rule, does not fine application in law. The three fold rule applies to the service of the penalties and not in the imposition of the penalties. (People vs. Escares 102 Phil. 67). Beir & Qube XU. | 4998 1. Under Article 47 of RA. 7659, the death penalty shall be imposed in all cases in which it must be imposed under existing laws, What are the exceptions to the imposi- tion of the death penalty? [3%] 2, Edgardo was charged with importation of prohib- d drugs sn an information fled with the Regional Trial Court of Kalookan City on June 4. 1994. The offense is punishable by reclusion perpetuc to death. Can Edgardo avail of plea-bargaining? {2%} Answer: & 99. 1, The death penalty shell notbe imposed although Prescribed under existing laws: (2) When the accused is less than 18 years of age at the time of the commission of the offens(2) When the accused is more than 70 yeare of age already; (3) When upon appeal or automatic review of the case by the Supreme Court, the required majority vote for the imposition of the death penalty Is not obtained. : 2, Ne, Edgardo cannot avall of piea-bargaining \p-Apecause the’ imposable penalty for his violation of the angerous Drugs Act (R.A. No. 6425, as amended) is, reclusion perpetua to death. Sectiom 20-A expressly provides that ples bargaining shalknathe allowed where the imposabie penalty for the violation of said lew is, reclusion perpetua to death. (Sec. 20-A, R.A. No. 6425, as amended}, —————— ki 4 y a) Fordefrauding Loma, Alma was charged before the Municipal Trial Court of Malolos, Bulacan. After a protracted ‘trtal, Alma was convicted. While the case was pending appeal 1n the Regional Trial Court of the saine province, Lorna wino was then suffering from breast cancer, died. Alma manifested to the court that with Lorna's death, her (Alma’s} criminal and civil labilities are now extinguished. Is Alma’s contention correct? What if{t were Alma who died, would tt affect her criminal and civil Vabilities? Explain. (3%) b) Name at least two exceptions to the general rule that in case of acquittal of the accused ina criminal case, his civil. liability 1s likewise extinguished. (2%) SUGGESTED ANSWER: a) 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 iablity of Alma based on the offense committed by her is not extinguished. The estate of Lorna can continue the case. On the other hand, if it were Alma who died pending appeal of her conviction, her-crimial lability shal be extinguished and therewith tie civil lability 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) ff predicated on a source of obligation other than delict, such as law, contracts, quasi-contracts and quasi- delicts (People vs. Bayotas 236 SCRA 239, G.R. 152007. September 2, 1994). b]__ Exceptions totherule thet acquittal from acriminal case extinguishes civil ability, are:ya 1. When the civil action ts based on obligations not arising from the act complained of as a felony: 2. When acquittal ts based on reasonable doubt or acquittal {s on the ground that guilt has not been proven beyond reasonable doubt (Art. 29, New Cutt Code 3. Acquittal due toan exempuing 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 for the fling of separate civil action: 6. In cases of independent civil actions provided for in Arts, 31, 32, 38 and 34 of the New Civil Code: 7. When the judgment of acquittal includes a declaration ‘that the fact from which the civil ability might arise did not exist (Sapiera vs. CA, 314 SCRA 370}: 8, Where the civil Uability 1s not derived or based on the criminal act of which the accused {s acquitted (Saplera vs. CA. $14 SCRA 370). Note : Orly two (2) exceptions ere asked. Question no. 1: | 4992_ 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 6,000.00 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? Suggested Answef: Under Art, 89. RPC, and jurisprudence (People ws. vose, 71 SCRA 273, People us. Alison, 44 SCRA 523; etc), death of the accused pending appeal extinguishes his erimi nal and civil liabilities. Civil ability includes pecuniary abilities, such as fine. Hence, the same, together with the disqualification and the costs ‘are extinguished, Alternative Answer: In Petralba vs, Sandiganbayan, 200 SCRA 644, however, extinction of criminal liability arising from the death of the accused pending appeal likewise extinguishes the pecuniary lability such as fine, Dut not the civil labil-ity, such as the Indemnification of P6,000.00 in the instant case, The same is a claim of the government against the estate but ONLY IF THE OFFENSE CAN BE PROVED in the appellate court. In other words, the latter should still decide the appeal as far as the civil liability of P6.000.00 is, concerned. Question No. 5: | 1990 Rico was convicted of raping Letty, his former sweet: heart, by the Regional Taal Court of Manila and he was ordered to serve the penalty of life imprisonment, to in- demnify Letty in the amount of P30,000.00 and to support their olfspring, Pending appeal in the Supreme Court, Rico died. His widow, Bernie, moved for a dismissal of the case. a) What is the legal effect of Rico's death on his crimi- nal Uability? Explain your answer. b] How about on his civil ability? State your rea- sons. Answers: a) The criminal liability of Rico 1s extinguished on the basis of Article 89 of the Revised Penal Code which pro- vides that: * How criminal Vabliity is extinguished - Crimi hal Uabiity is totally extiguished: 1. By the death of the convict, as to the personal penalties: and as to pecuniary penalties, lability therefor is extinguished only when the Geath of the offender occurs before final judgement. b) The ewil Mability of Rico survives. (People v. Sen- davdiego, January 20, 1978, 74 0.G. 4371; People v. Trot GR No, 1-30588, January 31, 1981; People v. Naboa, et, al..132 SCRA 410). QuestionNo.5: 1988, a) How is criminal liability totally extinguished? b) How is criminal liability extinguished partially? ¢) 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? Explain briefly. Answer: a) Article 89 of the Revised Penal Code provides for the following causes of total extinction of criminal liabl 1. Death of the convict as to personal penalties, as to the pecuniary liabilities, liability therefore isGr 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 confine- ment 4. Parole 8. Probation } If an accused acquitted, it does not necessarily fol- low that no civil liability arising from the acts complained of may be awarded in the same judgment expept: If there is an express Waiver the lisbility; and if there jr Feservaton oF file a separate civil action (Rule 107; Padilla vs. CA People vs. Jalandoni), Question No. XI: | 487 PM, a rich businessmai®, was convicted of tnurder and sentenced to life imprisonment by the Regional Trial Court, and to pay the heirs of the victim the total amount of 250,000.00. While his appeal was pending before the Sup- reme 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 pecu- niary 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? 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 hhis pecuniary liability Article 89 of the Revised Penal Code which provides that the “pecuniary liability of the accusedextinguished only when the death of the offender occurred bs the final judgment”, refers to hif liability Xo pay the Corso *. sev a The civil ability, however, survives the death of the offender because death is not @ valid cause of the extinguishment of civil obligation. (Torrijos vs. Court of Appeals 67 SCRA 394). MANGO fusion eos va 2000 One fateful night in January 1990, while 5-year old Albert was urinating at the back of their house, he heard astrange noise coming from the kitchen of their neighbor and playmate, Ara. When he peeped inside, he saw Mina, Are's stepmother, very angry and strangling the 5-year old Ara to death. Albert saw Mina carry the dead body of Ara, place ft inside the trunk of her car and drive away. The dead body of Ara was never 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 preseribes in 20 years. Can the state still prosecute Mina for the death of Ara despite the lapse of 20 & 1/2 years? Explain. (5%) SUGGESTED ANSWER: 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 ty pag from the day on whjck the crime is discovered by the party, the aut their ar, the commasslo¥rof the Grime was known only to Albert, who was not the offended party nor an authority or an agent of an authority. Itwas discovered by the NBI authorities only when Albert revealed to them the commission of the crime. Hence, the period ofprescription of 20 years for homicide commenced torun only from the time Albert revealed the same to the NBI authorities. Question No. 12: | 4997 Awas charged in an information with the crime of grave oral defamation but after trial, the court found hum guilty only of the offense of simple slander. He filed a motion for reconsideration contending that, under the law, the crime of simpie slander would have prescribed in two months from ‘commission, and since the information against him was fled 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 Ato raise it in a motion to quash. Resolve the motion for reconsideration. a» Answer: ‘The motion for reconsideration should be granted. a) 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 us. Rarang, (CA) 62 0.G. 6468; Pranctscovs. CA, 122 SCRA 538: Magat vs. People, 201 SCRA 21) otherwise prosecutors can easily circumvent the rule of prescription in light offenses by the simple expediment of filing a graver offense which ineludes such light offense. b) 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) nooffense was charged in the complaint or information: (2) laciof jurisdiction: (3) extincHen_of the offense or penalty: and (4) double Jeopardy. Since the ground invoked by the accused in his ‘motion for reconsideration is extincUon ofthe offense, then itcanbe ratsed even after plea: Infact, it may evenbe invoked onappeal (People vs: Balagtas) a Question No. 2: 4995 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 com- puted from the day the crune 's discovered oy the offended Party, the authorities or their agents, Joe raised the defense of prescription of the crime, more than fifteen years having lapsed from the celebration of the bigamous marriage up to. the filing of Marcy's complaint. Ke 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, Has the crime of bigamy charged against Joe already prescribed? Discuss fully. - 2@s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) nen Answer: No. The prescriptive period for the crime of bigamy is, computed from the time the crime was discovered by the offended party, the authoritles or their agents. The principle of constructive notice which ordinary applies to land or property disputes should not be applied to the crime of” ‘Digamy. as marriage is not property. Thus when Marcy filed Question Ko. town, acguir: shall prescribe in twenty y nether Andy can suili be chal Question No, Ill. 498t Maria called Lydia names and slapped he: 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 Office a complaint for slander by deed against Maria. After preliminary investi- gation, 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 2 Sunday, the fiscal filed the information in court on Monday, the 181si dey from the commission of the crime. After trial, the Judge convictedat Marie. She engaged another lawyer who on appeal asserted that the crime of slander by deed hac prescribec because it was filed ix court one day after the six-month periog of pres- eription ised Pena! Code. ‘The Fiscal argue thet sin: the informatt any event, Marie waived the because she di¢ not raise it during t Decide the case. Answer: he crime of slander by deed has already prescribed as it was filed one day efter the six month period of pres- cription. The rule is if the last day of the period of pres- cription of a crime falls on @ 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 the 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 Question No. 13: | 4990 Maloling is a public official who resigned from the service on February 1, 1984. On February 15, 1990. the Solictor General filed a petition in court for the forfeiture of the property of Maioling which was allegedly uniawfulh acquired, me seal weiawty a) If you were the counsel oF defenses woulc you inte f Malling, what defense pose? Explain your answer, d)_Besides propery unlawfully acquired found to in the name of Maloling, what are the other properies not in his name which may nevertheless be considered unlev- fully acquired? Explain your answer Answer! al 1 would interpose the defense of prescription as the right to file a petition for forfetiure under Republic Act No. 1879 Section 2 prescribes im four Jal veare isan “he date ol fi the Gate of Tesignation, b)_ Property which may still be considered as unlaw- Uy acquired, though not in the name of Maloling at the ‘tine, of filing of the petition for forfeiture, shall include: Ui Property unlawfully acquired by the respon- dent but its ownership concealed by being recorded in the name of, or held by, the respondent's spouse, as- cendanls, descendants, relatives or any other person; anc2) Property unlawfully acquired by the respon: dent, but transferred by him to another person/s. (A. 1879 Section. 1(b)) x 2000 Awas a 17-year old working student who was earning his keepas acigarette vendor. Bwas drivinga car along busy Espana Strect 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, © beckoned ‘A tobuy some cigarettes. A approached the car and handed ‘twosticks of cigarettes toC. While the transaction was taking place, the trafficlight changed to green and the carimmediately sped off. As the car continued to speed towards Qutapo, 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 hini on the ground of reasonable doubt, Can the family of the victim still recover civil damages in view of the acquittal of C? Explain. (5%) SUGGESTED ANSWER: Yes, as against C, A's family can still recover elvil 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 28, CC). 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 ornegligence, about pre-existing contractual relation between the parties, is called a quasi-delict (Art. 2176, CC). This is entirely separate and distinct from civil Hability arising from negligence under the Penal Code (Arts. 31, 2176, 2177, CC). xt. rb) 1998 fer re ene it eaenpeliserey nea een operated by Max, bumped Demy, a pedestrian crossing the eect Deny suntaned wanes ena resuree meted attendance or three menths. Guy was charged with reckless. mgradunce taulaeg to prpaielinjaes Conwised oneMetropolitan Trial Court, Guy was sentenced to suller a straight penalty of three months of arresto mayor and or- dered to indemnify Demy in the sum of P5,000 and to pay P1,000 as attomey’s fee: Upon finailty of the decision, a writ of execution was served upon Guy, but was returned unsatisfied due to his insolvency. Demy moved for 2 subsidiary writ of execution against Max. The latter opposed the motion on.the ground that the decision made no miention of his subsidiary lability and that he was not impieaded in the case. How wili you resolve the motion? [54%) Answer: BY OQ ‘The motion is to be granted. Max as an employe: of Guy and engaged in an industry (transportation business) where said employee is utllized, 1s subsidiarily civilly. Mable under Article 108 of the Revised Penal Code. Even though the decision made no mention of his subsidiary. lability, the law violated (Revised Penal Code} Itself mandates for such lability end Max is deemed to know It because ignorance of the law is never excused. Andsince his lability ts not primary but only subsidiary tn case his employee cannot pay, he need not be impleaded in the in the criminal case. It suffices that he was duly notifled of the motion for issuance of e subsidiary writ ofexecution ‘and thus given the opportunity to be heard. as Sy Question No. 6 by VICMICO 2 sugar central, w ing recklessly caused Jorge Abud to fall from the truck resulting in injuries which caused his death. Juan Cruz was convicted of cide thru reckless imprudence and was ordered to pay the heirs of the deceased Abad P12,000.00. The respondent judge issued an order granting a motion for execution of the civil service liability of the accused Juan Cr return of the Sheriff showed that the accused was insolvent. Petitioners, heirs of the deceased Abad, now filed « 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 facing a criminal charge, a separate action had to be filed. Hence, @ petition for mandamus was filed. Decide the case. Answer: Mandamus will lie: There is no need for e separate « action because the driver was convicted (Martine: Barredo}. All you need is a motion for execution with «notice to the employer that states compliance with the requisites imposed by Article 102 of the Revised Penal Code at there is employer-erployee relationship, ployer is engaged ir. an industry and that insolvent). L021 pa Question No. 8: 4986 Aristarchus, a resident of Hoilo, checked in at the Manila Hotel while attending to some business in Manila, Heeding the notice posted in his room requesting the tenants to deposit their valuables in one of the hotel's deposit boxes near the reception counter in the lobby, Aristarchus depo- sited P10,000.00 cash in one of the hotel’s deposit boxes. ‘As he was about to go up to his room, armed men entered the lobby, told everybody to lie flat on the floor, and divested the guests of their money and valuables. They also forcibly opened the safety deposit boxes, scooped out their contents anc fled. Aristarchus sued the hotel claiming that the hotel is subsidiarily liable for the P10,000.00 deposited in the safety deposit box and for P5,000.00 taken from his wallet while he was lying face down on the floor. is the hotel subsidiarily liable? Explain. Answer: Manila Hoiel is not subsidiarily civilly liable. Although Aristarchus has complied with the notice of the hotel regarding the depositing of his money in one of the hotel’s deposit boxes, the hotel is not liable as’Sich were-lost be- ery committed with viglenge or ixtimigation ena (Art. 102 par. 2, RPC)<< Question No. 14: VC. JG, GG and JG conspired to overthrow the Philip- pine 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 GS have conspired to overthrow the government. Father Abraham did not report this information to the proper authorities. Did Father Abraham commit a crime? Ifso, what crime was committed? What is his criminal liability? Answer: SBME No, Father Abraham did not commit acrime because the conspiracy involved is one to commit rebellion, not a consplr- treason which ‘Art, 116, RPC, An oa as misprision of treason. @ayjer-Abraharn is exemptedagsam . criminal liability under Art. 12, par. 7, as hisfalluretorepark 4, Cyril ¢.considered“as due to, insunerable cause”, as this involves the sanctity and inviolabiliy of a confession. Conspiracy to commit rebellion results in criminal liability to the