2008 Bar Exam: CRIMINAL LAW I.

a) After due hearing on a petition for a writ of amparo founded on the acts of enforced disappearance and extralegal killing of the son of the complainant allegedly done by the respondent military officers, the court granted the petition. May the military officers be criminally charged n court with enforced disappearance and extralegal killing? Explain fully. (3%) b) Are human rights violations considered as crimes in the Philippines? Explain. (3%) the question is MAY the military officers be CRIMINALLY CHARGED in court... no. The state, through legislature, defines crimes, treats of their punishment and provide for their penalty. enforced disappearance and extralegal killing has not yet been defined by law. It is not yet a crime. i find wisdom to one of our comrades here when he said that it is not the designation that is controlling but the elements of it. True. That is though most applicable in criminal procedure. but the fact remains, if they MAY be charged WITH enforced disappearance and extralegal killing. It is substantive. No. not all of human rights violations are considered crimes. Those that has been defined by RPC or special penal laws or presidential penal decrees can be considered as a crime. stripping out a prisoner of some of his civil and political rights are indicative of a human rights violation. But is it a Crime? it is not. OR a) After due hearing on a petition for a writ of amparo founded on the acts of enforced disappearance and extralegal killing of the son of the complainant allegedly done by the respondent military officers, the court granted the petition. May the military officers be criminally charged n court with enforced disappearance and extralegal killing? Explain fully. (3%) Yes. Although, there is no specific statute - just yet - re treatment of enforced disappearances, under Art VIII Sec 5 (5), the SC can promulgate rules to protect and enforce constitutional rights. The basis therefore is Constitutional. Ito yung writ of Amparo b) Are human rights violations considered as crimes in the Philippines? Explain. (3%) Yes, to rule otherwise would simply imply that anyboby who violates one's HR can just go scot-free. In the case of Ramas, it was held that even during the interregnum (when Cory had just taken over and no consti in effect), HR's are not to be violated, they being inherent. II. While Carlos was approaching his car, he saw it being driven away by Paolo, a thief. Carlos tried to stop Paolo by shouting at him, but Paolo ignored him. To prevent his car from being carnapped, Carlos drew his gun, aimed at the rear wheel of the car and fired. The shot blew the tire which caused the car to veer out of control and collide with an oncoming tricycle, killing the tricycle driver. a) What is the criminal liability of Carlos, if any? Explain. (4%) b) What is the criminal liability of Paolo, if any? Explain. (4%) a) Carlos has no criminal liability for a simple reason that Carlos was not committing a felony when he caused the death of the tricycle driver. The rule is that a person is criminally liable if a wrongful act which is not intended is a consequence of his felonious act. It is obvious that Carloss shooting at the rear wheel of his car, which is the proximate cause of the killing of the tricycle driver, is not a felonious act as the law allows a person to use necessary force to retain what belongs to him.

b) The anti-carnapping law particularly deals with the theft and robbery of motor vehicles. Hence a motor vehicle is said to have been carnapped when it has been taken, with intent to gain, without the owner's consent, whether the taking was done with or without the use of force upon things. It is clear that Paolo has committed and is criminally liable for the crime of carnapping having taken, with intent to gain, the car of Carlos without the latters consent. OR a)Carlos is criminally liable.Reason: proximate cause and the means he used to protect his property is out of proportion and unreasonable constituting imprudence.he is therefore liable for the consequences of his act. b)Qualified theft, there being no force or violence employed in the taking of the motor vehicle.

