August 19, 2014

CRIMINAL LAW
Midterm Examination

5:30 P.M 7:30 P.M.

ESSAY QUESTIONS
I.
Definition
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.

Criminal law
Crime
Offense
Felony
Infraction
II.

a.
b.
c.
d.
e.

Distinguish the English rule from the French Rule

Distinguish Mala in se from Mala Prohibita
Distinguish conspiracy as a means to commit a crime from conspiracy as a crime
Distinguish dolo from culpa
Distinguish intent from motive
III.

a.
b.
c.
d.
e.

What are the requisites of dolo and culpa?

What are the requisites of mistake of fact?
What are the exceptions of territoriality?
Who are considered as habitual delinquents?
What are the crimes under national security?
IV.

a. What do you understand by aberration ictus; error in personae; and praetor intentionem? Do
they alter the criminal liability of the accused?
b. Explain the characteristics of criminal law?
c. Are light felonies punishable? What are its exception and the exception to its exception?
d. When is a felony consummated; frustrated; and attempted?
e. What is an absolutory cause?
V.
Silup , a member of the Cebu City Police District, together with two other policemen, was
chasing Kawa Tan, a nototious police killer. Kawa Tan entered a nearby dimly lighted warehouse. Silup
and his companions continued pursuing him. When they reached the mezzanine, Silup saw a man
crouching behind a pile of boxes, holding what appeared to be a long rifle. When the man suddenly stood
up and faced Silup and his companions, Silup fired at the man hitting him fatally. It turned out, however,
that the deceased was the warehouseman who was holding a mere lead pipe.
Discuss Silups criminal liability for the said killing stating your reasons. (10%)

1 | Page

VI.
During the robbery in a dwelling house, one of the culprits happened to fire his gun upward in the
ceiling without meaning to kill anyone. The owner of the house who was hiding thereat was hit and killed
as a result.
The defense theorized that the killing was a mere accident and was not perpetrated in connection
with, or for purposes of, the robbery.
Will you sustain the defense? Why? (10%)
VII.
A, intending to kill B, attacked the latter with a bolo. In trying to defend himself with a piece
of wood by parrying the blows delivered by A, B hit C, an onlooker, on the head, as a result of
which C died.
Is B liable for the death of C? (5%)
VIII.
DAN, a private individual, kidnapped CHU, a minor. On the second day, DAN released CHU
even before any criminal information was filed against him. At the trial of his case, DAN raised the
defense that he did not incur any criminal liability since he released the child before the lapse of the 3-day
period and before criminal proceedings for the kidnapping were instituted.
Is DAN liable for the impossible crime of kidnapping and serious illegal detention? (10%)
IX.
A. A and B, both store janitors, planned to kill their employer C at midnight and take the money kept
in the cash register. A and B together drew the sketch of the store, where they knew C would be
sleeping, and planned the sequence of their attack. Shortly before midnight, A and B were ready
to carry out the plan. When A was about to lift Cs mosquito net to thrust his dagger, a police car
with sirens blaring passed by. Scarred, B ran out of the store and fled, while A went on to stab C
to death, put the money in the bag, and ran outside to look for B. The latter was nowhere in sight.
Unknown to him, B had already left the place.
What was the participation and corresponding criminal liability of each, if any? Reasons. (5%)
B. Aki and Ben, while walking together, met Caloy. There was an altercation between Ben and
Caloy so that Ben chased and stabbed Caloy with a knife hitting his right arm thereby causing
slight physical injury. Ben desisted from further assaulting Caloy, but Aki lunged at Caloy and
felled him this time with a bolo which mortally wounded Caloy. Thus, he died.
What is the criminal liability of Aki? How about that of Ben? (5%)
X.
Roberto bought a Toyota Fortuner from Iigo for P500,000. While driving his newly-bought car,
Roberto met a minor accident that made the examination of his vehicle's Registration Certificate
necessary. When the policeman checked the plate, chassis and motor numbers of the vehicle against those
reflected in the Registration Certificate, he found the chassis and motor numbers to be different from what
the Registration Certificate stated. The Deed of Sale covering the sale of the Fortuner, signed by Iigo,
also bore the same chassis and motor numbers as Roberto's Registration Certificate. The chassis and
motor numbers on the Fortuner were found, upon verification with the Land Transportation Office, to
correspond to a vehicle previously reported as carnapped.

2 | Page

Roberto claimed that he was in good faith; Iigo sold him a carnapped vehicle and he did not
know that he was buying a carnapped vehicle.
If you were the prosecutor, would you or would you not charge Roberto with a crime? (10%)

3 | Page