Posted by: Elmer Brabante | November 6, 2014

2014 BAR EXAMS: MY ALTERNATIVE ANSWERS IN CRIMINAL LAW


MY ALTERNATIVE ANSWERS TO THE 2014 BAR EXAMS IN CRIMINAL LAW

I.

 Ms. A had been married to Mr. B for 10 years. Since their marriage, Mr. B had been jobless and a drunkard, preferring to stay with his “barkadas” until the wee hours of the morning. Ms. A was the breadwinner and attended to the needs of their three (3) growing children. Many times, when Mr. B was drunk, he would beat Ms. A and their three (3) children, and shout invectives against them. In fact, in one of the beating incidents, Ms. A suffered a deep stab wound on her tummy that required a prolonged stay in the hospital. Due to the beatings and verbal abuses committed against her, she consulted a psychologist several times, as she was slowly beginning to lose her mind. One night, when Mr. B arrived dead drunk, he suddenly stabbed Ms. A several times while shouting invectives against her.  Defending herself from the attack, Ms. A grappled for the possession of a knife and she succeeded. She then stabbed Mr. B several times which caused his instantaneous death. Medico-Legal Report showed that the husband suffered three (3) stab wounds. Can Ms. A validly put up a defense? Explain. (5%)

 Yes, Ms. A can validly put up the defense of battered woman syndrome.

 Under RA 9262, the battered woman syndrome can be invoked as a defense by a woman who killed her husband or a man with whom she had a dating relationship after having been a victim of a series of physical or psychological violence inflicted against her or her child by the man.

 Here, Ms. A was a victim of a series of physical and psychological violence by her husband Mr. B. Hence, Ms. A can validly put up the defense of battered woman syndrome.

  

II.

 Macho married Ganda, a transgender. Macho was not then aware that Ganda was a transgender. On their first night, after their marriage, Macho discovered that Ganda was a transgender. Macho confronted Ganda and a heated argument ensued. In the course of the heated argument, a fight took place wherein Ganda got hold of a knife to stab Macho. Macho ran away from the stabbing thrusts and got his gun which he pointed at Ganda just to frighten and stop Ganda from continuing with the attack. Macho had no intention at all to kill Ganda. Unfamiliar with guns, Macho accidentally pulled the trigger and hit Ganda that caused the latter’s death. What was the crime committed? (4%)

 Macho had committed the crime of Homicide, mitigated by no intent to commit so grave a wrong.

Under the Revised Penal Code (RPC), Homicide is committed when, without the qualifying circumstances for Murder, a person inflicts a mortal wound upon another and the latter dies, the intent to kill being presumed. This is because under the RPC, he is liable for the resulting felony although it be different from that which he intended. However, the accused is entitled to the mitigating circumstance of no intent to commit so grave a wrong.

 Here, Macho caused the death of Ganda although he did not intend to kill the latter. Hence, Macho is criminally liable for Homicide mitigated by no intent to commit so grave a wrong.

  

III.

 City Engr. A, is the city engineer and the Chairman of the Bids and Awards Committee (BAC) of the City of Kawawa. In 2009, the City of Kawawa, through an ordinance, allotted the amount of P100 million for the construction of a road leading to the poblacion. City Engr. A instead, diverted the construction of the road leading to his farm. Investigation further showed that he accepted money in the amount of P10 million each from three (3) contending bidders, who eventually lost in the bidding.

 Audit report likewise showed that service vehicles valued at P2 million could not be accounted for although reports showed that these were lent to City Engr. A’s authorized drivers but the same were never returned. Further, there were funds under City Engr. A’s custody amounting to P10 million which were found to be missing and could not be accounted for. In another project, he was instrumental in awarding a contract for the construction of a city school building costing P10 million to a close relative, although the lowest bid was P8 million. Investigation also revealed that City Engr. A has a net worth of more than P50 million, which was way beyond his legitimate income. (8%)

 (A) If you are the Ombudsman, what charge or charges will you file against City Engr. A?

 I will charge City Engr. A with Plunder.

 Under the Anti-Plunder Law, any person who acquires ill-gotten wealth through a combination or series of overt acts of receiving directly or indirectly kickbacks or any other form of pecuniary benefit from any person or entity in connection with any government contract or project or by reason of the position of the public officer, in the aggregate amount of P50 million pesos shall be guilty of the crime of Plunder.

