Suggested Answers for the 2008 Bar Examinations Criminal Law

NOTA BENE: Brods, these are merely suggested answers found in different internet sites, lecture notes, and bar review materials. Please make the necessary cross and counter checking. Alta Pete, Brods and Good luck!

I a) After due hearing on a petition for a writ of amparo founded on the acts of enforced disappearance and extralegal killing of the son of the complainant allegedly done by the respondent military officers, the court granted the petition. May the military officers be criminally charged in court with enforced disappearance and extralegal killing? Explain fully. (3%) b) Are human rights violations considered as crimes in the Philippines? Explain. (3%)
Suggested Answer: a. Yes. But the designation of the acts should be the proper denominations as prescribed under the RPC or other special penal laws. The validity of a criminal information is not the technical designation in the RPC but the allegations that contain the elements of a felony. In this case, there is no such crime as enforced disappearances or extra-legal killing but could constitutte murder, homicide, kidnapping or arbitrary detention. b. No. Not all violations of human rights are considered as crime in the Philippines. Only those human rights violations which are clearly defined and punished by penal laws of the Philippines can be considered as crimes.

Alternative Answer for (a): No. The question is MAY the military officers be CRIMINALLY CHARGED in court. The state, through legislature, defines crimes, treats of their punishment and provide for their penalty. Enforced disappearance and extralegal killing has not yet been defined by law. It is not a crime.

II While Carlos was approaching his car, he saw it being driven away by Paolo, a thief. Carlos tried to stop Paolo by shouting at him, but Paolo ignored him. To prevent his car from being carnapped, Carlos drew his gun, aimed at the rear wheel of the car and fired. The shot blew the tire which caused the car to veer out of control and collide with an oncoming tricycle, killing the tricycle driver. a) What is the criminal liability of Carlos, if any? Explain. (4%) b) What is the criminal liability of Paolo, if any? Explain. (4%)
Suggested Answer: a. Carlos has no criminal liability for a simple reason that Carlos was not committing a felony when he caused the death of the tricycle driver. The rule is that a person is criminally liable if a wrongful act which is not intended is a consequence of his felonious act. It is obvious that Carlos’s shooting at the rear wheel of his car, which is the proximate cause of the killing of the tricycle driver, is not a felonious act as the law allows a person to use necessary force to retain what belongs to him. The anti-carnapping law particularly deals with the theft and robbery of motor vehicles. Hence a motor vehicle is said to have been carnapped when it has been taken, with intent to gain, without the owner's consent, whether the taking was done with or without the use of force upon things. It is clear that Paolo has committed and is criminally liable for

b.

