CRIMINAL LAW

______________________________

1992 BAR EXAMINATION

______________________________

I.

Librado was convicted of malversation for which he has imposed the indeterminate penalty of imprisonment with
the following accessory penalities provided by law- a fine of P6,000.00 without subsidiary imprisonment in case of
insolvency; perpetual special disqualification; indemnification to the government in the amount of P6,000.00 to pay the
costs.

If he dies pending appeal, what is the legal effect of his death on his criminal and pecuniary liabilities?

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Under Art. 89, RPC, and jurisprudence (People vs. Jose, 71 SCRA 273, People vs. Alison, 44 SCRA 523;
etc.), death of the accused pending appeal extinguishes his criminal and civil liabilities. Civil liability includes
pecuniary liabilities, such as fine. Hence, the same, together with the disqualification and the costs are
extinguished.

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 liability such as fine, but not the civil
liability, 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.

II.

Tommy saw Lino and Okito engaged in a street fight. Lino then suddenly drew his balisong and lunged at Okito.
In an effort to break up the fight, Tommy tried to snatch the balisong from Lino but not before the latter had inflicted a
wound on Okito. As Lino withdrew the weapon and attempted to stab the Okito a second time, Tommy tried to grab the
weapon again. In doing so, his left forearm was slashed. As he succeeded in snatching away the balisong with his right
arm, it flew with such force, that it hit Nereo, a passerby who was seriously injured.

Explain your answers fully.

a.) What is the criminal liability of Lino with respect to Okito, Tommy and Nereo.

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

As far as Okito is concerned, Lino is liable for frustrated homicide, assuming that the wound suffered by
Okito is such that for reasons or causes independent of the will of Lino (such as timely medical attention) Okito
would have died. If the injury is not serious enough, the liability is only attempted homicide. Intent to kill is
manifest because of the use of deadly weapon. For the injury on the arm of Tommy, Lino is liable only for physical
injuries (serious, less serious or slight, depending on the nature of the injury). Apparently there is no intent to kill.

b.) In turn, is Tommy criminally liable to Nereo?

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Tommy is exempted from criminal liability for the injury to Nereo as he was performing a lawful act with
due care and the injury was caused by mere accident (Art. 12, par. 4), or that he was in lawful exercise of a right,
(Art. 11, par. 6), that is, defense of a stranger.

III.

As Setgio, Yoyong, Zoilo and Warlito engaged in a drinking spree at Heartthrob Disco, Special Police Officer 3
(SPO3) Manolo Yabang suddenly approached them, aimed his revolver at Sergio whom he recognized as a wanted killer
and fatally shot the latter. Whereupon, Yoyong, Zoilio and Warlito ganged up on Yabang. Warlito, using his own pistol,
shot and wounded Yabang.
 a.) What are the criminal liabilities of Yoyong, Zoilo and Warlito for the injury to Yabang? Was there conspiracy
and treachery? Explain.

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

If they have to be criminally liable at all each will be responsible for their individual acts as there appears
to be no conspiracy, as the acts of the three were spontaneous and a reflex response to Yabang’s shooting of Setgio.
There was no concerted act that will lead to a common purpose.

Treachery cannot likewise be appreciated as there was no conscious adoption of means, methods or form to
facilitate the commission of the felony.

ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:

The acts of Yoyong, Zoilo and Warlito are justified under pars. 1 and 2 of Article II, RPC, that is, self-
defense or defense of a stranger, as they have reason to suspect that Yabang might not be satisfied in killing Sergio
ONLY, the three being friends and companions of the victim. Hence, they are entitled to protect their own lives
and limbs from the unlawful aggression of Yabang. Alternatively they have the justified right to defend a stranger
(Sergio) whose life at that moment might still be saved by ganging up on Yabang to prevent the latter from any
further attack by the latter. In either case reasonable necessity of the means employed and lack of sufficient
provocation are present.

b.) In turn, is Yabang criminally liable for the death of Sergio?

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Yabang is liable for Homicide for the killing of Sergio as the attack was frontal (Alternative: Murder,
because of the qualifying circumstance of abuse of superior strength, in term of weapon). Sergio, being suspected
killer, is no jurisdiction to be killed by Yabang. (Yabang vs. Oanis).

IV.

At the height of the eruption of Mt. Pinatubo at around Midnight, Aniceto joined some neighbors in evacuating
his family, a few possessions and two horses to higher ground. Miguel, taking advantage of the darkness and the
confusion, got one of the horses and asked his friend Doro to accompany him to Angeles City where he sold the same to
an acquaintance Peping. Searching for his horse, Aniceto found it, with identifying brand intact, in the possession of
Peping who refused to surrender the same saying that he had paid good money for it. Whereupon, Aniceto reported the
matter to the police who promised to accompany him to the Prosecutor’s office?

a.) May Miguel and Doro be charged criminally for any offense? If you were the counsel for both, what defense
could you possibly set up for them?

