You are on page 1of 25



TRUE or FALSE. Answer TRUE if the statement is true, or FALSE if the statement is false.
Explain your answer in not more than two (2) sentences. (5%)
[a] Amado, convicted of rape but granted an absolute pardon by the President, and one year
thereafter, convicted of homicide, is a recidivist.


True. Rape is now a crime against persons and, like the crime of homicide, is
embraced in the same Title of the Revised Penal Code under which Amado had been
previously convicted by final judgment. The absolute pardon granted him for rape, only
excused him from serving the sentence for rape but did not erase the effects of the
conviction therefore unless expressly remitted by the pardon.

[b] The creditor who resorts to forced labor of a child under the pretext of reimbursing
himself for the debt incurred by the child's father commits the crime of slavery.


False. The proper offense is exploitation of child labor (Art. 273, RPC). Exploitation of
child labor is committed by a person, who under the pretext of reimbursing himself of a debt
incurred by an ascendant, guardian or person entrusted with the custody of a minor, shall
against the minor's will, retain him in his services.

[c] The use of an unlicensed firearm in homicide is considered a generic aggravating
circumstance which can be offset by an ordinary mitigating circumstance.


False. Offsetting may not take place because the use of an unlicensed firearm in
homicide or murder is a specific aggravating circumstance provided for by Rep. Act No. 8294.
It is not one of the generic aggravating circumstances under Art.14 of the Revised Penal Code
(People v. Avecilla, 351 SCRA 635 [20011).

[d] A person who, on the occasion of a robbery, kills a bystander by accident is liable for two
separate crimes: robbery and reckless imprudence resulting in homicide.


False. Only one crime of robbery with homicide is constituted because the Revised
Penal Code punishes the crimes as only one indivisible offense when-a killing, whether

intentional or accidental, was committed by reason or on occasion of a robbery (Art. 294[1],
RPC; People v. Mabasa, 65 Phil. 568 [1938]).

[e] A policeman who, without a judicial order, enters a private house over the owner's
opposition is guilty of trespass to dwelling.

False. The crime committed by the policeman in this case is violation of domicile
because the official duties of a policeman carry with it an authority to make searches and
seizure upon judicial order. He is therefore acting under color of his official authority (Art.
128, RPC).


Antero Makabayan was convicted of the crime of Rebellion. While serving sentence, he
escaped from jail. Captured, he was charged with, and convicted of, Evasion of Service of Sentence.
Thereafter, the President of the Philippines issued an amnesty proclamation for the offense of
Rebellion. Antero applied for and was granted the benefit of the amnesty proclamation.
Antero then filed a petition for habeas corpus, praying for his immediate release from
confinement. He claims that the amnesty extends to the offense of evasion of Service of Sentence. As
judge, will you grant the petition? Discuss fully. (4%)


Yes, I will grant the petition because the sentence that was evaded proceeded from the
crime of Rebellion which has been obliterated by the grant of amnesty to the offender (Art. 89
[3], RPC).
Since the amnesty erased the criminal complexion of the act committed by the
offender as a crime of rebellion and rendered such act as though innocent, the sentence lost
its legal basis. The purported evasion thereof therefore cannot subsist (People v. Patriarca,
341 SCRA 464[2000]).
Amnesty obliterates, not only the basis of conviction, but also all the legal effects


Rigoberto gate-crashed the 71st birthday party of Judge • Lorenzo. Armed with a piece
of wood commonly known as dos por dos, Rigoberto hit Judge Lorenzo on the back, causing
the latter's hospitalization for 30 days. Upon investigation, it appeared that Rigoberto had a
grudge against Judge Lorenzo who, two years earlier,. had cited Rigoberto in contempt and
ordered his imprisonment for three (3) days.

[a] Is Rigoberto guilty of Direct Assault? Why or why not? (3%)

The veterinarian mistakenly gave Charlie a non-toxic powder which. Charlie's girlfriend. (3%) SUGGESTED ANSWER: No. He has retired (71 yrs. 873. which states that lawyers in the actual performance of their professional duties or on the occasion of such performance shall be deemed persons in authority. Brad. the answer would not be the same. Rigoberto is guilty of Direct Assault because the employment of violence was by reason of an actual performance of a duty by the offended party acting as a practicing lawyer. Charlie went to a veterinarian and asked for some poison on the pretext that it would be used to kill a very sick. unknown to him. he prosecuted Rigoberto and succeeded in sending him to jail for one year? Explain your answer. Hence. (3%) SUGGESTED ANSWER: Yes. old dog. [b] Would your answer be the same if Brad proved to be allergic to the powder. Actually. what and why? If not. would have constituted murder which is a crime against persons. done with intent to kill. the attack on him cannot be regarded as against a person in authority anymore. 2.SUGGESTED ANSWER: No. IV Charlie hated his classmate. But the crime having been committed 10 years ago. when mixed with Brad's food. His act of mixing the non-toxic powder with Brad's food. may have already prescribed because it is punishable by a correctional penalty. Rigoberto is not guilty of Direct Assault because Judge Lorenzo has ceased to be a judge when he was attacked.4. criminally liable for less serious physical injuries because his act of mixing the powder with Brad's food was done with . and after ingesting it with his food. [b] Would your answer be the same if the reason for the attack was that when Judge Lorenzo was still a practicing lawyer ten years ago. Charlie intended to use the poison on Brad. [a] Did Charlie commit any crime? If so. is ineffectual (Art. because the latter was assiduously courting Lily. old) from his position as a person in authority when he was attacked. did not kill Brad. had it not been for the employment of a means which. Lawyers are considered persons in authority by virtue of Batas Pambansa Big. why not? (3%) SUGGESTED ANSWER: Charlie committed an impossible crime of murder. par. RPC). fell ill and was hospitalized for ten (10) days? Explain. Charlie would be.