By the Gentlemen of the Parthian Order of Law

that is. The absence of an intent to kill (animus occidendi or animus necandi) negated murder which is defined as the intentional killing of another person qualified by certain circumstances (treachery. the information for murder filed against the pharmacist was not proper. Is the charge proper? If not. One hour later. Considering the nature of his work as a pharmacist. while the pharmacist could not be properly charged with the intentional felonies of murder or homicide. albeit without malice or criminal intent. Proximate cause is “that cause. and the pharmacist sold him three (3) tablets. He did not give the wrong pill on purpose. or of an earthquake. shipwreck. his inexcusable lack of precaution was the proximate cause of the death of Olimpio when the latter (Olimpio) took the pill that the pharmacist voluntarily. Nonetheless.” The giving of the wrong pill was the proximate cause of Olimpio’s taking it when he mistook it for paracetamol thereby causing his death. murder requires that the circumstance that qualifies the killing be deliberately resorted to effect the killing. the suggested answer is more plausible compared to the alternative. with cruelty. in natural and continuous sequence. unbroken by any efficient intervening cause. fall of an airship. 2002) Alternative Answer: a. derailment or assault upon a street car or locomotive. or promise. explosion. NOTA BENE: In my opinion. I remember that my Criminal Law Review Professor. he/she could still be held liable for the death of Olimpio under the charge of reckless imprudence resulting to homicide. brods. (People v. by means of motor vehicles. Here. the circumstance that may be arguably be used to argue for murder is the use of poison. Hence. Carlos is criminally liable. poison. on occasion of any of the calamities enumerated in the preceding paragraph. with intent to gain. the car of Carlos without the latter’s consent. Olimpio went to a drug store with the prescription. stranding of a vessel. either with criminal intent or thru negligence. epidemic or other public calamity. Lobitania. produces the injury. or with the use of any other means involving great waste and ruin. fire. His doctor prescribed paracetamol. a felony is committed either by dolo or by culpa. in consideration of a price. what should it be? Explain. the pharmacist did not intend to kill Olimpio when he (the pharmacist) handed the said pill to the deceased. Just my two cents. The autopsy showed that the tablet he had taken was not paracetamol but a pill to which he was allergic. (6%) Suggested Answer: No. employing means to weaken the defense or of means or persons to insure or afford impunity. III Olimpio caught a cold and was running a fever. eruption of a volcano. taking advantage of superior strength. which.he is therefore liable for the consequences of his act. and without which the result would not have occurred. by means of inundation. he had a seizure and died. the pharmacist gave the wrong pill to Olimpio without any knowledge that it will result to a fatal allergic reaction. Upon arriving home. aid of armed men. Atty. Qualified theft.Reason: proximate cause and the means he used to protect his property is out of proportion and unreasonable constituting imprudence. While Olimpio died as a result of taking a pill that was mistakenly sold to him by the pharmacist. or outraging or scoffing at his person or corpse) which killing does not constitute infanticide or parricide. Chief City Fiscal of Manila. he took a tablet. there being no force or violence employed in the taking of the motor vehicle. The pharmacist was charged with murder. Nelson Salva. b. gave him. There is no contributory negligence on the part of Olimpio that could have served as an efficient intervening cause as he could reasonably expect the pharmacist to give him the correct medication because he even showed the pharmacist the doctor’s prescription. by deliberately and inhumanly augmenting the suffering of the victim. reward. However. destructive cyclone. El que es causa de la By the Gentlemen of the Parthian Order of Law .Suggested Answers for the 2008 Bar Examinations Criminal Law the crime of carnapping having taken. with evident premeditation. Moreover. discussed this bar question in the same light.

Clearly. As his gun was used in the killing. concealed.D. V Eman. or facilitating the escape of any person he knows or has reasonable ground to believe or suspect. In the investigation Eman proposed to PO1 Melvin. citing United States v. No. Art. At the precinct PO1 Melvin attended to him. (3%) Suggested Answer: a. in the case at bar. IV Manolo revealed to his friend Domeng his desire to kill Cece. he harbored. Domeng lent it. b. (3%) b) What is the criminal liability of PO1 Melvin. It is submitted that Eman is liable for the crime of corruption of public By the Gentlemen of the Parthian Order of Law . and my personal notes during our discussions about this problem in Criminal Law Review class. or is known to be habitually guilty of some other crime. 456) NOTA BENE: Sorry for the lengthy answer. he only helped an accomplice not the principal. No. or an attempt to take the life of the Chief Executive. if any? Explain. Mayor Tan can be charged under P. Manolo shot Cece in Manila with Domeng’s revolver. he went to the nearest police station to seek help in finding the owner of the bag. brods. murder. Mayor Tan cannot be liable as an accesory to Ceces' murder. Knowing that it was not his. found a bag containing identification cards and a diamond ring along Roxas Blvd.Suggested Answers for the 2008 Bar Examinations Criminal Law causa es causa del mal causado. a) What is the criminal liability of Eman.” PO1 Melvin then went straight to the pawnshop and pawned the ring for P50. Domeng asked Mayor Tan to help him escape. PD 1829 penalizes the act of harboring or concealing. In the case at bar. has committed any offense under existing penal laws in order to prevent his arrest. provided the accessory acts with abuse of his public functions or whenever the author of the crime is guilty of treason. (3%) Suggested Answer: a. (Mercury Drug Corporation v. G. Eman never saw PO1 Melvin again.000. The mayor was later charged as an accessory to Cece’s murder. 37 Phil. He is simply an offender without regard to the crime committed by the person assisted to escape and he is penalized as a principal. if any? Explain. (4%) b) Can he be held liable for any other offense? Explain fully. 165622. 1829. prosecution and conviction. a) Can he be held liable for the charge? Explain.000 and told him to proceed to Mindanao to hide. Under this special law. De Leon. 17 October 2008. The mayor gave Domeng P5. 19 of RPC provides that in order that Mayor Tan can be charged as an accesory. This is an extensive answer based on the 2008 San Beda Memory Aid in Criminal Law.R. “in case you don’t find the owner let’s just pawn the ring and split the proceeds fifty-fifty (50/50). Domeng went to Mindanao. or assisted in the escape of the principal of the crime. there is no specification of the crime to be committed by the offender for criminal liability to be incurred and the offender is no longer an accessory. a vagrant. parricide. He likewise confided to Domeng his desire to borrow his revolver. the special law on Obstruction of Justice. Pineda. Eman made offer to Melvin to pawn the ring and split the proceeds equally in case the owner is not found and the latter consented to the offer.

