crimlawrevsamplexdvi

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW – DVI

DLSU LAW

Disclaimer: The MCQ and essay questions were derived from the Criminal Law Review Tips of Pierre Martin De Leon Reyes of the Ateneo School of Law. Although most of his answers are accurate, some aren’t. The answers to the esseay questions here are subjectively corrected.

What crime, if any, is committed by a private person who aided a municipal treasurer in taking away money intended for teacher’s salaries? A. Estafa B. Theft

MCQs

C. Malversation

A scattered coconut remnants with human excrements on the stairs, doors, and floors of the municipal building to obstruct the performance of public functions. What crime, if any, did A commit? A. unjust vexation B. none

D. None According to U.S. v. Ponte and People v. Sendaydiego, a private person who conspired with a public officer or aids a public officer in committing malversation is likewise guilty of malversation. (Reyes II, pg. 430-431).

C. grave scandal

A is a natural son of B. C is the legitimate father of B. A killed C. What crime did A commit?

D. malicious mischief

A. Parricide

According to People vs. Dumlao, when several persons scattered coconut remnants which contained human excrements on the stairs and floor of the municipal building, including its interior, the crime committed is malicious mischief under Art. 329. (Reyes, p. 894)

B. Homicide

What crime, if any, was committed if the gift or present is not accepted by the public officer?

C. Murder He who kills an illegitimate ascendant or descendant is not guilty of parricide, but of simple homicide or murder as the case may be. Since C is an illegitimate father of A, the crime is only homicide. (Reyes II, pg. 486).

B. corruption of public official

A, coming home early from work, surprised his wife and “kumpadre” sleeping in bed. A shot both with his pistol, killing his wife and inflicting less serious physcial physcial injuries on his “kumpadre”. Is A liable criminally?

C. None

A. A is liable for homicide and attempted homicide

D. Direct Bribery

B. A is liable for parricide and frustrated murder

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 officer under Art. 212 in relation to Art. 6. The public officer is not liable. (Reyes II, pg. 387-388)

C. A is entitled to the benefits of Art. 247.

A. Direct bribery

D. A is liable for parricide and frustrated homicide.

We shall not be saved without wisdom; for knowledge is power power but only wisdom is is liberty.


DLSU LAW

Art. 247 is not applicable when the accused did not see his spouse in the act of sexual intercourse with another person. According to People v. Bituanan, the phrase “in the act of committing sexual intercourse” does not inclu de merely sleeping on the same bed. (Reyes II, pg. 491). A is a stranger, poisoned a pregnant woman to kill her. As a consequence, she died and the foetus in her womb also died. What crime was committed by A? A. Murder and unintentional abortion

B. Unjust vexation C. Slight physical injuries D. Attempted homicide In attempted or frustrated homicide, the offender must have the intent to kill the victim. If there is no intent to kill on the part of the offender, he is liable for physical injuries only. Further, the intent to kill is shown by the type of weapon used and the parts of the victim’s body at which it was aimed as shown by the wounds inflicted. (Reyes II, pg. 504). Here, only a stick was used and slight physical injuries inflicted.

B. Complex crime of murder with intentional abortion The threats were part of the assault. (Reyes 1964, pg. 525). C. murder The crime committed is murder only. A cannot be liable for unintentional abortion because there is no violence as he used poison. Further, he cannot be liable for intentional abortion as the abortion was not intended. The intention of A was to kill the pregnant woman only.

A broke the wooden gate of the stone fence of the premises of B and once inside took from the yard of B building materials which were lying there. What crime was committed by A? A. Robbery with force upon things

A servant opened the window of the house of her master to make possible the entrance of her suitor in the house. What is the criminal liability of the servant and her suitor?

B. Malicious mischief

A. attempted qualified theft

Robbery with force upon things is committed on an inhabited house, public building or building dedicated to religious worship and its dependencies. In order to be a dependency, such structure must be contiguous to the building, must have an interior entrance connected therewith and must form part of the whole. The yard cannot be characterized as a dependency. (Reyes 1964, pg. 535).

B. trespass to dwelling C. malicious mischief D. violation of domicile The servant is a principle by indispensable cooperation in the crime of qualified trespass to dwelling and her suitor is a principal by direct participation in the said crime. (Reyes II, pg. 518). A, in the heat of anger, struck B with a stick, saying “I will kill you.” B suffered slight physical injuries. What crime was committed by A?

C. Theft

While a woman was walking along Makati Ave., a man following her suddenly snatched her bandbag and ran away with it. What crime was committed by that man? A. Qualified theft B. Robbery with violence and intimidation C. Robbery with force upon things

A. Light threats D. Theft We shall not be saved without wisdom; for knowledge is power but only wisdom is liberty.


DLSU LAW

Since the taking was accomplished without the use of violence against or intimidation of persons or force upon things, the crime committed is theft. Had she resisted and violence was employed, the crime would have been robbery with violence and intimidation. (Reyes 1964, pg. 537). A gave B, a janitor in his office, P500.00 with instructions to pay A’s insurance premium. B, instead of paying it to the insurance company, spent the money. What crime was committed by B? A. estafa

B. A is exempt from criminal liability; the servant for qualified theft C. A is liable for estafa; the servant for qualified theft D. A is liable for simple theft; the servant for qualified theft A is not criminally liable because the crime committed by him, as principal by induction was theft and because of his relation with the offended party, he is exempt from criminal liability. The exemption, however, does not apply to strangers participating in the crime. Hence, servant is liable for qualified theft. (Reyes 1964, pg. 615).

B. malversation A woman was sleeping. When she woke up, she found a man on top of her with his private part in her private part. Realizing that it was futile to resist and to scream for help, she just kept still until the man accomplished his sexual desire. Is the man liable for rape?

C. other deceits D. theft A person who misappropriated the thing which he had received from the offended party may be guilty of theft, not estafa, if he acquired only the material or physical possession of the thing. (Reyes II, pg. 807; Reyes 1964, pg. 565).

A. Yes, because the woman was unconscious when the man inserted his private part into the private part of the woman B. No, as the element of force or intimidation is absent

What crime was committed by a person who made forecast of what would happen at a certain future time? A. alarms and scandals

C. No, because the woman eventually consented The rape was already consummated upon the penetration of the female organ and such carnal act was done while the offended party was asleep. (People v. Caballero). Further, resistance when futile does not amount to consent. (Reyes II, pg. 561; Reyes 1964, pg. 623).

