I. (10%) What are the penalties that may be served simultaneously?

ANSWER: The penalties that may be simultaneously served are: (1) perpetual absolute disqualification, (2) perpetual special disqualification, (3) temporary absolute disqualification, (4) temporary special disqualification, (5) suspension, (6) destierro, (7) public censure, (8) fine and bond to keep the peace, (9) civil interdiction, and (10) confiscation and payment of costs. II. (10%) Tiburcio asked Anastacio to join their group for a "session". Thinking that it was for a mahjong session, Anastacio agreed. Upon reaching Tiburcio?s house, Anastacio discovered that it was actually a shabu session. At that precise time, the place was raided by the police, and Anastacio was among those arrested. What crime can Anastacio be charged with, if any? Explain your answer. ANSWER: Anastacio can be charged with no crime for his acts. In fact, his acts are not even covered by Comprehensive Dangerous Act of 2002, which penalizes any person who shall knowingly visit a place where dangerous drugs is used in any form and he is aware of the place as such, because the elements of this crime are not shown in the case at bar. Hence, in the absence of the aforementioned elements he cannot be charged with violation of Comprehensive Dangerous Act of 2002. To hold otherwise would make it unlawful for any person who visits a house not knowing it is being used as a place for drug activities. That would be unfair, illogical and not serve the ends of the law. (I assume that Anastacio underwent an investigation and he posited that he misapprehended the purpose of the invitation of Tiburcio and the former was not aware that the latters house was being used as a den for shabu session.)

III. (10%) Jervis and Marlon asked their friend, Jonathan, to help them rob a bank. Jervis and Marlon went inside the bank, but were unable to get any money from the vault because the same was protected by a time-delay mechanism. They contented themselves with the customer?s cellphones and a total of P5,000 in cash. After they dashed out of the bank and rushed into the car, Jonathan pulled the car out of the curb, hitting a pedestrian which resulted in the latter?s death. What crime or crimes did Jervis, Marlon and Jonathan commit? Explain your answer. ANSWER: Jervis, Marlon and Jonathan committed a special complex crime of robbery with homicide. It is robbery with homicide because the original design of the three malefactors was robbery and the homicide occurred during the robbery. Settled is the rule that the crime is still robbery with homicide if the person killed was an innocent bystander and not the person robbed and even if the death was supervened by mere accident. Jervis and Marlon cannot claim that it was Jonathan who ran over and killed the pedestrian and therefore they are not liable for robbery with homicide because it is well entrenched in our jurisprudence that when a homicide takes place as a consequence of or on occasion of robbery, all those who took part in the robbery are guilty as principals in the special complex crime of robbery with homicide, even if they did not actually participate in the homicide. IV. (10%) Macky, a security guard, arrived home late one night after rendering overtime. He was shocked to see Joy, his wife, and Ken, his best friend, in the act of having sexual intercourse. Macky pulled out his service gun and shot and killed Ken. The court found that Ken died under exceptional circumtances and

exonerated Macky of murder but sentenced him to destierro, conformably with Article 247 of the Revised Penal Code. The court also ordered Macky to pay indemnity to the heirs of the victim in the amount of P50,000. a. Did the court correctly order Macky to pay indemnity even though he was exonerated of murder? Explain your answer. b. While serving his sentenced, Macky entered the prohibited area and had a pot session with Ivy (Joy?s sister). Is Macky entitled to an indeterminate sentence in case he is found guilty of the use of prohibited substances? Explain your answer. ANWER: a) Yes, the court is correct. Macky was exonerated of murder because of the benefit granted to him by law under Art. 247 of the Revised Penal Code, which is an absolutory cause or exempting circumstances. As a rule, exemption from criminal liability by reason of an exempting circumstances does not include exemption from civil liability. There are only two circumstances which are allowed as exceptions to this rule, they are : 1) injury caused by mere accident , and 2) failure to perform an act required by law when prevented by some lawful or insuperable cause. The case at bar shows that the act committed by Macky is not one of these circumstances. Therefore, he is not exempt from payment of indemnity although exempt from criminal liability. b) It depends. The case at bar does not show whether Mackys drug offense is his first or second offense. These are important to the determination of whether Macky is entitled to indeterminate sentence. In case Macky is found guilty of the use of prohibited substances for the first time, which carries a penalty of rehabilitation in government center, he is not entitled to indeterminate sentence because the lndeterminate Sentence Law requires that the penalty as ultimately resolved will be imprisonment as to set indeterminate sentence into operation. In other words, the Inderterminate Sentence Law