 Here, City Engr. A is a public officer who has acquired an aggregate amount of P50 million pesos which is deemed to be ill-gotten wealth. Hence, City Engr. A should be charged with the crime of Plunder before the Office of the Ombudsman.

 (B) Suppose the discovered net worth of City Engr. A is less than P50 million, will your answer still be the same?

 No, the answer will not be the same. City Engr. A will be charged with Malversation and violation of RA 3019 (Graft and Corruption).

Under the Revised Penal Code, Malversation is committed when a public officer, by reason of the duties of his office, appropriates, misappropriates, or takes public funds of not more than P12,000. In addition to such crime, the public officer shall be criminally liable under RA 3019 for unexplained wealth manifestly out of proportion to his salary and other lawful income.

 Here, City Engr. A is a public officer who appropriated or took public funds of more than P12,000, as well as acquired unexplained wealth manifestly out of proportion to his salary and other lawful income. Hence, City Engr. A should be charged with malversation and violation of RA 3019.

 

IV.

 Madam X, a bank teller, received from depositor Madam Y a check payable to cash in the amount of P1 million, to be deposited to the account of Madam Y. Because the check was not a crossed check, Madam X credited the amount to the account of her good friend, Madam W, by accomplishing a deposit slip. Seven (7) days after, Madam X contacted her good friend, Madam W and told her that the amount of P1 million was wrongfully credited to Madam W, thus, Madam X urged Madam W to withdraw the amount of P1 million from her account and to turn over the same to Madam X. As a dutiful friend, Madam W readily acceded. She was gifted by Madam X with an expensive Hermes bag after the withdrawal of the amount. What crime/s, if any, did Madam X and Madam W commit? Explain. (5%)

 Madam X did commit the crime of Estafa, while Madam W did not commit any crime.

 Under the Revised Penal Code, any person who defrauds another by misappropriating or converting money received in trust is guilty of the crime of Estafa. On the other hand, Fencing is committed by any person who, with intent to gain, buys, sells, receives of possesses any item which he knows or should have known to have been derived  from robbery or theft.

 Here, Madam X defrauded Madam Y when Madam X misappropriated or converted the money she received in trust from Madam Y. Hence, Madam X did commit the crime of Estafa. On the other hand, Madam W did not commit the crime of Fencing since neither did she have the intent to gain nor was the bag derived from robbery or theft.

 

V.

 Congress passed a law reviving the Anti-Subversion Law, making it a criminal offense again for a person to join the Communist Party of the Philippines. Reporma, a former high-ranking member of the Communist Party, was charged under the new law for his membership in the Communist Party when he was a student in the 80’s. He now challenges the charge against him. What objections may he raise? (3%)

Reporma may raise the objection of violation of the doctrine of irretrospectivity of penal laws.

Well-settled is the doctrine of irretrospectivity in Criminal Law which states that no felonious act shall be punished by any penalty prescribed by law when it was committed prior to its enactment. Article 21 of the Revised Penal Code provides that no felony shall be punishable by any penalty not prescribed by law prior to its commission.

 Here, the felonious act imputed was committed prior to the revival of the Anti-Subversion Law. Hence, Reporma can object to the charge on the ground of irretrospectivity of penal laws.

VI.

 A was caught peeping through a small hole in the bathroom door while a young 16-year-old lady was taking a bath. A is liable for: (1%)

 (A) Violation of R.A. 9262 or Violence Against Women and their Children

(B) Violation of R.A. 7610 – Child Abuse Law

(C) Light coercion

(D) Acts of lasciviousness

 A

 

VII.

 Filthy, a very rich businessman, convinced Loko, a clerk of court, to issue an order of release for Takas, Filthy’s cousin, who was in jail for a drug charge. After receiving P500,000.00, Loko forged the signature of the judge on the order of release and accompanied Filthy to the detention center. At the jail, Loko gave the guard P10,000.00 to open the gate and let Takas out.

 What crime or crimes did Filthy, Loko, and the guard commit? (4%)

 Filthy, Loko, and the guard did commit the crimes of Corruption of Public Official, Direct Bribery and Falsification, and Delivering Prisoner from Jail, respectively.