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Miguel should be charged of Qualified Theft of Large Cattle, a horse being classified as such under Art.
310, RPC.

Doro, on the other hand, should be charged as accessory if he is aware that the horse was stolen as he
assisted the principal, Miguel, in profiting from the crime.

If I were the defense counsel, I will put up the defense of consent of the owner; hence, there is only civil
liability.

b.) Suppose, before the eruption, Miguel had borrowed the horse for a couple of days from Aniceto. When the
eruption occurred and after evacuating his family, Aniceto asked Miguel to return the horse to him. Miguel
answered that the horse had run away and he could not locate it. Aniceton, however, found the beast in the
possession of Peping who told him that it was sold to him (Peping) by Miguel. What criminal offense has
Miguel committed, if any?

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Miguel having borrowed the horse, he has obligation to return the same. His failure to return the same
upon demand will make him criminally liable for Estafa under Art. 315, par. 1(b), RPC.

c.) May Peping be indicted under the Anti-Fencing Law? Explain.

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
 Peping should be held liable for violation of the Anti Fencing Law, P.D. No. 1612. He brought the horse
which he should have known to have been derived from robbery or theft. The horse was duly branded; this should
have forwarned Peping. Besides, he should have demanded a certificate of ownership from Miguel.

V.

Upon learning that the police wanted him for the killing of Polistico, Jeprox decided to visit the police station to
make inquiries. On his way, he met a policeman who immediately served upon him the warrant of arrest. During the trial,
in the course of the presentation of the prosecution’s evidence, Jeprox withdrew his plea of not guilty and entered a plea
of guilty.

Can he invoke the mitigating circumstances of voluntary surrender and plea of guilty? Explain.

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Jeprox is not entitled to the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender as his going to the police
station was only for the purpose of verification of the news that he is wanted by the authorities. In order to be
mitigating, surrender must be spontaneous and that he acknowledges his guilt.

Neither is plea of guilty a mitigating circumstances because it was qualified plea; besides Art. 13, par. 7
provides that confession of guilt must be done before the prosecution had started to present evidence.

VI.

Mrs. Lydia Cortes presented herself to Special Officer 2 (SPO 2) Cirio Cellado at the Northern Police
Headquarters with her niece 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 househelp in the home Col. Rolando Donido (retired), the latter would call them
alternately, lock them up with him in a room and force his lustful desires upon them. Sobbing violently, Nani narrated
how finally her employer succeeded in having sexual intercourse with her because he kept on threatening to kill her if she
refused to submit tom him or if she told Mrs. Donido about what was happening. On the other hand, Chabeng described
how their employer took liberties with her body, short of destroying her virginity. If they so much as resisted, they were
subjected to a lot of verbal abuse and harassment. Unable to bear it any longer, both of them ran away. Nani got married
immediately to a former boyfriend to save herself from the humiliation of appearing in their hometown, pregnant but still
single. She ended her story saying that no housegirl ever stayed long in that household “kasi walang patawad iyang
D.O.M. (Dirty Old Man) na iyan”.

a.) What crime has Col. Donido committed against Nani? What crime has he committed against Chabeng?
Explain fully.

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Against Nani, the crime committed by Col. Donido is rape, because he had sexual intercourse with her with
the attendant circumstance of force and intimidation, (Art. 335, par. 1). As far as Chabeng is concerned, since Col.
Donido only took liberties on her body, short of sexual intercourse, he is liable of Acts of Lasciviousness under Art.
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.) After SPO2 Cirio Cellado heard the story of the two girls, he took aside Mrs. Cortes and made this
proposition: “Let me tell you what I plan to do. Since the D.O.M. is probably well-known in his community,
he will not want his reputation tarnished. I’ll tell him that you have reported him to us and you are all set to
file criminal charges against him at the prosecutor’s Office. But if he will give us P50,000.00, you may be
persuaded not to file the suit anymore. Actually, after he gives that amount, which he surely will, I shall 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 superios to penalize him and to recover whatever
sums of money he may received from his victim?

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Cellado should be charged of robbery because he took personal property from Donido, with intent 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 a public officer who maliciously
refrained from instituting prosecution against violators of the law. An agent of a person in authority charged with
the apprehension and investigation of a crime is an integral part of the prosecution of offenses.
 VII.