111535. our courts cannot prosecute the case since it outside our territorial jurisdiction. L-1895. Article 212 of the Revised Penal Code punishes the act of offering. misappropriation and conversion. Dodong. VII The inter-island vessel M/V Viva Lines I. Penal laws of the Philippines are only enforceable within its territory. he is a finder in law. And since Eman deliver the property to the local authorities the same became in custodia legis. Eunice. While anchored in said harbor. Ng Pek. And since P01 Melvin became the custodian thereof by reason of the duties of his office. He assumes. (4%) b) If Eunice gave her consent to the second marriage. (3%) Suggested Answer: a. b. Under the law. the former aquires both physical and juridical possession. No. b. (People v. As the crime of bigamy in the facts provided was committed in New York. fired a bazooka at the bow of the vessel.Suggested Answers for the 2008 Bar Examinations Criminal Law officials. the case will not prosper.R. (People v.R. took advantage of the confusion to settle By the Gentlemen of the Parthian Order of Law . boarded it and divested the passengers of their money and jewelry. for which he is accountable and by appropriating the same he became liable. shall fail to deliver the same to the local authorities or to its owner will be held liable for theft. materially and juridically. by the overt act of pawning. heard about the marriage and secured a copy of the marriage contract in New York. the finder in fact. what will your answer be? Explain. No. with abuse of confidence. A passenger of M/V Viva Lines I. Furtive taking and misappropriation of the property found is the gist of this offense. having found lost property. Campos. No. Eunice filed a case of bigamy against Hubert in the Philippines. G. They renewed their friendship and finally decided to get married. 2 October 1948.19 July 2001)  VI Hubert and Eunice were married in the Philippines. a) Will the case prosper? Explain. The first wife. Alternative Answers for (b):  PO1 Melvin can be held liable for Malversation of public funds or property. Max. Dean Ortega Notes on Criminal Law 2008) P01 Melvin is liable for Estafa. Thus. and that he has a good right to possesion. which gives the transferee or custodian a right over the thing which he may set up even against the true owner. promising. while cruising off Batanes. G. Noveno. again based on the principle of territoriality of crimes and criminal jurisdiction. Baldo and Bogart arrived in a speedboat. the pawner (PO1 Melvin) enters into an implied agreement or warranty that he is the owner of the property pawned. Conversely. was forced to seek shelter at the harbor of Kaoshiung. as to both property and its owner. or the finder (Eman). The moment PO1 Melvin receives in custody or in trust of the lost property(ring) from Eman the (Finder). People v. Hubert took graduate studies in New York and met his former girlfriend Eula. a depositary who receives the thing or property under the obligation involving the duty to make the delivery of the lost property (ring) or to return (the same to the real owner) pledges or pawns such property and uses it for disticnt purpose and accordingly commits estafa by conversion. My answer would be the same. any person who. Melvin is liable for the crime of theft because although he is not a finder in fact. Taiwan because of a strong typhoon. the place occupied by Eman. or giving gifts or presents to a public officer which would make the same (public officer) liable for direct bribery or indirect bribery. by voluntary substitution.