 Under the Revised Penal Code, Corruption of Public Officials (Art. 212) is committed by any person who offers or gives gift to a public officer in consideration of the performance by the latter of an act constituting the crime of Direct or Indirect Bribery. Direct Bribery (Art. 210) is committed by a public officer by agreeing to perform an act constituting a crime in consideration of an offer, promise, or gift. On the other hand, Falsification (Art. 171) is committed by a public officer who, taking advantage of his position, falsifies a document by imitating a signature of another. Finally, Delivering Prisoners from Jail (Art. 156) is committed by any person who shall facilitate or help the escape of a prisoner from jail by means of bribery.

 Here, Filthy gave money to Loko, a public officer, who in return agreed to perform an act constituting a crime. Loko did perform the agreed act, and as means thereto falsified a document by imitating a signature. The guard took a bribery in exchange of helping or facilitating the escape of a prisoner from jail.

 Hence, Filthy committed the crime of Corruption of Public Official; Loko committed Direct Bribery and Falsification, while the guard committed the crime of Delivering a Prisoner from Jail.

 

VIII.

 Pretty was a campus beauty queen who, because of her looks and charms, attracted many suitors. Having decided that she would become a nun, Pretty turned down all her suitors. Guapo, one of her most persistent suitors, could not handle rejection and one night, decided to accost Pretty as she walked home. Together with Pogi, Guapo forced Pretty into his car and drove her to an abandoned warehouse where he and Pogi forced Pretty to dance for them. Later, the two took turns in raping her. After satisfying their lusts, Guapo and Pogi dropped her off at her house. (4%)

 (A) What crime or crimes did Guapo and Pogi commit?

 Guapo and Pogi committed Forcible Abduction with Rape, and Unjust Vexation.

 Under the Revised Penal Code, the complex crime of Forcible Abduction with Rape is committed when a man, with lewd design, deprives a woman of her liberty and eventually has carnal knowledge with her through force or intimidation. On the other hand, Unjust Vexation is any act committed without violence but which unjustifiably annoys or vexes another person.

 Here, Guapo and Pogi, with lewd designs, deprived Pretty of her liberty, forced her to dance, and eventually had carnal knowledge with her without her consent. Hence, Guapo and Pogi committed the complex crime of Forcible Abduction with Rape, as well as Unjust Vexation.

 (B) Pretty, after the ordeal, decided to take her own life by hanging herself one hour after the rape. Would Guapo and Pogi be liable for Pretty’s death? Explain.

 Yes, Guapo and Pogi would be liable for Pretty’s death.

 Settled is the doctrine in Criminal Law that he whose felonious act is the proximate cause of the death of another person is criminally liable, such as when a man who causes upon another’s mind a great anguish and embarrassment is responsible for the direct, natural and logical consequence of such anguish and embarrassment. El que es causa dela causa es causa del mal causado.

 Here, the suicide committed by Pretty would be the direct, natural, and logical consequence of the anguish and embarrassment proximately caused by the felonious acts of Guapo and Pogi. Hence, Guapo and Pogi would be liable for Pretty’s death.

 

IX.

 A, B, and C agreed to rob the house of Mr. D at 10 o’clock in the evening, with C as the driver of the tricycle which they would use in going to and leaving the house of Mr. D, and A and B as the ones who would enter the house to get the valuables of Mr. D. As planned, C parked the tricycle in a dark place, while A and B entered the house thru an open door. Once inside, A entered the master’s bedroom and started getting all the valuables he could see, while B entered another room. While inside the room, B saw a male person and immediately B brought out his gun but he accidentally pulled its trigger. The bullet went through the window, hitting a neighbor that killed him. Neighbors were then awakened by the gunfire and policemen were alerted. Not long after, policemen arrived. A and B panicked and got hold of a young boy and shouted to the policemen who were already outside of the house that they would harm the boy if the policemen did not disperse. A and B demanded that they should be allowed to use a vehicle to bring them to a certain place and that would be the time that they would release the young boy. The policemen acceded. In the meantime, C was arrested by the policemen while he was about to flee, while A and B, after releasing the young boy, were arrested.

 What crime/s did A, B, and C commit, and what modifying circumstances attended the commission of the crime/s? (6%)

 A, B, and C committed the special complex crime of Robbery with Homicide, as well as Grave Theat.