instead of Freddie. [a] What. (3%) SUGGESTED ANSWER: No. not to the intent. who was killed by Ponciano using Ruben's gun? '. It cannot constitute attempted murder." Later. Liability for an impossible crime can only arise from a consummated act. 18. In other words.Explain. Because Ruben also resented Freddie. [b] Would your answer be the same if. Such cooperation is not indispensable to the killing. The answer would not be the same because Ruben lent his gun purposely for the killing of Freddie only. Ponciano's using Ruben's gun in killing a person other than Freddie is beyond Ruben's criminal intent and willing involvement. ha. It has been ruled that when the owner of the gun knew that it would be used to kill a particular person. but used a knife because he did not want Freddie's neighbors to hear the gunshot. he readily lent his gun. While there was community of design to . Ruben's act in lending his gun was not a necessary act to enable Ponciano to consummate the crime. he merely cooperated in carrying out the criminal plan which was already in place (Art. Neither may Ruben be regarded as a co-conspirator since he was not a participant in the decision-making of Ponciano to kill Freddie. isauli mo kaagad.felonious intent and was the proximate cause of Brad's illness for 10 days. ALTERNATIVE ANSWER: Ruben cannot be held liable as an accomplice in the killing of Freddie because his act of lending his gun to Ponciano did not have a relation between the acts done by the latter to that attributed to Ruben. because the means employed is inherently ineffectual to cause death and the crime committed must be directly linked to the means employed. V Ponciano borrowed Ruben's gun. Only Ponciano will answer for the crime against Manuel. pagkabaril mo kay Freddie. but told Ponciano: "0. not for any other killing. it was Manuel. Poncian. but the offender used it to kill another person.o would have consummated the act of killing Freddie. although done with intent to kill. (3%) SUGGESTED ANSWER: Ruben's liability is that of an accomplice only because he merely cooperated in Ponciano's determination to kill Freddie. RPC). as in fact the killing was carried out without the use of Ruben's gun. Ponciano killed Freddie. is the liability of Ruben? Explain. Even if Ruben did not lend his gun. if any. saying that he would use it to kill Freddie. the owner of the gun is not an accomplice as to the killing of the other person. a relative of Ruben.

the plaintiff gave Charina P20. Charged in court. Baldo claims that the crime he committed had already prescribed. when Baldo was arrested and charged. the prescriptive period of a crime commences to run only from the day on which the crime is discovered by the offended party. prohibiting any public officer from directly or indirectly requesting or receiving any gift. reported the matter to the police. on January 2. promised the plaintiff in a case pending before the court that she would convince the Presiding Judge to decide the case in plaintiff's favor. The prescriptive period of the crime committed commenced to run only after it was reported to the police on January 2. The killing committed. is punishable by an afflictive penalty which prescribes in twenty (20) years. 1970. but he was so scared to tell the authorities about it. 1970 (when the authorities discovered the commission of the crime) to January 6. whether it be homicide or murder. Charina was charged with violation of Section 3 (b) of Republic Act No. or benefit in connection with any contract or transaction x x x wherein the public officer. VI Baldo killed Conrad in a dark corner. Baldo's contention is not correct because the crime committed has not yet prescribed.000. Clerk of Court of an RTC Branch. . not on the date it was clandestinely committed on January 2. whereas only around ten (10) years had lapsed from January 2. bothered by his conscience. so long as Ruben is aware when he lent the gun that it would be used to commit a crime. which governs when a crime is not publicly committed. After investigation. 1970 when it was made known to the police authorities until January 6. 1960. On January 2. has to intervene under the law. the authorities or their agents: in this case. (3%) SUGGESTED ANSWER: No. Under the discovery rule. Dominador witnessed the entire incident. from January 2. thus with knowledge that the gun would be used to commit a crime. Is Baldo's contention correct? Explain. It is of no moment who was killed. 1960.00. ALTERNATIVE ANSWER: Yes. at midnight. The answer would be same because Ruben lent his gun to Ponciano with knowledge that it would be used in killing a person. the police finally arrested Baldo on January 6. In consideration therefor. 1970. present. 1980. 1920 (when the accused was charged in court). there was none with respect to the killing of Manuel. 3019. percentage. in his official capacity. 1980. VII Charina.kill Freddie between Ponciano and Ruben. Dominador.

3019 and the charge for Indirect Bribery (Art. as there is no jeopardy against the accused. RPC). the crimes charged are separate and distinct from each other. 48. Ladjaalam. Ciriaco and Domingo can be charged is Robbery with Homicide (Art. (2%) SUGGESTED ANSWER: The crime of which Braulio.A. Penal Code (Mejia v. The two charges do not constitute a ground for a motion to dismiss or motion to quash. had been committed? Explain. VIII While Alfredo. Act No. policemen arrived. Is Charina correct? Explain. Art. 249.294[1]. with different penalties. a complex crime (Art. (3%) SUGGESTED ANSWER: The crimes committed are Robbery with homicide (Art. Gayrama. 136149-51. Charina is not correct. 148 and Art. of the . The complex crime of Direct Assault with Multiple Attempted Homicide was committed in respect of the offender's firing guns at the responding policemen who are agents of person in authority performing their duty when fired at to frustrate such performance. Nos. if any. the Ombudsman filed another information against Charina for Indirect Bribery under the Revised Penal Code. and Direct Assault with Multiple Attempted Homicide. People v. 294(1]. Ciriaco. While the case was being tried. Hence.R. claiming that she can no longer be charged under the Revised Penal Code having been charged for the same act under R. A firefight ensued between the bank robbers and the responding policemen. 60 Phil. 796 (1934]). 2000) [b] Suppose it was Alfredo who was killed by the responding policemen. Ciriaco and Domingo? Explain. G. 211. the elements of the violation charged under Rep. RPC) arose from the same act. Braulio. Act No. a single indivisible offense. Pamaran. 3019 are not the same as the felony charged for Indirect Bribery under the Rev. Sept 19. (People vs. and one of the policemen was killed. RPC. and 'Domingo were robbing a bank. Charina demurred to the second information. [a] What crime or crimes. Robbery with Homicide was committed because one of the responding policemen was killed by reason or on occasion of the robbery being committed. what charges can be filed against Braulio. Although the charge for violation of Rep. (3%) SUGGESTED ANSWER: No. RPC) because the killing resulted by reason or on the occasion. 3019. 160 SCRA 457 [1988]).