co-conspiratcrs, but not to a person who sarned of such and did not report to the proper authorities 1S us. Vergara, 3 Phil. 432: People vs. 7a, 56 Phil, 353}, Ath ' Piety syn Pity Question No, 10: 1986. ius (he The interisland vessel, M/V Sweet Aspirations, while travelling from Davao City to Jolo, was blown by a powerful typhoon towards the coast of Sebah. While anchored within two miles off the cozst of Sabah, it was accosted by four armed men ~ Abdul, Ahmed, Aurelio and Archimedes — who arrived on board a motorized kumpit. The armed men fired Armelites at the interisland vessel, boarded 11, and divested the passengers of their money and jewelry. A pas senger by the name of Barnabas took advantage of the con- fusion to settle an old grudge with an enemy, entered the cabin of that enemy and killed him: Abdul, Ahmed, Aurelio, Archimedes, and Bamabas were eventually apprehended by men of the Philippine Cons- tabulary. All five of them were prosecuted for quelified Piracy before the Regional Court of Tawi-Tawi (a) Were Abdul, Ahmed, Aurelio, and Archimedes correctly charged before a Philippine court with qualified piracy? Explain your answer. (b) Was Bamabas comectly' charged before a Philip- pine cour with qualified piracy? If yes, expla. Hot enlighten the Fiscal and the Judge on the matter. takes a person cruninally saqgnior venassumingthatitwilifall qq ea “TMPAnswer; (a) Abdul, Ahmed, Aurelio and Archimedes are correctly charged with qualified piracy, Beg committed within two miles off the coast of Sabah, it is deemec_com- mutted-in-tnehigh seas which is any body of water bevond . the territeriai waters ofthe Philippines even_though such mey_be within the waters of a foreign country. Under the Revised Penal Code, one of the qualifying circumstances of Qualified Piracy is seizing a vessel by firing and boarding 3 vesse! while in the high seas. (Art. 123, par. 1) Alternative Answer Since the facts of the problem only state that the accused fired at the interisland vessel, boarded it and divested the passengers of their money and jewelry, such do not indicate seizure of the vessel. So simple piracy is the crime committed, which however is also trigble before the Phitip- pine Court since it was committed in the high seas, £6) Because Barnabas is merely a passenger of the vessel attacked by the pirates, he cannot be liable for piracy. Besides, piracy in the high seas is committed only by a stranger to the vessel. The crime committed by Barnabas is murder, which 1s tiable before the Philippine Court, since it was committed on board 2 Philippine vessel BS nya, Datel Question No. 12; | 4992 Major Menor, witile patrolling Bago-Bago community in a police car with SPOS Caloy Itliong, blew his whistle to stop a Nissan Sentra car which wrongly entered a one-way street, Aller demanding from Linda Lo Hua, the driver, her driver's license, Menor asked her (o follow them to the police precinct. Upon arriving there, he gave instructions to Itliong {o guard Lo Hua in one of the rooms and not to let her out of sight unt he returns: then got the car key from Lo Hua. In the meanuime, the latler was no. allowed to make any phone calls but was given food and access to a bathroom. When Menor showed up after two days, he brought Lo Hua to a private house and told her Uhat he would only release her and retumn the car if she made arrangements, for the delivery of P500.000,00 in a doctor's bag at a cer: tain place within the next twenty-four hours. When Menor went lo the designated spot to pick the bag of money, he suddenly found himsel! surrounded by several armed ins who introduced themselves as NBI agents. a) What criminal offense has Menor committed? Ex- plain, Suggested Answer: fa) Menor is lable under Ans 124, RPC-(Arbsirary eeDetention) he. being. a-public officer. who detained.a.porsoy ‘eidhout.. legal grounds. Violation of a traffic ordinance entering a one-way street is not a valid reason to arrest and detain the driver. Such only meriis the issuance of a {rafe violation ticket, Hence, when Lo Hua was ordered to follow the police officers to the precinct (confiscating her license to compel her to do so}, and confining her in a roam for two days and prohibiling her to make phone calls. ts a clear case of deprivation of persona! Nberty. Giving her food and access to the bathroom will not extinguish or mitigate the crisninal liability. Menor is futher able for roben, because money-oF personal propérty’ was taken, with intent to gain, and. with {ntimidation. The peculiar situation of Lo Hua practically, forced her to submit to the monetary demands of the major. b) May Itliong be held likewise criminally liable? ‘Suggested Answer: b) IWiong_is cqually- liable with Menor the felony of arbitrary detention, elther_by conspiracy_or indispensable, Cooperation. He cannot sutcesstully put up the delenst obedience toa superior order, as the same was done for a lawful purpose. per ox mes Je Daly faa fom Question No. 11: | 4990 Amy was appreliended and arrested by Patrolman Bart for legal parking. She was detained at the police precint, underwent iwestigation, and released only alier 48 hours a) Patrolman Bart liable for-any offense? Explain your answer b) Suppose Amy resisted the arrest and grappled with patrolman Bart, is she criminally liable thereby? State your Teasons. Answer: oe Patrolman Bart is Hable f tion of As Pe Iman Bart is lable for violation of Article 125 of the Revised Sate Delgeomine belvenrak De taungd Persons- eS. b) She Js-criminally lable for slight disobedience: under, Article 151 -of -thevRevised: Penal Code - Resistance “anc disobedience to person in authority or the agents of such person.cpr (> Ade Pow ‘ Question No, 10: 1989_ Alberto, Bernado and Carlos were looking f person named Virgilio whom Carlos suspected of stealing his fighting cock, Alberto and Bernardo were policemen, while Carlos was 2 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? Answer: Alberto and-Bernardo, being policemen, committed the crime of VIOLATION OF DOMICILE (Art. 128, RPC). There are three weys by which a publie officer or employee may commit ime, namely: 1, By entering any dwelling against the. will-of ‘then uses x having ed by Maria. ail ‘The door having been opened by Maria. although Alberto, Bernardo and Carlos barged inside the house before implied. Wi wt th consent notagainst the will (People vs. Sane, CA 40 OG Supp 5, 113). 2, By-searching.papers.or.ather. effects found therein. without.the previous consent-of such owner, Maria had gbjected to the search for the fighting cock inside her dwel. ling, but despite.said objection, the policemen searched the This makes them criminally liable for the second way of committing the crime of VIOLATING OF DOMICILE. 3. By,refusing to leave the premises, after having sur. reptitiously entered said dwelling and after having been quized.to Jeave the same. Although the policemen were ordered to leave the house, they did not enter it surrepti tiously, meaning clandestinely or secretly. Insofar as Garlos.is concerned, not being a public offiver or employee, he cannot commit the erime of VIOLATION OF DOMICILE. He. is wol_guilty.of trespass to.dwelling, either because he did not enter the dwelling AGAINST.THE.. WILL “of the“ ownter;>whiehmis- thie” essentialelement of. Tapas34 Belo Question No. 1! 1990| a) Ka Jacinto, who is an NPA commander. was ap- orenended with unlicensed firearms and explosives. He was iy th illegal pc -session of said fireurms ‘explosives. He now questions the filing of the ch fe ground that they are deemed apsorbed in a se] ate change of rebellion ied against him. Decide the issue, ‘b) Suppose Ka Jacinto. using one of the unlicensed — fears, saut-and filled his neighbor wn an altercation May-ihe charge of murder and illegal ‘possession of Te, be deemed absorbed in the separate charge of rebel fiom iled ‘against him? Resolve the matter with Teascns Answer: a) The: charge”of ‘legal. possession of firearms. and gxplosives is deemed absorbed in the crime of rebellion, Such possession being a necessary means for the perpetra- tion of the latter crime. (Elias v. Rodriguez. 107 Phil. 659) ©) The charges-here could: not be adsorbed in the separate charge of rebellion as 18 is-clear‘that the: act of couyyed with the possession o, an unlicensed {xe furtherance of the zeoellon on vl park UL 4998 7 On May 5, 1992, at about 6:00 a.m., while Governor Alegre of Lagune wes on board his car traveling along the National Highway of Laguna, Joselito end Vicente shot him omthe head’ resulting in his instant death. Atthat time, Joselito and Vicente were members of the llguidation squad ofthe New People's Army and they killed the governor upon cider oLthelr senior officer, Commander Tiago. According to Joselito and Vicente, they were ordered to Kill Governor Alegre because of his corrupt practices. Ifyou were the prosecutor, what crime will you charge Joselito and Vicente? [5% Answer: Bos I Iwere 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 commandex; hence, politically-motiveted. This was the ruling in People vs. Avila, 207 SCRA 1566, involving identical facts which is a movement taken Judicial notice of as engaged in rebellion ageinst the Government. Alternative Answer: II were the prosecutor, I would cherge 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 dication 2s to how the killing would promote or farther lective of the New Peoples Army. The mae becwuse {t was committed with treachery. Slternative Answer: =a tgger cobra’ ‘The crime should be rebellion with murder consié- ering thut Art. 135 of the Revised Penal Code has elready’ been amended by Rep. Act No. 6968, deleting from said Article, common crimes which used to be punished 4s part and parcel of the crime of rebellion. The ruling in People vs. Hernandez, 99 Phil. 515 (1994), that rebellion may not be complexed with common crimes committed in furtherance thereof, was becat_:e the common crimes ‘were then penalized in Art, 135 together with the rebellion, with one penalty and Art. 48 of the Rev. Penal Code cannot be applied. Art. 135 of said Code remuined exactly the sume when the case of Enrilevs. Salazar. 186 SCRA 217 (1990) was resolved. Precisely for the reason that Art. 48 cannot apply because the common crimes were punished as part of rebellion iri Art. 185, that this Article was amended, deleting the common crimes therefrom. That the common crimes were deleted from said Article, demonstrates a clear legislative intention to treat the common crimes as distinct from rebellion and yemove the legel impediment to the application of Art. 48. Itisnoteworthy that in Enrilevs. Salazar (supra) the Supreme Court said these: "There is an apparent need torestructure the law on rebellion, either toraise the penalty therefor or to clearly define and delimit the other offenses to be considered as absorbed thereby, so that if cannot be conveniently Utilized as the umbrella for every sort of illegal activity undertaken in its name. The Court has no power to effect such change, for it can only interpret the law as it stands at any given time, and what is needed lies beyond inter- pretation, Hopefully, Congress will perceive the need for promptly seizing the initiative in this matter, which is purely within its province.” And significantly the said amendment to Art. 135 of the Rev. Penal Code was made at around the time the ruling in Saiazar was hendled down, obviously te neu- tralize the Hemnendez and the Salazar rulings. The amendment was sort of e rider to the coup d'etat law, Rep. Act No. 6968. Question No.9: » 1988 a) 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 voluntaril, released them in consideration of the promise of medica treatment to be given to some of their comrades wiso were under detention by the authorities,wet r we Ante re ye ee Bk wv Wiat crime or crimes had been committed? Reasons. course of proceeding during led “public before a crowd in a place open to the publi ied” certain public officials and them to “death by assassination or thereafter “ ambuseades sentenced” Are the leaders criminally liable? Decide the case c) Two Japanese were passing through immigration and customs preparatory to their departure for Japan at the Ninoy Aquino International Airport. A bundle of P2,000 peso bills was discovered in one of them, and to prevent their being delayed, his companion took then and there tore up the bills As City Fiseal of Pasay, what crimes, if any. would you charge the two Japanese? Explain anshete> Fvihy win pa, (a.1) Rebellion-was committed because’their purpose was to overthrow the government.and-all-ether acts.com- mitted in-the further of-this purpose are’absorbed. by rebel- ign. (a.2) The armed group comitnittad the crime of kidnap- ping and serious illegal detention in violation of Aticle 26¥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, shell suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death. ..". b) The leaders are criminelly liable for the crime of Iibel_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 lithogrephy, engraving, radio, phornogeaphs, painting, theatrical exhibition, cinem: ec exhibition, or an similar means, shall be pssnished by prision correctional ©) The two Japanese cannot be charged of anv crime, They committed no time. Article 164 of the Revised Pena! Code on ait IBY cannot be applied to the Japanese because said article referstorooinsand not-to bills: bul ¥. | 4998 oe, How is the crime of coup d'etat committed? [3%] 2. Supposing a public school teacher participated in a coup detat using an unlicensed firearm. What erime or crimes did he commit? {2%Answer; ae 1, 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 orsimultanecusly anywhere in the Philippines by persons belonging to the military or police or holding public office, with or without elvilian support or participation, for the purpose of seizing or diminishing state power. (Art. 134-A, RPC). 2, The public school teacher committed only coup d'etat for his participation therein, His use ofan unlicensed firearm 1s absorbed in the coup ¢'etat under the new Seer ay gpa pe possession of fxearm-underthe new law ls allowed only ifthounileensed firearm wagaotwged fn the commasior® of another crime, Question No. 2: | 4994 ] In the early moming of 25 October 1990, the troops of the Logistics Command {LOGCOM) of the AFP at Camp General Emilio Aguinaldo headed by their Operations Offi- cer, Col.Rito Amparo, withdrew firearms and bulleis and, per prior agreement, attacked, in separate teams, the of fices of the Chief of Staff, the Seczetary of National De- fense, the Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations, the Deputy Chief of Staff for Intelligence and other offices, held hostag the Chief of Staff of LOGCOM and other officers, killed three (3) pro-Government soldiers, inverted the Philippine flag, barricaded all entrances and exits to the camp, and an- nounced complete control of the camp. Because of the superiority of the pro-Government 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 134A, Revised Penal Code or of rebellion? b) Distinguish rebellion from coup d'etat Answer: a) Under the facts stated, the crime committed would be coup d'etat (Republic Act No. 6988 incorporating Art 134-4). However, since the law was not yet effective as of October 25, 1990, as the ellectivity thereof (Section 8) is upon its approval {which is October 24, 1990) and publica- tion in at least two (2) newspapers of general circulation, the felony committed would be rebellion, Comment: If the answer given is coup d'etat, substantial credit should be given as the tenor of the question seems 0 indicate that coup d'etat asa felony was already existing.fot b) Rebellion distinguished from coup d'etat: 1. AS TO OVERT ACTS: In dere is public uprising and taking, ap ang pean ee au Tn. coup deat, public “uprising is not necessary. The eisence of the crime is a swift attack. accompanied by violence, intimidation, threat. strategy or stealth, directed against duly con: stituted authorities of the Government, or any military camp or installation, communication networks, public utilities or facilities needed for the exercise and con: tnued possession of government power: 2. OBJECTIVE OR PURPOSE: Jn xebelliag the purpose is to. remove from the allegiance of tite Philippines, the whole or any-pait, or the. Philippines -or-any-military-or naval camps-dew. sphive-the ‘Chief Executive or Congress-irom- performing: their functions, IWfiteip-d’etat the objective is to seize, -of Uifiinish: state: powers. 3. PARTICIPATION (Peone Invow ed. ) RP Tevetlion ERP. Iecoaptietetany: peeson~belonging to the miliary or police or holding public-offices-with.or «without civiliam-pasticipation: \ gansey fe Ssh Question No, XII: 1937 A, B.C, D, and E were former soldiers who deserted their command in Mindanao. Jose and Pedro, two big land- owners, calied A. B, C, D, and E to 2 conference. Jose and Pedro proposed to these former soldiers that they recruit their comrades and organize a group of 100 for the purp of challenging the government by force of arms in order to Prevent the enforcement or implementation of the Land Refomm 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 15th dey of the month. Unknown to all of them, as they were confer ring with Jose and Pedro ands they were planning to rob the bank, Rosauro, a houseboy, wes within hearing distance. On the pretext of buying cigarettes, Rosauro instead went directly to the Police and told them what transpired. All the former soldiers, as well as Jose and Pedro, were arrested. (a) What crime, if any, did the former soldiers commit? () What about Jose and Pedro?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 goverment by force of arms in order to prevent the implementation of the Land Reform Lew in Cota- bato Province is to commit sedition. Proposal to commit sedition js 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). b) Jose and Pedro will also be. liable for conspiracy to Commit sedition since they are members of the cons- piracy where the act of one is the act of ali. 