One of the elements of qualified piracy is the offender must be a stranger to the vessel. Lol-lo and Saraw 43 Phil.122 and 123 of the Revised Penal Code. Notes and Cases on RPC. 480 and 482). B. having been committed on board a Philippine registered vessel – an exception to the territorial application of penal laws. a) Was the charge of qualified piracy against the three persons (Max.532. Intent to kill is conclusively presumed when death resulted. Baldo and Bogart) who boarded the inter-island vessel correct? Explain. 15th ed. 19 (1922).. boarded it and divested the passengers of their money and jewelry while the vessel was anchored at harbor of Kaoshiung. NOTA BENE: An interesting discussion of Euthanasia and/or Mercy-killing is found in the books of Boado (Boado. p. The crime committed by Dodong is murder which is triable before Philippine court. Absent the qualifying circumstance of seizure of the vessel. NOTA BENE: Brods. The facts of the case at bar do not indicate the seizure of the vessel by the perpetrators. and People v. the perpetrators cannot be charged with qualified piracy. Francis survived. It is submitted that the perpetrators only committed a crime of simple piracy which. Alternative Answer: Francis is liable of homicide for the death of Joan. The agreement was to shoot each other in the head which they did. as discussed and quoted in my classmate’s notes during our Criminal Law Review class.No. Art. the discussion on this topic can be found in the book of Justice Sandoval.Suggested Answers for the 2008 Bar Examinations Criminal Law an old grudge with another passenger.D. 614) and Reyes (Revised Penal Code. (3%) Suggested Answer: a. but their parents had objected to their relationship because they were first cousins. 2001. The presence of intent to kill and the absence of any justifying circumstance and qualifying circumstances of murder in the killing of Joan are constitutive elements of the crime of homicide. NOTA BENE: Suggested answer is based on Arts. They forged a pact in writing to commit suicide. (4%) b) Was Dodong correctly charged before the Philippine court for qualified piracy? Explain. Dodong cannot be held liable for qualified piracy. Reyes. VIII Francis and Joan were sweethearts. Is Francis criminally liable for the death of Joan? Explain. Joan died. and killed him. is triable before the Philippine court. This was the very same answer we discussed during our Criminal Law Review class. pp. After their apprehension. It is clear that Dodong is only a passenger of the vessel attacked by the pirates. It cannot be said that Francis committed a crime of giving assistance to suicide because the article under the RPC defining this crime contemplates of euthanasia where the victim is suffering from terminal illness. P. being a crime against the law of nations and thus an exception to the rule on territoriality in criminal law. b. By the Gentlemen of the Parthian Order of Law . Taiwan. The charge is not correct. 253 of the RPC punishes the act of lending assistance to another to commit suicide to the extent of doing the killing himself. L. all four were charged with qualified piracy before a Philippine court. Due to medical assistance. Book II.. 2004 ed. (5%) Suggested Answer: Yes. All they did was fired a bazooka at the bow of the vessel. Francis is criminally liable for giving assistance to suicide.

although a public officer. Gabriel falsified a private document (the demand letter). brods. In the case at bar. No. the son of Dennis. In the theft of mail matter. the mail carrier forged the signatures of the payees on the money orders and encashed them. Gabriel cannot invoke the absolutory cause of relationship under Article 332 of the RPC because that provision covers only the crimes of theft. Gabriel committed the crime of swindling by means of deceit. Alternative Answers: By the Gentlemen of the Parthian Order of Law . it is of no moment who the perpetrator is except where the offender be a public officer who has custody or control of the funds or property by reason of the duties of his office and he takes. the property stolen being a mail matter.000 a month. The crime committed was the complex crime of estafa thru falsification of private document committed against the father. The complex crime of estafa thru falsification or theft thru falsification is outside its coverage. Exemption from criminal liability in swindling (estafa) finds application only when the offender and offended party are relatives whose relationship is any of those in Art. X Upon opening a letter containing 17 money orders. (6%) Suggested Answer: The mail carrier committed a crime of qualified theft. it is clear that the mail carrier. as the former was the one entitled to the payment made by Myla while Myla's payment could not be said to have caused her damage as such payment in fact extinguished her obligation to pay her arrears. Myla paid the unpaid rentals to Gabriel who kept the payment. As a necessary means of deceiving Myla. The facts show Gabriel and Myla are not relatives. This crime is committed when the offender defrauded another by means of deceit and damage or prejudice capable of pecuniary estimation is caused to the offended party or third party. estafa and malicious mischief. in which case the proper offense is malversation. Just my two cents. is not an accountable public officer. a) Did Gabriel commit a crime? Explain.Suggested Answers for the 2008 Bar Examinations Criminal Law It seems that the two authorities have different views on the matter. b. Alternative Answer: a. or misappropriated the mail matter. prepared a demand letter falsely alleging that his father had authorized him to collect the unpaid rentals. Gabriel committed a crime of swindling by means of deceit. Myla failed to pay the rent for 3 months. b. (4%) b) Can Gabriel invoke his relationship with Dennis to avoid criminal liability? Explain. as observed during the discussions in our Criminal Law Review class. (3%) Suggested Answers: a. In relation to the discussion in (a). It is clear that by falsely representing to Myla that his father authorized him to collect the unpaid rentals which caused damage to Myla. appropriated. There was damage to the father. Gabriel. IX Dennis leased his apartment to Myla for P10. not to Myla. because the offended party in the case at bar is Myla not Dennis. 332 of the RPC. What crime or crimes did the mail carrier commit? Explain briefly.