B. unjust vexation C. none D. other deceits In order to fall under Art. 318 (other deceits), the making of forecasts must be for profit or gain. (Reyes II, pg. 864; Reyes 1964, pg. 606). A and B are son and father, respectively. A told their servant to steal the watch of B, A’s father. The servant took the watch of B without the latter’s consent and gave it to A who sold it and spent the proceeds of the sale. What is the criminal liability, if any, of A and the servant?

A purchased merchandise and signed a promissory note therefor. On the date of maturity, he gave the check for the amount stated in the promissory note, but the check was dishonored by the bank for lack of funds. What crime punishable by the RPC, if any, was violated by A? A. violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 B. estafa by issuing a check without funds C. none, the check was issued in payment of a pre-existing obligation

A. A and the servant are liable for theft We shall not be saved without wisdom; for knowledge is power but only wisdom is liberty.


DLSU LAW

When a check is issued in substitution of a promissory note, it is in payment of a pre-existing obligation. (People v. Canlas). The issuance of a bouncing check in payment of a pre-existing obligation does not constitute estafa. (Reyes, pg. 825).

According to People v. Lara, alcohol for motor vehicles is not proper for human beings; common sense so dictates. Lacking in the simplest precaution, A committed reckless imprudence. (Reyes II, pg. 1054).

NOTE: If

the question stated what crime, if any, was committed, the answer would be A as the issuance of a bouncing check is punishable under BP 22 even if it is for payment of a pre-existing obligation. The question here asks what crime under the RPC, if any. BP 22 is a special penal law.

A threatened a woman that he would kill her husband if she would not have sexual intercourse with him, and the next day, the woman agreed to the condition imposed by A to save her husband. A had sexual intercourse with her. What crime was committed?

The husband, whenever his wife, was not in their conjugal dwelling, used to have sexual intercourse with their female servant What crime, if any, was committed by the husband?

A. grave threats

A. Concubinage

C. tape by means of intimidation

B. None

A is li able for grave threats because A threatened the woman with infliction upon the person of her husband of a wrong amounting to a crime, that is, he would kill him, imposing a condition that is, that she should have sexual intercourse with A and A attained his purpose.

C. Qualified seduction

B. grave coercion

D. Adultery The husband here did not take the servant as concubine in the conjugal dwelling. (Reyes II, pg. 911; Reyes 1964, pg. 622). However, if the female servant was under 18 years old and a virgin, he would have been liable for qualified seduction. (Reyes 1964, id.) A prepared a drink, using methyl alcohol and mixing it with sugar and lemon, and sold it to three soldiers who were What crime, if any, was committed by A?

The crime is not rape because when the offender had carnal knowledge with the woman, she in a sense agreed to it. (Reyes 1964, pg. 520). A told B that he would kill him if the latter would not send him P10,000.00 within 24 hours. B sent the money the next day. What crime was committed by A? A. grave coercion B. robbery with intimidation

A. homicide C. grave threats B. murder C. administering injurious substance or beverage D. reckless imprudence resulting to homicide

When the act consists in materially taking possession or securing, on the spot, the delivery of the money or other personal property, through the effect of fear or fright, the nature of the penal act is altered and constitutes not threats but the crime of robbery with intimidation. (Reyes II, pg. 623). Here, the delivery of the money was not on the spot. In other words, the gain was not immediate. (Reyes 1964, pg. 521).

We shall not be saved without wisdom; for knowledge is power but only wisdom is liberty.


DLSU LAW

A left his loaded firearm on the chair within the reach of a child then playing in the place. The child picked it up and played with it causing the firearm to explode with the bullet hitting A’s two day old child who died as a result. What is the criminal liability of A, if any, for the death of his child?

B. serious physical injuries

A. homicide through reckless imprudence

If the act performed constitutes a violation of another provision of the RPC, there is no impossible crime. (Reyes I, pg. 84-85). Here, the intent to kill the girlfriend is absent but serious physical injuries were inflicted.

B. reckless imprudence resulting in infanticide

C. frustrated murder D. frustrated homicide

A was charged with adultery with a married woman. After conviction of both accused, the accused married woman was given an absolute pardon by the Chief Executive. Does the absolute pardon of the married woman have the effect of extinguishing the criminal liability of A?

C. parricide through reckless imprudence D. None, as it was due to an accident There was lack of intention to commit a wrong on the part of A. However, A showed inexcusable lack of precaution which has led to the death of his two-day old child, which would have been punishable as infanticide had intent been present. A, with the intent of killing X, bought poison from a drugstore. A then mixed the poison with food intended for X. Before X could sit at the breakfast table, a neighbour’s cat reached for the poisoned food and scampered away. Did A commit a crime?

A. Yes, because pardon abolishes and obliterates effects of the felony committed B. No, pardon by the Chief Executive is extended to specific individuals only C. Yes, because the pardon in the crime of adultery refers to both offenders to be effective

A. Yes, he shall be liable for frustrated murder No, because the power to extend executive clemency is unlimited and that the exercise of that power lies in the absolute and uncontrolled discretion of the chief executive. (Reyes I, pg. 866).

B. No, A’s acts are merely preparatory acts C. Yes, he shall be liable for attempted murder The buying of poison with food intended for X, and the latter did not know that it contained poison, was about to eat it but was prevented from doing so by a cat, constituted overt acts of murder. A is liable for attempted murder. (Reyes I, pg. 99)

A told B that C is a thief. C was previously convicted of theft. For purposes of libel, can it be presumed that the imputation made by A is malicious? A. No, as it was merely a statement of fact

A administered abortive drugs upon his girlfriend, whom he believed to be pregnant, but which turned out to be not true. The girlfriend, as a consequence, became ill for more than 30 days. What crime, if any, did A commit?

B. No, as it was not a defamatory imputation C. Yes, every defamatory imputation is presumed to be malicious even if it be true

A. impossible crime of abortion



DLSU LAW

Art. 354 provides that “every defamatory imputation is presumed to be malicious even if it be true.” (Reyes II, pg. 998).