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. Question No, 14 1985 | At a meeting of about fifty (50) residents of Bo. Ta- ‘talon, Quezon City, Juan, whose son was shot by the ma- ines, told the residents that it was hopeless to seek re- dress from the authorities and that the only recourse wae ‘to topple it by force. Among those in the meeting were four (4) Burly looking men in civilian clothes but with sidearms, all of whom stayed up to the end of the meeting. They even participated therein by edging and cheering Juan. Quezon City policemen arrived and they arrested Juan together with Pedro and Jose who were with Juan on the platform. The four (4) armed persons, however quietly diseppeared when the policemen arrived. (A) As a prosecutor, what case will you file against Juan, Pedro and Jose? State your reasons. (B) Would your answer be the satne if the four (4) armed men turned out to be intelligence operatives of the Philippine Constabulary? Explain your answer. Answer: (A) Asa prosecutor, I will file against Juan, Pedro and Jose, 2 charge of legal Assembly under Art. 146, as amended by P.D. 1834. What Juan told the residents during the meeting, that “it.was hopeless: to seek. redress, fomothe authorities -and-that the only recourse was:.to. teppie, it: by foree,” is an act of propaganda against the government in order to destabilize the government or to undermine the authorities by eroding the faith and loyalty of the people. (B) The answer is still the when the four burly men participated in the meeting by “edging and cheering” Juan while he was speaking, the crime of Mle. gal Assembly was already being committed.Question No. 2: ; [ 1991 a) May a ranking leader of the NPA who has taken up amns against the government be simultaneously prosecuted for violation of Section 1 of R.A. 1700 [the Anti-Subversion Aci) and for rebellion under Article 135 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended? Nole: No more crime of spite Sulowesion Answer: Yes, because the two offenses are punished under separate laws. Besides, the elements of the two offenses difer. b) What would have been the legal effect of the repeat of PD. No. 1835 (Codifying The Various Laws on Anti- Subversion and Increasing the Penallies For Membership in Subversive Organizations) as amended by P.D. No. 1975. i RA. No. 1700 (An Act to Outlaw The Communist Party of the Phlippines and Similar Associations, Penalizing Mem. bership Therein and For Other Purposes) were not revived? Answer: If the repeal of P.D. 1835 as amended by RA. 1735, is absolute, without reviving RA. 1700, the original provi sion on ilegal associations under Art. '147 of the Revised Pena! Code “would be the pertinent provision to be taken into account. Hence, it must be proved thai the purpose of the organwation fS to commit any crime punishable by the code or for some purpose contrary to public morals. Alternative Answer: bj If Rep. Act No. 1700 were not revived by Executive Order No. 167, the repeal of P.D. No, 1835 and PD. No. 1975 would have created a vacuum in the sense that membership in subversive organizations would no longer be punishabie, WEIN gal wel Poinak home ] b) _ Because of the approaching town fiesta in San Miguel, Bulacan, a dance was beld in Barangay Camnias A the Barangay Captain, was invited to deliver a speech to start the dance, While A was delivering his speach’ ons of he guests, went to the middie of the dance floor making obscene dance movements, brandishing a knife and challenging everyone presentto alight. Aapprosched Band admonied him to keep quiet and not to eisturb the dance snd renee 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 tothe ground and died. At the time ofthe netdent a wse rot armed. What crime was committed? Explain. (2%)1 rgatl Suggested Answer: b) The complex crime of direct assault with murder was commutted. 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 admonishingB to keep quiet and net 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 lawiess defiance of authority constituting the crime of direct assault, which characterized the stabbing of A. And since Awas stabbed at the back when he was not ina position to defend himself nor retaliate, there was treachery in the stabbing. Hence, the death caused by such stabbing was smurder and having been committed with direct assault, a complex crime of direct assault with murder was committed bys : i Pisdane wv Bibb pm Question No. Ui: | 4989 fend i ; 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 fla: 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 iar nine (9} days. What crime or crimes were committed by Emilio? Give your Answer: | If Emilio was not aware that Edgardo was « police officer who was going Serve & warrant of arrest on him Emilio would be guilty only of stight physical injuries on two counts, one against Edgardo and the second against Fiorencio. If Emilio knew Edgardo as @ policeman and of the latter's purpose to serve a warrant of arrest on him, and that why he boxed Edgurdo, then he will be guilty of either DIRECT ASSAULT UPON A PERSON IN. AUTHORITY or BESISTANCE OR DISOBEDIENCE TO AN AGENT OF 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 @ person in authority or his ageiityif at the time of the assault the latter is engaged in the formance of his official duties, the offended p: ig that the person he is assaulting is « person in attehofity or his agent, it liable fog-the crime of DIRECT ASSAULT. A policeman is an a gon in authority. As for Florencio, the crime committed by Emil against him would be indirect Assault provided thet Emilio has committed DIRECT ASSAULT against Edgardo. This is so because any person who shall make use of force ot SUPE Mtl Nae OTH odin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; ‘hen_his crime against Florencio: would only be alight ‘physical injuries, — Question No.17: 1993) Pablo, disobeying 2 judicial order, was punished by an RIC Judge of Manila for contempt. He waited for the judge to go out into the street, Upor seeing the judge, Pablo hurriedly approached him. and without saying aword struck hhim 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 lesiones graves which incapacitated Rex: from labor for forty ive (45) days. Ifyou were the prosecutor called to institute a criminal action against Pablo, with what erime or crimes would you charge him? Explain. Answer: The crime of direct assault upon a person in authority with respect to the slight contusion on the face of the Judge. Direct assault with serious physical injuries with res- pect to the assault on Rex. yuk Head Question No. V: 4987 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 dispezitive 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 2 consequence. ‘What crime or crimes did Jose commit? 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 2 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Or restraining him. Under Batee-873 a lawyer is considered @ person in authority if assaulted while in the performance of duties, ye gh \gaad Lp se Sy wl Question No.2 ~ aga5 | Arthur, 6 17 yeer old student and aggrieved by the death of his only brother ix a previous rally at the hands of the police, red at-a-sotoreyse-aop-passing bx place. He, however, misse ‘is—targe:and_insteed hit ‘Jason,_a passerby, who died instantaneously, (A) As an investigating—tisesl, what charge or charges will you file against Arthur? Reasoné (B) Upon arraigument, Arthur pleaded guilty and invoked the additional mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender. As a judge and applying the In- determinate Sentence Law, what penalty will you im- pose upon Arthur? Discuss. (C) May Arthur apply for and be entitled to pro- bation under P.D. 968, as amended by P.D. 1251 and Batas Pambansa 76? Answer: (A). If I were the investigating fiscal, 1 would file against Arthur an information for the complex crime of ith~Homieide. The motorcycle cop is an agent of a person in authority. Firing at the peace officer is attacking him, one of the modes of committing Direct Assault. (Art. 148, Revised Penal Code). Since a third person was hit instead, resulting in his instantaneous death, the single uct of shocting resulted in two grave felonies, to wit, direct assault end homicide, 2 compound ‘complex crime. (Art. 48, Revised Penal Code). (B) As a judge, I will first consider the imposable penalty under the Revised Penel Code for the complex crime of Direct Azsault with Homicide, The penalty is for the more serious crime to be imposed in its maximum period, (Art, 48, Revised Penal Code). The age of Arthur-at the time of the commission of ‘the erime, which is 17 years, is a privileged mitigating circumstance. Under Art, 68, per. 2, Revised Penal Code, the imposable penalty is to he lowered by one degree. There being two mitigating circumstances which are voluntary pies of guilty end voluntery surrender, without any aggravating circumstance, the penalty, being div ws again to be lowered by one degree. (Art. 64, par. b, Revised Penal Code}, ‘The imposable penalty, lowered by two degrees, will be the maximum of the indeterminate sentence, The mini- mum will be one degree next lower than the maximum. (Act, 4108 as emended, Indeterminate Sentence Law}.(©) Aethurmay..epply for-ané be ‘entitled to-pros bation. if,the maximum cf.the indeterminate sentente does. DOs eReeed sineyente-andone-day. (Pres. Decree 968 as amended by Pres. Decree 1257 and Batas 76). fee GAY yer Kr Qe vir _2006 a) Who are deemed to be persons in authority and agents of persons in authority? (3%) SUGGESTED ANSWER: a) Persons in authority are-parsons Uirectly vested _ vothJurisdiction. whether as ap individual or'as.a member ‘Some court or government cOfPoratian hoard, SF commission. Barsio-eapiains.and.barangay chairmen, are also. deemed ~peSOHS 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 publle order, the protection and security of life and property, such as barrjo counctiman. barrio policeman, bazangey leader and any person sho cones {Othe ald of peseone authority (Art. 152, RPC). —~ iappl ing the provisions of Articles 148 and 151 ofthe Rev. Penal ¢ de. Keagheers and-passpas charged with the supenmsion of publi or duly recagnized private? bal schools colleges and universities, and ngerein THC asta performance of their prafesstonal duties or ofthe occasion 0 such performance, shall be deemed persons in authority. (.D-No. 299, and Batas Pambansa BIg. 873-— Question Ne. 10 aga ~ ~ After engaging in a-drinking spree at Celia’s birth. day party, @ turbulent commotion took place in Celie's premises involving no less than forty (40) guests during which occasion Tito was killed by shots fired from 2 45 cal. pistol, The fiscal filed 2 case of “Death in TUMUL-__ TUOUS AFFRAY” against all the participants in the melee, = Do you agree? Reasons. Answer: The charge of “Death in Tumultuous Affray" against all the participants in the melee is not proper. In a tumul- tuous affray the actual killer of the person killed is not known, ‘Thenuthe-oneuliable..wilibe, the. pargon..knawn to have. inflicted serious ghysicel_injuries upon the victim: If he is also not known, the one liable will be the personKmown to have employed vfcichee upon the vietim. Death in a tumultuous affray under Article 251 of the Revised Penal Code applies if the killer of the person killed in the course of the affray cannot be ascertained. (U.S, v, Tan- doc 40 Phil. 954). Manny killed his wife under exceptional circumstances and was sentenced by the Regional Trial Court of Dagupan City to suffer the penalty of destierroduring which ne was not tw enier the city, ‘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%] 2. If so, where should he be prosecuted? {2% Answer: & 9g 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. Asentence imposing the penalty of destierrois 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 desti does not involve imprisonment, tt ls monedboieg | deprivation of liberty. (People vs. Abitong, 82 Phil. 172). 2, Manny maybe prosecuted in Dagupen City orin Manile where he was arrested. This:is;g0 because evasion, of service of sentence is-« continulng-offense, as the convict is ¢ fugitive from justice Inswen case. (Parulan vs. Dik. of) ‘28519, 17 Feb. &68) x @ yyer (a) How are “forging” and “falsification” cominit- ted? (3%) (b)__ Is mere possession of false money bills pus able under Article 168 of the Revised Penal Code? Explain, (39%) (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 Uable for such possession? Decide. (3%)we" Ad mn {a) A falsified official or public document was found inthe possession of the accused. No evidence was introduced to show that tne accused was the author of the falsifi falsification of official proposition that “the only pe: erasures and the superimposition mentio will be benefived by the a fave the mot Was the conviction of the accused proper althougi the ised merely answer, (3% trersury or benk note bearer or to order the appearance of 2 true and get éocumen! ng, substituting, counterfelting, or altering by eny 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 partici- pated 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 « narration of facts: Altering true dates; 6, Making any alteration or intercalation in & genuine document which changes Its meaning: 7. Issuing in an authenticated form a document purporting to be a copy of an original docui.ent when no euch original exists, or including in such copy a state- ment contrary to, oF different from, that of the genuine original: or 6. Intercalating eny instrement or note relative so the Issuance thereof in e protocol, registry, or official book. (b; No. Possession of feise treasury or beni note sione S§zhput an intent to use it is not punishable, Buf the tircumstences of such posses-sion may indicate intent to utter, sufficien: te consummate the crime of illegel possession of false notes. (ce) Yes. Knowledge that the note is counter- feit 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 ere fake: and (b} intent to utter the same. (4)_Yes,-the conviction is proper beceuse there saygesumptioSin law that the pestessor and user ofa falsified-dGcument lrthe one who felelhed SESE | 1993 | 1, aMunicipal Mayor, iseued an appointment in favor of his legitimate son, S, as meat inspector tn the Office of the Municipal Treasurer, He also issued a certification that S is rr,T—“—“EB|!esSC ‘The Civil Service Commission approved the appointment. Question No. 10: L, was charged and found guilty of falsification of public. glocumient. In his appeal, he argued that his conviction is erroneous because he had no legal obligation to disclose the truth about his relationship with the appointee and that he was in good faith as he later on revoked the appointment. Resolve his plea, supporting your resolution with rea- sons. Answer: ‘The conviction is correct. L had the legal obligation to issue @ certification to the effect that the appointee ts not related to him within the third degree of consanguinity (Laino vs, Sandiganbayan). The revocation of the appointment did not extinguish the-incipient criminal lability of L, the crime having been already consummated. Besides, good faith may not be invoked ih the crime of falsification of a public document as criminal intent and the will to commit the crime are presumed to exist unless the contrary appears (Manuel ‘Siquuian us People, 171 SCRA 223). Question No. 11: ~ 992 Jose Dee Kiam, a Chinese citizen bom in Macao, having applied with a recruitment agency to work in Ku- wail, went to Quezon City Hall to procure a Community Tax Certificate, formerly called Residence Certificate. He stated therein that his name is Leo Tiampuy. A Filipino citizen born in Binan, Laguna, As he paid for tite Commu- nity Tax Certificate, Cecilie Delicious, an employee in the oflice recognized him and reported to her boss that the sformation written in the Community Tax Certificate were all les.& ‘Treat each of the above contentions separately. a) Shorlly therealter. an information was filed against Dee Kiam alias Tiampuy. What crime, if any, may he be indicted for? Why? bj The accused moved to quash the informiaticn on the ground thet it did not allege that he had the obligation to disclose the truth in the Community Tax Ceruficate: that the same is a useless scrap of paper which one can buy even in the Quiape underpass and that he had no intent of deceiving anybody, much less the government. If you were the trial judge. would you grant the motion to quash information on the Lasis of Dee Kinm’'s allegations? Suggested Answer: al Dee Kiam can be indicted for the fel ion of a Public Document commited by a private indi wal under Art, 172 of the Revised Penal Code in relation to Art. 171 thereof. residence certificate 4 a public oF offi. cia] Cocument withir: the context of said provisions and ju- Fisprudence. Since Dee Kiam made an untruthful state. fent {71 a narration of facts {Art. 171, par. 4), and he being @ private individual. he 1s culpable thereunder, b} Falsification of public documents under Arts, 171 and 172, RPC, does not require that the document is re- quired by law. ‘The sanciity of the public document. a resi dence certificate, cannot be (aken lightly as being a “mere scrap of paper’. Intent lo cause damage. or actual damage, 's not an indispensable requisite for falsification of public document rye foaarenl aw ory ‘Question No. 