III. Olimpio caught a cold and was running a fever. His doctor prescribed paracetamol. Olimpio went to a drug store with the prescription, and the pharmacist sold him three (3) tablets. Upon arriving home, he took a tablet. One hour later, he had a seizure and died. The autopsy showed that the tablet he had taken was not paracetamol but a pill to which he was allergic. The pharmacist was charged with murder. Is the charge proper? If not, what should it be? Explain. (6%)

No, the charge is not proper. The pharmacists should be held liable for reckless imprudence resulting to homicide. There could be no murder in the instant case because the intent to kill is not present. IV. Manolo revealed to his friend Domeng his desire to kill Cece. He likewise confided to Domeng his desire to borrow his revolver. Domeng lent it. Manolo shot Cece in Manila with Domengs revolver. As his gun was used in the killing, Domeng asked Mayor Tan to help him escape. The mayor gave Domeng P5,000 and told him to proceed to Mindanao to hide. Domeng went to Mindanao. The mayor was later charged as an accessory to Ceces murder. a) Can he be held liable for the charge? Explain. (4%) b) Can he be held liable for any other offense? Explain fully. (3%) a. Mayor Tan cannot be liable as an accesory to ceces' murder. Art. 19 of RPC provides that in order that Mayor Tan can be charged as an accesory, he harbored, concealed, or assisted in the escape of the principal of the crime, provided the accessory acts with abuse of his public functions or whenever the author of the crime is guilty of treason, parricide, murder, or an attempt to take the life of the Chief Executive, or is known to be habitually guilty of some other crime. Clearly, in the case at bar, he only helped an accomplice not the principal. b. Mayor Tan can be charged under the special law of Obstruction of Justice(PD1629). PD 1829 penalizes the act of harboring or concealing, or facilitating the escape of any person he knows or has reasonable ground to believe or suspect, has committed any offense under existing penal laws in order to prevent his arrest, prosecution and conviction. Under this special law, there is no specification of the crime to be committed by the offender for criminal liability to be incurred and the offender is no longer an accessory. He is simply an offender without regard to the crime committed by the person assisted to escape and he is penalized as a principal. V. Eman, a vagrant, found a bag containing identification cards and a diamond ring along Roxas Blvd. Knowing that it was not his, he went to the nearest police station to seek help in finding the owner of the bag. At the precinct PO1 Melvin attended to him. In the investigation Eman proposed to PO1 Melvin, in case you dont find the owner lets just pawn the ring and split the proceeds fifty-fifty (50/50). PO1 Melvin then went straight to the

pawnshop and pawned the ring for P50,000. Eman never saw PO1 Melvin again. a) What is the criminal liability of Eman, if any? Explain. (3%) b) What is the criminal liability of PO1 Melvin, if any? Explain. (3%) a) Eman would be liable for corruption of public officials. Article 212 of the Revised Penal Code punishes the act of offering, promising, or giving gifts or presents to a public officer which would make the same (public officer) liable for direct bribery or indirect bribery. In the case at bar, Eman made offer to Melvin to pawn the ring and split the proceeds equally in case the owner is not found and the latter consented to the offer. It is submitted that Eman is liable for the crime of corruption of public officials. Melvin is liable for the crime of theft because although he is not a finder in fact, he is a finder in law. He assumes, by voluntary substitution, as to both property and its owner, the place occupied by Eman, the finder in fact. Furtive taking and misappropriation of the property found is the gist of this offense. OR There was no liability on the part of Eman. Eman cannot be held liable for corruption of public official. There was no showing in the facts that the offer of Eman was accepted by PO1 Melvin. If the offer is not accepted by the public officer, only the person offering the gift or present is criminally liable for attempted corruption of public officers but not in the consummated stage. But the attempt to commit a felony commences with the commission of overt act and not preparatory act. In the case at bar, there was merely a preparatory act on the part of Eman since he does not own the ring. b) PO1 Melvin is liable for estafa. Here, he is acting as depositary. pawning the things tantamount to misappropriation. theft will not lie here because the element of taking is absent. VI. Hubert and Eunice were married in the Philippines. Hubert took graduate studies in New York and met his former girlfriend Eula. They renewed their friendship and finally decided to get married. The first wife, Eunice, heard about the marriage and secured a copy of the marriage contract in New York. Eunice filed a case of bigamy against Hubert in the Philippines. a) Will the case prosper? Explain. (4%) b) If Eunice gave her consent to the second marriage, what will your answer be? Explain. (3%) a. It will not prosper. Territoriality principle. b. same with a. Territoriality Principle ata ang suggested answer ng UP. They said that the crime of Bigamy was committed outside the territorial jurisdiction of the Phil. therefore cannot be prosecuted here. Additionally, such a crime does not fall within the exception provided under Art. 2.(Extra-territorial Jusidiction) VII. The inter-island vessel M/V Viva Lines I, while cruising off Batanes, was forced to seek shelter at the harbor of Kaoshiung, Taiwan because of a strong typhoon. While anchored in said harbor, Max, Baldo and Bogart arrived in a speedboat, fired a bazooka at the bow of the vessel, boarded it and divested the passengers of their money and jewelry. A passenger of M/V Viva Lines I, Dodong, took advantage of the confusion to settle an old grudge with another passenger, and killed him. After their apprehension, all four were charged with qualified piracy before a Philippine court. a) Was the charge of qualified piracy against the three persons (Max, Baldo and Bogart) who boarded the inter-island vessel correct? Explain. (4%) b) Was Dodong correctly charged before the Philippine court for qualified piracy? Explain. (3%) a) The charge is not correct. The facts of the case at bar do not indicate the seizure of the vessel by the perpetrators. All they did was fired a bazooka at the bow of the vessel, boarded it and divested the passengers of their money