B. notice of dishonor is a pre-requisite in BP 22 but not in estafa C. notice of dishonor is required in both estafa and BP 22

X lifted from the jewellery section of a department store 2 gold bracelets and put them in her purse. At the store’s exit, however, X was arrested by the guards who were alerted of X’s act which was caught in the store’s CCTV cameras. What crime was committed by X? A. attempted theft B. frustrated theft C. consummated theft The ability of the offender to freely dispose of the property stolen is not a constitutive element of the crime of theft. The unlawful taking is deemed complete from the moment the offender gains possession of the thing, even if he has no opportunity to dispose of the same. (R eyes II, pg. 735-736).

While the RPC prescribes that the drawer of the check must deposit the amount needed to cover his check within 3 days from receipt of notice of dishonor, BP 22, on the other hand, requires the maker or drawer to pay the amount of the check within 5 days from receipt of notice of dishonor. Under both laws, notice of dishonor is necessary for prosecution (for estafa and violation of BP 22). Without proof of notice of dishonor, knowledge of insufficiency of funds cannot be presumed and no crime, whether estafa or violation of BP 22, can be deemed to exist. (People v. Ojeda). X pointed a dirty finger at his superior for the latter’s repeated delay in approving his application for leave monetization. What crime, if any, did X commit? A. unjust vexation B. none

X married A in July 1995 only to learn that A was previously married to B from whom A had been separated for more than 10 years. Believing that his marriage to A was an absolute nullity, X contracted a subsequent marriage with C. Can X be prosecuted for bigamy? A. No, the first marriage being void ab initio B. Yes, even though his marriage to A was an absolute nullity C. No, because X is entitled to a dissolution of the first marriage under the Family Code Under the Family Code, the parties cannot presume their marriage to be void. The fact that the first marriage is void ab initio is not a defense in a bigamy charge. There must be a judicial declaration of nullity of a marriage before contracting the second marriage. (Reyes II, pg. 973). Is notice of dishonor of the check issued required in the prosecution of the offender for estafa under Art. 315, par. 2(d), RPC and violation of BP 22?

C. simple slander by deed D. malicious mischief According to People v. Villanueva, pointing a dirty finger constitutes simple slander by deed, it appearing from the facts that the act complained of was employed to express anger or displeasure at complainant for procrastinating the approval of his leave monetization. (Reyes II, pg. 1029). X, Y, and Z shot and killed A, a tricycle driver, and took possession of his motorized tricycle. What crime did X, y, and Z commit? A. robbery with violence against person B. qualified theft C. qualified carnapping D. Highway robbery

A. notice of dishonor is required in estafa, but not in BP 22



DLSU LAW

According to People v. Lobitania, where accused-appellant and his companions shot the driver of the tricycle resulting in his death, abandoned him and took possession of the vehicle, the crime committed is qualified carnapping under RA 6593. (Reyes II, pg. 761).

May a woman be charged as a principal in rape committed by sexual intercourse?

During a free for all fight in a market place, an old woman market vendor was seen pushed to the ground by X. Later, the old woman was found dead. It appears that the cause of death was a stab wound on the side of her body and the person who inflicted it could not be identified. Is X criminally liable for the death of the old woman?

B. Yes, the crime of rape can now be committed by a male or a female

A. No, the person who stabbed the victim should be held liable B. No, the victim is not a participant in the free for all C. Yes, having used violence upon the victim in the course of a tumultuous affray.

A. No, rape by sexual intercourse is committed by a man upon a woman

C. Yes, if the woman is charged as co-principal together with a man A woman can be guilty of rape as a principal by inducement, by indispensable cooperation or as a co-conspirator. (Regalado, pg. 609). The Senate Blue Ribbon committee issued summons to X to appear in the investigation of the Gen. Garcia plea bargain agreement in aid of legislation. X, without legal excuse, refused to obey the summons. What crime, if any, did X commit? A. Open disobedience to an order of a superior authority (Art. 231)

If the one who inflicted the serious physical injuries is unknown, all the persons who used violence upon the person of the victim are liable, but with lesser liability. (People v. Dacanay; Reyes II, pg. 512).

B. Malicious delay in the administration of justice (Art. 207)

X forced upon the window to enter the house of A, a 70 year old woman. Once inside, X took the cash and jewellery of A, who as a consequence was awakened. X stabbed A to death. May disregard of age and sex be appreciated in the crime committed by X?

Art. 150 punished the refusal, without legal excuse, to obey summons of the National Assembly, its special or standing committees or subcommittees. (Reyes II, pg. 149).

A. Yes, X disregarded the age and sex of the victim B. Yes, having committed homicide, disregard of age and sex may be appreciated C. No, disregard of age and sex may not be appreciated in robbery with homicide According to People v. Nabaluna, it is not proper to consider disregard of old age in crimes against property. Robbery with homicide is primarily a crime against property and not against persons. Homicide is a mere incident of the robbery, the latter being the main purpose and object of the criminal. (Reyes I, pg. 360).

C. Disobedience to summons issued by the National Assembly (Art. 150)

X is a teller of the Development Bank of the Philippines (DBP). Taking advantage of his position, X pocketed and appropriated P10,000.00 which he had in his possession. What crime did X commit? A. malversation, DBP being a government bank B. estafa, A had possession of the money which he appropriated with abuse of confidence C. qualified theft. X has only physical possession of the money and as teller, his position involves trust and confidence Indeed, the possession of X as teller was the possession of the bank, as he had only physical, not juridical, possession of the money, which would in turn be estafa) and



DLSU LAW

it was committed with grave abuse of confidence, it would have amounted to qualified theft. (People v. Locson); (Reyes II, pg. 758). However, the teller here is a public officer or employee who has in his custody public funds and the bank is a GOCC. (Reyes 1964, pg. 453).

A, a barangay chairman, was presiding over a meeting regarding peace and order in their community when he was attacked by his creditor whom he has not paid for a long time despite his repeated promises to do so. A suffered serious physical injuries. What crime did the creditor commit?

X is a teller of the DBP. Taking advantage of his position, X pocketed and appropriated P 10,000.00 which he had in his possession. What crime did X commit?