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 Band having signed the re- ceipt. He presented a handwriting expert who testified that the alleged signature of 4 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. a) Is B liable for the crime of using a falsified docu- ment tn a judicial proceeding (last paragraph of Article 172 of the Revised Penal Code|? b) if he is not, what offense or offenses may he be charged with? Answer: a) No; B should not be liable for the crime of using a falsified document, under the last paragraph of An. 172, Revised Penal Code. He would be liable for forgery of a private document under the second mode of faisiication 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 folsified document is already absorbed in the main offense of for- gery or falsification.wae b) B should be charged for the crime of falsification of a private document, since the document falsified is a pr vaie 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 five rise to estafa because this crime cannot co-exist of be complexed with the crime of falsification when the docu. ment falsified is a private document, Additional Answer: ) If he testified on the genuineness of the document, he should aiso be held liable under Art, 182, which is false testimony in civil cases, Question No. 12; 1989 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 against Oscar? Explain, Answer: The proper’ charge against Oscar is Falsification of Private Document. This is so for the following reasons: 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 docu- ment 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. Precisely because damage is an essential element of the crime of falsification of a private document, Oscar cannot be convicted cf the compiex.crime of ESTAFA THRU FALSI- FICATION OF PRIVATE DOCUMENT, Only one single crime of FALSIFICATION OF PRIVTE DOCUMENT is committed here, The damage to another is caused by tl 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 estaia, is caused by, and becomes the element of, the crime of falsification of private document. The crime of estafa isnot committed, as it cannot exist without its own element of damage If the private document in the case was falsified, nox to {induce the offended party to part with something of value but to cover up or conceal a defraudation previously made, then the erime committed would be ESPARA. The falsifica. tion would be absorbed in said ofense the clement of Gamage in one vf ar Question No. 14; 4988 (a) Andrea signed her deceased husband's name in en- dorsing his three weasury warrants which were deliverce oo her directly by the district supervisor who knew that hy husband had already died, and she used the proceeds to pay for the expersss of her_husband’s las illness and his butt 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 ho 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, (b) Raul Doria gave in trust two acrylic paintings to Amar Solo to be sold on commission basis for 20,000.00. Falling to sell them to George Ty, Amar consigned the Paintings to Alcanto Gallery. In the same month. Amar retrieved one painting and tried to return in to Reul who rehused to receive it without the other painting. The other painting was bought by Mr. Lomot whose check, which Amar gave to Raul, bounced, so that Amar paid Reul his gin check of P6,500.00 promising in writing to pay the 3,500.00 balanceless his commission. Is Amar liable for estaia? Why? jeg HOW about Mr. Lomot, what erime, if any did he com- mit? . ANSWER: (s) Andrea should be held guilty of falsification of Public documents, Her claim of SE&8nce of criminal intent and of goed faith carnot be dbRhlered because she is pre Simed to know that her husband is dead. The elemen of damage required in falsification does not refer to Pecuniary oot a4damage but damage to public interest. Executive clemency can however be sought for by Andrea. ib) Amar is nct liable for estafa but is lisble for viola- tion of BP 22. There is oniy civil liability because as long as no case has been filed in court, an obligation can still be novated. In this case there was novation. Mr. Lomotis liable for violation of BP 22. Question No. 8 1985 | — While his marriage to Sylvia was subsisting, Rollie took Cynthia, who had been legally separated from her husband, to Ramon Abad, who, in priestly attire and pos. ing as Fr. Chavez of the Aglinayan Church, solemnized their marriage. After the marriage, Rollie took Cynthi to Baguio on a week-long honeymoon, pa’ As # fiscal and based on the foregoing facts, what ree or charges will you file and against w! cuss. Answer Az a fiscal, I will file a charge of Usurnation of cial Functions against Ramon Abad. He merely nosed as ® priest of the Aglipayan Church and was not therefore authorized to solemnize 2 marriage. Solemnization of & marriage is an official function. (U.S. v. Hernandez, 29 Phil, 109). Against Rollie, the charge will be a marriage con- tracted in contravention of law which is penalized in Ar- ticle 350 of the Revised Penal Code as an Illegal Marriage. It eennot be bigamy as the marriage with Cynthia did not have all the essential requisites of a valid marriage. (People v. Peralta CA-GR No. 13130-R, June 30, 1955). Question No. 13: 4gga Paolo was charged with homicide before the Regional ‘Trial Court of Manila. Andrew. a prosecution witness, testi- fied that he saw Paolo shoot Abby during their heated argument. While the case is still pending, the City Hall of Manila bumed down and the entire reccrds 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 crine took place.immorality against him as a government employee could proceed or prosper. In other words, A's civil status gefense'to the charge of immorality, hence, not @ materia ‘that could influence the charge. ‘There see x memati sos. ‘The crime snow treated 3é plain penury with the one mducing another as the principal inducement, and the latter, as principal by direct participation (People vs, Podol 66 Phil 968). Since this case A cannot be held liable for perjury, the matter that he testified to being immaterial, he cannot therefore be held responsible as.a principal by inducement when he induced C to testify on his status, Consequently, C is not liable as. Principal by direct participation in perjury. having testified En mutters not fonlonial teen skminiatraie ease el emer a Qu Guestion No. 13: ines Sisefiando purchased the share of the stockholders of Estrella Corporation in two installments, making him the majority stockholder thereof and eventually. sts president. Because the stociholders who sold their stocks failed to comply with’ thelr warranties attendant to the sale. Sis- enando withheld payment of the second installment due on. the shares and deposited the money in escrow instead, subject to release once said stockholders comply with their 5 warranties. The stockholders concerne¢, in tur, rescinded the sale in question and removed Sisenando from the Pres- Gency of the Estrella Corporation. Sisenando ther: filed a verified complaint for damages against said stockholders in his capacity as president and principal stockholder of Estrella Corporation. In retaliation, the stockholders concerned, after petitioning the Securities and Exchange Commission to declare the rescission valid, further filed a criminal case for perjury against Sisenando, claiming that the latter perjured himself when he stated under oath in the verification of his, complaint for damages that he is the President of the Estrella Corporation when in fact he had already been removed as such, Under the facts of the case, could Sisenande be held. lable for perjury? Explain, No, Sisenando may not be held able for perjury be- naner (ragnnt be Trasenahmeind ajar tiaat eu sNeQuestion No. 18: [4991| A, who was the client of B (z lawyer), signed a re- tainer agreement for the payment of attorney's lees. Aft rendered satisfactory service, A refused to pay the ail ney’s fees, B sued, In her verified answer, A alleged that she did not owe money to plaintif B nor did she enga; his legal services, These statements under oath were B flied a criminal complaint for perjury against A. and an information was filed in court. you are the lawyer for accused A, what Is y se, i any? Answer: Twill move for the dismissal of the complaint for jury. The falsity of swom statement must be require aulborized by law (Flordeliz v. Himalalaon, 84 SCRA 277) Question No. VI: 1987 M was forced by a policeman to sign 2 document entitled “‘Sinumpaang Salaysay” in which M implicated X as the brain behind the robbery of a bank where P500,000.00 were lost. The document was prepared by the policeman upon advice of B, the bank’s lawyer, who was present when the policeman asked M to sign the document. As M refused to sign it, the policeman held him by the neck and forced him to sign, which he did as he was afraid he might be bodily harmed. During the hearing of the robbery before the Fiscal’s Office. B submitted the “Sinumpaang Selaysay” as evidence, on the basis of which X was included in the information filed by the Fiscal in court. When M testified in court, he repudiated the document and told the court there was no truth to its contents as he was merely forced to sign it. (2) May M be held liable for perjury? (>) Did lawyer ‘B commit any crime when he used the “Sinumpaang Salaysay” as evidence. Answer: a) M is not liable for perjury. He did not sim the document freely and voluntarily but due to the force yed by the policeman. Perjury ote sodelieate tortion of truth. The facts ef the problem ot ‘ate that the documents was signed before an officer authorized to administer oath. It is, therefore, doubtful that the facts Would constitute perjury.ie b) The lev'yer would be liable under Article 172 of Revise Peqel Code for the offenst of introducing 2 fake docugdent in ¢ judisia! proceeding, 2s he Tew tn: ser wo bya Svarde] Question No. 15: Pia, a bold actress living on top floor of a plush condo- minium in Makati City sunbatled naked at ils penthouse every Sunday morning. She was unaware that the business executives holding office al the adjoining tall buildings reported to office every Sunday morning and, with the use of powerful bincculars, kept on gazing at her while she sun- er sunbathing became the talk of the 1) What crime, if any, did Pie com: Explain, 2) What crime, ifany, did the business executives com- mit? Explain. Fe Ya {BS __ 1) Pia did_not commit a rime, The felony cioses: to Sw Aaa making Pla criminally liable is Grave Scandal, but then suc actisnot to be considered as highly scandalous and offensive sGatbet dectncy and good customs, in the rt place, wes not done in a public place'and within public knowledge or view. As a matter of fact it was discovered by the executives, accidentally and they have to use binoculars to have pubile and full view of Pia sunbathing in the nude. 2) The business executives cid not commit any crime ‘Their acts could not be acts of lasciviousness (as there was no overt lustful act), or slander, as the eventual talk of the town, resulting from her sunbathing. is not directly impured to the business executives, and besides such topic is not intended to defame or put Pia to ridicule. —p\ Question No. &: | 1893 | oped betwe: . One day, Juan sent to Petra a booklet contained in 2 pay envelope which was securely sealed. The ‘booklet 1s unquestionably indecent and highly offensive to morals, Juar.was thereafter charged under par. 3 of Art. 201 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by P.D. 969. which provides that the penalty of prision mayor or a fine from 6,000 to P12,009, orboth such imprisonment and fine shall be imposed upon those who shall sell, give away or exhibit films, prints, engravings, sculpture or literature which are offensive to morals. IS Juan guilty of the crime charged? Reasons.Answer: No, Juan is not guilty of the crime charged because the Jaw (Art. 201, RPC) covers only the protection of public nora) ‘and not only the moral of an individual. ( YY fir > 1999 va la) Who are public officers? (2%) (b)__ A pubiic officer was accused before the Sandigan- bayan of a violation of Section 3 (e) of RA No. 3019, the Antl- Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. Just after arraignment and even before evidence was presented, the Saudiganbayan issued an order for his suspension pendente lite. The accused questioned the said Order contending that it 1s violative of the constitutional provision against an ex post Jacto law. Will you sustain the objection of the accused? ‘Why? (2%) (c)_ What pre-conditions are necessary to be met or satisfied before preventive suspension may be ordered? (296) succesTep answer; @& 99 (a) Public Officers are persons who, by direct provision of the law, popular election or appointment by competent authority, takes part in the performance of public functions ia the Government of the Philippines, or performs in said Government or in any of its branches Public duties as an employee, agent or subordinate offlclal, of any rank or class (Art. 203, RPC) () No, I will not sustain the objection of the acouseé. Suspension of the accusec pendente lite ic not siolative of the constitutional provision aa! Facte law. Expos: facto law means making ‘ect ¢ crime before it ic made punishable. ex-post ninnosent . (c)__The pre-conditions necessary to be mez or UL. satisfied before e suspension mey be ordered are: (1) oe those imust be propeehotice req tring the cocused to eee WH yet show cause at e specific date of hearing why ke should s not be ordered suspended from office pursuant to RA b . 3019, 2s umended; and (2) there must be ¢ determ! tion of © valid information against the accused thet warrants hig suspension.Question No. 20: | 4994 ‘A, an Assistant Provincial Prosecutor of Cebu, was assigned to conduct the preliminary snvestigations cf two criminal cases: (1) for rape against X. and (2) for estafa against Y. Unknown to the complainants, both respondents ‘were schoolmates of A in their high school years in Lanao del Norte. Despite the overwhelming evidence against X, A. ismissed the rape case. Despite the overwhelming evidence against ¥, A did not file (he information for estafa because according to him, the foider of the case to which were at: tached the dishonored checks and other documents offereé {n evidence by the complainant was stolen. Contrary to such claim, the folder was kept in a safe in his house. What offense or offenses under the Title on Crimes Committed By ‘Public Officers of Book Two of the Revised Penal Code may A be charged with? aod 2 b> e ve ay” Art, 208 is violated, that is maliclously refraining from My insututing prosecution for punishment of violators of the AY MY) law, Likewise, the prosecutor is liable under Art. 226 for wee removing and cancelling public document entrusted to his i custody. Question No. 16: (1987) A, who Is the private complainant in a murder case pending before a Regional Trial Court judge, gave a judge 2 Christmas gift, consisting of big basket of assorted canned goods and bottles of expensive wines, easily worth P10,000.00. ‘The judge accepted the gift knowing it came from A. What ertme or crimes, if any, were committed? we ‘The judge commuted the crime of indirect bribery under ‘Art. 211 of the Revised Penal Code. The gift was offered to the Ws .« fudge by reason of his ofice. In addition, the judge will be A able for the violation of P.D. 46 which punishes the recetving 1 it < § of gits by pudle offictais and employees on occasions Ike : * Christmas. Question No. 3: | 4993 | Arevalo, a Judge who heard < civil case, received giits irom Marice’, the plaintiff therein, Sut rendered judgment in favor of Julie, the defendant therein, Who aft criminally lable, and for what crime or crimes? Explain,Hi aol pla, Gorwd & ra yy Ufo Answer: Vb) arevalo, chesiudge, i lable for indirect ibery (A 210 RPC) and for violation of the Code of Conduct and GornveglEtieal Standard (Sec. 7 (d) RA 6719 and also PD 46). 2)_ Maricel is lable for corruption of public officer (Art 212, RPC and PD 46) Question No. 9: 4990 a) Melda, who is the private secretary of Judge Tolits Naya, was persuaded by a litigant, Jumbo, to have his case calendared’ as early as possibie for a consideration of 500.00. May she be held criminally liable for this accomo- ation? Explain your answer. D|_What will be the criminal lability of Melda if she volunteered to persuade Judge Tolits Naya to rule in Jumbo's favor without asking any consideration? Explain your answer, Answer: a) The answer would depend/be qualified by the im- Bleation ofthe pase “to have his case calendared as carly a a” pandl ee ff the phrase 1s interrupted as an unjust act and in violation of the rule to give priority to the older cases, then she would be lieble under direct bribery for an act which does not constitute a crime but is unjust. He may also be held liable under Section 3(e} of RA. 3019, the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, as amendéd: “x x x giving any private party any unwarranted benefits” If you interpret the phrase as a non-violation of the rules and regulations then he can only be held lable for direct bribery. b) Melda is nat cnminally Mable because the act, of volunteering to persuade is not a criminal act. It is the act of persuading that 1s considered e-eriminal act. The act does not fall under Article 210 of the Revised Penal Code on Direct Bribery nor does it fall under Article 211 of the RPC on Indvect Bribery. Neither does it fall under the Anti- Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. Section 3a) of RA. 3019 refers to acts of persuading another public offical to violate rules and regulations.N Question pf ws: | 4985 ye? be Monite Sinn cae yer QQ" ov ‘h ng the traffic lights at the intersection of Espaiia and Washington Streets, Patrolman Torres or- dered BE to stop his taxi, threatened to arrest him and confiscate his driver's license allegedly for speeding and reckless driving. Conversant with the dirty ways of some traffic officers, BB pulled out his wallet, picked up his Griver's license with the hidden P20.00 bill inside the eame and handéd it to Patrolman ‘Torres. Thereafter, Patrolman Torres returned BB's license and allowed him to go. What criminal prosecution may be filed against Pat. Torres and/or BB under the circumstances? Discuss, Antwer: Patrolman Torres should be charged with bribery and BB the driver for corruption of a public officer, in the supposition thet the driver was speeding and for resie less driving. The money was given by the driver so 28 not to be arrested and for his driver's license not to be co: fiscated, But if the driver was not speeding nor was there reckless driving but the policeman threatened to arrest him and confiscate his driver's license, the giving of the 20.00 bill would be due to the intimidation employed by the policeman, In this case, the policeman will be lisble for robbery thru intimidation. The driver will not incur any (©) A city official ordered one million pesos (PIM} worth of T-shirts at public expense for the underprivileged residents of his city. After full payment with city funds was made, it was discovered that only a fourth of the T-shirts had been delivered and that the rest of the deliveries were so- called “ghost deliveries,” Answer: (b) (1) The city official is liable for violation of Article 215 of the Revised Penal Code which provices that Article 213. Frauds against the public treasury- and similar offenses, —The penalty of prision correcsional in its medium period to prision mayor in its minimum period, or a fine ranging irom P200 to P10,000 shall be imposed upon any public officer who:1. In his official capacity, in dealing with any person with regard to furnishing supplies, the making of contracts, or the adjustment or settlement of accounts relating to public property of funds, shell enter into an agreement with any interested party or speculator or make use of any other scheme, to defraud the government; 2. Being entrusted with the collection of taxes, licenses, fees and other impost, shall be guilty of any of the following acts or omissions: (a) Demanding, directly or indirectly, the payment of sums different from or larger than those author- ized bylaw. (b) Failing voluntarily to issue @ receipt, as pro- vided by law, for any sum of money collected by him officially. (c) Collecting or receiving, directly or indirectly, by way of payment or otherwise, things or objects of a different nature from that provided by law When the culprit is an officer or employee of the Bureau of Internal Revenue or the Bureau of Customs, the provisions of the Administrative Code shall be applied: and violation of: (b) (2) Act 3019 sec. 3 (g) which provides that: Corrupt practices of public officers “IN ADDITION” to acts or omissions of public officers already penalized by exist- ing law, the following shall constitute corrupt practices of any public officer and are hereby declared to be unlawf xI 1999 What constitutes the crime of malversation of public funds or property? (2%) 4._,How is malversation distinguished from estafe? c ‘A Municipal Treasurer, accountable for public funds or property, encashed with public funds private checks drawn, in favor of his wife. The checks bounced, the drawer not having enough cash in the Grawee bank. The Municipal Treasurer, in encashing private