who had no inkling that she was married. The marriage license was issued. (7%) Suggested Answer: Ricky has no criminal liability.g. His inaction. False testimony in other cases and perjury in solemn affirmation. (7%) Suggested Answer: Raissa comitted the following crimes: 1.  XI Ricky was reviewing for the bar exam when the commander of a vigilante group came to him and showed him a list of five policemen to be liquidated by them for graft and corruption. considering he is aspiring to be a lawyer. is not a crime under the law. Raissa declared. 1 of the RPC. if any. A person is considered as a principal by indispensable cooperation when he cooperates in the execution of the offense by another act without which the crime would not have been accomplished. Further. who is the cause of the cause is the cause of the evil caused". Villanueva.Suggested Answers for the 2008 Bar Examinations Criminal Law  When the mail carrier forged the signatures of the payees on the money orders and encashed them. Ricky pointed to two of the policemen as honest. XII Raissa and Martin are married to each other but had been separated for the last five years. the couple were married by the mayor. Raissa and Juan had their first sexual intercourse later in the evening. In due time. After going over the list. that she is single. "He.Raissa's act of having sexual intercourse with a man other than her husband is adultery. What crime or crimes. in the application. there was no overt act equivalent to a criminal offense. 172. under Art. conspiracy cannot be presumed. the latter crime having been committed to conceal the malversation (People vs.In the case at bar. 58 Phil 672). He was further asked if any of them is innocent. Raissa decided to wed Juan. Alternative Answer: Yes. Ricky is criminally liable as a principal by indispensable cooperation. notary public) relative to her marriage license application constitutes this crime. although unethical. Adultery. The commander of the vigilante group reported the liquidation to Ricky. The act of Raissa in claiming a single status in the application for marriage license is an act of falsification falling under this crime. Raissa and Juan accomplished an application for marriage license which they subscribed and swore to before the Local Civil Registrar. Later. and By the Gentlemen of the Parthian Order of Law . the vigilante group liquidated the three other policemen in the list. Is Ricky criminally liable? Explain. he committed the crimes of malversation and falsification. The act of Raissa swearing before a public officer (e. her suitor. I believe the crime committed is the complex crime of estafa (with abuse of confidence) through falsification of public documents. par. Falsification of public or official document by a private individual. 3. did Raissa commit? Explain briefly. The fact that he did not report to the police that a crime has been committed is not a crime. It is a complex crime because falsification is a necessary means to commit the crime of estafa. 2.