A. Serious physical injuries since the motive for the attack was private and personal

A. malversation, DBP being a government bank B. estafa, A had possession of the money which he appropriated with abuse of confidence C. qualified theft. X has only physical possession of the money and as teller, his postiion involves trust and confidence. Indeed, the possession of X as teller was the possession of the bank, as he had only the physical, not juridical possession of the money (which would in turn be estafa) and it was committed with grave abuse of confidence it would have amounted to qualified theft. (People v. Locson; Reyes II, pg. 758). However, the teller here is a public officer or employee who h as in the custody public f undes and the bank is a GOCC. (Reyes 1964, pg. 453).

B. Direct assault with serious physical injuries as A was then in the performance of his duties. C. Direct assault only, the physical injuries absorbed When a person in authority or his agent is in the actual performance of his official duty, the motive of the offender is immaterial. (Reyes, pg. 145). Where in the commission of direct assault, serious or less serious physical injuries are inflicted, the offender is guilty of the complex crime of direct assault with serious or less serious physical injuries. (Reyes II, pg. 146). X owns and operates a gift and jewellery shop. A sold to him for P1,000.00 a diamond ring worth P120,000.00 a diamond ring worthy of P120,000.00 which she stole. What crime, if any, did X commit? A. none

A while soundly asleep in his fishing boat moored in the Pasig River in Manila, was it attacked and rendered unconscious by X. Thereafter, X took cash and cellphones. What crime did X commit? A. Robbery with violence and intimidation

B. theft C. fencing X cannot be held liable for theft as it was A who committed the theft nor can X be held liable for fencing as such would require knowledge that the item was stolen.

B. Piracy under PD 532, as amended C. Robbery with frustrated homicide PD 532 provides that any attack or seizure of any vessel, or the taking away of the equipment or the personal belongings of its complement or passengers by means of violence complement or passengers by means of violence against or intimidation of persons or force upon things, in Philippine waters shall be considered as piracy. (Reyes II, pg. 36).

In mercy killing, is the attending physician criminally liable for deliberately turning off the life support system consequently costing the life of a brain dead patient? A. No, there is absent mens rea B. No, because of the justifying circumstance of state of necessity



DLSU LAW

C. Yes, euthanasia is not a modifying circumstance in our jurisdiction

A. adultery

In euthanasia or mercy killing, the person killed does not want to die. A doctor who resorts to mercy killing of his patient may be liable for murder. (Reyes II, pg. 516).

B. grave scandal C. prostitution

X, with intent to kill, aimed his revolver at B. B cried, asking X not to kill him. X then turned around and left B. Is X liable for homicide? A. Yes, but his liability shall be mitigated B. Yes, there was intent to kill when he aimed his revolver at B C. No. X desisted without performing all the acts of execution to accomplish the felony Spontaneous desistance of a malefactor exempts him from criminal liability for the intended crime but it does not exempt him from the crime committed by him before his desistance. (Reyes I, pg. 105; Reyes 1964, pg. 164).

D. none According to US v. Samaniego, a married woman who habitually appeared in public places with her paramour, frequented suspicious places, vacant houses, did not violate Art. 200 (Grave scandal) because the acts were not committed in public places or within the public knowledge or view. A wrote a letter to B, a respectable woman, that the latter was the querida of C. The letter was in a sealed envelope but sent through mail. What crime, if any, was committed by A? A. libel, as it is an imputation of a circumstance tending to cause dishonor

X was found guilty of drug trafficking. X appealed his conviction. Pending appeal, X filed a petition for probation. How would you resolve the petition?

B. intriguing against honor

A. The petition should be granted as under the law, he is not included among the disqualified offenders

D. slander

B. The petition should be granted as X’s conviction is still pending appeal C. The petition should be denied as X was found guilty of drug trafficking and having appealed his conviction, he is also a disqualified offender Those previously convicted by final judgment of an offense by imprisonment not less than one month and one day and/or a fine of not more than P200 are disqualified from being placed on probation. (Reyes I, pg. 830). Further, the Probation Law expressly prohibits the grant of an application for probation if the defendant has perfected an appeal from the judgment of conviction. (Reyes I, pg. 827). A married woman who habitually appeared in public places with her paramour and frequented suspicious places and vacant houses is liable for –

C. unjust vexation

According to Lopez v. Delgado, sending a letter in a sealed envelope through a messenger is not publication. Here, the sealed envelope was sent through mail. Thus, the ruling in Orfanel v. People should apply where the Supreme Court stated that writing a letter to another person other than the person defamed is sufficient to constitute publication, for the person whom the letter is addressed is a third person in relation to its writer and the person defamed therein. (Reyes II, pg. 991; Reyes 1964, pg. 651). A, a big and husky man assaulted in a public place a person who could not fight him because of his small size and weak physical constitution. Assuming that no physical injuries were inflicted, what crime, if any, was committed A? A. slander by deed



DLSU LAW

A woman suffered abortion by natural cause. The expelled foetus had already a human form and about six months old. While the foetus was still alive, it was buried by the servant in the yard, as instructed by the mother. Are the mother and servant criminally liable? Explain.

B. unjust vexation C. challenging to a duel D. light threats The common denominator present in unjust vexation and slander by deed is irritation or annoyance. Without any other concurring factor, the offense would be merely unjust vexation because it is equated with anything that annoys or irritates another without any justification. If in addition to the irritation or annoyance, there was attendant publicity and dishonor or contempt, the offense would be slander by deed. (Reyes II, pg. 1031). Here, the irritation or annoyance was done in a public place. (Reyes 1964, pg. 663). ESSAY Having decided a case in favour of the plaintiff, the judge was given a gift by said plaintiff. The decision was perfectly legal and just and in fact when the defendant appealed the case to the Supreme Court it was affirmed in its entirety. Did the judge incur criminal liability? Yes, the judge is liable for indirect bribery because he is a public officer who actually accepted a gift from the plaintiff by reason of his office. The fact that the decision was perfectly legal and just is immaterial because, by merely accepting the gift, he exposed himself to possible future corruption. When the taking of money bills used as evidence in the trial of a case by a clerk of court infidelity in the custody of document, and when is it malversation? A clerk of court is liable for infidelity in custody of document if having received the money bills as exhibits in a case and misappropriates it. When the case is done and he misappropriates it, he is liable for malversation because his custody is in the nature of a trust of public funds. What is the corpus delicti in crimes against persons where the death of the victim consummates the crime? In all crimes against persons where death of the victim is an element of the offense, the corpus delicti is the fact of death or the manner the victim died.