checks from public funds. violated regulations of his office. Notwithstanding restitution of the amount ofthe checks, can the Municipal Treasurer nevertheless be criminally Mable? What crime did he commit? Explain. (2%)SUGGESTED ANSWER: Malversation of public funds or property is com- mitted by any public officer who. by reason of the duties of hig office, is accountable for public funds or property, shall take or misappropriate or shall consent, or through abandonment or negligence, shall permit any other per- son to take such public funds or property, wholly or partially, or shall otherwise be guilty of the misappro- priation or malversation of such funds or property. (Art. 217, RPC) ‘Malversation differs from estafain that malvezsa- tion 1s committed by an accountable public officer in- ‘volving public funds or property under his custody-and accountability; while estafa 1s committed by non-ac- countable public officer or private individual involving funds or property for which he is not accountable to the government. ‘Yes, notwithstanding the restitution of the amount of tne check, the Municipal Treasurer will be criminally Uable as restitution does not negate criminel lisbiity although it may be considered as a mitigating circum- stance similar or analogous to voluntary surrender. (People vs. Velasquez, 73 Phil 98). We will be criminally Uable for malversation. However, if the restitution was made immediately, under vehement protest against en imputation of malversation and without ieaving the office, he may not be criminally liable. Question No.5: | 4996 Elizabeth is the municipal treasurer of Masinioc, Zam- bales. On January 10, 1994, she received, as municipal treasurer, from the Department of Public Works and High- ways. the amount of P100,000.00 known as the fund for construction, rehabilitation, betterment, and improvement (CRBI for the concreting of Barangay Phanix Road locai Masinloe, Zambales, a project undertaken on proposal of the Barangay Captain, Informed that the fund was already exhausted while the concreting of Barangay Phanix Road remained unfinished. a representative of the Commission on. Audit conducted a spot audit of Elizabeth who failed to account for the P100,000.00 CRBI fund, Elizabeth, who was charged with malversation of public funds, was acquitted by the Sandiganbayan of that charge bul was nevertheless convicted, in the same criminal case. for legal use of public funds. On appeal, Elizabeth argued that her conviction was, erroneous as she applied the amount of P50,000.0 for a public purpose without violating any law or ordinance appro- priating the said amount for any specific purpose. The absence of such law or ordinance was, in fact, established Is the contention of Elzat th legally tenable? Explain,@ anu IE gone OO pes neon a ening of public funds (technical malversation) was erroneous. 1s legally tenable because she was charged for malversation of public funds under Art. 217 of the Revised Penal Code but was convicted for illegal use of public funds which is defined punished under Art. 220 of said Code. A public officer charged with malversation may not be validly convicted of tilegal use of public funds (technical maiversation} because {the latter crime is not necessarily included nor does it neces 118 of the Rules of Court ar mnd-order the filing of the proper Information. (Parungao vs. Sandiganbayan, 197 SCRA 173.) yo sezuy include the crime of malversation. The Sandiganbayan wa hould have followed the procedure provided in Sec. 11, Rule ye rae vy x \o From the facts, there is no shawing that there is a law or ordinance appropriating-the amoznt to a specific publie purpose. Asamatier of fact, scaleporically states ei eae of ordinance was, in-fact. rishla=So. pr&edunli end substantial, the San: dGénbayan’s decision stiflers from serious infirmity. Question No. 16: 4994 Randy, an NBI agent, was issued by the NBI an armalite rifle (M16) and a Smith and Wesson Revolver, Cal. 38. After ayear, the NBI Directormade an Inspection of all the firearms issued. Randy, who reported for work that morning, did not ‘show up during the inspection, He went on absence without leave (AWOL). After two years, he surrendered to the NBI the two firearms issued to him. malversa- tion of government property before the Sandiganbayan. Randy put up the defense that he did not appropriate the armalite rifie anc the revolver for his own use, that the delay in accounting for them does not constitute conversion and that actually the firearms were stolen by his frend. Chiting. Decide the case. answer: BIEN 4 wn Randy is guilty as charged under Art. 217, RPC. Hie Is r a iB acco wuntable for the rearms they-tssced to fim in his official capacity. The fallure of Randy lo submit the firearms upon demand created th tton that he converted them for higofn use, Even ir there is no direct evidence of misappro- priation, his failure to account for the government property Js enough factual basis for a finding of malversaticr.. Indeed, even his explanation that the guns were stolen is incredible. For if the firearms were actually stolen, he snculd have to the authorities. (People ticlida us. Grospe. GR No.we q po cer can be charged with malversation thru feisi fication of _ Question No. 1: 4988 (@) A public official charged with purchasing rice stocks under government subsidy. y reported that his stocks of rice worth P17 million on board two ink off a neighboring island on their way to their destination and were completely lost. Menwhile, the rice was surreptitiously sold to rice warehouses in the provinces. ‘What is the criminal liability of this government offi- cial? Explain, Answer: (a) The government official being an accountable offi official documents, | =— ‘Question No. X: | 4967 Pedro, 2 municipal treasurer, received from the Provin- cial Treasurer of the Province five (5) brand new typewriters for use in the municipal treasurer's office. Each typewrit valued at P10,000.00. Since Pedro needed money for the hospitalization of his sick son, he sold four (4) of the type- writers to his fend, Rodolfo, a general merchant in San Isidro for P2 000.00 each or a total of P8,000.00. Rodolfo as a general merchant knew that one typewriter could easily bbe between P6,000.00 to PI0,000.00, and for this reason he readily agreed to buy the four typewriters. Rodolfo then resold the typewriters at P6,000.00 thus making a profit of P16,000.00. Two months after the transaction, Pedro was audited and the investigation as to his accountabilities led to the discovery that Rodolfo bought the four (4) type- writers from Pedro. (2) What crime did Pedro commit? (b) Is Rodolfo liable as an accessory of for violation _ pba the Ant-Fencing Law? Answer; 2) Pedro committed maluemsation. The five (5) typewriters received by him from the Provincial Trea surer for use in the Municipal Treasurer's Office were under his custody for which he was accountable as Municipal Treasurer. Selling four (4) of the typrewriters to Rodolfo, a general merchant, because he needed the money for the hospitalization of his son constitutes misappropriation as he applied the same for his personal beneSit.vy b} Rodolfo is not liable for violation of the Anti-Fencing Law a: this law refers only to the buy and sali of articles of value which are the of robbery end tre Rocetfo i table ws anceeeuomP\o te ene of malversation a he purchas vpewriters for 2,000. each only although he knew it could easily be soid for P6,000. to P10,000. Theretore he profited or assisted the principal to profit from the effects or proceeds of the commission of the crime Question No. Il: 4gg6, Corporal Hamak and Sergeant Salat, both policemen, responded to a call for assistance from Maglimayon, the owner of bar along Mabini Street. It appears that Mali galig, a customer, had been creating trouble in the bar, prompting the owner to request him to leave. Maligalig pulled a gun and shot Maglimayon. Slightly wounded, Maglimayon reached for his own gun but before ne could shoot, other customers subdued Maligilig. Corporal Hamak and Sergeant Salat questioned the pro- tagonists and got an admission from Maligalig that the gun he used was uniicensed. On the other hand, Maglimayon produced the license and permit for his firearm. Hamak confiscated Maligalie’s firearm. Salat asked for Maglimayon’s firearm, explaining that he had to bring it to the police headquarters for examination but promised that he would return it to Maglimayon in five days. (a) Hamak sold the firearm of Maligalig. What offense, if any did Hamak commit? Give the elements of the offense as part of the explanation in your answer. (b) Salat gave away Meglimayon’s firearm as & gift to his girlfriend. What offense, if any, did Salat Commit? Explain, Answer: TY (a) Hamak will be liable for malversation. Since the firearm was unlicensed, then it should be confiscated by the Government as what Hamak did. Such partake of the nature of public property with Haak. @ ‘public officer, having the custody thereof. (People vs. Magsino CA $0 O.G. 678). ‘The elements of malversation are: 1. The offender is a public officer 2. He has the cugtday a public funds or pro- porty by reason.of his oFfee.3. He is acdgagtable for these public funds or property. 4. He appropriaijs, takes, misappropriates, consents, or through abandonment or negligence, permits another to take the same (Art. 217, Revised Penal Code). Je He (b) Salat committed/€stafal He received the licensed - ffearm from the owner ‘whois x private person with the (JY promise to rerum it after it has been examined in the police headquarters. The fact that he gave it to his girlfriend cons- titutes misappropriation as he has the obligation to retum it to the owner, Question No. 2: 41990 Dencio, who is the Municipal Treasurer of the town, was also the treasurer of @ charity ball of the church. Because he was short of payroll funds for the municipal employees, he used part of the church funds to replenish the payroll funds with the intention of returning the same when the public funds came. a) Is Dencio Penal Code? St: willy. of malversalion under the revised ‘your reasons. b) Assuming that he failed to replenish the church funds, may he be held criminally liable thereby? Explain Answer: a) No, The church funds used by Dencio do not con stitute public funds which are the proper subject of mal- versation. Neither does said funds constitute the so-called private funds, which could be the proper subject of malver- sation under Article 222, Revised Penal Code which pertain to private property placed in the custody of public oflicers by reason of thelr office 7A. d) Yes, momentary use of Gis, since there js de- 7AM feaudation, is tantamount to Sides are Y9 of the Revised Penal Code, This‘e-Cecaus¢ he received the junds in his fiduciary capacity as treasurer and there was lemporary damage caused. Personal benefit is not an ele- ment of the erime of estafa. Question No, 11: | 1997 During a town fiesta, A, the chief of police. permitted B, a detention prisoner and his compadre. to leave the munici-ppaljail and entertain visitors in his house from 10:00 a.m. to 8,00 pm. B returned to the municipal jall at 8:30 p.m. Was there any crime committed by A? A committed the crise ofnfidelity in the custody \ ofa prisoner. Since B is a detention prisoner, As Chief of Police, A has custody over B, Even if B returned to the snunicipal jall at 8:30 p.m. A, as custodian of the prisoner, has maliciously failed to perform the duties of his office, and when he permits said prisoner to obtain a relaxation of his, yt gat nprisonment. he consents to the prisoner escaping the o ds ye punishment of being deprived of his liberty which can be considered real and actual evasion of service under Article 223 of the Revised Penal Code (People us. Leon Bandino, 29 Phil. 459). Alternative Answer: No crime was comunttted by the Chief of Police. It was only an act of ieniency or laxity in the performance of his duty and not tn excess of his duty (People us. Evangelista (CA) 38 0.6. 158), Question No. 14:| 4996 Achief of police of a municipality, belleving in good faith that a prisoner serving a ten-day sentence tn the municipal Jail, would not escape, allowed said prisoner to sleep at the latter's house because the municipal jal! was so congested and there was no bed space available. Accordingly. the prisoner went home to sieep every night but returned to Jal early gach morning, untilthe ten-day sentence hadbeen folly served. Did the Chief of Police commit any crime? Explain. Answer: ay 6 The Chief of Police is guilty of violation of Art. 223, RPC, consenting or conniving to evasion, the elements of which are (a) he is a public officer, (b) he is in charge or custody of a prisoner, detention or prisoner by final judgment, (c that the prisoner escaped, and (d} there must be connivance. Relaxation of a prisoner is considered infidelity, thus making the penalty tnefiectual; although the convict may not have fled (US vs. Bandino, 9 Phil. 459) 1s still violative of the provision. It also includes a case when the guard allowed the prisoner, who is serving a six-day sentence in the municipal Jail, to sleep in his house and eat there (People us. Revilla)GNSS ESSE i airs 2 dawn Mae wf Question No.3: ago | ‘nani was accused of estafa. Unable to post 2 bail bond for his provisional liberty pending trial of his case, he was detained in tive city jail. On the date of the hearing of the estafa case, Daniel, a policeman detailed in the city jail, escorted Ernani to the city hall for the trial. Daniel removed the handcuffs of Ernani and allowed him to sit on one of the chairs inside the courtroom. As Daniel was talking to & lawyer inside the courtroom, Ernani, with the help of a cigarette vendor, Meynardo, who used his cigarette container as cover, surreptitiously moved out of the room ‘and escaped. Ernani and Meynardo went to the comfort room for a while, then went down the stairs and lost them- selves in the crowd. What crime or crimes were committed by Ernani, Daniel and Meynardo? Give your reasons. Answer: 1. Daniel, the policeman, committed the crime of EVASION THRU NEGLIGENCE, one of the forms of Infidelity in the custody of Prisoner (Art. 224), the essential elements of which offense are: (1) That the offender is a public officer. (2) That he has in his custody or charge a prisoner, either detention prisoner or prisoners by final judgement. (3) That such prisoner escaped from his custody thru his negligence. Ail of these elements are present, Daniel, 2 policeman detailed in the city jail, is a public officer. As the escort for Ernani in the latter’s trial, he had custody of charge of « detention prisoner. Emnani’s escape was thru his negligence because after removing Emnanf’s handcuffs end ellowing him to sit in one of the chairs inside the courtroom, he should have taken the necessary precautions to prevent Ernani's exape by keeping an eye on him. instead, he provided the opportunity for the escape by talking with « lawyer and not a ‘watch over his prisoner, 2. Meynardo, not being a public officer, is guiity of the crime of DELIVERING PRISONERS FROM JAILS (Art. 156), which is committed by any person who either removes from any jail or penal establishment any perscn confined therein, or WHO HELPS the escape of such person by means of violence, intimidation, bribery of OTHER MEANS. The act of Meynardo in giving to Ernani his cigarette container is helping in the latter's escape by OTHER MEANS.pris Ov Asean A a 3, Emani, the escaped prisoner himselt is not criminal- ly liable for any offense, The detention prisoner who escapes from detention does not commit any crime, If he were @ convict by final judgment who is serving 2 sentence which ‘consists of deprivation of liberty and he escapes during term of his sentence, he would be liable for EVASION OF SERVICE OF SENTENCE (Art. 157). XVE ve Who may be guilty of the crime of parricide? (3%), SUGGESTED ANSWE! Boo (a; Any peysou who Kills jalg father_mather, oF child, whether iegitimate or iI[@gitiinate, or his ascen- Gants or descendants, or spouse, shall be guilty of parricide. (Art. 246, RPC) ‘Question No. 997) ‘A. a young housewife, and B, her paramour, conspired tokill ©. her husband, to whom she was lawfully married. A land B bought pancit and mixed it with poison. A gave the food with poison to C, but before C could eat tt, D, her legitimate father, and E, her legitimate son, arrived. C. D and E shared the food in the presence of A who merely watched them eating. C, D and E died because of having partaken of the poisoned food. ‘What crime or crimes did A and B commit? Answer ‘A coraraitted the crime of multiple parricide for the kalling of C. her lawful husband, D, her fllegitimate father, and E, her legitimate son. All these killings constitute parricide under Article 246 of the Revised Penal Code because €f her relationship with the victims. B committed the erime of under as a co-conspirator of ‘Aim the killing of C because fhe killing was carried out by means of poison (Art. 248, par. 3, Revised Penal Code). But for feloniously causing thedeath of and E, Bcommitted two counts-of homicide. The plan-was-only to Kel. C,c geen > a resident of Manila, abandoned eit son, Ricky, whe was then only three vears w” took place in a ba is companions, on one hand, and Ricky an¢ his fnends, upon the other, without the father and son knowing each other. Ricky stabbed and ktled Pedro in the fight, only to find out. a week later, when his mother arrived from Mana to visit him in fail, that the man wham he killed was his own father 1) What crime did Ricky commit? Explain, 5, Pe his wife and old. Twenty years later, an all jongapo City between Pedro and 2) Suppose Ricky knew before the killing that Pedro is his father, but he nevertheless kulled him out of bitterness for having abandoned him and his mother, what crime did Ricky commit? Explain, Answer: Beg 1) Ricky committed parricide because the person kilied sass own Sather and he law punishing De erie (rt, 246, RPC) dGes noiYequire that the crimedbe “knowingly committed. Should Ricky be prosecuied and found gullty of arricide, the penalty to be imposed ts Art, 49 of the Revised Penal Code for Homicide (the crime he intended to commit) Dut in Its maximum period. Alternative Answer: Ricky should be held criminally liable only for homicide not parricide because the relationship which qualified the Alling to parricide is virtually absent for a period of twenty years already, such that Ricky could not possibly be aware that his adversary was his father. In other words, the moral basis for imposing the higher penalty for parricide is absent, 2) The crime committed should be parricide if Ricky knew before the killing that Pedro is his father. because the moral basis for punishing the crime already exists. His having acted out of bittemess for having been abandoned by his father may be considered mitigating At 10:00 everinig of 10 Novem: upon his arrival f Rosette, and ner forme: d. Raul, both naked and in the act of ‘llicit copulation. Raui got his revolver and. upon, seing the revolver, Marco van toward the street, took pedicab and proceecied to the house of his brothe: iceman, from whom he borrowed a revolver. Wi weapon, he returned to nis residence. Unable io find ® and Rosette, Marco proceeded to a disco jointly owned and operated by Raui, It was already 11:00 o'clock that eveningwhen he arrived at the joint. Upon seeing Raul wit male companions, A arid B, drinking beer at one tables, Marco fired two (2} shots at Raul, who was 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 instanganeously. 