Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Bar Questions Special Penal Laws

Bar Questions Special Penal Laws

Ratings: (0)|Views: 390 |Likes:
Published by noorlight

More info:

Categories:Types, Reviews
Published by: noorlight on Nov 05, 2010
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial


Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less





Special Penal LawsAnti-Carnapping Act; Carnapping w/ Homicide (1998)Samuel, a tricycle driver, plied his usual route using a Honda motorcycle with a sidecar. Oneevening, Raul rode on the sidecar, poked a knife at Samuel and instructed him to go near the bridge. Upon reaching the bridge, Raul alighted from the motorcycle and suddenly stabbedSamuel several times until he was dead. Raul fled from the scene taking the motorcycle withhim. What crime or crimes did Raul commit? |5%]SUGGESTED ANSWER:Raul committed the composite crime of Carnapping with homicide under Sec. 14 of Rep. Act No. 6539, as amended, considering that the killing "in the course or "on the occasion of acarnapping (People vs. De la Cruz, et al. 183 SCRA 763). A motorcycle is included in thedefinition of a "motor vehicle" in said Rep. Act, also known as the 'Anti-Carnapping Act of 1972'. There is no apparent motive for the killing of the tricycle driver but for Raul to be able totake the motorcycle. The fact that the tricycle driver was killed brings about the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death.ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:The crime committed by Raul is carnapping, punished by Section 14 of Rep. Act No. 6539. Thekilling of Samuel is not a separate crime but only an aggravating circumstance.Anti-Graft & Corrupt Practices - RA 3019 (1997)A is charged with the crime defined in Section 3(e) of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Actin an Information that reads:That from 01 to 30 January 1995, in the City of Pasigand within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court,the accused, being then employed in the Office of the District Engineer, Department of PublicWorks and Highways and in the discharge of his official administrative functions, did then andthere willfully and unlawfully work for and facilitate the approval of B's claim for the paymentof the price of his land which the government had expropriated, and after the claim wasapproved, the accused gave B only P1,000.00 of the approved claim of P5,000 and willfully andunlawfully appropriated for himself the balance of P4,000, thus causing undue injury to B andthe Government."A has filed a motion to quash the information, contending that it does not charge an offense. Ishe correct?SUGGESTED ANSWER:Yes, the contention of A is correct. The information failed to allege that the undue injury to Band the government was caused by the accused's manifest partiality, evident bad faith, or grossInexcusable negligence, which are necessary elements of the offense charged, ie., violation of Section 3(e) of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. The accused is employed in the Officeof the District Engineer of the DPWH which has nothing to do with the determination and fixingof the price of the land expropriated, and for which expropriated land the Government is legallyobligated to pay. There is no allegation in the information that the land was overpriced or that the payment of the amount was disadvantageous to the Government. It appears that the charge wassolely based on the accused having followed up the payment for B's land which the Governmenthas already appropriated, and that the accused eventually withheld for himself from the price of the said land, the amount of P4,000 for his services. No violation of Section 3(e) of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Act appears. At most, the accused should be merely charged administrativelyALTERNATIVE ANSWERS:
1. Yes, A is correct in filing a motion to quash the information because Section 3(e) of RepublicAct 3019 applies only to officers and employees of government corporations charged with thegrant of licenses or permits or other concessions, and not to DPWH, which is not a governmentcorporation.2. A is not correct. In the case of Meforda vs. Sandiganbayan. 151 SCRA 399, which involves asubstantially identical information as the Information quoted in the question, the Supreme Courtheld that the Information was valid. While it is true that the information quoted In the question,failed to allege evident bad faith, gross inexcusable negligence or manifest partiality, saidInformation Is nevertheless adequate because it averred the three (3) elements for the violation of Section 3(c) of RA. 3012 when it stated (1) that the accused is a public officer at the time of thecommission of the crime, being employed in the Office of the District Engineer, DPWH; (2) thatthe accused caused undue Injury to B and the Government, with the statement that BT the owner of the land, received only P1,000.00 instead of the full value of P5,000.00; and (3) that in thedischarge of A's official administrative functions, he "did then and there willfully and unlawfullywork for and facilitate the approval of his claim xxx and "willfully and unlawfully appropriatefor himself the balance of P4,000.00 x x x". An information need not employ or use the verywords or language of the statute. It may also use words or language of similar import.Anti-Hazing law – RA 8049 (2002)What is hazing as defined by law? (2%)SUGGESTED ANSWER:Hazing, as defined by law, is an initiation rite or practice as a prerequisite for admission intomembership in a fraternity, sorority or organization