The mother and servant are not criminally liable. They cannot be held liable for abortion because the fetus was exerted due to natural causes and not through any positive act of the mother or servant. Further, they cannot be held liable for infanticide because requires that the fetus is capable of sustaining an independent life after its separation from the maternal womb. Here, the foetus was only 6 months old and not capable of surviving. A and B kidnapped and detained X for a week to compel the latter to work in a plantation in Mindoro without salary. Before A and B could board the vessel for Mindoro with X, a policeman rescued X. What crime was committed by A and B? Why? A and B committed slavery. Art. 272 of the RPC provides that slavery is committed when the offender kidnaps or detains a human being for the purpose of enslaving such human being. In this case, the capture was to enslave X because he will be made to work in a plantation without salary. The timely rescue of the policeman is immaterial because the crime was already consummated when X was rescued. A held-up B at the point of a revolver threatening to kill him, and succeeding in taking a watch from B. When he reached home, A found that the watch he had taken from B was his own watch which he had lost a week before. What crime was committed by A? Explain. A committed grave threats because he threatened B with the infliction upon his person of a wrong amounting to a crime and succeeded in taking the watch. The crime is not robbery because what was taken actually belonged to A. In robbery or theft, the personal property taken must belong to another. Further, the crime is not grave coercion because there was intent to gain. (Reyes 1964, pg. 540-541)



DLSU LAW

If parricide is committed on the occasion or both by reason of the robbery, what is the crime committed? Why? The crime is robbery with homicide. The Supreme Court has held that the term “homicide” in Art. 294(1) is used in its generic sense. Therefore, it includes parricide and murder. A, a boy 7 years old, found a wallet with money bills in the amount of P200.00 in it. A gave it to his father who later spent the money. What crime was committed by the father? Explain your answer. The father committed the crime of theft because he failed to deliver the lost wallet to its owner or proper authorities. And, although the father is not the finder in fact, he is the finder in law because A gave him the lost wallet and he voluntarily took and spent the money it contained. As such, he stepped into the shoes of the finder in fact. A, wife of B, surprised the latter and another woman in a hotel in the act of sexual intercourse. A now consults you to find out if she can file a complaint and prosecute them for concubinage. What is your opinion? Explain your views on the matter. A complaint for concubinage will not prosper because the second mode of committing concubinage is having sexual intercourse under scandalous circumstances with a woman not his wife. A scandal consists of any reprehensible word/deed that offends public conscience. In this case, B and the other woman were only caught having sex in a hotel and hidden from the public. May a person convicted of bigamy still be prosecuted for concubinage? Explain. Yes, because the two offenses are distinct. First, bigamy is an offense against civil status which may be prosecuted at the instance of the State while concubinage is an offense against chastity and may be prosecuted only at the instance of the offended party. Second, bigamy requires the celebration of the second marriage, with the first still existing, while concubinage only requires mere cohabitation by the husband with a woman not his wife.

A and B, Filipino citizens, went to Hong Kong on a pleasure trip. When they returned to, and were already in the Philippines, A discovered that B stole her diamond ring worth P200,00.00 while they were in Hong Kong. B is a trusted personal aide of A. If you are the investigating prosecutor, what crime, if any, should you file against B? Explain. None. Under the territoriality principle, the RPC is applicable to all crimes committed within the limits of the Philippine territory. Under Art. 2 of the RPC, theft is not given extra-territorial application. A was awakened by the barking of his dog. He looked out of the window of his house and saw a man in his yard. A got his shotgun and believing that man to be a robber, shot and killed him in his yard. When he went down to see the man he had killed, he found out that the man was his brother who wanted to spend the night in A, house. What crime, if any, would A be liable? Explain. Absent any of the circumstances of murder, parricide and infanticide, A is liable for homicide only because A killed the “robber” absent any justifying circumstances. A is not justified in shooting the victim to death because there was no unlawful aggression on the part of the victim to warrant of selfdefense. A’s intent to kill is presumed and is even further proved since he used a shotgun. Can A successfully invoke mistake of fact as a defense? Explain your answer. No, because for mistake of fact to be a defense (1) the act done must have been lawful had the facts been as the accused believed them to be, and (2) the mistake must be without fault or carelessness on the part of the accused. Even if the victim was indeed a robber, as A believed him to be, the act was not lawful because there was no unlawful aggression. Also, unlike in US v. Ah Chong, A here had the opportunity to make further inquiry as to the correct facts. For the purpose of raping B in a room occupied by her exclusively as a boarder, used a false key which he opened its door. Once inside, but before he could touch B, A changed his mind and went out of the room. For what crime or crimes, if any, would A be liable? Explain your answer.



DLSU LAW

He is liable for trespass to d welling because, A, a private person, entered the dwelling of B against the latter’s will. It has been held that a room constitutes a dwelling if it is exclusively occupied. A is not liable for attempted rape because all acts of execution were not produced because of his own spontaneous desistance. Art. 305 of the RPC only defines false keys and does not provide any penalty. Nevertheless, A cannot be liable for possession of false keys under Art. 304 because it was not intended for robbery. A was in love with the wife of B. One day, A at a distance of 50 yards saw B in the act of stabbing C, a stranger with a knife. A shot B who was mortally wounded. What, if any, is the criminal liability of A? Explain. If A shot B to gratuitously save C from being killed by B, A is not liable because he may invoke defense of stranger. But if A shot B to enable him to marry B’s wife , the third requisite of defense of stranger is lacking as he was induced by evil motive. In the latter case, A can only liable for frustrated homicide because he performed all the acts of execution for homicide, evidenced by the mortal wound, but did not produce it by reason of a cause independent of his will. But if B later dies, A will be liable for consummated homicide. A, while supervising the threshing of his palay in his rice field, saw B carrying away a sack of palay. A shouted at B to stop and return the sack of palay, but B continued to run away with it. A picked up a piece of hard wood and threw it at B who was hit and seriously injured. Is A criminally liable for the injuries inflicted upon B? Explain. A is not liable because, under the Civil Code, as the owner of palay, he has the right to exclude any person from enjoyment and disposal thereof. In this regard, he may use such force as may be reasonably necessary to prevent an actual taking of his property, such as throwing hard wood at B who was running away. In the prosecution of a boy of 17 years of age, the public prosecutor succeeded in proving the case of theft against the accused. There was no evidence that the accused, at the time of the commission of the crime, did