Virgilio told Juanita to drive to a deserted place. (5%) SUGGESTED ANSWER: The crime committed against Jeremias. Virgilio then drove the van to his safehouse . [c] Suppose in the course of the robbery. Jeremias would be beheaded. the driver. Ciriaco and Domingo having conspired only in the commission of the robbery. Ciriaco and Domingo? Explain. No. what would be the criminal liability of Braulio. RPC). unless they were with Braulio during the killing and could have prevented the same but they did not. 294[1]. It is of no moment that the person killed is one of the robbers. armed with a gun. A killing by reason or on the occasion of the robbery. should incur liability only for the crime conspired upon—the robbery. a single indivisible offense. 4. and there. IX Virgilio. will be a component ofthe crime of Robbery with Homicide. before the policemen arrived. RPC) for killing Alfredo. Whether or not the ransom was eventually obtained will not affect the crime committed because the demand for ransom is not an element of the crime. a 6-year-old child. Barot. the 6 year-old child. the crime committed is Serious Illegal Detention because the offended party deprived of liberty is a female (Art. Virgilio. son of a multi-millionaire. in which . the child's nanny. stopped the van and allowed Virgilio to board. as long as it is intimately connected to the robbery. did Virgilio commit? Explain. What crime or crimes. 9346. Juanita. The evident criminal intent of the offender. RPC. 89 SCRA 16 [19791). Before Juanita was allowed to go. par. whether deliberate or accidental. Virgilio instructed him to tell Jeremias' parents that unless they give a ransom of P10- million within two (2) days. (2%) SUGGESTED ANSWER: Braulio shall be liable for Robbery with Homicide (Art. Daday was told to remain in the van and take care of Jeremias until the ransom is paid. Act. it only qualifies the penalty to death but the imposition of this penalty is now prohibited by Rep. Braulio shot and killed Alfredo following a heated disagreement on who should carry the money bags. the nanny of the child who was told to remain in the van and take care of the child until the ransom is paid. and Daday. . ordered the driver to alight. 267. pointed the gun at the driver and shouted: "Tigil! Kidnap ito!" Terrified. Inside the van were Jeremias. As to Daday. is Kidnapping and Seribus Illegal Detention under Art 267 (4).case they shall also be liable for Robbery with . stopped a van along a major thoroughfare in Manila. since the killing was by reason of the robbery. Homicide.robbery. is to lock up the child to demand ransom. It is of no moment that the person killed is one of the robbers and he was killed during the robbery (People v. if any.

She forged the judge's signature. 268. and thereafter to drive to a deserted place. RPC) for working out the escape of prisoners Willy and Vincent. X To secure a release of his brother Willy. Chito also gave Edwin P50. and delivered the Order to the jail warden who. RPC). 212.00 to leave the two inmates unguarded for three minutes and provide them with an opportunity to escape. and the jail warden? Explain your answer. 157. The Branch Clerk of Court committed the crimes of: . committed the crime of Evasion of Service of Sentence (Art. 172 [1]. Willy. Edwin. b. but when Chita gave her P50. Chito committed the crimes of - 1. ostensibly as witnesses in a pending case. RPC). the crime committed by Virgilio is Grave Coercion (Art. 156. the driver of the van who was seriously intimidated with a gun pointed at him and directed to stop the van and allow the gun-man to board the same. in turn. being a prisoner serving sentence by final judgment. Thus. Delivery of Prisoners from Jail (Art.000. As to Juanito. 156. 286. Vincent. allowed Willy and Vincent to go out of jail in the company of an armed escort. she consented. the Branch Clerk of court. RPC) for escaping during the term of his imprisonment. c. a detention prisoner. who is serving sentence for homicide.00. RPC) and Slight Illegal Detention (Art. if any. and 3. Willy and Vincent were able to escape. had been committed by Chito. RPC) as a principal by indispensable cooperation if he was aware of the criminal plan of Chito to have them escape from prison and he did escape pursuant to such criminal plan. RPC) for holding the driver before he was allowed to go. She then prepared an Order requiring the appearance in court of Willy and Vincent.000. Edwin. Vincent. as a principal by inducement (Art. (5%) SUGGESTED ANSWER: The crimes committed in this case are as follows: a. Two counts of Corruption of Public Officials (Art. At first. What crime or crimes. otherwise he would not be liable for said crime if he escaped pursuant to human instinct only. Willy committed the crime of Delivery of Prisoners from Jail (Art. the Clerk refused. Chito asked the RTC Branch Clerk of Court to issue an Order which would allow the two prisoners to be brought out of jail. a. and his cousin Vincent. Falsification of Public Documents. 2.

RPC). [b] Voluntary surrender is a mitigating circumstance in all acts and omissions punishable under the Revised Penal Code. the jail guard who escorted the prisoners in getting out of jail. Penillos. 3. as a co-principal of Vincent by indispensable cooperation for making the false Order that enabled Vincent to evade service of his sentence. SUGGESTED ANSWER: . RPC). RPC). committed the crimes of – 1. 223. 210. Evasion of Service of Sentence (Art. 210. 2. to enable the prisoners to get out of jail. specifically conniving with or consenting to Evasion for leaving unguarded the prisoners escorted by him and provide them an opportunity to escape (Art.00 . Infidelity in the Custody of Prisoners.000. 156. 171. Direct Bribery (Art. Explain your answer in not more than two (2) consideration of the order she issued to enable the prisoners to get out of jail. Edwin. Delivery of Prisoners from Jail (Art. Direct Bribery for receiving the P50. Life imprisonment is unfavorable to a convict because the penalty is without a fixed duration. e. as a co-principal of Chito by indispensable cooperation for making the false Order and forging the judge's signature thereon.00 as consideration for leaving the prisoners unguarded and allowing them the opportunity to escape (Art. The jail warden did not commit nor incur a crime there being no showing that he was aware of what his subordinates had done nor of any negligence on his part that would amount to infidelity in the custody of prisoners. PART II XI TRUE or FALSE. (5%) [a] Life imprisonment is a penalty more favorable to the convict than reclusion perpetua. 1. 157. Answer TRUE if the statement is true.000. 4. f. RPC). unlike the penalty of reclusion perpetua which has a fixed duration of 40 years and the convict may be eligible for pardon after 30 years of imprisonment (People v. RPC) for accepting the P50. or FALSE if the statement is false. RPC). 2. 205 SCRA 546 (1992). Falsification of Public Document for forging the judge's signature on said Order (Art. SUGGESTED ANSWER: False.

Mere possession of the stolen goods gives rise to the prima facie presumption of fencing. 1612. "truth" as a defense. making them appear to have originated from legitimate sources. 365 since in such cases. Hence. [c] In a prosecution for fencing under R D. SUGGESTED ANSWER: False. Sec. 9160. the trial court appreciated two (2) mitigating circumstances and one (1) aggravating circumstance.A. 2[a]). XII [a] In a conviction for homicide. it must be shown that he has knowledge of the identities of the culprits involved in the commission of the predicate crimes. SUGGESTED ANSWER: False. truth is an absolute defense. 62 regarding mitigating and aggravating circumstances. is not enough.D. Homicide under Article 249 of the Revised Penal Code is punishable by reclusion temporal. 1612. it is a complete defense for the accused to prove that he had no knowledge that the goods or articles found in his possession had been the subject of robbery. SUGGESTED ANSWER: False. [d] In the crime of libel. To establish liability under RA 9160. (3%) . Explain. False. and moreover must have been published with good motives and for justifiable ends. There is nothing in the law which requires that the accused must know the identities of the culprits involved in the commission of the predicate crimes. as amended). Voluntary surrender may not be appreciated in cases of criminal negligence under Art. the courts are authorized to impose a penalty without considering Art. determine the appropriate penalty to be imposed. Fencing is committed if the accused "should have known" that the goods or articles had been the subject of theft or robbery (P. [e] For a person who transacts an instrument representing the proceeds of a covered unlawful activity to be liable under the Anti-Money Laundering Act (R. it is sufficient that proceeds of an unlawful activity are transacted. Article 361 of the RPC provides that proof of truth shall be admissible in libel cases only if the same imputes a crime or is made against a public officer with respect to facts related to the discharge of their official duties. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law. an imprisonment term of twelve (12) years and one (1) day to twenty (20) years. on its own.