Efren, Greggy and Hilario, wearing fatigues and carrying unlicensed firearms, barged into the residence of
Arnulfo Dilat at Scout Lazcano St. (Before making their entrance, they gave instructions to their companion Sakay to
stand watch outside). Once inside, they announced that they were members of the Philippine National Police (PNP) on an
official mission. Inside the master bedroom, they demanded from Luningning, the wife of Arnulfo, cash and jewelries.
After receiving the jewelries but before the money could be handed to them, they heard their companion Sakay shouting:
“Pulis! Pulis!” Panic-stricken, Efren shot Arnulfo who wasseriously injured. Greggy and Hilario picked up the jewelry
box whose contents spilled all over the floor as they rushed out. Before they could make good their escape, howeve, the
police blocked their way, one of them clutching Sakay by the collar. They were forthwith brought to the Police
Headquarters nearby.

Discuss the individual and collective criminal liabilities of Efren, Greggy, Hilario and Sakay.

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

There appears to be conspiracy amongst the four offenders; in which cases the act of one becomes the act of
all. Ergo, they are all liable for the consequent crime, which is robbery under Art. 299, special complex crime of
robbery with serious physical injuries, committed in an inhabited house, by pretending to be the persons in
authority. There is no band as only three are armed.

Sakay, who seems to have participated only as look out, still will be liable as principal because of the
conspiracy. Even if there is none, he is criminally liable as a principal by indispensable cooperation.

The crime is definitely consummated as offenders have complete disposal of the subject matter of the
offense.

VIII.

Members of the Narcotics Command, upon learning from an informer that tee Moy, notorious drug lord was
plying his trade and selling methamphetamine hydrochloride (popularly known as shabu) in a motel at Bambang St.,
planned a buy-bust operation to capture him. Camotes was to enter the lobby of the motel where Tee Moy hangs around
and pose as buyer. The moment the drug vendor hands the drug to him, Camotes would scratch his ear as a signal to his
companions deployed near the motel entrance.

So Camotes, upon espying Tee Moy near the registration desk, approached the latter. When asked if he would like
a “score”, he answered in the affirmative. He was then handed a matchbox with the assurance that it contained the drug,
for which he gave a P100.00 marked bill. Upon giving the pre-arranged signal, the NARCOM agents rushed inside and
arrested Tee Moy.

In the course of time, Tee Moy was prosecuted for the crimes of possession and sale of prohibited drugs under the
Dangerous Drugs Act. During the trial, his counsel interposed the following defenses:

a.) The arrest, having been effected without a warrant of arrest, was violative of Tee Moy’s constitutional rights.

b.) Accused was the victim of a frame-up instigated by the law enforcement officers, such that he was practically
forced to sell his goods to a total stranger which was abnormal and unrealistic for one in the kind of business
he is in.

c.) The prosecution deliberately failed to present the informer as a witness so that he could have been subjected
to cross-examination by the counsel for the accused.

d.) Tee Moy cannot be prosecuted for the separate offenses of possession and sale of prohibited drugs but of only
one criminal offense.

e.) Tee Moy was made to sign a Confiscation Receipt at NARCOM headquarters which has been admitted as
evidence against him, thus violating his constitutional right against self-incrimination.

If you were the prosecutor, how would you traverse the above arguments of counsel for the accused? Take up
each number separately.

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

a.) There is no need for a warrant of arrest, as this falls under the instances of warrantless arrest
sanctioned by law, where a public officer or private individual may arrest a person if, in his personal
presence, the person arrested is actually committing, is about to commit, or has just committed a crime.
 b.) This is a pure case of entrapment as Tee Moy has already decided to commit a crime and the agents of
persons in authority merely devised ways and means to entrap him. There was inducement of Tee Moy
as the latter precisely decided to make a “score” or sale. No pressure or investigation was applied on
him.

c.) Failure to present the informer is not fatal to the cause of the prosecution as the testimony of the latter
will be merely corroborative to the testimony of the other witnesses who were eye-witnesses to the
commission of the crime. There sufficient evidence to convict the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

d.) While as a general rule the offense of possession is integrated in selling prohibited drugs, in this case, I
will argue that, the quantity of the drugs confiscated from Tee Moy was so large that it cannot be
deemed absorbed in the crime of “pushing”. Besides, I will contend that the matchbox with shabu
inside, was not the only evidence taken from the accused.

e.) The Confiscation Receipt signed by Tee Moy was merely presented as part of the testimony of the
prosecution witnesses and such evidence is not material to the conviction of the accused. Again,
overwhelming evidences are presented that inevitably supports conviction.

IX.

Johnny Gitara was convicted of the crime of estafa by the Regional Trial Court of Manila. He was
imposed the indeterminate penalty of imprisonment of 3 years, 2 months and 1 day as minimum and six years as
maximum, both of prision correccional and was ordered to indemnify the offended party in the amount of P3,000.00. He
filed an application for probation upon the promulgation of the judgment.