not understand the consequences of his act. If you were the judge trying the case, would you acquit or convict the accused? Explain your answer. I will acquit the accused. The presumption is that the minor acted without discernment. The prosecution has the burden to prove the existence of discernment on the part of the accused when the crime was committed. In this case, absent any proof that the boy acted with discernment, he is exempt from criminal liability. Additional Answer: If the minor is proven to have acted with discernment, I will, instead of convicting him, place him under suspended sentence. If the faithful wife committed adultery in the conjugal dwelling, is the dwelling aggravating? If the paramour is not living in the same dwelling, it is aggravating because the wife and the paramour also violated the sanctity of the conjugal home. But if the paramour is also living in the same house, it is not aggravating because they both had a right to be in the conjugal dwelling. A previously served sentence for less serious physical injuries, punishable by arresto mayor. He is now convicted of estafa, punishable by prision correcional. What aggravating circumstance do you find in this case? Explain. None. First, it cannot be reiteracion because the penalty attached to the first offense is lighter than that of the second offense. Second, it cannot be recidivism because estafa and physical injuries are not contained in the same title of the RPC. What would be the crime if a private individual detained another for some legal ground and failed to deliver the person detained to the proper authority within the time specified in Art. 125 of the Code? Explain. The crime would be illegal detention because detaining a person beyond the time specified in Art. 125 of the RPC is illegal. While the private individual may make an arrest, he has a duty to deliver the person to the police officer without unnecessary delay. He cannot be liable for arbitrary detention because he is not a public officer.



DLSU LAW

A, having conceived the idea of killing her husband, hired B, a stranger, to kill him with a pistol furnished by C, the brother of A. B shot the husband of A to death. When C gave the pistol to B, the former knew that his sister A had induced B to kill her husband. What crime was committed by B and C? Explain your answer. B committed murder because he killed the deceased in consideration of a price or reward. He did not commit parricide because the qualifying circumstance of relationship does not apply to him but only to A. C is an accomplice to the murder because he knew the criminal design of B and his simultaneous act of supplying the pistol showed his concurrence to it. What is the difference between trespass to dwelling and violation of domicile? In violation of domicile, the offender is a public officer while in trespass to dwelling, the offender is any private person. Trespass to dwelling is committed only by entering the dwelling against the will of the owner. While violation of domicile can be committed the same way, it can also be committed by (1) searching papers or other effects found therein without the consent of the owner and (2) refusing to leave after being required to leave. A removed the radio of B from the car of the latter and began to leave the place. On the way, B met A and having recognized the radio, B asked A where he had gotten it; but A drew out and opened his knife and threatened to kill B. What crimes were committed by A? Explain your answer. A committed separate crimes of theft and grave threats. Theft was already consummated when A, with intent to gain took the car radio of B without the latter’s consent. There was no violence or intimidation against persons because the threat only happened after the taking. A committed grave threats because he threatened to kill B. A requested a stenographer in the office of the treasurer to pay his land tax and gave him P1,000.00. The stenographer, instead of paying the amount to the treasurer for A, spent the money and took the land tax receipt of his father, erased the name of A and gave it to him, representing

that it was his official receipt. What crime was committed by the stenographer? Explain your answer. The stenographer committed two separate crimes of estafa and falsification of an official document. Falsification of public document was committed because the stenographer took advantage of his official position and altered a genuine document which changed its meaning. In this case, the falsification was not necessary to commit estafa because it was only committed to conceal the crime of estafa. Is there falsification of private document through reckless imprudence if there is no actual damage? Supposed that there is actual damage caused? Explain your answer. If there is no actual damage , there is no falsification of private d ocument through reckless imprudence because absent actual damage there must be at least intent to cause damage and imprudence implies lack of such intent. But if there is actual damage , there is falsification of private document through reckless imprudence because it is the result not the intention that becomes important. A gave B, a policeman, P10,000.00 because the latter agreed to steal a certain firearm from the property custodian of the Police Department of the city, the said firearm having been confiscated from A for possessing the same without a license. In consideration of the P10,000.00, B stole the firearm and gave it to A. Do you believe that B is liable for direct bribery, considering he was a public officer and he agreed to perform an act constituting a crime? Explain your answer. B is not liable for direct bribery because the act which B agreed to perform, which is to steal the firearm and thereby committing theft, is not connected with performance of his official duties. Lacking this element, direct bribery is not committed. If your answer is in the negative, what crime was committed by A? Why? A committed theft as a principal by induction. He, with intent to gain, induced B to take the firearm from the police department without the latter’s consent. He did not commit corruption of a public official because the



DLSU LAW

public officer must have been liable for bribery in order for the giver of the gift to be held liable for such crime. Suppose that in the preceding question, A gave the money to the property custodian, also an employee of the city government, also an employee of the city government, who agreed to give the firearm to him, what would be the crime? Explain. The crime committed is direct bribery and malversation because the property custodian agreed to commit an act connected with the performance of his official duty. Suppose that the property custodian was not able to give the firearm to A because he was relieved as property custodian after he received the money. Is the property custodian liable for direct bribery? Why? the property custodian is still liable for direct bribery because the mere concurrence of offer and acceptance consummates the crime of bribery. Suppose the property custodian gave the firearm to A soon after he received the money from A. How many crimes were committed by the public officer? Why? Two, direct bribery and malversation. There was malversation because he took public property that was entrusted to him. The RPC provides that the penalty for direct bribery shall be in addition to the penalty corresponding to the crime agreed upon, if the same shall be have been committed. A was granted conditional pardon after four years of the six years of imprisonment imposed on him by the court. The condition was that he should not commit any crime in the future. One year after, he was accused and found guilty of concealing a deadly weapon punishable under a special law and was sentenced to pay a fine. By order of the President, A was reincarcerated and required to serve the unexpired portion of his sentence of six years. A filed a petition for habeas corpus claiming and contending that he was illegally detained, because he was never prosecuted and tried for violation of the conditional pardon under Art. 159. Will his petition prosper? Why?