it was held that Art. all said acts are considered as one crime only. the prescribed penalty of which is also imprisonment for a term of twelve (12) years and one (1) day to twenty (20) years? Why or why not? (3%) SUGGESTED ANSWER: No.. at about the same time. he committed only one count of estafa and one count of violation of BP 22.e. but thereafter. Act 9165 are mala prohibita in which mitigating and aggravating circumstances are not appreciated. XIII Angelo devised a Ponzi Scheme in which 500 persons were deceived into investing their money upon a promise of a capital return of 25%. hence. cannot be divided into periods. (4%) . Hence. computed monthly. Hence. the existence of mitigating and aggravating circumstances cannot be appreciated.A. the minimum of the sentence shall be anywhere within the range of 6 years and 1 day to 12 years imprisonment while the maximum of the sentence shall be anywhere within the range of Reclusion Temporal minimum i. During the first two months following the investment.SUGGESTED ANSWER: Under the Indeterminate Sentence Law. not lower than 12 yrs.000 counts of violation of Batas Pambansa (BP) 22. Angelo vanished. In his motion to quash. [a] What is delito continuado? (1%) SUGGESTED ANSWER: Delito continuado refers to a crime constituted by several overt acts committed by the offender in one place. Angelo contends that he committed a continued crime. such pronouncement cannot be applied in the instant case because the penalties for illegal possession of drugs under RA 9165 do not follow the technical nomenclature of penalties in the RPC and thus. Although in People v. Simon (234 SCRA 555 [1994]). My answer will not be the same because violations of Rep. 64 can be applied if the special law adopted the nomenclature of penalties provided under the RPC. [b] Will your answer be the same if it is a conviction for illegal possession of drugs under R. the investors received their profits. thus demonstrating that all such acts are the product of a single indivisible criminal resolution. and all such overt acts violate one and the same provision of penal law. and guaranteed by post-dated checks. 9165 (Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002). [b] Is Angelo's contention tenable? Explain. or delito continuado. and 1 day to not more than 14 yrs. and 8 months. Angelo was charged with 500 counts of estafa and 2.

since each swindling is achieved through distinct fraudulent machinations contrived at different times or dates. his drawing separate checks payable to each payee is a separate criminal resolution. He committed as many counts of estafa against the 500 victims and 2000 counts of violation of BP 22. What is the "chain of custody" requirement in drug offenses? What is its rationale? What is the effect of failure to observe the requirement? (3%) SUGGESTED ANSWER: "Chain of custody" requirement in drug offenses refers to the duly recorded. authorized movement and custody of seized dangerous drugs. ALTERNATIVE ANSWER: Yes. Moreover. Tommy was convicted of violation of Section 5. plant sources of dangerous drugs. and laboratory equipment for dangerous drugs from the time of confiscation/seizure thereof from the offender. controlled chemicals. as they must be of different amounts and of different dates. His contention is not tenable. and in different amounts. He acted with separate fraudulent intent against each swindling victim and had distinct criminal intent in drawing and issuing each check. Angelo committed only one count of estafa and one count of violation of BP 22 because his acts were propelled by one and the same intent to defraud (Santiago v. to its turn-over and receipt in the forensic laboratory for examination. It is a method of authenticating the evidence as would support a finding beyond reasonable doubt that the matter is what the prosecution claims it to be. Garchitorena. to its safekeeping and eventual presentation/offer in court as evidence of the criminal violation. (Dangerous Drugs Board Regulation No. and for destruction.1 Series of 2002) Its rationale is to preserve the authenticity of the corpus delicti or body of the crime by rendering it improbable that the original item seized/confiscated in the violation has been exchanged or substituted with another or tampered with or contaminated.SUGGESTED ANSWER: No. Tommy questioned the admissibility of the evidence because die police officers who conducted the buy-bust operation failed to observe the requisite "chain of custody" of the evidence confiscated and/or seized from him. Republic Act 9165. It cannot be maintained that his acts are the product of one criminal resolution only. . On appeal. XIV Following his arrest after a valid buy-bust operation. 228 SCRA 214 [1993]).

This process governs when the child is over 15 years old but below 18 at the time of the commission of the crime and he acted with discernment. Yes. This is available to a child 15 years old or less at the time of the commission of the crime or although over 15 but below 18 years old at the time of commission of the crime. Tommy would be acquitted on reasonable doubt. It may take the form of an individualized treatment program which may include counseling. XV Joe was 17 years old when he committed homicide in 2005. should the judge apply the suspension of sentence? Explain. child-appropriate process of determining the responsibility and treatment of a child in conflict with the law on the basis of his/her social. emotional and psycho-social well-being. . Since Republic Act 9344 (Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of 2006) was already in effect. Suspension of sentence is availing under Rep. he was arrested and appropriately charged in May 2007. the child acted without discernment. "Intervention" refers to a series of activities which are designed to address issues that caused the child to commit an offense. The The judge should not suspend sentence anymore because Joe was already 21 years old. (2%) SUGGESTED ANSWER: No. Act 9344 only until a child reaches the maximum age of twenty-one (21) years. economic. education. [a] What is intervention or diversion? Is Joe entitled to intervention or diversion? Explain. (3%) SUGGESTED ANSWER: The two terms are different. and he was convicted two (2) years later when Joe was already 21 years old. and other activities that will enhance his/her psychological. Hence. skills training. cultural. he is treated as a child in conflict with the law under RA 9344. The crime is punishable by reclusion temporal. Joe is entitled to diversion. "Diversion" refers to an alternative. After two years in hiding. [b] Suppose Joe's motion for intervention or diversion was denied. psychological or educational background without resorting to formal court proceedings. Being only 17 years old at the time he committed the crime of homicide. Joe moved to avail of the process of intervention or diversion. not trustworthy and insufficient to prove the corpus delicti beyond reasonable doubt. Failure to observe the "chain of custody" requirement renders the evidence questionable.