 Under the Revised Penal Code (Art. 294), the special complex crime of Robbery with Homicide is committed when a person or persons, with intent to gain, shall take any personal property belonging to another, and on the occasion thereof shall kill another. On the other hand, Grave Threat (Art. 282) is committed by any person who shall threaten another with the infliction of any wrong amounting to a crime.  Jurisprudence states that whenever Homicide is committed as a consequence of a robbery, all those who participated in the commission of robbery are also guilty as principals in the crime of robbery with homicide even if they only participated in the robbery as a lookout, unless it appears that they sought to prevent the killing.

 Here, A, B, and C had conspired to commit robbery, which A and b actually executed, and as a consequence killed a neighbor and threatened to inflict harm upon a child, while C served as a lookout but did not seek to prevent the killing. Hence, A, B, and C are liable for the special complex crime of Robbery with Homicide, and Grave Threat. Nighttime attended the commission of the crime as aggravating circumstance.

 

X.

 Loko advertised on the internet that he was looking for commercial models for a TV advertisement. Ganda, a 16-year-old beauty, applied for the project. Loko offered her a contract, which Ganda signed. She was asked to report to an address which turned out to be a high-end brothel. Ganda became one of its most featured attraction. What is Loko’s liability, if any? What effect would Ganda’s minority have on Loko’s liability? (4%)

 Loko is liable for Qualified Trafficking of Person.

 Under RA 9208, Trafficking of Persons is committed by recruitment of persons through fraud or deception for the purpose of prostitution or sexual exploitation. The crime is qualified when the person recruited for sexual exploitation is a child.

 Here, Loko recruited Ganda, a child, through deception for the purpose of sexual exploitation. Hence, Loko is criminally liable for Qualified Trafficking of Persons.

 

XI.

 A, in a public place, fired his gun at B with the intention of killing B, but the gun did not fire because the bullet is a dud. The crime is: (1%)

 (A) attempted homicide

(B) grave threat

(C) impossible crime

(D) alarm and scandal

 A

 

XII.

 Sexy boarded a taxi on her way home from a party. Because she was already tipsy, she fell asleep. Pogi, the taxi driver, decided to take advantage of the situation and drove Sexy to a deserted place where he raped her for a period of two (2) weeks. What crime did Pogi commit? (4%)

 Pogi committed the special complex crime of Kidnapping and Illegal Serious Detention with Rape.

 Under the Revised Penal Code (Art. 297), the special complex crime of Kidnapping and Illegal Serious Detention with Rape is committed when a person carries away by force another person, deprives her of her liberty for more than three days, and in the process have carnal knowledge with her against her will. Settled is the rule that a special complex crime is committed when the law provides a single penalty for two or more component offenses, and there is only one special complex crime no matter how many rapes had been committed.

 Hence, Pogi is criminally liable for Kidnapping and Serious Illegal Detention with Rape.

 

XIII.

 Puti detested Pula, his roommate, because Pula was courting Ganda, whom Puti fancied. One day, Puti decided to teach Pula a lesson and went to a veterinarian (Vet) to ask for poison on the pretext that he was going to kill a sick pet, when actually Puti was intending to poison Pula. The Vet instantly gave Puti a non-toxic solution which, when mixed with Pula’s food, did not kill Pula. (4%)

 (A) What crime, if any, did Puti commit?

 Puti committed an Impossible Crime.

 Under Article 4 of the Revised Penal Code, a person is liable for an Impossible Crime by performing an act which would be an offense against persons or property, were it not for the inherent impossibility of its accomplishment or on account of the employment of inadequate or ineffectual means.

 Here, Puti would have committed the crime of Murder, an offense against persons, when with intent to kill and evident premeditation he executed the act of poisoning Pula had it not for the employment of ineffectual means. Hence, Puti is liable for Impossible Crime.

 (B) Would your answer be the same if, as a result of the mixture, Pula got an upset stomach and had to be hospitalized for 10 days?

 No, the answer would be different. Puti would be liable for the crime of Less Serious Physical Injuries.

 Under the Revised Penal Code (Art. 265), any person who inflicts upon another physical injuries that require medical attendance for ten days shall be guilty of Less Serious Physical Injuries.