The petition will not prosper because, according to the Revised Administrative Code, the President may order the arrest and reincarceration of the person who violated the conditions of the pardon without previous judicial trial. It is not necessary to prosecute him and try him under Art. 159 of the RPC. A entered the house of B for the purpose of stealing some personal property inside. When he was about to enter the room of the house of B, A saw B inside the room cleaning his pistol. A hid himself on the other side of the wall of the room, waiting for B to leave the room. While cleaning the gun, B happened to touch the trigger thereof causing it to explode and a slug was fired to the direction of the wall where A was hiding. During the investigation made by the police, it appeared that B had no license to possess the firearm. What is the criminal liability of B, if any? Explain your answer. B is not criminally liable because a person is not criminally liable for the death or injuries caused by his reckless or negligent acts to trespassers whose presence in the premises he is not aware of. Note: Ask Ana. What about illegal possession of firearm? Alternative Answer: B is liable for simple i llegal possession of firearm only because PD 1866, as amended by 8294, provides that it shall be unlawful for any person who shall possess any low powered firearm without a license, provided no other crime was committed. In this case, there was no crime committed by B because a person is not criminally liable for the death or injuries caused by his reckless or negligent acts to trespassers whose presence in the premises he is not aware of. What about reckless imprudence resulting to homicide?

What is reckless imprudence? Reckless imprudence consists in voluntarily, but without malice, doing or failing to do an act, from which material damage results by reason of



DLSU LAW

inexcusable lack of precaution on the part of the person doing or failing to do the act.

commence the commission of the felony directly by overt act. From the facts, it was still unclear why A tried to immobilize B.

What is simple imprudence?

Alternative Answer 2: The charge will prosper because A failed to perform all acts of execution which should produce the felony because of a cause other than his own spontaenous desistance. In this case, B managed to free herself and run away because of her own actions.

Simple imprudence consists in the lack of precaution as can be shown on those cases in which the damage impending to be caused is not immediate nor the danger clearly manifest. A was prosecuted for murder. After reception of prosecution of evidence, the defense moved to dismiss the case for failure of the prosecution to present proof of motive against the accused. Rule on the motion to dismiss filed by the defense. I shall deny the motion to dismiss because, as a rule, motive is not an essential element of a felony unless the identity of the accused is in question. In this case, it is not. Therefore, motive need not be proven by the prosecution. A fired at B several times with his handgun. Due to poor aim, and agility of B, the latter only sustained a wound on the left arm that was not sufficient to cause his death. What crime was committed by A? Explain. A committed attempted homicide. His intent to kill is derived from the fact that he fired at B several times with his handgun. However, A did not perform all the acts of execution which would produce the felony of homicide as he failed to inflict a mortal wound sufficient to cause B’s death. A pressed on B’s face a piece of cloth soaked in chemical which would induce her to sleep while holding her body tightly under weight of his own. B, however, managed to free herself and ran away. A was prosecuted for attempted rape. Will the charge against A prosper? No, the charge will not prosper. A failed to perform all acts of execution which should produce the felony because B managed to free herself and ran away, a cause other than A’s own spontaenous desistance. Alternative Answer 1: The charge will not prosper because A did not commit any overt act showing he intended to have carnal knowledge with B. The offender must

Article 10 of the RPC provides for the suppletory application of its provisions to special laws. May subsidiary imprisonment be imposed in convictions for violation of BP 22? Yes, according to SC Administrative Circular No. 13-2001, if the accused is unable to pay the fine imposed by the trial court, “there is no legal obstacle to the application of the Revised Penal Code provisions on subsidiary imprisonment.” A had a shouting match with B. A then drew a fan knife from his pocket. B reacted by drawing his revolver and firing once at A who was injured. When charged, B invoked self-defense. Rule on B’s claim of self-defense. B’s claim of self-defense must fail because the element of unlawful aggression is absent. There was no unlawful aggression because there was no offensive act positively determining the intent of the aggressor to cause an injury. The mere waving of a knife does not constitute unlawful aggression. A discovered his wife B to be no longer a virgin during their honeymoon. Since then, A would routinely subject B to verbal and physical abuse. One day, B feeling she had enough of A’s maltreatment, took a kitchen knife and stabbed A while the latter was sleeping. Is B criminally liable for the death of A? Explain. B is not criminally liable because she is suffering from battered woman syndrome. Under RA 9262, those found to be suffering from battered woman syndrome do not incur criminal liability notwithstanding the absence of any of the elements of self-defense, specifically unlawful aggression. Here, B is a battered woman because she was routinely subjected to forceful physical and psychological behaviour by her husband.



DLSU LAW

Note: Ask Ana. Alternative Answer 1: B is not criminally liable if she can prove to be suffering suffering from battered women syndrome. If the cycle of violence can be proven to have occurred twice, she will not incur criminal liability notwithstanding the absence of any of the elements of self-defense, specifically unlawful aggression. Here, B is a battered woman because she was routinely subjected to forceful physical and psychological behaviour by her husband. A, a minor over 15 but below 18 years old, is one of the brightest in her class in school. One day, she was arrested for prostitution. Will the charge against A prosper? Explain. No, because RA 9344 provides that children shall be exempt from prosecution of prostitution. In this case, A is a child in conflict with the law because she is under 18 years old. A, the town mayor, detained B on suspicion of being a thief but was released after half an hour. What crime, if any, did A commit? Explain.

None. They cannot be liable for illegal assembly as the crime requires that the persons present at the meeting must be armed. Here, they are simply going to conspire to commit a violation for anti-cattle rustling act and such is not punishable. A, while being placed under arrest by a policeman for intoxication and unruly behavior in a public place, pulled his unlicensed pistol and struck the policeman on the head which caused him to fall on the ground. A was subdued thereafter by some civilians who witnessed the incident. To what crime or crimes would A be held liable for? Explain. A committed the crime of direct assault because a person in authority was attacked on occasion of such performance of official duty. Here, the policeman was conducting an arrest. If serious or less serious physical injuries were incurred by the policeman, the crime would be the complex crime of direct assault with serious or less serious physical injuries, as the case may be. If only slight physical injuries were sustained, the slight physical injuries would be absorbed in direct assault.