The murder being attempted only. He would be eligible for probation because the penalty imposable on Joe will not exceed 6 years imprisonment. [el Suppose Joe was convicted of attempted murder with a special aggravating circumstance and was denied suspension of sentence. the penalty as far as Joe is concerned can only be reclusion perpetua because Rep. the prescribed penalty is two degree lower than reclusion perpetua. Act 9344 forbids the imposition of the capital punishment upon offenders thereunder. (4%) SUGGESTED ANSWER: The charge of malversation through falsification is not correct because the falsifications of several documents were not necessary means to obtain the money that were malversed. should be separately treated from malversation. the penalty of prision mayor should be lowered further by one degree because his minority is a privileged mitigating circumstance. Because Joe was 17 years old when he committed the crime. Discuss the propriety of the charges filed against Roger and Jessie. Upon investigation. however. . in fact. respectively. (2%) SUGGESTED ANSWER: Yes. of San Rafael. hence. 48.A. Roger and Jessie are charged with malversation through falsification and violation of Section 3 (e) of R. considering that the death penalty is imposable for the consummated felony? Explain. The given facts state that Roger and Jessie falsified disbursement vouchers and supporting documents "in order to make it appear" that qualified recipients received the money. it was found that Roger and Jessie falsified the disbursement vouchers and supporting documents in order to make it appear that qualified recipients who. 3019 for causing undue injury to the government. caused the disbursement of public funds allocated for their local development programs for 2008. Records show that the amount of P2-million was purportedly used as financial assistance for a rice production livelihood project. Leyte. hence. Explain. The falsifications were committed to cover up or hide the malversation and therefore. Even if it would be considered that the crime committed was punishable by death. would he be eligible for probation under Presidential Decree (PD) 968. prision mayor. Municipal Mayor and Treasurer. received the money. prision correccional or imprisonment within the range of six months and 1 day to 6 years is the imposable. Art. RPC on complex crimes is not applicable. are non-existent individuals. XVI Roger and Jessie.

took her jewelry. if any. Nocturnity or nighttime is also aggravating because although it was not purposely or especially sought for by Wenceslao. nighttime was obviously taken advantaged of by him in committing the other crimes. (3%) SUGGESTED ANSWER: Dwelling is aggravating because the crimes were committed in the privacy of Loretta's room which in law is considered as her dwelling. gave rise to the special complex crime of rape with homicide. The use of picklocks is equivalent to force upon things in robbery with force upon things. His possession and use ofthe picklock "without lawful cause" is by itself punishable under Art. RPC. They should be charged of violation of Section 3(e) of Rep. (4%). One late evening. It is well settled that "dwelling" includes a room in a boarding house being occupied by the offended party where she enjoys privacy. Since the taking of the jewelry was an afterthought as it was done only when he was about to leave the room and when Loretta was already dead. when everyone in the house was asleep. Wenceslao stabbed Loretta to death and. RPC. nocturnity is aggravating when taken advantaged of by the offender during the commission of the crime thus facilitating the same. the same constitutes theft. His act of having carnal knowledge of Loretta against her will and with the use of force and violence constituted rape. Wenceslao entered Loretta's room with the use of a picklock. did Wenceslao commit? Explain. XVII Wenceslao and Loretta were staying in the same boarding house. Under the objective test. Act 3019 for the breach of public trust and undue injury caused to the Government. nocturnity and the use of the picklock to enter the room of the victim. before leaving the room. occupying different rooms. with force and violence. [b] Discuss the applicability of the relevant aggravating circumstances of dwelling. 304. 14 of the Code but punished as a crime by itself where the offender has no lawful cause for possessing it. Wenceslao ravished Loretta. . After he had satisfied his lust. 304. The use of a picklock to enter the room of the victim is not an aggravating circumstance under Art. [a] What crime or crimes. SUGGESTED ANSWER: Wenceslao committed the following crimes: (1) the special complex crime of rape with homicide (2) theft and (3) unlawful possession of picklocks and similar tools under Art. plus the killing of Loretta by reason or on the occasion of the rape. The violation is a crime malum prohibitum. Then. peace of mind and sanctity of an abode.

304. (3%) SUGGESTED ANSWER: Leoncio committed the crime of unjust vexation only because the act was done in the course of dancing. Incensed. (3%) SUGGESTED ANSWER: The crime would then be acts of lasciviousness. was confined at the Intensive Care Unit (ICU) of the Philippine Medical Center. may be viewed as part of a dirty dancing. the crimes committed would be four separate crimes of ( I) rape (2) frustrated homicide or 'murder (3) theft and (4) unlawful possession and use of picklocks under Art. [c] Would your answer to [a] be the same if. RPC. although offensive to Evelyn. That the music for dancing had already stopped. So where the dance ended. they are to be charged and punished separately. which is essential in the crime of acts of lasciviousness. the possession of the picklock "without lawful cause". Lewd intent cannot simply be presumed from the act of dirty dancing. Evelyn protested. but Leoncio continued and tightly embraced her. XIX Delmo learned that his enemy. In any event. While gyrating with their bodies. His continued dirty acts absent the dancing as there was no music anymore is patently lewd and lascivious. negates lewd designs or lascivious intent. did Leoncio commit? Explain. rubbing his private parts on Evelyn's buttocks? Explain. despite the serious stab wounds she sustained. The fact that the act was perpetrated in a public place and with an audience. (3%) SUGGESTED ANSWER: No. In that case. Leoncio continued to dance dirty. more so its use in an unlawful entry is punished as a crime by itself. Loretta survived? Explain. even after the music had stopped. puts an end to any pretense of dancing by Leoncio. Oscar. if any. The act of dipping his private parts in Evelyn's buttocks during a very seductive dance. [a] What crime or crimes. Leoncio dipped his private parts in Evelyn's buttocks. XVIII At the Maligaya Disco Club. Evelyn already protested Leoncio's lewd acts in the course of dancing. More so. Leoncio and Evelyn were intimately dancing a very seductive dance number. Leoncio's continued dirty acts cannot be veiled as still part of dancing. the answer will be different. The special complex crime of rape with homicide is constituted only when both the rape and the killing are consummated. Delmo disguised himself as a nurse. [b] Would your answer be the same if. when one or both of them are not consummated. entered the . Intending to kill Oscar.

Treachery qualifies the crime. the resident physician doing his rounds entered the ICU and. Delmo has performed all the acts of execution that would produce the death of the victim but for reasons independent of the will of the perpetrator. and saw a man lying on the hospital bed with several life-saving tubes attached to the body. Delmo was charged with frustrated murder. because the means.ICU. (4%) SUGGESTED ANSWER: Delmo was correctly charged with the crime of frustrated murder qualified by treachery—not evident premeditation because the victim was different from the one premeditated against. seeing the disconnected tubes. Discuss the propriety of the charge. qualified by evident premeditation and treachery as aggravating circumstances. . manner and method of committing the intended killing were consciously adopted to insure its execution without risk that may arise from the defense the victim may make. replaced them. Later. Delmo disconnected the tubes and left. Evident primeditation is absorbed in the treachery. as Oscar had been discharged from the hospital earlier. The patient survived. the death of the victim was not accomplished. It turned out that the patient was Larry.

The decision of the appellate court was promulgated in May. May his application for probation be granted? Reason out.500. 1960. they have already prescribed. two (2) months and one (1) day of prision correctional as minimum to eight (o) years and twenty (20) days of prision mayor as maximum. 3: . B mortgaged the lot to a bank using the special power of attorney to obtain a loan of P8. 1: B imitated the signature of A. On the same day. 1993. 70 SCRA 606). A discovered that the property was already registered in the name of X because of an ejectment case filed against him by X. both the special power of attorney and the mortgage contract were duly registered in the Registiy of Deeds. Is Juanito entitled to the benefits of the Probation Law which became effective on Jan. Question No. Even if we take Falsification and Estafa individually. Because of B’s failure to pay. If you were the lawyer of A. 1964. requires the filing of the application within the period for perfecting an Pu. My defense will be prescription because the crime was committed in 1964 and almost twenty nine years had already elapsed since then. It is to be noted that when it comes to discovery. 1974. In March. He is hot entitled to the Probation Law because Section 9 (c) provides that probation shall not be extended to those "who have previously been convicted by final judgment of an offense punishable by imprisonment of not less than one (1) month and one (1) day or a fine of not more than P200.00. 1978? Why? Suppose the prison term imposed by the RTC in the above example is only two (2) years as minimum to six (6) years as maximum and Juanito did not appeal. a Municipal Court has sentenced him to a six-month imprisonment for less serious physical injuries which he fully served. as amended. Answer: Juanito is not entitled to probation because the law. the bank foreclosed the mortgage and the lot was sold to X in whose name a new title was issued. 1993 BAR EXAMINATION Question No. When he applied for probation." Question No. with what crime or crimes would you charge B? Explain. 3. the fact that the crime was discovered in 1964 will be of no moment because the offended party is considered to have constructive notice on the forgeiy after the Deed of Sale where his signature had been falsified was registered in the office of the Register of Deeds (Cabral vs. registered owner of a lot. If you were the counsel of B.00. Answer: The crime committed is estafa thru falsification of public of A On February 13. in special power of attorney naming him (B) as the attorney. 2: Juanito was found guilty of Robbeiy by the RTC of Manila and sentenced to four (4) Years. what would be your defense? Discuss. it was discovered that in March. Juanito appealed to the Court of Appeals which found him guilty only of Theft and sentenced him to a straight penalty of one (1J Year.

One of the acts of child abuse or exploitation penalized under Article VI of RA 7610 is that of keeping company of a minor who is ten (10) years or more younger than the offender in a hotel. Agaton gave the girl PI. disco joint. the plaintiff therein. 1992. the Judge. a former mayor of a suburban town. Answer: The retired colonel may be charged with child abuse. cabaret. celebrating the first year of his compulsory retirement from the Armed Forces of the Philippines. Answer: Arevalo. had in his company a fourteen (14) year-old girl whose parents were killed by the Mt. acquired assets amounting to P10 billion which is grossly disproportionate to his lawful income. She gladly accepted it. but rendered judgment in favor of Julie. 212. and for what crime or crimes? Explain. received gifts from Maricel. he was charged with the crime of plunder only after twenty (20) years from his defeat in the last elections he participated in. No sexual intercourse took place between them. a law providing special protection against child abuse. Answer: Andy will not be criminally liable because Section 6 of RA 7080 provides that the crime punishable under this Act shall prescribe in twenty years and the problem asked whether Andy can still be charged with the crime of plunder after 20 years. laches or estoppel. motel. exploitation. Pinatubo eruption and being totally orphaned has been living or fending for herself in the streets in Manila.00 for her services. Due to his influence and connections and despite knowledge by the authorities of his ill- gotten wealth. Before they parted. Act 7610. a judge who heard a civil case. They were alone in one room in a beach resort and stayed there for two (2) nights. retired Lt. 7 (d) RA 6713 and also PD 46). Col. the defendant therein. beach resort. Col. because Section 6 provides that recovery of properties unlawfully acquired by public officers from them or their nominees or transferees shall not be barred by prescription. What possible defenses can he interpose? Explain. pension house. 4: Through kickbacks. beer house. and similar . What crime may the retired colonel be charged with. sauna or massage parlor. 5: Sometime in December. in violation of Rep. Question No. is liable for indirect bribery (Art. Maricel is liable for corruption of public officer (Art. retired Lt. percentages or commissions and other fraudulent schemes/conveyances and taking advantage of his position. the bulk of which is in the name of his wife and children? Reason out. and discrimination. RPC and PD 46). if any? Discuss. 210 RPC) and for violation of the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standard (Sec.Arevalo. Andy. Agaton. Who are criminally liable. May Andy still be held criminally liable? Why? Can the State still recover the properties and assets that he illegally acquired.000. Can the State still recover? Yes. Question No.

a shovel. 6: As a result of a misunderstanding during a meeting. or by consanguinity within the fourth degree. the four (4) left together. Jolan. in one room at such beach resort for two nights. by tying his hands at his back before attacking him. or local customs and traditions. Juan sent to Petra a . they tied Joe’s hands at his back and attacked him. and Reden. One day. the following: “Mga supot. Jolan. among other acts. The act of one is the act of all. while the child he kept company within a private room in the beach resort. a piece of wood. He ran towards his house but the four chased and caught him. Question No. qualified by treachery because the offenders. a girl. there must be an age difference of more than 10 years between them.places. the individual acts of each participant is not considered because their liability is collective. VI. Reden and Arthur. Thereafter. The crime committed is murder. Agaton stayed with the child. Reden ordered the digging of a grave to bury Joe’s lifeless body. Question NO. RA 7610). Thereafter. his fists. mga walang bayag. Considering that Lt Col. mga tuta. 8: Juan and Petra are officemates. after the offenders caught up with the victim. Later. There being a conspiracy. Answer: No. Agaton is a retiree pursuant to a compulsory retirement. mga segunda mano. Col. 10(b). Uy Tioco." Are the President and the Secretary of said union liable for oral defamation/slander? Explain. Question No. in said law. constitutes the very evil punished. The existence of a conspiracy among the offenders can be clearly deduced or inferred from the manner they committed the killing. liable collectively. social. two (2) belligerent labor unions had a confrontation in a picket line during which the President and the Secretary of one union shouted to the members and officers of the rival union composed of men and women. demonstrating a common criminal purpose and intent. Answer: No. After killing Joe. 7: Because of a pendency of a labor dispute. Convicted for the killing of Joe. 624). The President and the Secretary of the Union are not liable for oral defamation or slander because there is no identity of the offended party. rendered the victim defenseless and without any chance to retaliate. Treachery exists at least in the second and final stage of the attack. and thereafter he gave her PI. Arthur now claims that his conviction is erroneous as it was not he who inflicted the fatal blow. Nestor used a knife. mga kabit ng Intsik. This fact plus the circumstance that Lt. Arthur. or legal duty (Sec. taking advantage of their superiority in number. Col. Would you sustain his claim? Why? What was the crime committed by the four assailants? Discuss with reasons. Joe was mauled by Nestor. Intimacy developed between them. The individual defamed or slandered was not singled out (People vs. is only 14 years old. The offenders acted in conspiracy in killing the victim and hence. or that he was only acting in pursuance of a moral. 32 Phil. The possible defenses Lt. or by a bond recognized in law.00 “for her services". Art.000. Arthur’s claim is without merit. Agaton may interpose are that the child is related to him by affinity.

give away or exhibit films. Not being content in only instituting an action for annulment of their marriage. Marriage contracted against the provisions of the marriage law. Resolve his plea. assured the judge who solemnized the marriage ceremony. 201. 350. Negre. was charged and found guilty of falsification of public document. Answer: Violation of Art. Negre with a bamboo spear. Upon Tong’s prodding too. He also issued a certification that S is not related to him within the third degree of consanguinity. he desired to prosecute Tong. Suppose Pat Negre missed in his shot. Juan was thereafter charged under par. 201 of the Revised Penal Code. RPC) covers only the protection of public moral and not only the moral of an individual.booklet contained in a pay envelope which was securely sealed. The father of Theresa. which provides that the penalty of prision mayor or a fine from P6. 11: Pat. In his appeal. Question No. at the instigation of Tong. Petra. a Municipal Mayor. who was actually not dead. Negre claim self defense? Explain. S. Besides. and before he could strike again. The father consulted you for the purpose of filing a criminal action against Tong. prints. L. Can Pat. Question No. he argued that his conviction is erroneous because he had no legal obligation to disclose the truth about his relationship with the appointee and that he was in good faith as he later on revoked the appointment. Answer: The conviction is correct. With what crime would you charge Tong? Explain. good faith may not be invoked in the crime of falsification of a public document as criminal intent and the will to commit the crime are presumed to exist unless the contraiy appears (Manuel Siquuian vs People. Petra gave her consent. as meat inspector in the Office of the Municipal Treasurer.000. Answer: No. issued an appointment in favor of his legitimate son. The revocation of the appointment did not extinguish the incipient criminal liability of L. Instead of doing so. Question No. escaping from jail and ordered the latter to surrender. supporting your resolution with reasons.D. 9: Tong and Theresa got married before a judge. 171 SCRA 223). Sandiganbayan). heard of what took place. 969. as amended by P. L had the legal obligation to issue a certification to the effect that the appointee is not related to him within the third degree of consanguinity (Laino vs. Filemon attacked Pat. or both such imprisonment and fine shall be imposed upon those who shall sell. Negre shot and killed him. Negre saw Filemon.000to P12. RPC. Pat. 10: L. engravings. the crime having been already consummated. an inmate. Is Juan guilty of the crime charged? Reasons. that Theresa was 19years old and that her fatherwas already dead. Theresa is below 18 years old. Juan is not guilty of the crime charged because the law (Art. The Civil Service Commission approved the appointment. sculpture or literature which are offensive to morals. Their marriage was effected because Theresa and her mother. Filemon missed in his first attempt to hit Pat. 3 of Art. and Filemon ran away without parting with his . The booklet is unquestionably indecent and highly offensive to morals.

Subornation of perjury .00 (for violating sec. Yes. he could not be convicted of having violated sec. Give your comment with regard to the penalties imposed. 15) and to imprisonment of eight (8) years and payment of fine of P6. Convicted of violating sections 15 (sale and distribution of regulated drugs) and 16 (possession or use of regulated drugs) of the Dangerous Drugs Law. and 3) subornation of peijury. 13: Manny was apprehended in a buy-bust operation during which one (1) deck of shabu (methamphetamine hydrochloride) was delivered by him to the policeman posing as buyer and another deck of shabu was taken from his pocket after his body was frisked before he was actually brought to the police precint.weapon. self-defense can be claimed as there is an imminent and great peril on the life of Negre. “shall sell. Yes.A fired a gun at his father to kill him but hit instead a stranger. Pat Negre pursued Filemon but the latter was running so fast that Pat Negre fired warning shots into the air shouting for Filemon to stop. The law provides.000. excessive force is used. Inasmuch as Filemon continued running Pat.Procuring another to swear falsely and testify under circumstances rendering him guilty of perjury. deliver. on the following grounds: First. Question No. transport or distribute".000. he was sentenced to thirty (30) years of life imprisonment and payment of a fine of P20. self-defense is no longer sustainable as there is no more peril on his life. Negre criminally liable? Discuss. • If you were the Solicitor General. he is also liable because the shabu taken from his possession or pocket is different from the shabu he was to deliver to the seller. his conviction under sec. Impossible crime . He then sought the reversal of the decision. Second. it is unbelievable that he would sell the confiscated shabu in a sari-sari store near the national road open to the public view and to a stranger. dispense. 16). 12: Explain and illustrate the following: 1) dberratio ictus. 16 is erroneous because his possession of shabu is absorbed in the charge of illegal sale or delivery. . Negre fired at him hitting and killing him. No. 2) impossible crime. Answer: Manny is liable.Killing a dead person. 15 because he has not yet received the money from the buyer and the sale is not yet consummated. Question No. Answer: Yes.00 (for violating sec. Is the plea of self-defense sustainable? Why would you then hold Pat. how would you rebut the arguments of the accused? Discuss fully. and Third. Answer: Aberratio ictus .