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 night time You are Marco’s lawyer, What would be your Gefense(s)? Answer: The defense with respect to the death of Raul is death under exceptional circumstances (Art. 247, People us. 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 a right is a justifying circum- stance, Under Arucle 11, par. 5 could be invoked. At the ime accused shot Raul, he was not commiting a felonious act and therefore could not have beer criminally liable under Art. 4, REC, Question No.7: 4988 Pedro Orsai 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, 1964, 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 iatter playingmahjong there. The accused fired at Pedro three times with his rifle, hit hirn and two bystanders. Pedro died instan- taneously of wounds in the head, trunk, and abdomen. The Pai andra were seriously injured but survived Z a) Can Juan Santos be held guilty for homicide ayy for the death of Pedro Orsal? Explain. nS ‘yi ‘b) What offense did Juan Santos commit with W VV regard to the two bystanders? Explain. i ‘¢) What offense, did the wife of Juan Santos com- Mul” _ mit, ifany why? yl wd ka CP pnswer: &) 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 circum- stances because there was one continuous act. (People vs. Abarea) b) With regards to the two bystanders, Juan Santos committed the crime of serlous physical injuries inflicted ‘under exceptional circumstances. (Art, 247 Revised Penal Code; People vs. Abarca). 39 0) The wile of Juan Santos committed the crime of ? > saultery. Articie 335 of the Revised PenalCode provides that ANY who are guilty of adultery.— Adultery is committed by ny married women who shall have sexual intercourse with ye man not her husband..." ee | 1996 | 2) Fidel and Fred harbored a long standing grudge against Jorge who refused to marry their sister Lorna, afte the latter got pregnant by Jorge. After weeks of surveillance, they finally cornered Jorge tn Ermita, Manila, when the latter Mae walking home late at might. Fidel and Fred forclbly Drought Jorge to Zambales where they kept him hog-tied in = small nipa house located in the middle of a rice field. Two Gays later, they killed Jorge and cumped his body into the fat crime or crimes did Fidel and Free commit? 2) Fidel and Fred committed the crime of Murder under Art, 248, RPC, the killing being qualified by evident premed:- tation. This is due to the long standing grudge entertained by the two accused occasioned by the victim's refusal to mary their sister after impregnating her.tn People us. Aifeche, 219 SCRA 85, the intention of, accused is determinative of the crime committed. Where th intention ts to kill the victim ang the latter is forcibly tal indigetion-that the offenders intended ta deprive the vietimof his liberty, Whereas. ifthe victim is kidnapped, and Taken to eauother sivus and lilied as af afterthought, tt is kidnapping with homicide under Art. 267, RPC. Define murder. What are the elements of the crime? (3961 SUGGESTED ANSWER; PA" HOC. YF (8) Murder Is the unlawful killing of a person which otherwise would constitute only homicide, had it not been attended by any of the following circumstances 1, With treachery or taking advantage of s perior strength, or with the aid of armed men, or employing means to weaken the defense or of means or persons to insure or afford impunity; 2, Inconsideration of price, reward or prom- ise: 3, By means or on the occasion of inundation, fire, polson, explosion, shipwreck, stranding of a vessel, derailment or assault upon # raliroad, fall of an airship, or by means of motor vehicles, or with the use of any other means involving great waste and ruin; 4, On occasion of an earthquake, eruption of a volcano, destructive cyclone, epidemic or other public calamity; 5. With evident premeditation; 6. With cruelty, by deliberately and inhu- manly augmenting the suffering of the victim, or outraging or scoffing at his person or corpse. (0) The elements of murder are: (1) that a person was unlawfully killed; (2) that such a killing was attended by any of the above-mentioned circumstances; (3) thet the killing {s not parricide nor infanticide; and (4) that the accused killed the victim.we Question No. 6: 1995 | 1. On his way to buy a lotte ticket, a policeman \ddenly found himself surrounded by four men. One of ees & “Nine tic other tec conmanunetnhe nem arened ah Q pat a bunting knife, an ice pick, and a balisong, repeatedly stabbed him. The policeman died as a result of the multiple stab wounds inflicted by his assailants. ‘What crime or crimes were committed? Discuss fully. answer: PU - a = 1, All the assailants are lable for the crime of murder, qualified by treachery. {which absorbed abuse of superior strength) as the attack was sudden and unexpected and the victim was totally defenseless. Conspiracy is obvious from the concerted acts of the assalants. Direct assault would complex the crime. 2s there 4s no_shawing that the ancatan : ‘was_a policeman, even ere was knowledge. the fact is that he was not in the performance of his official duties, and therefore there is no direct assault Question No, 12: we 1995 | . Harry, an overseas contract worker, arrived from Saudi Arablawith considerable savings. Knowing him toe “loaded” hhis friends Jason, Manuel and Dave invited him to poker session at arented 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 iis friends. Angered by the betrayal he decided to take revenge on the three cheats. ‘i Harry ordered several botUes of Tanduay Rhum and gave thein to his companions to drink, as they did, until they all fell asleep. When Harry saw his eompanions already sound asleep he hacked all of them to death. Then ne Femembered his losses. He rifléd 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. After preliminary investigation, the Provincial Prosecu- tor charged Harry with the complex erime of arson with quadruple homicide and robbery Was Harry roperly charged? Discuss fully. Answers 5 No, Harry was not properly charged. Harry should have been charged with three (3) separate crimes, namely: mur- der, theft and arson,Harry killed Jason, Manuel and Dave with evident premeditation, as there was considerabie lapse of time before hhe decided to commit the crime and the actual commission of the crime. In addition, Herry employed means which weakened the defense of Jason, Manuel and Dave, Harry fave them the liquor to drink until they were drunk and fell asleep. This gave Harry the opportunity to carry out his plan of murder with impunity. ‘The taking of the money {rom the vietims 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, its still legally possible as the offended party are the estates of the victims, In burning the cottage to hide his misdeed, Harry became liable for another separate crime, arson. This act of ‘buming 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 quallly Harry's crime into a complex crime of arson with homicide for there is no such crime. 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, |_199 ‘Two (2) Philippine National Police (PNP) oflicers. X and ¥, on board on motorboat with Z, a civilian as motorman, arrested A and B who were in a banea, for dynanvte fish- ing, The latter's banca was towed towards the municipality On the way. the PNP motorboat was intercepted by 2 third ‘banca whose eccupants, 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 © that they are all under arrest. Thereupon, C. D, and E simultaneously threw dynamite sticks at the PNP motorboats. The first explosion killed XA and B also reacted by throwing dynamite al the PNP motorboat: its explosion killed Y and Zz ‘What crime or crimes did A, B, C, D and E commit? Suggested Answer: ©. D and E are liable for the complex crime of Mur- der, qualilied by explosion, with direct assault for ihe death of XA and B are liable for the complex crime of Murder Quaiified by explosion as to death of Y, and simple Murder Qualified by explosion for the death of Z. No crime of direct assault can be filed insofar as the death of Z is concerned, he being a civilian.This, of course, assumes that (here 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 Additional Answer: Firsiy, A and B committed a violation of Pres. Decree No. 534 (on dlegal fishing as amended by Pres. Decree Nos. 704 and 1058. Fishing with the use of explosives is punishable under said Decree, Question No, A. 2 76-year old woman, was brought to the hospital 272 coma with slight cerebral hemorrhage. An endolsae cal tube was inserted in her mouth to facilitate her breath, ing. _B. @ hospital janitor, who had no business mire Emergency room, for reasons known only to himselt, 2 Proved the plaster holding the tube in place. A deter sep fim and (cld hin to gei out of the room. The plecter cae Teplaced. But when the doctor was gone, B came back net [moved the tube. The victim started to convulse and bieed wang Mouth. Only the Umely amival of the nurse pre, vented the patient's death, The patient was then transiened FesanQther hospital where she died the next day of cardio. Teebeatory arrest. Is B eriminally lable? “tf yor to what crime was committed by B. if any? Answer: Fy) Pecacgetninally liable for Murder (qualiied by ate eye ecause the death of A appears to Be oie soe Male cause of the overt acts of B ht cot cardio-respiratory arrest which evidently vas Prought about by the convulsion and bleaing cena mouth of the vietam due to the removal by B of ire sndoctracheal result ante, TE wo acts of B can be considers age Tesull of one criminal design, in People vs. Umaging, 107 SCRA 166, the Supreme COU Tuled that removal of the endothracheal ‘abe is at- tone G@, Murder, qualiied by treachery. because he Pas tient did not die ‘Question No, 5: 1983 | Boy Bala was a notorious gang leader who hed pre viously 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, Aniceio shat 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 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 wes illegal and the Chief of Police wes liable as a principal by inducement. How tenable are the respective claims of the Chief of Police and Pedro? Explain. Answer: The charge for mutder against the Chief of Police for the death of Boy Bale is not ténable. although, the Chie Police is the superior on Cantain Aniceto who shot B in cold blood, ae cannot be held accountable for the ae Aniceto. His order was specific: 9 arrest Boy Bala and should he resist arrest. te: shoot a: 197 Police so as to mai ble as @ co-principai by inducemer death of Bala is inividual and not collective Aniceto wa: latter Hiebitit Ok the other hand, the charge of homicide against Pedro for the stabbing of Aniceto is likewise not tenable Pedro acted in legitimate defense of relative, he being the brother of Boy Bala. All the requisites of this justifying cir- ‘cumstance are present, Thus: 1. 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 Aniceto is police officer and Boy Bale is notorious gangster. By shooting Boy Bala without waming instead of attempting te arrest him first, Aniceto became an unlawful agressor. 2. There was reasonable necessity of the means em- ployed by Pedro to prevent or repel unlawful aggression The use of a knife against a gun for defense is reasonable. 3. 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Quest nNo | get, Juan had a land dispute with Pedro for 2 number of years. As Juan was coming down his house, he saw his brother, Rodolfo attack Pedro with a bolo from behing. Rodolfo was about to hit Pedro e second time while the latter was prostrate on the ground, when Carling, Pedro’s son, shouted, “Til kill you.” This distracted Rodolfo who then sume to 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.” Carling suffered @ number of wounds and died on the spot, Pedro who was in serious condition was rushed to the hos. pital. He died five days leter 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 inves- tigators 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 . Answer: 2) Rodolfo committed murder regarding the killing of Pedro since Pedro was attacked from behind. The kiliing was attended by 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 Carling, Pedro's son. as that is the result of « fight, both of them being armed with bolos. Althouzh Pedro died five days later, since the biood 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 lisbility, 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 xilled; and hence, he cannot be # principal by inducement. The doctrine is to be a principal by inducement, the induce«’ ment must be the only reason why the erimé is com- mitted. (People vs. Kiichi et. al. 61 Phil. 609) ©} 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.wooo 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. estion No, 7: ] 1986 Roberto Cortez is the general manager of the family corporation, Because of his incompetence, inability to control his temper, and frequent quarrels with empioyees, his father finally decided to dismiss him. As Roberto was about to leave his office at six o'clock in the evening, his father went to his room, lambasted and fired him in the Presence of several members of the office staff. Thoroughly enraged, Roberto ran out of the office, and, deciding to get even, waited at the exit of the parking fot where his father always passes at the close of each working day. A few minutes later, Roberto saw his father’s car approach. He fired his pistol in the direction of the driver thinking that the latter was his father. The man died ins- tantly. Unknown to Roberto, the victim of his fire was Taga- hatid, a company messenger whom the father had instructed to drive his car home. Roberto surrendered to the authorities (2) After investigation, the fiscal filed an information against Roberto for murder. He alleged that the killing was characterized by treachery as the victim was ambushed. Roberto’s counsel insists that if any crime was committed, it should only be homicide attended ‘vy mitigating circums: tances. Was the killing characterized by treachery? Explain (b)_ The penalty for parricide is reclusion perpetua to death. The penalty for murder is reclusion temporal in its maximum period to death, The penalty for homicide is reclusion temporal. Assume that you are the trial judge. Given the circumstances cited above, state the offense committed by Roberto Cortez and impose the correct penalty under circumstances. Explain why you have decided to impose this penalty. Answer. CN Aus 1 Murder is the crime committed qualified by treachery. The fact that the victim was ambushed shows that the accused deliberately and consciously adopted a means to insure specially and directly the commission of the crime without any risk from any defense that the person attacked might make. b. The offense committed by Roberto Cortez is murder. The penalty wil be for murder to be imposed in its maximum period. The reason is murder which is the crime committed is different from the crime intended, the killing of the father of Roberto Cortez, which is parricide. This isa case of mistake of identity. The rule is if the penalty for the crime intended is higher than the penalty for the crime com- mitted, the offender will be liable for the crime committed, but the penalty which shall be imposed is in its maximum period (Art. 49, par. 2, Revised Penal Code). Question No. + 4985 A case of MURDER was filed against MN for kill. ing XY, solely on the basis of a finding that XY sustained more than 200 stab wounds, only three of which were fatal. Discuss’ the propriety of the charge filed against MN. Answer: The charge for Murder against MW is not tenable. Any qualifying circumstance of murder cannot be in- ferred but must be proved satisfactorily and conclusively as the act itself. The fact that the victim sustained more than 200 stab wounds, of which only three were fatal, does not indicate cruelty as a qualifying circumstance of murder. Cruelty requires deliberate prolongation of suf- fering of the victim. The number of wounds in itself does not show cruelty as it is essential to prove that the ‘wounds were inflicted unnecessarily while the victim was alive to. prolong hie physical suffering. In cruelty, the wrong done in’ the commission of the crime is deliberately augmented by causing other wrongs not necessary in the commission of the erime. Cruelty cannot be presumed (People vs. Artiends 90 SCRA 944). Scoffing or outraging at the corpse of the victitm can- not also be invoked as the facts do not show that wounds were inflicted when the vietim was already dead or in whet part of the body were the wounds inflicted. Besides, being a qualifying circumstance, it cannot slso be pre- sumed. b) Rico, a member of the Alpha Rhe fratemity, was d by Pocholo, a member of tne 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 iti consideration of @ promise o: reward and with cruelty. Ifyou were the Judge. with what crime wall you convict Pocholo? Explain. (2%)b}__ Pocholoshould be convicted of the crime ofinomicide only because the aggravating circumstances which should qualify the crame to murder were not alleged in the Information, ‘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. 1999 A killed: (1) 2 woman with whom it of clergy, (2) the! eit daughter, and (4) their adopted son. ‘What crime ot erin did. 4 commi A.committes the following crimes: Homicide or murder as the case may be, for the killing of his common-law wife whe is not legally considered e “spouse’ 2, Infanticide for the killing of the child as said child is less than three (3) days old. (Art. 255, RPC) However, the penaity corresponding to parri- cide shall be imposed since A is related to the child within the degree defined in the crime of perricide. 3. _Parricide for the killing of thelr daugh- ter, whether legitimate or illegitimate, as long a: she is not less than three (3) days old et the time of the killing. 4. Murder for the killing of their adopted son as the relationship between A and the said son must-be by blood in order for parricide tn arise. 