 Hence, if due to the non-toxic solution Puti gave to Pula the latter got upset stomach that required medical attendance for ten days, Puti would be liable for Less Serious Physical Injuries.

 

XIV.

 Malo, a clerk of court of a trial court, promised the accused in a drug case pending before the court, that he would convince the judge to acquit him for a consideration of P5 million. The accused agreed and delivered the money, through his lawyer, to the clerk of court.

The judge, not knowing of the deal, proceeded to rule on the evidence and convicted the accused. (4%)

 (A) Malo was charged with violation of Section 3(b), Republic Act (R.A.) No. 3019, which prohibits a public officer from directly or indirectly requesting or receiving any gift, present, share percentage or benefit wherein the public officer, in his official capacity, has to intervene under the law. He was later charged also with indirect bribery under the Revised Penal Code. Malo claims he can no longer be charged under the Revised Penal Code for the same act under R.A. 3019. Is he correct?

 No, Malo is not correct.

 Settled is the doctrine in Criminal Law that when a single act produces two or more offenses, one under the Revised Penal Code and the other under a special law, the offender shall be criminally liable for two separate crimes, unless one absorbs the other.

 Here, Malo committed an act under RA 3019 by receiving gift or benefit from another person in consideration of the performance of an act constituting a crime, the same felonious act being punished under the Revised Penal Code as Direct Bribery (Art. 210). Hence, notwithstanding the charge under RA 3019, Malo can still be charged under the Revised Penal Code for Direct Bribery.

 (B) Malo was charged with estafa under Article 315 because he misrepresented that he had influence, when he actually had none. Is the charge correct?

Yes, the charge of Estafa under Art. 315 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) is correct.

 Estafa under Art. 315 of the RPC is committed by any person who defrauds another by falsely pretending that he possesses power or influence.

 Hence, the charge of Estafa under Art. 315 of the RPC is correct since Malo defrauded the accused by falsely pretending that he possessed the power to influence the decision of the judge.

 

XV.

 Which of the following is not a privilege mitigating circumstance? (1%)

 (A) 17-year-old offender

(B) 14-year-old offender

(C) incomplete self-defense

(D) incomplete defense of a relative

 D

 

XVI.

 Mr. Benjie is the owner of a hardware store specializing in the sale of plumbing materials. On February 1, 2014, Mr. Ed, a friend and regular customer of Mr. Benjie, visited the hardware store and purchased several plumbing materials in the total amount of P5 million. Mr. Benjie readily accepted Mr. Ed’s payment of three (3) postdated checks in the amount of P1 million Pesos each in view of the assurance of Mr. Ed that the checks will be honored upon presentment for payment. Mr. Benjie, as a consequence, immediately delivered the materials to the house of Mr. Ed.

The following day, Mr. Ed went back to Mr. Benjie to tender another two (2) postdated checks in the amount of P1 million each to complete the payment, with the same assurance that the checks  will be honored upon presentment for payment. When the checks were presented for payment, all were dishonored for insufficiency of funds and corresponding notices of dishonor were sent and received by Mr. Ed. One month after receipt of the notices of dishonor, Mr. Ed failed to make good the checks. Thereafter, Mr. Benjie filed before the public prosecutor’s office a complaint against Mr. Ed, although no demand letter was earlier sent to Mr. Ed.

 During the preliminary investigation, Mr. Benjie accepted several amounts from Mr. Ed as partial payments. The wife of Mr. Benjie protested and insisted that the complaint should continue despite the partial payments. On the other hand, Mr. Ed counters that no demand letter was earlier sent to him, that the obligation is merely civil in character and that novation took place when Mr. Benjie accepted the partial payments. Discuss the criminal liability, if any, of Mr. Ed. (6%)

 Mr. Ed is criminally liable for Estafa under BP No. 22.

 Well-settled is the rule that Estafa under BP No. 22 is committed when the accused issues a check without sufficient funds and he fails to deposit the amount in the check within five days after receipt of the notice of dishonor of the check by the bank. Moreover, novation is not among the modes of extinguishing criminal liability for violation of BP No. 22.