by placing the recruit, neophyte or applicantin some embarrassing or humiliating situations such as forcing him to do menial, silly, foolishand similar tasks or activities or otherwise subjecting him to physical or psychological sufferingor injury.What does the law require before initiation rites may be performed? (3%)SUGGESTED ANSWER:Section 2 of Rep. Act No. 8049 (Anti-Hazing Law) requires that before hazing or initiation ritesmay be performed, notice to the school authorities or head of organizations shall be given seven(7) days before the conduct of such rites. The written notice shall indicate (a) the period of theinitiation activities, not exceeding three(3) days; (b) the names of those to be subjected to such activities, and (c) an undertaking that no physical violence shall be employed by anybody during such initiation rites.CHILD ABUSE; RA 7610 (2004)Mrs. MNA was charged of child abuse. It appears from the evidence that she failed to giveimmediately the required medical attention to her adopted child, BPO, when he was accidentally bumped by her car, resulting in his head injuries and impaired vision that could lead to night blindness. The accused, according to the social worker on the case, used to whip him when hefailed to come home on time from school. Also, to punish him for carelessness in washingdishes, she sometimes sent him to bed without supper.She moved to quash the charge on the ground that there is no evidence she maltreated her adopted child habitually. She added that the accident was caused by her driver's negligence. Shedid punish her ward for naughtiness or carelessness, but only mildly. Is her motion meritorious?Reason briefly. (5%)SUGGESTED ANSWER: No, the motion to quash is not meritorious. It is not necessary that movant's maltreatment of achild be "habitual" to constitute child abuse. The wrongful acts penalized as "Child Abuse" under 
Rep. Act No. 7610 refers to the maltreatment of the child, "whether habitual or not": this isexpressly stated in Sec. 2(b) of the said Law. Mrs. MNA should be liable for child abuse.Child Abuse; RA 7610 (2006)Eduardo Quintos, a widower for the past 10 years, felt that his retirement at the age of 70 gavehim the opportunity to engage in his favorite pastime — voyeurism. If not using his high- powered binoculars to peep at his neighbor's homes and domestic activities, his second choicewas to follow sweet young girls. One day, he trailed a teenage girl up to the LRT station atEDSA-Buendia. While ascending the stairs, he stayed one step behind her and in a moment of  bravado, placed his hand on her left hip and gently massaged it. She screamed and shouted for help. Eduardo was arrested and charged with acts of lasciviousness. Is the designation of thecrime correct? (5%)ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:The crime should be Other Acts of Child Abuse under Section 10 of RA. 7610, par. b of Section3 that refers to child abuse committed by any act, deeds or words which debases, degrades or demeans the intrinsic worth and dignity of a child as a human being. In relation thereto, Section10 provides criminal liability for other acts of child abuse, cruelty or exploitation, or for other conditions prejudicial to the child's development. The reaction of the victim, screaming for helpupon the occurrence of the touching indicates that she perceived her dignity was being debasedor violated.Dangerous Drug Act: Plea-Bargaining (2005)Obie Juan is suspected to have in his possession an unspecified amount of methamphetaminehydrochloride or “shabu”. An entrapment operation was conducted by police officers, resultingin his arrest following the discovery of 100 grams of the said dangerous drug in his possession.He was subjected to a drug test and was found positive for the use of marijuana, another dangerous drug. He was subsequently charged with two crimes: Violation of Section 11, ArticleII of RA 9165 for the possession of “shabu” and violation of Section 15, Article II of RA 9165for the use of marijuana. (5%)a) Are the charges proper? Explain.SUGGESTED ANSWER: No. The use of dangerous drugs is not committed when Obie Juan was also found to have in his possession such quantity of any dangerous drug. (See s. 11 and 16, RA. No. 9165) b) So as not to be sentenced to death, Obie Juan offers to plead guilty to a lesser offense. Can hedo so? Why?SUGGESTED ANSWER: No. Obie Juan cannot plead guilty to a lower offense as it is prohibited under the law. (Section23, RA. No. 9165) Any person charged under any provision of this Act regardless of theimposable penalty shall not be allowed to avail of the provision on plea-bargaining.Dangerous Drugs Act (1998)Superintendent Al Santiago, Chief of the Narcotics Division, Western Police District, receivedinformation that a certain Lee Lay of-No. 8 Tindalo Street, Tondo,Manila is a member of the 14K Gang selling shabu and marijuana. SPOl Lorenzo and SPO3Peralta were instructed to conduct surveillance and buy-bust operations against Lay. Their informant contacted Lay and a meeting was arranged at T. Pinpin Restaurant at2:00 in the afternoon on February 14, 1993. SPO1 Lorenzo and SPO3 Peralta, acting as poseur- buyers, purchased from Lay 10 sticks of marijuana and paid P500. Later, Lay agreed to sell tothem one kilo of dried marijuana fruiting tops which he gave them at his residence.

Activity (13)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
1 thousand reads
1 hundred reads
goldaargel liked this
Stela liked this
ristocrat liked this
ristocrat liked this
vjoucher liked this

You're Reading a Free Preview

/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->