1999 | ‘The accused, not intending to kill the victim, treach- erously shot the victim while the victim was turning his back tohim. He aimed at and hit the victim only on the Jeg. The victim, however, died because cf loss of blood. Can the accused be lable for homicide or murder, considering that treachery was clearly involved but there was no attempt to ‘kul? Explain your answer, (3%)‘The accused is lable for the death of the victim even though he merely aimed and fired at the latter's leg, “not intending to Kill the victim”, considering that the gun- shot was felonious and was the proximate cause of death. An offender Is liable for all the direct, natural, and logical consequences of his felonious act although different from what he intended. However, since spécific intent to kill is absent, the crime for said death is only homicide and not murder (People vs. Pugay and Samson, 167 SCRA 439) ALTERNATIVE ANSWER: ‘The accused Is liable for the desth of the vietim in as much as his act of shooting the victim e: the leg is felonious and is the proximate cause of death. person performing « felonious act is criminalir Hable for el the direct, natural, and logical consequences of such uct although different from what he intended. And since such death wes attended by treachery, the same will constitute murder but the accus.d should be given the benefit of the mitigating circumstance that he did not intend to commit so grave & wrong as that which wes committed (Art. 18(3), RPC) Question No. 2:| 4990! Ald and Ben, while walking together, met Caloy. There was an altercatibn between loy so thet Ben chased and stabbed Caloy with a imife hitting his right arm thereby causing slight physical injury. Ben desisted from further assaulting Caloy, but Ald lunged at Caloy and felled him this ume with a bolo which mortally wounded Caloy. Thus, he died, a) What is the crjminal licbility of Aki? How about that of Ben? Explain your answers. —~ b} Assuming conspiracy is established, will your an- swer in problem (a) be the same? Explain your ans Answer: a) Aki is liable for homicide because, while it is clear that he intentionally caused the death of Caloy. none of the circumstances attendant to murder are present, Intent to kl is clear as Aki hinged at Caloy, after the latter was inflicted a wound at the right arm, and gave him a mortal wound. Ben is guilty only of slight shysical injuries ac it 1s evident from the wound he inflicied upon Caloy that he did not intend to kil the latter. Alsc. “rere was no other act on the part of Ben to show such imenteach will be liable for both val be liable for act of one is the act of -7, 20 November b) No, there being no conspix their own individual act. This homucide because in conspiracy, 8 al (People v. Damase, G.R Nos. 1-301 1978), Diego and Pablo were both farmers residing in Barangay Damayan. On one oceasion, 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 Pabio 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 2 blanket and hid in a corner 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 erime or crimes did Diego commit? 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 0 \ \P'separate offense would have been arson. But inside the house We on was unknown to Diego, the resulting crime is under PD No. 1613, because the death resulted from the arson. If by reason yg on the oveasion ofthe eon, death results, the offense is «(fhe special complex or arson with homicide (Sec. 8, PD 1613, 7 which expressly repealed Art. 320 and consequently the ruling case therein, People v. Paterno (L-2665, March 6, 1950). If Diego knew that Mario was inside the house when he set it on fire, the crime committed, instead of arson, would be MURDER, with fire as the qualifying circumstance. QuestionNo, 1: 1988 a) In the course of funeral procession, 2 young mourner ‘who was marching in front of the funeral hearse, momen- tarily 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. If you were the parent of the girl-vietim, what erime would you charge, if you think a crime had been committed, and against whom? Explain your answer briefly without intervening in the killing in any way nor shielding killer. Is there conspiracy among them? Why? Answer: (a) Only the driver could be charged of homicide thru reckless imprudence or homicide thru simple negligence which preclude conspiracy against these who shouted and gestured. Question No. 18: |_ 1897, During a town fiesta, a free-for-all ight erupted in the public plaza. As a result of the tumultuous affray, A sustained one fatal and three superfictal stab wounds. He died a day after. B, C. Dand Ewere proven tobe participants inthe “rumble”, each using a knife against A but it could not be ascertained who, among them, inflicted the mortal injury, Who shall be held criminally lable for the death of Aand for what? Answer: B, C, D, and E being participants in the tum” .uous affray and having been proven to have inflicted serious physical Injuries, or at least, employed violence upon A, are criminally liable for the latter's death. And because it cannot be ascertained who among them inflicted the mortal injury on A. there being a free-for-all fight or tumultuous aflray, B, C, D, and E are all liable for the crime of death caused in a tumultuous affray under Article 251 of the Revised Penal Code. Question No, 12: 1986 Kaekitakit, the beautiful wite of Nehahabag, is ter- mrinally ill and bedridden with cancer. Kaakitakit begs ber husband Nahahabag to assist her in committing suicide to end her suffering, Nahahabag agreed and bought # bottle of sleeping pills. He brought the bottle to his wife and gave hera glass of water to down the pills. Kazkitakit took the pills tout because she did not take sufficient quantity and due to the timely arrival of her attending physician. she survived suicide attempt. Moreover, because of resort to faith healing, Kaakitakit miraculously recovered from the cancer. However, unknown to either husband or wife, Kaakitakit was already three months prepiant when she touk the sleeping pills resulting in the expulsion of the fetus. ‘The Fiscal prosecuted both Kaakitakit and Nahahabag for unintentional zbortion. is the charge correct? Explain. Answer: ‘The charge of upintentional abortion is not correct. This crime is commifted by means of violence upon é preg nant woman as.a-result of which she aborted. The taking of the pill is nce. It was taken by the wife not to abort but to end her suffering from cancer, of which she was terminally ill. Flordeluna boarded a tax! 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 beceme unconscious. Instead of 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 iliegal detention? Explain. (5%) SUGGESTED ANSWER: No, Roger may not be charged and convicted of the erime ofrape 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. AUTERNATIVE ANSWER: Ate, No, Roger may not be charged and convicted of the erime of rape with serious illegal detention, since the detention wa incurred in raping the vietim during the days she was held. At most, Roger may be prosecuted for forcible abduction for taking Flordeluna to Cavite against the latter's will and with lewd designs. The forcible abduction should be complexed with one of the multiple rapes committed, and the other rapes should be prosecuted and punished separately, in as many rapes were charged and proved.vu. 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 jewel Doming, King's edopted brother, learned. about the incident, He went to Laura's house, hid her body. cleaned everything and washed the bloodstains inside the room. Later, King gave Jose, his legitimate brother, one piece of jewelry belonging toLoura. Jose knew that the jeweiry was taken from Laura but nonetheless he sold st for P2,000. What crime or crimes did King, Doming and Jose commit? Discuss their criminal Labilides. (10%) ‘Answer: we 9s King committed the composite crime of Rape with ho! single indivisible offense, not 2 complex ‘erfme, and Theft. The taking of Laura's jewelry when she is already dead \s only heft. ‘Doming's acts, having been doné with knowledge of the commission of the crime end obviously te conesal the body of the crime to prevent its discovery, makes him En accessory to the crime of repe wich homicide und 4st. 18, par. 2 of the Rev. Pens! Code, but he te exempt ertminal Habllity therefor wader arvicle 20 of the Code, being en adopted brother of the principal. ea Eo ties of tie) aria Jose incurs crimfnsl Uabllity either as un accesso to she erime of theft committec by Hing, or es fence eee Sie ic legitimate bootie or Beg, tae eee, ton under Article 20 does not inciuae the participation be did, because |: areata from the effects of such theft by eelling the jewelzp tafowing cna the same was tecen Som Laure. Or Jose may be prosecuted for fencing under she Anti-Fencing Law of 1979 (PD No. 1622) since the jewelry was the proceeds of theft and with intent to galn, he received it front King ena eid It, Alternative Answer: King committed two distinct crimes, Kape end ‘Theft. The killing of Laure will only be an aggravating circumstance raising the penalty to death. The theft is £ separate crime since it was committed after the rape. Doming, although an keccssory, is exempt from criminal Mability for being an edopted brotner of the accused pursuant to Article 20 cf the Revised Fenal Code, Jose may be held Heble fc fencing unser F.D. No. 3612, or as accessory to the theit commitied by King, ewithstanding that he is e brother of King because Frofited or essisted Jose to profit from the exfect 9 crime.Question No. 12: 4gag ‘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. il gave me much pleasure.” 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 fudge trying the case? Explain. Answer: ‘Yes, 1 would-convict the accused of raj Since the ‘victim isa maatal relardate with an intellectual capacity of a child less than TZ years old, she is legally meapableof giving ovate cenaenT tothe semual intercourse The sexual intercourse is tantamount to a statutory rape because the evel of intelligence is that of a child less than twelve years of age. Where the victim of rape is a mental retardate, violence oF intimidation is not essential to constitute rape. (People ws. Trimor, G.R. 106541-42, 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.’ Question No.1: gggg 1. Gavin 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, (a) Can Gavino be charged with rape? Expl (b) Can Gavino be charged with serious physical injuries? Explain, (c) Wil your answers to (a) and (b) be the same if before the incident Gavino and Alma were legally separated? Explain. 2, Three policemen conducting routine surveillance of a cogonal area in Antipolo chanced upon Ruben, a 15-year old tricycle driver. on top of Rowena who was known to be a child prostitute. Both were naked from the waist down and appeared to be enjoying the sexual activity. Ruben was arrested by the policemen despite his protestations that Rowena enticed him to have sexwith her in advancecelebration of her twelfth birthday. The town physician found no semen. nor any bleeding on Rowena’s hymen but for a healed scar. Her hymenai opening easily admitted two fingers showing that no external force had been employed on her. Is Ruben liable for any offense? Discuss fully.1. {a} No. Ahusband 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 penmtt, her to retract in order to charge her husband with the offense (Sate vs. Haines, 11 La. Ann. 731 So, 372; 441 RA 837} (0) Yes, he may be guilty of serious physical injuries. This offense ts specially mentioned in Ant, 263 {4), paragraph 2 which imposes 2 higher penalty for the crime of physical injuries im cases where the offense shall have been committed against any of the persons enu- merated in Art 246 (the crime of parricide}.. (c})_No, my answer, will not be the same. if Gavino, and Alma were legally separated at the time of the incident, then Gavino could be held liable for rape. A legai separation 1s a separation of the spouses from bed and board (U.S. vs. Johnson, 27 Phil. 477, cited in It Reyes, RPC, p. 653, 1961 edition). In the crime of rape, any crime resulting from the infliction of physical injuries suffered by the victim on the oceasion of the rape. is absorbed by the crime of rape. The injuries suffered by the victim may, however, be considered indetermining the proper penalty which shall be imposed on. the offender. ‘Serious physical injuries cannot be absorbed in rape; ft can be so if the injury is slight, 2, Rubenis liable for rape. even if force or intimidation 1s not present. The gravamen of the offense is the carnal . knowiedge of a woman below twelve years of age (People vs. Dela Cruz, 56 SCRA 84) since the law doesn't consider the consent voluntary and presumes that a girl below twelve years old does not and cannot have 2 will of her own, In People us. Perez. CA 37 OG 1762, it was held that sexual intercourse with a prostitute below twelve years old is rape. Similarly, the absence of spermatozoa does not disprove the consummation as the important consideration !s not the emission but the penetration of the female body by the male orkan (Peopie vs. Jose 37 SCRA 450; People vs. Carandang, 52 SCRA 259) Question No. 6: | 4992 Mrs. Lydia Cortes presented herself to Special Police Oflicer 2 (SPO 2) Cirio Cellado at the Northern Police Head- quarters with her mece Nani, age 17, and the latter's friend, Chabeng, age 16, asking for help in filing a criminal case. It appears that while working as househeip in the home of Col. Rolando Donido (retired), the laiter would call thera al- termately, lock them up with him in a room and foree his Justful desires upon them. Sobbing violently, Nani narratedAt how finally her employer succeeded in having sexual inter course with her because he kept on threatening to kill her if she refused to submit to him or if she told Mrs. Donido about what was happening, Oni the other hand, Chabeng described how their employer took Mberties with ‘her body, short of destroying her virginity. If they so much as re- sisted, they were subjected to a lot of verbal abuse and harassment. Unable to bear it any longer, both of them ren away. Nani got married immediately to a former b to save herself from the humiliation of appeal hometown, pregnant but still single. She ended h x ying that no housegir] ever stayed long in that household “kasi walang patawad iyang D. a] What crime has Col. Donido committed against Nani? What crime has he committed against Chabeng? Explain fully Suggested Answer: a) Against Nani, the crime commited by Col: Donido is rape, because he had sexual intercourse wah her with the attendant circumstance of force and intimidation, (Ar 335. par. 1). As far as Chabeng is concemed, since Col Donido cnly took liberties on her body, shori of sexual intercourse. he is lable of Acts of Lasciviousness under Ar. 336, RPC which is committed by any person who commit acts of lasciviousness upon other persons of either sex, under any of the circumstances in Rape. b) Alter $PO2 Cirle Cellado heard the story of the two girls, he took aside Mrs. Cortes and made this proposition: “Let me tell you what 1 plan to do. Since the D.O.M. is probably well-known in his community. he will not want hhis reputation tamished, T'll tell him that you have reported hhim (o us and you are all set to file criminal charges against him at the Prosecutor's Office. But if he will give us 50,000.00. you may be persuaded not to fle the suit anymore. Actually, after he gives that amounl, which he surely wil, T shail visit him regularly for more, We shall then divide equally the money we shall get from him, Suppose Cellado proceeds to carry out his plan and is caught by his Chief with incontrovertible evidence, what action or actions may be brought by his superiors te pe- nalize him and to recover whatever sums of money he may have received from his vietim? Suggested Answer: took personal property from, Donido, ent to gain, with intimidation on the person of the latter, The money. passed into the hands of Cellado involuntarily because of fear (intimidation) on the part of the offended party, Donido. Likewise. Cellado can be held liable under Art. 208, RPC. he being @ public officer who maliciously refrained from instituting prosecution against violators of the law. An agent of a person in authority charged with the appre- hension and investigation of a crime is an integral part of the prosecution of offenses.Question No, I: AJ, a medical student, was a boarder in the house of Mr. and Mrs. M who had 2 good-looking 25-year old retarded daughter with the mental age of an 11-year old girl. One day when the couple were out, Perlite, the retarded daughter, entered AJ's room, came near him and started kissing him. He tried to avoid ‘her. But she persisted. They had sexual intercourse. This was repeated every time Periite’s parents ‘were out until Perlite got pregnant. Mr and Mrs. M filed ¢ complain: of rape against AJ who claimed that it was Perlita who seduced him; that Perlite was intelligent, clearly under stood what she was doing; and that since Perlita was already 2 years old did not herself file the complaint, her parents had no personality to file tne complaint for rape. How would you resolve the case’? Answer: The contention of AJ cannot be sustained. Sexual inter- course with Perlita, who is a mental retardate, although 25 years old but with a mental age of Ii-year old gil is tape. She is the same class as e women deprived of reason or other wise unconscious. (People vs. Sungz L45683 June 24, 1985). Since she is suffering from an incapacity, being incompetent on account of her mental age, the parents have the right to file the complaint for rape. GG) Distinguish coercion from illegal detention. (2%) SUGGESTED ANSWER: V7" SEW Ye~ Coercit be distinguished fom Miegai de- goercioa, the basis of criminal Eebllity is the employment of Violence or serious int: éation approximating vioience, without euthori xe prevent « person fom Going something not prokioited, by law or to corape! him to do something against his will, 2 ¢ person, thereby depriving him ef his Hbercy authority of lew. If there wes nc intent to lock up Getein the offended party unlawfully, the crime of ‘egal Getention Is not committed. Question No. 1: 1997/ A and B, conspiring with each other, kidnapped C and detained him. The duo then called up C's wife informing her ‘that they had her husband and would release him only if she paid a ransom in the amount of P10,000,000.00, and that. ifshe were to fail, they would kil him. The next day, C, who had Just recovered from an illness had a relapse, ‘Fearing he might dic tfnot treated at once by a doctor. A and B released C during the early morning of the third day of detention. Charged with kidnapping and serious illegal detention provided in Article 267, RPC. A and B filed a petition for ball. ‘They contended that since they had voluntarily released C within three days from commencement of the detention, without havingbeen paid any amount of theransomdemanded and before the institution of criminal proceedings against them, the crime commuted was only slight legal detention prescribed in Article 268, RPC. After hearing, the trial court found the evidence of guilt tobe strong and therefore dented the petition for ball Onappeal, the only issue was: Was the crime committed kidnapping and serious detention or slight illegal detention? > gag — Decide. fu Answer: The crime conmitted by A and E is kidnapping and is illegal detention because they made a demand for and threatened to kill C ifthe latter's wife did not pay the same. Without the demand for ransom, the crime could have been slight illegal detention only. ‘The contention of A and B that they had voluntary released C within three days from the commencement of the detention is immaterial as they are charged with a crime where the penalty prescribed is death (Aststio us. San Diego, 10 SCRA 673). ‘They were properly denied bail because the trial court found that the evidence of guilt in the information for kidnapping and serious illegal detention is strong. 4991 A charged B with the crime of rape. While case was pending in cour, B, together with his mother and brotner, overpowered A while riding a tricycle, dragged her inside @ carladeria owned by them and detained ner for ‘two (2) days. They demanded that she sign an affidavit of desistance and reimburse B the sum of P5,000.00 which he paid to his lewyer in the case. She was released only alter she signed the aflidavi asking for the dismissal of the case and delivered to B P1,000.00. She promised to delver the balance of P4,000.00 thirty (30) days later. What crime or crimes was/were committed by B. his mother, and brother? Answer: Question No. 15: 7 This is Kidnapping with Ransom which is kidnapping or illegal detention committed by a private person Ett purpose of extorting ransom. Since the victim is a @oma! {48 serious,Question No. ii 1985 Ernesto, & rejected eultor of Madonns, waited ont evening for the latter to come out of her sehool. Catch ing Madonna by surprise, Ernesto succeeded in forciig. Madonna to his car and thereafter drove off for his home- town in Calamba, Laguna. He kept Madonna in his pe rents’ house solely to convince her to accept his marriage proposal. Frustrated after three (3) days, Ernesto sic- ceeded, after kissing her, fondling her breast and toucl ing her private parts, in forcibly having carnal knowiedge of Madonna once everyday for the next three (3) days. On the 7th day, Madonna was rescued by the police author~ ities. What crime or crimes did Ernesto commit? State your reasons. Answers Ernesto committed serious illegal detention and three (8) rapes. As long as there is restraint of liberty, Tegal tion is committed. Since the offended party is # jomgn, the-crime is serious illegal detention. (Art. 207 Revised Penal ot atom wa x jeprived of her liber- ty for six days although in the first three days Ernesto Kept the offended party in the house’ of his parents solely to convince her to accept his marriage proposal. (People va, Crisostomo et. al., 46 Phil. 775). In the next three days, by forcing Madonna, Ernesto had sexua! intercourse with her once # day. Rape is not fa continuous crime and so three rapes~sre committed. ‘A complex crime is_not committed because the serious ‘Megal detention isyhot Smeans neces: reps. Besides rape can tted even without serious ile (gal detention. (People vs. Berns! 181 SCRA 1984). ‘Question No. 20: ‘At about 11:00 in the evening, Dante forced his way inside the house of Mamerto. Jay, Mamerto’s son, saw Dante and accosted him. Dante pulled a knife and stabbed Jay on his abdomen. Mamerto heard the commotion and went out of his room. Dante, who was about to escape. assaulted Mamerto. Jay sullered injuries which, were it not for the tmely medical attendance, would have caused his death Mamerto sustained injuries that incapacitated Nir. for 25 ays. What erime or erimes did Dante commit? answer: SY’ G4 Dante committed qualified trespass to dwelling, frus- tated homicide for the stabbing of Jay, and less serious physical injuries for the assault on Mamerto,me panies f on another with the inflic ‘The crime of qualified trespass to dwelling should not be complexed with frustrated homicide because when the tres- pass is committed as 2 means-to it a more serious offense, trespass to dwelling & absorbed by the greatercrime, and the former constitutes 23 crcmsiance of dwelling (People us. Abedoea, 53 PhU.788} Dante committed frustrated homicide for the stabbing of Jay because he had already performed all the acts of execution which would have produced the intended felony of homicide were it not for causes independent of the act of Dante. Dante had the intent to kill judging from the weapon used, the manner of committting the crime and the part of the body stabbed, Dante is guilty ofless senous physical injuries for the wounds sustained by Mamerto. There appears to be no inten: to kill because Dante merely assaulted Mamerto without using the knife. Question No. 16; 4988 2) Jorge is the owner of 10 hectares of iand in the foothitls which he planted to ianzones. On his last vist ti he was shocked to discover that his Jand had been taken over by a group of 15 families whose members had forcibly driven away his caretaker, had appropriated the fruits for them. selves, and were now threatening to kill him should he =ry to eject them. What crime should Jorge charge these 15 famili plain (®) Five laborers were hired by Manuel Diong to harvest coconuts from a plantation whieh he toid them belonged to him. Unknown to them, the ownership of the and was in dispute, and the registered owner subsequently filed a cese of qualified theft against them. ? Ex. How would you defend them? Explain briefly, Answer: a) Jorge can charge the 15 families of 2 separate crimes namely: J) Violation of Article 282 which provides that \- “Grave threats.— Any person who shali threaten upon the person, honor or property of the latter or of his family uf any n W70ng amounting to a crime shall suffer...” and 2) Violation of Article 312 which pros rope natin af seal property or usurpation of ral rights in property.— Any person who, by means of vioTenice against or intimidation of persons, shall take possession of any real property or shall usurp any real rights in property belonging to another, in addition to the penalty ineurred for the acts ofviolence executed by him, shall be punished by & fine from P50.00...” b) I would defend them by citing U.S. vs. Ah Chong (15 Phil. 488) on mistake of facts and charge the owner with violation of Article 282 on grave threats. In U.S. vs. Ab Chong, the accused was exempted from criminal liability because he performed an act which would be lawiu! hac it been true as he believed that “Grave threats.— Any person who shall threaten another with the infliction upon the person, honor or property of the latter or of his family of any wrong amounting to a crime, shall suffer 1999 fo} Foretbly brought to the police headquarters. a person was tortured and maltreated by agents of the law ‘= erder to compel him to confess a crime imputed to him. The agents failed, however, to draw from him a confession which was their intention to obtain through the employment of such means, whi Explain ye was comm! wer. (3%) gents of the law? (b) Evidently, the person tortured ana maltreatea by the agents of the law Is 2 suspect and may have been detained by them. If so and he had elready been booked end put in jail, the crime is maltreatment of prisoner end the fact that the suspect was subjected to torture to extort e confession would bring about « higher penalty, in addition to the offender's lability for the physical injuries inficted, But if the suspect was forctbly brought to the police headquarters to make him admit the crime and tortured/ maltreated to make him confess to such crime, but later released because the agents failed to draw such confes- sion, the crime is grave coersion because of the violence empioyed_to- juch confession without the of- fended party being confined in jall. (US ws, Cusi, 10 Phil 143) —————— It is noted that the offended party wus merely “brought” to the police headquarters and is thus not a detention prisoner. Had he been validly arrested. the crime committed would be maltreatment of prisoners. Isagant lost his gold necklace bearing his initials. He saw Roy wearing the said necklace. Isagani asked Roy to retum to him the necklace as it belongs to him, but Roy‘ refused. Isagani then drew his gun an¢ told Roy, “If you will not give back the necklace to me. ! will kill you!" Out of fear for nis life and against hip will, Roy gave the necklace to sagan What offense did Isagan’ commit? {5%} answer: OG Jsagunl committed the trime of gree cogrcion (Art 286, RPC) for compelling Roy, by means of serious threats or intimidation, to do something against the latter's will. whether it be right or wrong. Serious threats or intimidation approximating violence constitute grave coercion, not greve thregts. Such Is the nature of the threat in this case because it was committed with e gun, ic « deadly weapon. ‘The crime is not robbery because intent to gain, which is an essential element of robbery, is ebsent since the necklace beiongs to Isegent. A. brother of B, with the intention of having a night out, with his friends, took the coconut shell which is being used byBasabanker coins from inside their locked cabinet using their common key. Forthwith, A broke the coconut shell outside of their home in the presence of his friends. Whatis the criminal lability of A, ffany? Explain. (3%) Is A exempted from criminal liability under Article 332 of the Revised Penal Code for being a brother of B? Explain. (2%) a) Ais criminally liabie for Robbery with force upon things, because the coconut shell with the coins inside, was taken with intent to gain and broken outside of their home. (Art. 298 fb) (2), RPC) b]__ No, As not exempt from criminal ability under Art, 332 because said Articie applies only to theft, ssvindling ‘ormalicious mischief. Here, the crime commiltted Is robbery. Ee b) ALB, ©, D and B were in a beerhouse along MacArthur Highway having 2 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 shor? of P2,000.00. E then orchestrated a plan whereby A,word ru B,C and D would go out, flag taxicab and rob the taxt driver ofall his money while E would wait for them in the beerhouse. A.B, CandD agreed. All armed with balisongs, A. B, Cand Dhalled 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 thei: bill, So. they decided to hail another taxicab and they again robbed driver ¥ of his hard-earned money amounting to P1,000.00. 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, ifany, did A. B,C, D and E commit? Explain fully. %®) b) A.B, C,DandE are liable for two (2) counts of fobbery under Article 294 df the Rev. Pena! Code: not for r Highway Robbery under PD 532. The oftnders ere no! brigande but only committed the robbery to raise money to pay thetr bil because i happened that they were sho-t of money to pay the same. vd XVI 599 ‘Two young men, A and B, conspired to rob a residential house of things of value. ‘They succeeded in the commission of their originai 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 the happening from a window and did nothing to stop the rape. Is B as criminally lable as A for robbery with rape? Explain. (4%) SUGGESTED ANSWER: #99 ‘Yes, Bis as criminally lable 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 toa composite crime, & single indivisible offense of robbery with rape. B would not have been lable had he endeay- ored to prevent the commission of the rape. But since he did not when he could have done so, he in effect acqui- esced with the rape as component of the robbery and 60 he is also Hable for robbery with rape.A.B, Cand 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. 1. Supposea 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%] 2, Suppose st was robber D wino 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%! Answer: 1, A.B, Cand D should be charged with the crime of robbery with homicide because the death of the benk employes bout by the acts of sald offenders sabe ecu the atbery, Tey shot out with oe polices jereby causing such death by reasor or on the occasion of a robbery; hence, the composite crime of robbery with homicide. 2. The argument Is valid, considering that « sepa. rate charge for Homicide was flied. It would be different if the charge filed was for the composite erime of robbery with homicide, which is a single, indivisible offense, Alternative Answer; 2. The argument raised by A, Band Cis not correct because their Habllity is not only for Robbery but for the special complex crime of Robbery with homicide. But the facts stated impresses that separate crimes of Rob- bery “and” Homicide were charged, which is not correct. What was committed was a single indivisible offense of Robbery with homicide, not two crimes. | 1997 2) Five robbers robbed, one afler the other five houses occupied by different families located inside a compound enclosed by a six-feet high hollow block fence robberies did the five commit? Explain. 3 2) The offerders committed only one robbery in the eyes ofthe ‘compound, they ‘were impelle y indi fo commit a robbery as they were not aware that there were five families inside said compound, considering that the same was enclosed by a stx-feet high hollow-block fence. The series of robbery committed in the same compound at about the same time Constitutes one gontinued crne, motivated by one efimtnal impulse. 7 7Question No. 19: After raping the complainant in her house, the accused struckamatch 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 court correct? Answer: A ont of? ‘No, the court erred in convicting the accused of the 4 GP sppeial complex crime of robbery with rape. The accused w L sHould instead be held able for two (2) separate crimes of ry and rapé, since the primary intent or objective of the accused ‘torape the complainant, and his cormissto: eae ” of the robbery was merely an afterthought. The robbery must precede the rape, in order to give rise to the special com; rime for which the court convicted the accused. aa | 1996 2} Jose, Domingo, Manolo, and Fernando, armed with oles, 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 famiy. a) What crime did Jose, Domingo, Manolo and Fernando commit? "Explain, b) 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 kdlled the whole family to prevent identifica- ‘tion, what crime did the four commit? Explain, ) Under the facts of the case, what aggravating circumstances may be appreciated against the four? Explain. le Fernando corfmitteé complex crime of Robbery with: Ripe. ‘Conspiracy can be inferred from the manner the \ wy” cape ters conamutted the robbery but the rape wascommltted *) a 2) (a) Jose, Domingo, and Manco commuted Robber. wh by Fernando at a place “distant from the house” where the robbery was committed, not in the presence of the of 2 conspirators. Hence, Ferandealone should answer for the Be Soper rendering him Hable for the special g6mplex cri (People vs. Canturia et. al, C.R, 108490, 223b) The crime would be Robbeneuith 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 kdlled (homicide), ‘be considered as accravating circumstances. ‘The sage synonymous with ignominy and the additional monymous witverienty. (Peoples. Solis, 162 SCRA: People us. Plaga, 202 SCR& 531) ©) The aggravating circumstances which may be consid- ered in the premises are 1) Band because all the four offenders are armed; 1) Noctumnity because evidently the offenderstook warivamitage of nighttin 1s)_dwelling: anc 4) Uninhabited ziace because the house where thecrines ed was “at a desolate place” and obv:zusly the offenders took advan- tage of (his : was comect Esta th physical anc Having painted the car, hy ap therefore could exercises that right a, including the owner. thereto, and whole world, Question No.18: | 4 ggg) Alfredo is the corporate treasurer of Multimillion In- surance Company. As corporate treasurer, he would have in his possession. an average of P5,000,000 at any given time. In 1984, when the money market rate of interest ranged from 35% to 50%, Alfredo place P1,000,000 of the corporate funds in the money market in his name without the knowl- edge of eny other corporate official of the company. Upon maturity of the money market placement, Alfredo returned the amount of 71,000,000 to the corporation, but kept to himself the interest income of P250,000. At the end of 1984,when audit examinations of his accounts were undertaken, the auditors found no shortage in his accountabilities. Did Alfredo commit any trime? Answer: AVG, Bifredo committed the crime of estafa/thru abysb ‘onfidedee, even if he had no intention to p tly riate the corporate funds for himself. The law on estafa is clear and does not make any distinctions between permanent and temporary misappropriations, for as long as damage is suffered by the offended party. Damage was suffered by the corporation in this case because ifthe Pl mil- lion pesos had not been withdrawn from the corporate coffers it would have earned interest fo: the benefit of the company. Estafa, and not qualified tyéft»is committed because as corporate treasurer, Alfredo has{uridical possession of the PS million pesos in his custody. This Was in the nature of e trust fund entrusted to him for corporate purposes. While it is @ general principle that misappropriation of trust funds short periods does not always amount to estafa, it has been held thet his principle cannot extend to cases where officers of corporations converted corporate funds to their own use (U.S. vs. Sevilla, 43 Phil. 190), Fraudulent intent is not even necessary in such cases because the breach of confidence involved in the misappropriation or conversion of trust funds takes the place of fraudulent intent and is in itself sufficient Question No.2: 4986 Two hardware stores are located two blocks apart along Avenida Rizal in Manila. One store is named Glorious Haré- ware Co. while the other is Glorioso and Sons Hardware, inc. ‘Two hundred bags of cement ordered by Glorio\ were brought by the driver o’ Hi-Cement Coxpor Glorioso and Sons The drives inquired from the manager of Gloriosc and Sons. @ certain Pedro Mendoza, whether that company ordered the cement. Mendoza answered “Yes” and directed the driver to the warehouse of Gloriose and Sons where their laborers unloaded the cargo Learning of the misdelivery, Jose Roxas, manager of HiCement went to-Glorioso and Sons an¢ met with Pablo Glorioso and Cesar Glorioso, President and Vice-President, respectively, of the firm. Roxas explained that the cement elonged to his company and that the cargo was intended for Glorious Hardware. Roxas showed them the purchase order and other documents indicating that Glorious Hard- ware had already paid for the cement. Pablo and Cesar assured Roxas that they would look into the matter. A month passed but Glorioso.and Sons did not return the bags of cement. Unknown to Pablo and Cesar, manager