 Hence, the mere issuance by Mr. Ed of checks without sufficient funds his failure to deposit with the bank the amount in the checks within five days after receipt of the notice of dishonor makes him criminally liable for Estafa under BP 22. Neither is novation nor absence of demand letter a defense against criminal liability under BP 22 insofar as the notice of dishonor serves as demand for payment.

 

XVII.

 Pierce is a French diplomat stationed in the Philippines. While on EDSA and driving with an expired license, he hit a pedestrian who was crossing illegally. The pedestrian died. Pierce was charged with reckless imprudence resulting in homicide. In his defense, he claimed diplomatic immunity. Is Pierce correct? (3%)

No, Pierce is not correct.

It is a fundamental doctrine in Criminal Law, and applying the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, that diplomatic immunity applies only to acts performed by officials or their agents in connection with their official diplomatic functions.

Here, Pierce’s culpable act that constituted the crime of Reckless Imprudence Resulting in Homicide had no connection to his official diplomatic functions. Hence, Pierce’s defense of diplomatic immunity is not correct.

 XVIII.

 Manolo, an avid art collector, was invited to Tonio’s house. There, Manolo noticed a nice painting that exactly looked like the painting which he reported was stolen from him some years back. Manolo confronted Tonio about the painting, but Tonio denied any knowledge, claiming that he bought the painting legitimately from a friend. Manolo later proved to Tonio that the painting was indeed the stolen painting. (4%)

 (A) What crime/s, if any, may Tonio be charged with?

Tonio may be charged with Fencing.

 Under RA 8049, Fencing is committed by any person who buys or acquires any article or anything of value which he knows or should be known to him to have been derived from the proceeds of theft. The mere possession of anything of value stolen is a prima facie evidence of fencing.

 Here, Tonio bought a painting which he should have known to have been derived from the proceeds of theft. Hence, Tonio may be charged with Fencing since his mere possession of the painting is a prima facie evidence of the crime.

 (B) Manolo decided to take matters into his own hands and, one night, broke into Tonio’s house by destroying the wall and taking the painting. What, if any, would be the liability of Manolo?

 Manolo would be liable for Robbery.

 Under the Revised Penal Code (Art. 293), Robbery is committed when a person, with intent to gain, takes any personal property belonging to another by means of force upon things.

 Here, Tonio already owned the painting through sale, and Manolo with intent to gain would take the painting through force upon the wall. Hence, Manolo would be liable for Robbery.

 

XIX.

 Clepto went alone to a high-end busy shop and decided to take one of the smaller purses without paying for it. Overcame by conscience, she decided to leave her own purse in place of the one she took. Her act was discovered and Clepto was charged with theft. She claimed that there was

no theft, as the store suffered no injury or prejudice because she had left a purse in place of the one she took. Comment on her defense. (3%)

 Clepto’s defense has no merit.

 Under the Revised Penal Code (Art. 308), Theft is committed when a person with intent to gain takes a personal property belonging to another without violence or intimidation and without the consent of the owner. Jurisprudence holds that mere taking of the personal property consummates the crime of Theft, so that when taking is complete the defense of desistance does not set in anymore.

 Hence, regardless of the fact that Clepto replaced the purse she took with her own, Theft was already consummated, and desistance no longer sets in as a defense.

 

XX.

 Which of the following is not a qualifying aggravating circumstance? (1%)

 (A) treachery

(B) evident premeditation

(C) dwelling

(D) cruelty

 C

 

XXI.

 During trial for theft in 2014, the prosecution managed to show that accused AA has also been convicted by final judgment for robbery in 2003, but she eluded capture. A subsequent verification showed that AA had several convictions, to wit:

 (1.) In 1998, she was convicted of estafa;

(2.) In 2002, she was convicted of theft;

(3.) In 2004, she was convicted of frustrated homicide;

 The judge trying the theft case in 2014 is about to convict AA. What circumstances affecting the liability or penalty may the judge appreciate against AA? (4%)

 The judge may appreciate the aggravating circumstance of a recidivist.

 Under the Revised Penal Code (Art. 14), a recidivist is one who, at the time of trial for a crime, he has been previously convicted by final judgment of another crime embraced in the same title of the Revised Penal Code where the current crime on trial is found.

 Here, during the trial for Theft, AA had been previously convicted by final judgment for the crime of Robbery, both crimes being embraced in the same title of the Revised Penal Code. Hence, the judge can only appreciate the aggravating circumstance of a recidivist.