What is the legal effect of his application for probation on the judgment of conviction? Does said application
interrupt the running of the period of appeal?

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

The filing of the application for probation is considered as a waiver of the right of the accused to appeal;
the decision has become final. In view of the finality of the decision there is no period of appeal to speak of.

X.

Pedro Pobre sought financial assistance from his millionaire Joey Manriquez who accommodated him by issuing
in his favor a postdated check in the amount of P10,000.00. Both of them knew that said check was not duly funded in the
bank. The two then approached Marie Vic Bautista and asked her to change the check with cash, adding that even
P9,500.00 will do, on the assurance that it shall be funded on the due date. When Bautista presented the check to the bank
for encashment on its due date, it was dishonored as the account was closed.

What action may Bautista bring against Pobre and Manriquez to hold them criminally liable to recover the
P9,500.00 she gave them? Explain.

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Both Pobre and Manriquez can be successfully charged of estafa under Art. 315, RPC, and violation of BP
No. 22.

Estafa because Manriquez (inconspiracy with Pobre) issued a post-dated check in payment of a
simultaneous obligation, that is the cash of P9,500.00, and when the check was presented for payment the same
bounced. Manriquez cannot even hide behind the alibi that he issued the check as an accommodation or as a
guarantee for the obligation of Pobre. Jurisprudence are extant that extends the sanction of bouncing checks even
under those circumstances.

BP No. 22 was likewise transgressed because the postdated check was made and issued “on account or for
value”/ Prosecution can be resorted to under both statutes, as the elements in the two offenses vary, and besides
Estafa is a crime against property whereas violation of the special law is an offense against public interest.

XI.

Jose Dee Kiam, a Chinese citizen born in Macao, having applied with a recruitment agency to work in Kuwait,
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 the Community Tax
Certificate, Cecille Delicious, an employee in the office recognized him and reported to her boss that information written
in the Community Tax Certificate were all lies.

Treat each of the above contentions separately.

a.) Shortly thereafter, an information was filed against Dee Kiam alias Tiampuy. What crime, if any, may he be
indicted for? Why?

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Dee Kiam can be indicted for the felony of Falsification of a Public Document committed by a private
individual under Art. 172 of the Revised Penal Code in relation to Art. 171 thereof. A residence certificate is a
public or official document within the context of said provisions and jurisprudence. Since Dee Kiam made an
untruthful statement in a narration of facts (Art. 171, par. 4), and he being a private individual, he is culpable
thereunder.

b.) The accused moved to quash the information on the ground that it did not allege that he had the obligation to
disclose the truth in the Community Tax Certificate; that the same is useless scrap of paper which one can buy
even in the Quiapi 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 the information on the basis of Dee Kiam’s
allegations?

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Falsification of public documents under Arts. 171 and 172, RPC does not require that the document
is required by law. The sanctity of the public document, a residence certificate, cannot be taken lightly as being a
“mere scrap of paper”. Intent to cause damage, or actual damage, is not an indispensable requisite for falsification
of public document.

XII.

Major Menor, while patrolling Bago-Bago community in a police car with SPO3 Caloy Itliong, blew his whistle
to stop a Nissan Sentra car which wrongly entered a one-way street. After demanding from Linda Lo Hua, the driver, her
driver’s license, Menor asked her to follow them to the police precint. Upon arriving there, he gave instructions to Itliong
to guard Lo Hua in one of the rooms and not to let her out of sight until he returns; then got the car key from Lo Hua. In
the meantime, the latter was not 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 that he would only
release her and return the car if she made arrangements for the delivery of P500,000.00 in a doctor’s bag at a certain place
within the next twenty-four hourse. When Menor went to the designated spot to pick up the bag of money, he suddenly
found himself surrounded by several armed civilians who introduced themselves as NBI agents.

a.) What criminal offense has Menor committed? Explain.

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

a.) Menor is liable under Art. 124, RPC (Arbitrary Detention) he being a public officer who detained a
person without legal grounds. Violation of a traffic ordinance is not a valid reason to arrest and detain
the driver. Such only merits the issuance of traffic 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 room for two days and prohibiting her to make phone calls, is a clear case of deprivation of
personal liberty. Giving her food and access to the bathroom will not extinguish or mitigate the
criminal liability.

b.) May Itliong be held likewise criminally liable?

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Itliong is equally liable with Menor the felony of arbitrary detention, either by conspiracy or indispensable
cooperation. He cannot successfully put up the defense of obedience to a superior order, as the same was done for a
lawful purpose.