while Nestor and Julia were out having dinner.Suggested Answers for the 2008 Bar Examinations Criminal Law 4. or if the property stolen is motor vehicle. or any other calamity. the winning bidder. typhoon. the complex crime of bigamy thru falsification of public document. Myrna reneged on her promise. They found Julia’s jewelry box in one of the cabinets which was unlocked. By the Gentlemen of the Parthian Order of Law . It turned out that Nestor had just arrived in time to see Lucas and Pedro leaving the masters’ bedroom with the box. Eliseo failed to remit the said amount. Qualified Theft The crime of theft shall be punished by the penalties next higher by two degrees than those respectively specified in the next preceding article. the contracting of the second marriage with Martin inspite of the existence of Raissa's first marriage). XIII Lucas had been the stay-in houseboy of spouses Nestor and Julia for five years." Raissa is still married to her husband of the first marriage when she had sexual intercourse with Martin because the second marriage (being bigamous) was void ab initio. if committed by a domestic servant. or with grave abuse of confidence. (3) Any keys other than those intended by the owner for use in the lock forcibly opened by the offender. State with reasons.A. (7%) Suggested Answer: The crimes committed are: 1. Lucas believed that Julia’s jewelry was inside the box. However. However. One night. Alternative Answer: The crimes committed are: 1. (As amended by R. They were shocked when they saw Nestor in the sala. his officemate. The falsification of the application for marriage license (a public document) was a necessary means for the commission of bigamy (that is. mail matter or large cattle or consists of coconuts taken from the premises of the plantation or fish taken from a fishpond or fishery. with interest thereon. 1980). the crime or crimes.Raissa's act of contracting a second or subsequent marriage before the former marriage has been legally dissolved constitutes bigamy. Despite demands of ABC Corporation. or if property is taken on the occasion of fire. Lucas and his friend Pedro gained entry into the masters’ bedroom with the use of a false key.P. Art. False keys. May 1. — The term "false keys" shall be deemed to include: (1) The tools mentioned in the next preceding articles. 305. Gonzalo. adultery when Raissa had sexual intercourse with Martin after their "marriage. Pedro took the box and left the bedroom with Lucas. volcanic erruption. Instead of remitting the amount to the Clerk of Court as ex-officio Provincial Sheriff. Pedro complied. the representative of the corporation failed to attend the auction sale. earthquake. Unknown to Lucas and Pedro. purchased the property for P100. Bigamy. vehicular accident or civil disturbance. 120 and B. a government-owned or controlled corporation with an original charter. who promised to repay the amount within two months. XIV Eliseo. conducted the execution sale of the property of Andres to satisfy the judgment against him in favor of ABC Corporation. Lucas and Pedro committed. pointing a gun at them. the box was empty. 2. Nestor ordered them to stop and hand over the box.000 which he paid to Eliseo. 71. 2. Eliseo lent the amount to Myrna. if any. (2) Genuine keys stolen from the owner. Blg. the deputy sheriff.

The seizure of the property or fund partakes of the character of being part of the public funds it being in custodia legis. XV Roger. Roger assured. this answer is based on our discussions in Criminal Law Review class regarding this bar exam problem. b. demanded the payment by Antonio. 5. if any. Yes. Roger is a principal by inducement. 1. Antonio refused to pay the protection money. with reasons.000 a month as “protection money”. he is supposed to account for it by remitting the amount to the Clerk of Court. Manila. his business. All three of them were killed instantly when the grenade exploded. Being the leader of the syndicate it stands to reason that Roger induced Mauro to commit the crime. With the monthly payments. his wife and their three year-old daughter were sleeping. committed by Eliseo. the syndicate would provide protection to Antonio. (7%) Suggested Answer: Three counts of murder were committed by Mauro. Having taken custody of the public funds. 4. Should Antonio refuse. attendant thereto. The killing was qualified by treachery because he employed means (hurling of grenade) which tended directly and especially to ensure the execution without risk to himself arising from the defense which the victims might make.Suggested Answers for the 2008 Bar Examinations Criminal Law a) State with reasons. a member of the criminal syndicate. It is no legal consequence whether the property belongs to a private person or company. Please make the necessary cross and counter checking. Roger warned. with interest thereon.000 pesos. Superior strength Night time NOTA BENE: Brods. Days later. the motel owner would either be killed or his establishment destroyed. of P10. the owner of a motel in that area. Disregard of age of a 3-year old child The crime was committed by means of explosion The act was committed with evident premeditation. he can be liable for the crime of malversation. By the Gentlemen of the Parthian Order of Law . arrived at Antonio’s home and hurled a grenade into an open window of the bedroom where Antonio. The murder was attended by the following aggravating circumstances. (4%) b) Would your answer to the first question be the same if ABC Corporation were a private corporation? Explain. The crime committed by Eliseo is malversation because the 100. at around 3:00 in the morning. the crime or crimes. the leader of a crime syndicate in Malate. 2. For as long as the public officer is the one accountable for the fund or property that was misappropriated. the crime or crimes that had been committed as well as the aggravating circumstances. Mauro. if any. are subject to his accountability. This he did not do. It is settled that killing a person with treachery is murder even if there is no intent to kill. State. Instead he misappropriated the money by lending the same. (3%) Suggested Answer: a. 3. to his officemate Myrna. and his employees. which are public funds.