Answer: The case should not be dismissed. because of Eliginio vs. 16: C told his lawyer.00 given him by the foreigner.). The affidavit of desistance will only amount to the condonation of civil liability but not criminal liability hence the case should still proceed. with a bolo into having sexual intercourse with him. This is allowed by law (People vs. 344 of the RPC (prosecution of the crimes of rape. an information was signed by the prosecutor but did not contain the signature of Rachel nor of her mother. Jan. supported by her sworn statement. before the City Prosecutor’s Office.00 and The following day when Atty. 125 SCRA 11). Ariel moves for the dismissal of the case. 1991) With respect to the penalty imposed. acts of lasciviousness is committed irrespective of sex. Atty. T) was arrested by the police for Robbery/Extortion on complaint of L who was accompanied by his lawyer.000. T at the appointed place and time. and informed him that C is willing to have the case dismissed provided that L pays P8. etc. 15: Mick. T demanding P8. fondled and played with the private part of Egay. Question No. Angeles. and 8 years is wrong. a gay foreigner. Atty. X executed an affidavit stating that he heard Atty. 336. Citing Art. T filed a criminal complaint against Atty. Answer: Acts of Lasciviousness under the circumstances of rape (Art 336. On the basis of this affidavit. it is not unbelievable because although it is a public place.000. (Art. was committed by the foreigner? Explain. 28. What effect would this affidavit of desistance have on the criminal and civil aspects of the case? Explain fully. It is enough that a complaint was filed by the offended party or the parents in the Fiscal’s Office. this kind of sale can always be clandestinely be made. an 11 year-old boy. 7610) Yes. who enjoyed it and gladly received the P100. (People vs. T called up through telephone L. would your answer be the same? Discuss. If the act was committed on Citry. Ariel presented a sworn affidavit of desistance executed by Rachel and her mother stating that they are no longer interested in prosecuting the case and that they have pardoned Ariel.00 agreed upon on the telephone was delivered to Atty. After the necessary preliminary investigation. RPC) Question No. an 11 year-old girl. life imprisonment should not be limited to 30 years. What crime. Atty. T. who was in his (L’s) office at that time. if any. Resolve with reasons. and so Atty. he (Atty. Rey Bernardino. T called up L. X and L for violation of . to secretly listen to the telephone conversation through a telephone extension. (People vs. Horde. Atty. RPC and R~A. a mental retardate. 14: Ariel intimidated Rachel. After the prosecution had rested its case. Rachel’s mother immediately filed a complaint. As to the third reason.000. X. X. Alvarez (1992) Question No. the latter requested his lawyer Atty. it should be indeterminate.00 for the withdrawal of the criminal complaint through a telephone extension. When the P8. to settle the criminal case he filed against L.

B. Answer: 1. IAC. shot X who was then sleeping. X? Support your decision with reasons. otherwise known as the Anti-Wire Tapping Act. Pablo hurriedly approached him. disobeying a judicial order. to secretly overhear. and with R. to kill the latter. who had been previously convicted of Serious Physical Injuries. and without saying a word struck him with his fist causing a slight contusion on the face of the Judge.38 caliber revolvers. They proceeded to the house of X riding in a motorized tricycle. or however otherwise described. (Gaanan vs. C and R were armed with . Rex came to the rescue of the Judge but because he was taller and bigger than Pablo. I8: B. Answer: The crime of direct assault upon a person in authority with respect to the slight contusion on the face of the Judge. with what crime or crimes would you charge him? Explain. walkie talkie or tape recorder. Atty. the latter used a knife in attacking Rex. He waited for the judge to go out into the street. c) Vindication of a grave offense in favor of R because his sister was raped by X a day before the shooting. and against whom. conspired with M. 1 of RA No. a sixteen year old boy. Direct assault with serious physical injuries with respect to the assault on Rex. was punished by an RTC Judge of Manila for contempt." If you were the Judge. with C. and even if there was an interval of one (1) day between the rape and the killing. 145 SCRA 112) Question No. If you were the prosecutor called to institute a criminal action against Pablo. and explain in whose favor. Question No. whose sister was raped by X a day before. would you convict or acquit Land his lawyer. while M carried no weapon and acted only as a look out. Thereupon. Indicted for Homicide. 17: Pablo. as the information alleges no qualifying circumstance. C. who is blind in one eye. which says: “It shall be unlawful for any person not being authorized by all the parties to any private conversation or spoken word to tap any wire or cable or by using any other device or arrangement.sec. intercept or record such communication or spoken word by using a device commonly known as dictaphone or dictograph or detectaphone. 4200. on instruction of B to give X no chance. Mitigating circumstances: a) B is entitled to the mitigating circumstance under paragraph 8 of Article 13 of the Revised Penal Code. because it is a telephone extension and those enumerated by law means an extension with permanent recording of which a telephone extension is not. Pablo limited his assault to the arms of Rex Inflicting lesions graves which incapacitated Rex from labor for forty five (45) days. Answer: No. . specify the mitigating and aggravating circumstances present. must they be considered. Upon seeing the judge. b) M is entitled to the privileged mitigating circumstances of minority under Article 68 of the Revised Penal Code.

Ting boarded a taxi and pursued Dodoy. et al. NBI agent Cesar invited Esta. he proceeded to drive it away. 1). Answer: Violation of RA 7438. Aggravating circumstances: a. After the statement was signed by Estafador. 4. possessing only a student driver's permit. all the accused having used a motorized tricyle. c. He thereafter began questioning Estafador who told him that he (Esta. Article 14 should be considered against C if alleged in the Information (People vs. defining rights of persons arrested. Failing to make Dodoy stop. G. who in his haste to escape. Just then Ting. L-94528. Homicide. Question No.fador) is willing to submit to an Investigation since he has nothing to hide. . X was sleeping when shot to death. Thereupon. The aggravating circumstance of recidivism under paragraph 9. No. violently collided with a jeepney full of passengers. with what crime would you charge the NBI agent? Explain. Cesar got a typewriter and took down the statement of Estafador without informing the latter that he has a right to remain silent and to secure the services of a lawyer.fador the sworn complaint of Baby for estafa. par. The jeepney overturned and was wrecked. 4(b). came and asked Cesar to allow her to confer with Estafador but Cesar refused saying that after all. 1. b. Question No. it is still frustrated because there Is inability to dispose freely the object. his fiancee. paragraph 4 of the Revised Penal Code). What offense or offenses may Dodoy be charged with? Discuss.000. intending to sell it.R. The aggravating circumstance of motor vehicle under paragraph 20 of Article 14 of the Code. Fadora is not a lawyer. and 2. Prevent an immediate member of his family which includes fiancee. taking hold of the object is enough to consummate the crime: although in the Dino case. arrived. Peter Cadevida. The car of Ting was damaged to the tune of P20. and because of his inexperience.00. and that Estafador voluntarily gave his statement. 19: Dodoy. Serious Physical Injuries and Damage to Properly resulting from reckless imprudence. Failure to inform him of his right to counsel and to remain silent (Sec. March 1. Fadora. Treachery should be aggravating against all of the accused including M who acted as a lookout because all of them were present when X was shot (Article 62. Please take note that with respect to Espiritu Case.fador to the NBI headquarters where Cesar showed to Esta. 2. Answer: Consummated camaping. 20: Upon complaint of Baby. 1993). found a parked car with the key left in the ignition. One passenger was killed: the leg of the other passenger was crushed and had to be amputated. the owner of the car. to confer with Estafador (Sec. If you were the lawyer of Estafador.