contemplates of imprisonment, and not of rehabilitation, as penalty. On the other hand, in case Macky is found guilty of the use of prohibited substances for the second time, for which a penalty of imprisonment is imposed by Comprehensive Dangerous Drug Act of 2002, he is entitled to indeterminate sentence because drug offenses are not included in the exceptions to the application of Indeterminate Sentence Law, provided that following conditions concur : 1) the penalty to be imposed does not involve reclusion perpetua. 2) the penalty as ultimately resolved will exceed one year of imprisonment V. (10%) a. Distinguish between an accomplice and a conspirator. b. What are the three (3) classes of offender in the crime of qualified seduction? Give an example of each. ANSWER: a) An accomplice is one who knew the criminal design of the principal and knowingly or intentionally participated therewith by an act which even if not rendered, the crime would be committed just the same; a conspirator is one who enters into an agreement with one or more person to commit a crime and decide to commit it. b) The three classes of offender in the crime of qualified seduction are : 1. Those of abuse their authority (ex. teacher) 2. Those who abuse the confidence reposed in them (ex. priest) 3. Those who abuse their relationship (ex. brother who seduced his sister) VI. (10%) What are the different acts of inciting to sedition? ANSWER:

1. Inciting others to the accomplishment of any of the acts which constitute sedition by means of speeches, proclamations, writings, emblems etc; 2. Uttering seditious words or speeches which tend to disturb the public peace; 3. Writing, publishing, or circulating scurrilous libels against the government or any of the duly constituted authorities thereof, which tend to disturb the public peace, or 4. Knowingly concealing such evil practice VII. (10%) Eddie brought his son Randy to a local faithhealer known as "Mother Himala." He was diagnosed by the faithhealer as being possessed by an evil spirit. Eddie thereupon authorized the conduct of a "treatment" calculated to drive the spirit from the boy?s body. Unfortunately, the procedure conducted resulted in the boy?s death. The faithhealer and tree others who were part of the healing ritual were charged with murder and convicted by the lower court. If you are appellate court Justice, would you sustain the conviction upon appeal? Explain your answer. ANSWER: No, I would not sustain the conviction of the lower court. In the case at bar, it must be observed that the treatment performed over the victim was consented to by Eddie, the boys father. With the permission of Eddie, the faithhealer and three others proceeded to subject the boy to a treatment calculated to drive the bad spirit from the boys body. Unfortunately, the treatment resulted in the death of the boy. Thus, the accused-appellants had no criminal intent to kill the boy. Their liability arises from reckless imprudence because they ought that to know their actions would not bring about the cure. Moreover, the elements of reckless imprudence are evident in the acts done by accused-appellants which consists in voluntarily, but without malice, doing or failing to do an act from which material damage results by reason of

inexcusable lack of precaution on the part of the person performing such act. The facts show the accused-appellants lack medical skill in treating the boys alleged ailment and none of whom is a medical practitioner. They are, therefore, guilty of reckless imprudence resulting in homicide and NOT of murder.

VIII (10%) Fe is the manager of a rice mill in Bulacan. In order to support a gambling debt, Fe made it appear that the rice mill was earning less than it actually was by writing in a "talaan" or ledger a figure lower than what was collected and paid by their customers. Fe then pocketed the difference. What crime/s did Fe commit, If any? Explain your answer. ANSWER: Fe committed a complex crime of qualified theft through falsification of commercial document. It is qualified theft because the facts of the case show that Fe took a personal property belonging to the rice mill owner without the latters consent; she did it with intent to gain (she pocketed the money and used it to support her gambling debt); she accomplished the crime without the use of violence against or intimidation of persons or force upon things; and she committed the theft with grave abuse of confidence, which qualified the crime of theft. The fact that she as manager had custody of the ledger and had access in the preparation of financial report suffices to designate the crime as qualified theft as she gravely abused the confidence reposed in her by the rice mill owner. The crime of qualified theft was complexed with the falsification of commercial document because the latter crime was a necessary means to commit the crime of qualified theft. There was an evident falsification of commercial document since Fe, a private individual, made an untruthful financial statement in the ledger (a private document) IX. (10%)

During a concert of Gary V. and in order to prevent the crowd from rushing to the stage, Rafael Padilla {a security guard} pointed his gun at the onrush of people. When the crowd still pushed forward, Rafael fired his gun into air to scare them off. However, the bullet hit one of the metal roof supports, ricocheted and then hit one of the stage crew members, causing injuries which resulted in the latter?s confinement in a hospital for twelve days. What crime/s did Rafael commit? Explain your answer. ANSWER: reckless imprudence resulting to less serious physical injuries. I was tempted to answer illegal discharge of firearm and have it complexed but I refrained since his discharge of firearm was lawful and that is to warn the crowd and prevent them from rushing to the stage but he lacked the necessary care in disregarding that the bullet might ricochet and hit the people. X. (10%) Pinky was a lessee of a market stall owned by Giovanni. When Pinky refused to pay her rental, Giovanni nailed some wooden barricades on one of the sides of the market stall and posted this warning: "We have closed this portion of the door. Do not open it or else something may happen to you." What crime/s did Giovanni commit, if any? Explain your answer. ANSWER: this is an old CA case, p vs. banzon 66 OG 10533, quoted in the reyes text book under light coercion. the act of the accused is not such a serious threat amounting to coercion but merely the crime of unjust vexation.