 

XXII.

Mr. Red was drinking with his buddies, Mr. White and Mr. Blue when he saw Mr. Green with his former girlfriend, Ms. Yellow. Already drunk, Mr. Red declared in a loud voice that if he could not have Ms. Yellow, no one can. He then proceeded to the men’s room but told Mr. White and Mr. Blue to take care of Mr. Green. Mr. Blue and Mr. White asked Mr. Red what he meant but Mr. Red simply said, “You already know what I want,” and then left. Mr. Blue and Mr. White proceeded to kill Mr. Green and hurt Ms. Yellow. (4%)

 (A) What, if any, are the respective liabilities of Mr. Red, Mr. White and Mr. Blue for the death of Mr. Green?

 Mr. White and Mr. Blueare criminally liable for Murder for killing Mr. Green.

 Under the Revised Penal Code, any person who kills another shall be criminally liable for Murder. Jurisprudence holds that for an accused to be liable as principal by inducement, the inducement must be expressed in clear unequivocal language, strong enough as an irresistible force.

 Hence, only Mr. White and Mr. Blue can be held criminally liable for Murder for killing Mr. Green, while Mr. Red cannot be held liable even as a principal by inducement since his statement cannot be considered as inducement insofar as it is not strong enough as an irresistible force.

 (B) What, if any, are the respective liabilities of Mr. Red, Mr. Whit and Mr. Blue for the injuries of Ms. Yellow?

Similarly, Mr. White and Mr. Blue are criminally liable for Serious, Less Serious, or Slight Physical Injuries for the injuries they inflicted upon Ms. Yellow. On the other hand, Mr. Red has no criminal liability.

Under the Revised Penal Code, any person who shall wound, beat, or assault another that requires medical attention, or becomes ill or incapacitated is liable for Serious Physical Injuries if the medication, illness or incapacity is for more than 30 days, Less Serious Physical Injuries if the medication, illness or incapacity is for ten days or more, or for Slight Physical Injuries if the medication, illness or incapacity lasts for one to nine days. On the other hand, a person who has no participation in the planning of or in the actual beating or assault shall not have any criminal liability.

Hence, only Mr. White and Mr. Blue shall be criminally liable for Serious, Less Serious, or slight Physical Injuries, depending on the gravity or duration of illness, incapacity or medication caused upon Ms. Yellow, while Mr. Red cannot be held criminally liable.

 

XXIII.

Carla, four (4) years old, was kidnapped by Enrique, the tricycle driver engaged by her parents to drive her to and from school every day. Enrique wrote a ransom note demanding that Carla’s parents pay him P500,000.00 ransom in exchange for her liberty. However, before the ransom note could be received by Carla’s parents, Enrique’s hideout was discovered by the police. Carla was rescued while Enrique was arrested.  The prosecutor considered that the ransom note was never received by Carla’s parents and filed a case of “Impossible crime to commit kidnapping” against Enrique. Is the prosecutor correct? If he is not correct, can he instead file a case of grave coercion? (4%)

No, the prosecution is not correct for both impossible nor grave coercion.

Jurisprudence applying the second paragraph of Article 4 of the Revised Penal Code has held that, Impossible Crime would only be considered as a last resort if no crime against person or property or any other felony applies to the act committed. When  person deprives a child of his liberty, the crime committed is Kidnapping and Serious Illegal Detention qualified by minority.

Hence, Impossible Crime nor Grave Coercion shall not be considered insofar as the correct crime committed was Kidnapping and Serious Illegal Detention qualified by minority.

 

XXIV.

A, a young boy aged sixteen (16) at the time of the commission of the crime, was convicted when he was already seventeen (17) years of age for violation of Section 11 of R.A. 9165 or Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs for which the imposable penalty is life imprisonment and a fine. Section 98 of the same law provides that if the penalty imposed is life imprisonment to death on minor offenders, the penalty shall be reclusion perpetua to death. Under R.A. 9344, a minor offender is entitled to a privilege mitigating circumstance. (8%)

(A) May the privilege mitigating circumstance of minority be appreciated considering that the penalty imposed by law is life imprisonment and fine?

Yes, the privilege of mitigating circumstance of minority may be appreciated.