A committed arbitrary detention because he, as a public officer, detained B on mere suspicion and without reasonable ground. The fact that he was released after half an hour is immaterial because the law does not fix any minimum period of detention. In US v. Braganza, public officers were convicted of arbitrary detention even if the offended party was detained for less than half an hour.

There can be no violation of illegal possession of unlicensed firearm because such will only be punished provided no other crime was committed.

If there is absent actual physical restraint, would the offender still be liable for arbitrary detention? Explain.

A charge of falsification will not prosper because, according to People v. Sendaydiego, the rule is that if a person had in his possession a falsified document and he made use of it taking advantage of it and profiting thereby, a presumption arise that he is the author. Here, no such presumption arises because A only found the forged deed of sale and did not use of it.

Yes, the offender will still be liable. Even if the persons d etained could move freely, if their movement is restrained by presence of guards or armed men and they could not escape for fear of being apprehended or harmed, there is still arbitrary detention. What crime was committed by a group of 40 persons who gathered in a meeting for the purpose of committing cattle rustling in a nearby ranch? Explain.

A was found in possession of a forged deed of sale of parcel of land. No direct evidence of the authorship of the forgery could be secured. Will a charge of falsification against A prosper? Explain.

A brought a ring to sell to C. C liked the ring but because C was in a hurry to catch a plane for Cebu, C told A to leave the ring to her husband and return after two days. When A returned to B’s house, the latter was issued a currently dated check as payment. When A deposited B’s check, the



DLSU LAW

same was dishonored for DAIF (drawn against insufficient funds). To what crime or crimes, if any, would B be liable? Explain. B will be liable for violation of BP 22 only. BP 22 punishes the issuance of a check that is subsequently dishonoured if it was issued in payment of a preexisting obligation. In this case, the obligation was contracted prior to the issuance of the check. A’s dead body was discovered in his house that was burned down. B, the lone witness, saw X set on fir e A’s house. What crime or crimes, if any, did X commit? X committed only simple arson because he set A’s house on fire. PD 1613 provides that if by reason or on occasion of arson, death results, crime of homicide is absorbed. Therefore, there is no complex crime of arson with homicide. A obtained a divorce under the Mohammedan custom and later contracted a second marriage. The first husband sued A for bigamy. A raised the defense of mistake of fact as she honestly believed that she was already free to do so by virtue of the decree of div orce. Is A’s defense tenable? Explain. No, A’s defense is untenable because according to People v. Bitdu, a divorce cannot be had except in that court upon which the State has conferred jurisdiction, and then only for those causes and with those formalities which the state has by statute prescribed. Under the Code of Muslim Personal Laws, it is the Shari’a Court that must decree the divorce. A’s application for leave monetization was disapproved by his superiors. Displeased and angered by his superior’s disapproval, A pointed a dirty finger on the latter. What crime, if any, did A commit? Explain. A committed simple slander by deed. Appearing from the facts that act was employed by A to express anger and displeasure at his superiors for the disapproval of his leave monetization, the act of pointing a dirty finger constitutes simple slander by deed.

A, a thief surreptitiously entered the house of B. While inside the house, A saw B cleaning his pistol, A hid himself on the side of the wall of the room waiting for B to leave. B, while cleaning the loaded gun, accidentally pulled the trigger. The slug hit the wall where A was hiding. A died from the gunshot wound. During the police investigation, it appeared that B had no license to possess the firearm. What crime or crimes, if any, did A commit? Explain. A committed trespass to dwelling because A, a private person entered the dwelling of B against the latter’s will. Note: Compared to the 2009-2010 exam, what is being asked here is the criminal liability of the one who entered the house not the person who accidentally fired the gun. A, without detriment to himself, failed to render assistance to B whom he found in an uninhabited place wounded and in danger of dying. B, as a result, died. To what crime, if any, would A be liable? Explain. A will be liable for homicide by abandonment. Art. 275 (abandonment of persons in danger) as the Article punishes any person who abandons one who is wounded or in danger of death in an uninhabited place “unless such omission shall constitute a more serious offense.” Regalado opines that deliberate abandonment is an act of commission, not of omission. Thus, if the hapless person dies, homicide is committed by abandonment. A, a clerk of court, removed from the records of a pending case two P1,000.00-bills and misappropriated it. What crime did A commit? Explain. A committed infidelity of custody of documents. When money bills are attached to the records as exhibits and removed therefrom by a clerk of court and misappropriated by him, the crime is infidelity of custody of documents because the money bills, while still used as exhibits, are considered documents or papers. If the case is terminated and the money bills are still kept and the clerk of court misappropriated them, the crime is malversation because the money bills are in the nature of trust funds of the government. What are the corrupt practices of public officers declared unlawful under RA 3019, the Anti Graft and Corrupt Practices Act?



DLSU LAW

They are as follows: 1)

2)

3)

4)

5) 6)

7) 8)

9)

10) 11)

Persuading , inducing or influencing another public officer to perform an act constituting a violation of rules and regulations or an offense in connection with the official duties of the latter; Directly or indirectly requesting or receiving any gift in connection with any contract or transaction between the government and any other party wherein the public officer in his official capacity has to intervene; Directly or indirectly requesting or receiving any gift from any person for having secured or obtained or to secure and obtain any government permit or license; Accepting or having any member of his family accept employment in a private enterprise which has pending official business with him during the pendency thereof or within 1 year from termination; Causing any undue injury to any party or giving any private party any unwarranted benefits; Neglecting or refusing , after due demand, without sufficient justification, to act within reasonable time any matter pending before him for the purpose of obtaining some pecuniary or material benefit or favoring his own interest or that of others; Entering on behalf of the government into any contract or transaction manifestly and grossly disadvantageous to the same; Directly or indirectly having financial or pecuniary interest in any business in connection with which he intervenes or takes part in his official capacity; Directly or indirectly becoming interested , for personal gain, in any transaction or act requiring the approval of a board of which he is a member; Knowingly approving or granting any license in favor of any person not qualified or not legally entitled; and Divulging valuable [and confidential] information acquired by his office or by him on account of his official position. END


crimlawrevsamplexdvi

Recommend Documents