and jewelry while the vessel was anchored at harbor of Kaoshiung, Taiwan. Absent the qualifying circumstance of seizure of the vessel, the perpetrators cannot be charged with qualified piracy. It is submitted that the perpetrators only committed a crime of simple piracy which, being a crime against the law of nations and thus an exception to the rule on territoriality in criminal law, is triable before the Philippine court. b) Dodong cannot be held liable for qualified piracy. One of the elements of qualified piracy is the offender must be a stranger to the vessel. It is clear that Dodong is only a passenger of the vessel attacked by the pirates. The crime committed by Dodong is murder which is triable before Philippine court, having been committed on board a Philippine registered vessel an exception to the territorial application of penal laws.

VIII. Francis and Joan were sweethearts, but their parents had objected to their relationship because they were first cousins. They forged a pact in writing to commit suicide. The agreement was to shoot each other in the head which they did. Joan died. Due to medical assistance, Francis survived. Is Francis criminally liable for the death of Joan? Explain. (5%) Yes, Francis is criminally liable for giving assistance to suicide. Art. 253 of the RPC punishes the act of lending assistance to another to commit suicide to the extent of doing the killing himself. Let me submit an alternative answer. Francis is liable of homicide for the death of Joan. Intent to kill is conclusively presumed when death resulted. The presence of intent to kill and the absence of any justifying circumstance and qualifying circumstances of murder in the killing of Joan are constitutive elements of the crime of homicide. It cannot be said that Francis committed a crime of giving assistance to suicide because the article under the RPC defining this crime contemplates of euthanasia where the victim is suffering from terminal illness. IX. Dennis leased his apartment to Myla for P10,000 a month. Myla failed to pay the rent for 3 months. Gabriel, the son of Dennis, prepared a demand letter falsely alleging that his father had authorized him to collect the unpaid rentals. Myla paid the unpaid rentals to Gabriel who kept the payment. a) Did Gabriel commit a crime? Explain. (4%) b) Can Gabriel invoke his relationship with Dennis to avoid criminal liability? Explain. (3%) A. Yes, Gabriel commits the following crimes: 1. Estafa against Myla, because he defraud myla by means of false pretenses or fraudulent act as well as abuse of confidence reposed on her. 2. Theft against his father, dennis, because of taking of personal property of the latter without his consent and without using force, violence or intimidation and with intent to gain. B. Yes, In crime of theft, Gabriel being a descendant of Dennis, he can validly invoked their relationship to exempt him from criminal liability only, however, still Gabriel has civil liability against his father. Alternative Answer a) Gabriel committed a crime of swindling by means of deceit. This crime is committed when the offender defrauded another by means of deceit and damage or prejudice capable of pecuniary estimation is caused to the offended party or third party. It is clear that by falsely representing to

Myla that his father authorized him to collect the unpaid rentals which caused damage to Myla, Gabriel committed the crime of swindling by means of deceit. b) No, because the offended party in the case at bar is Myla not Dennis. Exemption from criminal liability in swindling (estafa) finds application only when the offender and offended party are relatives whose relationship is any of those in Art. 332 of the RPC. The facts show Gabriel and Myla are not relatives. X.

2. False testimony in other cases and perjury in solemn affirmation. The act of Raissa swearing before a public officer (e.g. notary public) relative to her marriage license application constitutes this crime; 3. Adultery- Raissa's act of having sexual intercourse with a man other than her husband is adultery; and 4. Bigamy- Raissa's act of contracting a second or subsequent marriage before the former marriage has been legally dissolved constitutes bigamy. XIII.

Upon opening a letter containing 17 money orders, the mail carrier forged the signatures of the payees on the money orders and encashed them. What crime or crimes did the mail carrier commit? Explain briefly. (6%) The mail carrier committed a crime of qualified theft, the property stolen being a mail matter. In the theft of mail matter, it is of no moment who the perpetrator is except where the offender be a public officer who has custody or control of the funds or property by reason of the duties of his office and he takes, appropriated, or misappropriated the mail matter, in which case the proper offense is malversation. In the case at bar, it is clear that the mail carrier, although a public officer, is not an accountable public officer. OR When the mail carrier forged the signatures of the payees on the money orders and encashed them, he committed the crimes of malversation and falsification, the latter crime having been committed to conceal the malversation (People vs. Villanueva, 58 Phil 672). OR I believe the crime committed is the complex crime of estafa (with abuse of confidence) through falsification of public/commercial documents. It is a complex crime because falsification is a necessary means to commit the crime of estafa. XI. Ricky was reviewing for the bar exam when the commander of a vigilante group came to him and showed him a list of five policemen to be liquidated by them for graft and corruption. He was further asked if any of them is innocent. After going over the list, Ricky pointed to two of the policemen as honest. Later, the vigilante group liquidated the three other policemen in the list. The commander of the vigilante group reported the liquidation to Ricky. Is Ricky criminally liable? Explain. (7%) It is noticeable from the facts that Ricky was the leader of the vigilante group. His opinion was sought by the commander, the murder carried out by the group according to his opinion, and the result reported to him. No one in his right mind would ever do such actions unless the parties belong to the same vigilante group. While Ricky did not participate in the act either as principal by direct participation, by inducement, or by indispensable cooperation, nevertheless he cooperated in the execution of the offense by previous or simultaneous acts indicating concurrence with the principals in their criminal design. He is therefore liable as an accomplice to the crime of murder. XII. Raissa and Martin are married to each other but had been separated for the last five years. Raissa decided to wed Juan, her suitor, who had no inkling that she was married. Raissa and Juan accomplished an application for marriage license which they subscribed and swore to before the Local Civil Registrar. Raissa declared, in the application, that she is single. The marriage license was issued. In due time, the couple were married by the mayor. Raissa and Juan had their first sexual intercourse later in the evening. What crime or crimes, if any, did Raissa commit? Explain briefly. (7%) Raissa comitted the following crimes: 1. Falsification of public or official document by a private individual. The act of Raissa in claiming a single status in the application for marriage license is an act of falsification falling under this crime;

Lucas had been the stay-in houseboy of spouses Nestor and Julia for five years. One night, while Nestor and Julia were out having dinner, Lucas and his friend Pedro gained entry into the masters bedroom with the use of a false key. They found Julias jewelry box in one of the cabinets which was unlocked. Lucas believed that Julias jewelry was inside the box. Unknown to Lucas and Pedro, the box was empty. Pedro took the box and left the bedroom with Lucas. They were shocked when they saw Nestor in the sala, pointing a gun at them. Nestor ordered them to stop and hand over the box. Pedro complied. It turned out that Nestor had just arrived in time to see Lucas and Pedro leaving the masters bedroom with the box. State with reasons, the crime or crimes, if any, Lucas and Pedro committed. (7%) The crimes committed are: 1. Qualified Theft The crime of theft shall be punished by the penalties next higher by two degrees than those respectively specified in the next preceding article, if committed by a domestic servant, or with grave abuse of confidence, or if the property stolen is motor vehicle, mail matter or large cattle or consists of coconuts taken from the premises of the plantation or fish taken from a fishpond or fishery, or if property is taken on the occasion of fire, earthquake, typhoon, volcanic erruption, or any other calamity, vehicular accident or civil disturbance. (As amended by R.A. 120 and B.P. Blg. 71. May 1, 1980). 2. Art. 305. False keys. The term "false keys" shall be deemed to include: 1. The tools mentioned in the next preceding articles. 2. Genuine keys stolen from the owner. 3. Any keys other than those intended by the owner for use in the lock forcibly opened by the offender. Note: Robbery in an inhabited place cannot be the case because the malefactors where unarmed. XIV. Eliseo, the deputy sheriff, conducted the execution sale of the property of Andres to satisfy the judgment against him in favor of ABC Corporation, a government-owned or controlled corporation with an original charter. However, the representative of the corporation failed to attend the auction sale. Gonzalo, the winning bidder, purchased the property for P100,000 which he paid to Eliseo. Instead of remitting the amount to the Clerk of Court as ex-officio Provincial Sheriff, Eliseo lent the amount to Myrna, his officemate, who promised to repay the amount within two months, with interest thereon. However, Myrna reneged on her promise. Despite demands of ABC Corporation, Eliseo failed to remit the said amount. a) State with reasons, the crime or crimes, if any, committed by Eliseo. (4%) b) Would your answer to the first question be the same if ABC Corporation were a private corporation? Explain. (3%) Alternative Answer A) The crime committed by Eliseo is malversation because the 100,000 pesos, which are public funds, are subject to his accountability. Having taken custody of the public funds, he is supposed to account for it by remitting the amount to the Clerk of Court. This he did not do. Instead he misappropriated

the money by lending the same, with interest thereon, to his officemate Myrna. B) Yes. It is no legal consequence whether the property belongs to a private person or company. The seizure of the property or fund partakes of the character of being part of the public funds it being in custodia legis. For as long as the public officer is the one accountable for the fund or property that was misappropriated, he can be liable for the crime of malversation. XV. Roger, the leader of a crime syndicate in Malate, Manila, demanded the payment by Antonio, the owner of a motel in that area, of P10,000 a month as protection money. With the monthly payments, Roger assured, the syndicate would provide protection to Antonio, his business, and his employees. Should Antonio refuse, Roger warned, the motel owner would either be killed or his establishment destroyed. Antonio refused to pay the protection money. Days later, at around 3:00 in the morning, Mauro, a member of the criminal syndicate, arrived at Antonios home and hurled a grenade into an open window of the bedroom where Antonio, his wife and their three year-old daughter were sleeping. All three of them were killed instantly when the grenade exploded. State, with reasons, the crime or crimes that had been committed as well as the aggravating circumstances, if any, attendant thereto. (7%) Roger as the leader of a crime syndicate is criminally liable for grave threat, because such crime is committed when a person made a threat by demanding money or threaten another with the infliction upon the person or his property. Moreover, Mauro as a member of the criminal syndicate is liable for murder. Murder is committed when a person intentionally kill another with the presence of alevosia, furthermore, it is aggravated with evident premeditation and the commission of which was done during nighttime. Or Three counts of murder were committed by Mauro. The killing was qualified by treachery because he employed means (hurling of grenade) which tended directly and especially to ensure the execution without risk to himself arising from the defense which the victims might make. It is settled that killing a person with treachery is murder even if there is no intent to kill. Roger is a principal by inducement. Being the leader of the syndicate it stands to reason that Roger induced Mauro to commit the crime. The murder was attended by the following aggravating circumstances. 1. Disregard of age of a 3-year old child 2. The crime was committed by means of explosion 3. The act was committed with evident premeditation. 4. Superior strength 5. Night time