 By express provision of Sec. 98 of RA 9165, notwithstanding any law, the provisions of the Revised Penal Code shall not apply to the provisions of RA 9165, except in the case of minor offenders. Where the offender is a minor, the penalty for acts punishable by life imprisonment to death shall be reclusion perpetua. Under RA 9344, the privileged mitigating circumstance of minority shall be considered for the purpose of recommending the amount of bail.

 Hence, the privileged mitigating circumstance of minority may be appreciated for the purpose of recommending the amount of bail.

 (B) Is the Indeterminate Sentence Law applicable considering that life imprisonment has no fixed duration and the Dangerous Drugs Law is malum prohibitum?

 Yes, the Indeterminate Sentence Law is applicable.

 Settled is the rule that by virtue of Sec. 98 of RA 9165, where the offender is a minor, the penalty for acts punishable by life imprisonment to death shall be reclusion perpetua to death, an indivisible penalty. The Indeterminate Sentence Law applies only to divisible penalties of more than one (1) year of imprisonment. Considering the privileged mitigating circumstance of minority, the penalty shall be one degree lower than reclusion perpetua, which shall be reclusion temporal, a divisible penalty.

 Thus, the Indeterminate Sentence Law is applicable because the penalty which has been indivisible became a divisible penalty of more than one year after appreciating the privilege mitigating circumstance of minority.

 (C) If the penalty imposed is more than six (6) years and a notice of appeal was filed by A and given due course by the court, may A still file an application for probation?

 No, A may not file an application for Probation.

 By express provision of the Probation Law (PD 968), where the imposed penalty is imprisonment of more than six years, the convict shall not be entitled to probation. Similarly, the Probation Law provides that appeal and probation are mutually exclusive, so that once an appeal has filed, the privilege of probation is no longer available unless the convict withdraws the appeal.

 Hence, A may not file an application for Probation insofar as the imposed penalty is imprisonment of more than six years.

 (D) If probation is not allowed by the court, how will A serve his sentence?

 Pursuant to RA 9344, the sentence for A shall be automatically suspended and the court shall determine the disposition measures under the Implementing Rules of 9344.

XXV.

 Mr. Gray opened a savings account with Bank A with an initial deposit of P50,000.00. A few days later, he deposited a check for P200,000.00 drawn from Bank B and endorsed by Mr. White. Ten days later, Mr. Gray withdrew the P200,000.00 from his account. Mr. White later complained to Bank B when the amount of P200,000.00 was later debited to his account, as he did not issue the check and his signature thereon was forged. Mr. Gray subsequently deposited another check signed by Mr. White for P200,000.00, which amount he later withdrew. Upon receiving the amount, Mr. Gray was arrested by agents of the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI).

 Mr. Gray was convicted of estafa and attempted estafa, both through the use of commercial documents. (4%)

 (A) Mr. Gray claims as defense that, except for Mr. White’s claim of forgery, there was no evidence showing that he was the author of the forgery and Mr. White did not suffer any injuries as to the second check (attempted estafa). Rule on the defense of Mr. Gray.

 The defense is without merit.

 Settled is the rule in Estafa cases that the disturbance of property right is equivalent to damage and is in itself sufficient to constitute injury within the meaning of Art. 315 of the Revised Penal Code.

 Here, Mr. White suffered injury when his signature was forged and his money parted from him on account of the forgery that is attributable to the bearer of the check, Mr. Gray. Hence, Mr. Gray’s defense must fail.

 (B) Mr. Gray claims that he was entrapped illegally because there was no showing that the second check was a forgery and, therefore, his withdrawal based on the second check was a legal act. Is Mr. Gray correct?

XXVI.

 

A was bitten by a dog owned by a neighbor. The following day, angered by the incident, A took the dog without the knowledge of the owner, had it butchered and cooked the meat. He then invited his friends to partake of the dish with his friends who knew fully well that the dog was taken without the knowledge of the owner. What are the friends of A liable for? (1%)

 (A) Theft

(B) Malicious mischief

(C) Accessories

(D) Obstruction of Justice

 C

—ooo0ooo—

Advertisements

Responses

  1. You are such a great help sir!!! thankyou for posting this

    Like


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Categories

%d bloggers like this: