You are on page 1of 8

JURISTS BAR REVIEW CENTER

Suggested Answers to 2016 Criminal Law Mock Bar Examination

Astor will not be exculpated from liability.

The Supreme Court has held that in order for mistake of fact to be raised as a
defense, the act done should have been lawful had the facts been as the accused believed
them to be.

Here even if the facts had been as Astor believed them to be, the killing of Fergy and
her paramour would still not be lawful as Astor would be liable for parricide but with the
benefit of a special mitigating circumstance equivalent to passion or obfuscation.

Hence Astor will not be exculpated from liability.

II

No, Ps defense is not valid.

Under the Criminal Law, theft is committed by one who with intent to gain takes the
property of another without the latters consent, even if the taking was done not from the
owner himself.

Here P with intent to gain took the watch of the owner without the latters consent and
sold it thus showing intent to gain.

Hence Ps defense is not valid.

III

(a)

Persons in authority are persons directly vested with jurisdiction, whether as an


individual or as a member of some court or government corporation, board, or commission.

Agents of persons in authority are persons who by direct provision of law or by election
or by appointment by competent authority, are charged with maintenance of public order, and
the protection and security of life and property.

(b)

Crimes which are malum in se are distinguished from crimes which are malum
prohibitum as follows:

AS TO NATURE. A crime which is malum in se is wrong from its very nature while a
crime which is malum prohibitum is a wrong not from its nature but because it is prohibited by
law.

AS TO REQUIREMENT OF CRIMINAL INTENT. Intent is an element of a crime which


is malum in se, while intent is not an element of a crime which is malum prohibitum.

Suggested Answers for Jurists Mock Bar Examinations in Criminal Law. All rights reserved 2016 by Jurists Review Center
Inc. Unauthorized reproduction, use, or dissemination is strictly prohibited and shall be prosecuted to the full extent of the
law, including administrative complaints with the Office of the Bar Confidant, Supreme Court. Page 1 of 8
IV

Aaron and Leona may not be prosecuted in a Philippine court for offenses punishable
under our Revised Penal Code.

Under the territoriality principle of our criminal law, the provisions of the Revised Penal
Code do not have extraterritorial effect and thus crimes committed abroad are not punishable
under the Revised Penal Code.

Here Aaron and Leona committed the crimes in Singapore .

Hence the provisions of the Revised Penal Code do not apply extraterritorially to them
and thus they may not be prosecuted in a Philippine court for offenses punishable under our
Revised Penal Code.

On the other hand, Aguila may be prosecuted in a Philippine court.

Under the Revised Penal Code, its provisions may be given extra-territorial effect to
public officers who commit an offense in the exercise of their functions.

Here Aguila, the Philippine consul general, committed the crime of bribery when he
accepted 5,000 Singaporean dollars to make alterations in the transcripts of stenographic
notes. Such offense of bribery was committed in the exercise of his functions of taking
depositions abroad.

Hence the provisions of the Revised Penal Code may be given extraterritorial effect to
Aguila and he can be prosecuted for bribery in a Philippine court.

Aaron committed the crime of corruption of a public officer. Leona committed


falsification of a public document as a principal by direct participation and Aaron as a
principal by inducement.

The charge of grave coercion insofar as the cutting of the electric line is concerned is
not meritorious.

The Supreme Court has held that there is no grave coercion in the act of the lessor
who merely exercised the right accorded to her under the lease agreement to which the
lessee fully agreed with when she signed the same. (see Barbasa v. Tuquero, 575 SCRA
102).

Here Vilma fully agreed to the stipulation in the lease contract allowing Nora to cut off
the electric lines when she signed the lease contract.

Hence there is no grave coercion insofar as the cutting off of the electricity is
concerned.

The charge of grave coercion insofar as the posting of the security guards in the
premises to prevent Vilma from entering the same is meritorious.

The Supreme Court has held that a person who acquires possession of property
through force or intimidation is liable for grave coercion even if he is entitled to such
possession.

Suggested Answers for Jurists Mock Bar Examinations in Criminal Law. All rights reserved 2016 by Jurists Review Center
Inc. Unauthorized reproduction, use, or dissemination is strictly prohibited and shall be prosecuted to the full extent of the
law, including administrative complaints with the Office of the Bar Confidant, Supreme Court. Page 2 of 8
Here Nora employed force or intimidation to acquire possession of the premises by
posting security guards to prevent Vilma from entering the premises.

Hence the charge of grave coercion insofar as the posting of security guards is
meritorious.

VI

Yes, A, B, C, and D are liable for the crime of conspiracy to commit rebellion.

Under the Revised Penal Code, conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to
an agreement to commit a felony and decide to commit it. The crime of rebellion is
committed by taking up arms against the Government for the purpose of removing from its
allegiance Philippine territory or any part thereof.

Here it is clear that A, B, C, and D have agreed to take up arms against the government
in order to take allegiance of the local government unit, which is part of Philippine territory,
away from the national government. Since the act of recruiting high school students is only a
preparatory act, short of any direct overt act related to the taking up of arms against the
government, an attempt to carry out rebellion has not yet commenced.

Thus, the crime committed is only conspiracy to commit rebellion.

VII

No, the charge of direct bribery against PO2 Silbato is not correct.

The Supreme Court has held that there is no direct bribery if the one who gave the
money did not do so voluntarily but because of intimidation.

Here Kwatog gave the P200,000 not voluntarily but because of intimidation since he
was threatened with being branded a pusher which would endanger his life.

Hence the charge of direct bribery is not correct. [People v. Francisco, 45 Phil. 819]

VIII

Alvin may be held liable for falsification committed by a public officer by altering true
dates.

Under the Revised Penal Code, this crime may be committed by a public officer who,
taking advantage of his public position, would alter or change a date in a document that is
essential thereto.

Here, the alteration of the date in the police blotter by Alvin has not only affected the
veracity of said document but also its effects.

In addition thereto, Alvin may also be held liable for direct bribery.

Under the Revised Penal Code, direct bribery may be committed, among others, by a
public officer who shall perform an act constituting a crime, in connection with the discharge
of his duties, in consideration of any offer, promise, gift or present.

Suggested Answers for Jurists Mock Bar Examinations in Criminal Law. All rights reserved 2016 by Jurists Review Center
Inc. Unauthorized reproduction, use, or dissemination is strictly prohibited and shall be prosecuted to the full extent of the
law, including administrative complaints with the Office of the Bar Confidant, Supreme Court. Page 3 of 8
Here, Alvin, being a public officer, has performed an act which constitutes a crime, i.e.,
falsification, in consideration of the amount of P5,000.00 given by Jane.

On the other hand, Jane may be held liable for corruption of public officials.

Under the Revised Penal Code, corruption of public officials may be committed by any
person who shall have made an offer or promise or given gifts or presents to public officers
as a consideration for the performance of an act, whether a criminal or unjust act, or for them
refrain from performing an official duty.

Also, Jane may also be held liable for using a falsified document in other transaction.

In this case, Jane had used a falsified document (not in a judicial proceeding) with
intent to cause damage to the insurance company and which she knew to have been falsified
by another person.

IX
(1)

Yes, Noemi may be held criminally liable for dereliction in the prosecution of offenses.

Under the Revised Penal Code, dereliction in the prosecution of offenses is committed
by a public officer or officer of the law, who having a duty to cause the prosecution of
offenses and knowing the commission of the crime, does not cause the prosecution of the
criminal or tolerates its commission with malice and deliberate intent to favor the violator of
the law.

Here Noemi, an officer of the law, did not cause the arrest of Noel in deference to their
previous relationship and thus had the malice and deliberate intent to favor Noel.

Hence Noemi may be held liable for dereliction in the prosecution of offenses.

ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:

Yes, Noemi may be held criminally liable for violation of Presidential Decree 1829
(Obstruction of Apprehension and Investigation of Criminal Offenders) by facilitating the
escape of any person he knows has committed any offense under existing penal laws in
order to prevent his arrest, prosecution and conviction.

(2)

Noemi may be held liable for direct bribery.

Under the Revised Penal Code, direct bribery may be committed, among others, by a
public officer who shall refrain from doing something which it is his official duty to do in
consideration of any offer, promise, gift or present.

Here, Noemi, being a public officer, has refrained from arresting Noel which is her
official duty as an officer of the law in consideration of his offer of giving her half of the
ransom being demanded.

Hence Noemi may be held liable for direct bribery.

Suggested Answers for Jurists Mock Bar Examinations in Criminal Law. All rights reserved 2016 by Jurists Review Center
Inc. Unauthorized reproduction, use, or dissemination is strictly prohibited and shall be prosecuted to the full extent of the
law, including administrative complaints with the Office of the Bar Confidant, Supreme Court. Page 4 of 8
X

(a)

The crime committed by Trish is estafa through misappropriation.

Under the Revised Penal Code, estafa through misappropriation is committed when
the offender misappropriates personal property received under a duty to return the same.
[Art. 315(1)(b)]

Here Trish had a duty to return the ring which she borrowed from Tina and she
misappropriated it when she pawned the same. Hence Trish is liable for estafa.

(b)

Yes, Tina may still recover the ring from Nilda provided Tina reimburses Nilda the
price she paid for the ring.

Under the Criminal Law, the owner may recover a movable of which he has been
unlawfully deprived of from one who purchased it in good faith at a public sale, provided the
owner reimburses the buyer the purchase price. [Art. 103, Revised Penal Code; Art. 559,
Civil Code]

Here Tina was unlawfully deprived through estafa of a movable, that is the ring. The
ring was acquired at a public sale or auction by Nilda who was in good faith as she was not
aware of Trishs act.

Hence Tina may still recover the ring from Nilda, provided Tina reimburses Nilda the
price she paid at the public auction.

XI

The crime committed is murder qualified by treachery because the victim, who was
begging for mercy, was purposely killed without any opportunity to defend himself.

Manuel is a principal by direct participation because he personally killed the victim.


Frank is a principal by indispensable cooperation. He provided the weapon which
was used to kill the victim. At that time, the principal by direct participation Manuel, could
not have killed the victim without the gun provided by Rod.
Butch has no criminal liability. Mere acquiescence to the commission of the crime by
a bystander does not make him a principal nor an accomplice. Butch has nothing to do
with the resolution to commit the crime, and has not provided any physical or moral
support to the killing of the victim.
Jose is an accessory for concealing or destroying the instrument of the crime when
he sold the firearm. He is, however, exempt due to his relationship to the principal
offender Manuel, who is his brother.

XII

M is not liable for misprision of treason.

Suggested Answers for Jurists Mock Bar Examinations in Criminal Law. All rights reserved 2016 by Jurists Review Center
Inc. Unauthorized reproduction, use, or dissemination is strictly prohibited and shall be prosecuted to the full extent of the
law, including administrative complaints with the Office of the Bar Confidant, Supreme Court. Page 5 of 8
Under the Revised Penal Code, what is punished as misprision of treason is the failure
to disclose to the authorities knowledge of a conspiracy to commit treason and not treason
already consummated.

Here, X, Y and Z have already consummated the treason because they adhered to the
enemies and gave them aid and comfort.

Hence M cannot be held liable for misprision of treason.

XIII

No, A, B, C, and D are not liable for terrorism.

Under the Criminal Law, there is no terrorism if there is no intent to coerce the
government to give in to an unlawful demand.

Here there was no intent on the part of A, B, C, and D to so coerce the government.
The fact that the criminal activities of the group created a condition of widespread and
extraordinary fear and panic among the populace does not make them liable for the said
crime absent such intention.

Hence they are not liable for terrorism.

XIV

Pikon committed the complex crime of direct assault with less serious physical injuries.

Under the Revised Penal Code, a complex crime arises when a single act constitutes
two or more grave or less grave felonies.

Here Pikons single act of punching Atty. Malupit and thereby inflicting upon him
physical injuries constituted the grave felony of direct assault and the less grave felony of
less serious physical injuries. There was direct assault since Atty. Malupit is a teacher who is
a person in authority and he was assaulted as a result of the performance of his functions as
a teacher. There was less serious physical injuries since the injury required ten days of
medical attendance or treatment.

Hence Pikon committed the complex crime of direct assault with less serious physical
injuries.

XV
(a)

Tom Cruz committed the crime of estafa and the violation of B.P. Blg. 22.

Under the Revised Penal Code, Estafa is committed by the issuance in payment of a
simultaneous obligation of a check which was dishonored for insufficiency or absence of
funds and the drawer fails to make good the check within 3 days from notice. Under B.P. Blg.
22, the violation thereof is also committed by the issuance of a check which was dishonored
for reason of insufficiency or absence of funds and no payment was made within 5 banking
days after notice.

Suggested Answers for Jurists Mock Bar Examinations in Criminal Law. All rights reserved 2016 by Jurists Review Center
Inc. Unauthorized reproduction, use, or dissemination is strictly prohibited and shall be prosecuted to the full extent of the
law, including administrative complaints with the Office of the Bar Confidant, Supreme Court. Page 6 of 8
Here the check was issued in payment of a simultaneous obligation for the delivery of
the books and the check was dishonored for reason of absence of funds as the account was
already closed. There was no payment within 5 banking days from notice by Cruz.

Hence Cruz committed the crime of estafa and the violation of B.P. Blg. 22.

(b)

No, Lexus Publishing may no longer recover the books from Pareto Law Bookstore.

In a case involving similar facts, the Supreme Court held that the owner may no longer
recover the movables of which he was unlawfully deprived of if the ownership thereof had
been transferred to another person. [EDCA Publishing v Santos, 186 SCRA 614 (1990); Art.
1506, Civil Code]

Here the ownership of the books had already been transferred to Pareto Bookstore by
virtue of the contract of sale and the delivery of the books.

Hence Lexus Publishing may no longer recover the books from Pareto Bookstore.

XVI
No, both mitigating circumstances may not be appreciated in favor of Margarita.

The Supreme Court has held that for voluntary surrender to be appreciated as a
mitigating circumstance, it is required that there is no pending warrant of arrest or information
filed. [De Vera v. De Vera, 7 April 2009; contra People v Turalba, 28 February 1974].

The Supreme Court has also held that confession of guilt may not be appreciated if it
is done only after the prosecution has started presenting its evidence.

XVII

Answer: Yes, Loreto is criminally liable for frustrated estafa.

Under the Criminal Law, there is estafa when the offender fails to deliver to the owner
something received under trust of which he has juridical possession.

Here Loreto was a commissioned salesman and he received the sales proceeds under
trust or with a duty to remit the same to Hogwarts Publishing House. As a commissioned
salesman, Loreto had juridical possession of the sales proceeds.

Hence Loreto is guilty of the frustrated offense of estafa, inasmuch as he performed all
the acts of execution which should produce the crime as a consequence, but which, by
reason of causes independent of his will, did not produce it, no appreciable damage having
been caused to the offended party. [see U.S. v. Isaac Dominguez, G.R. No. L-17021,
February 23, 1921, 41 Phil. 409]

XVIII
The crime committed by Bong was estafa.

Under the Criminal Law, there is estafa when the offender fails to deliver to the owner
something received under trust of which he has juridical possession.

Suggested Answers for Jurists Mock Bar Examinations in Criminal Law. All rights reserved 2016 by Jurists Review Center
Inc. Unauthorized reproduction, use, or dissemination is strictly prohibited and shall be prosecuted to the full extent of the
law, including administrative complaints with the Office of the Bar Confidant, Supreme Court. Page 7 of 8
Here the car was received in trust for repainting and Bong had juridical possession as
he could retain the car by virtue of a lien. Bong failed to return the car and in fact
appropriated it by selling the same.

Hence Bong is liable for estafa.

XIX
My opinion would be that habeas corpus is a remedy which is still available to Ivana
and Boris.

The Supreme Court has held that habeas corpus is available as a post-conviction
remedy to set aside a judgment where the court had no jurisdiction to impose the sentence.
Under the Criminal Law, the offended partys complaint in adultery is jurisdictional in that the
court will not acquire jurisdiction to try the case without such complaint.

Here the complaint was filed by Mrs. Karpov who is not the offended party; it is the
husband of Ivana Korchnoi who is the offended party.

Hence the court did not acquire jurisdiction to try the case and impose the sentence.
Thus habeas corpus is available as a remedy to set aside the judgment of conviction against
Ivana and Boris.

XX
Analogical format

No, Ganda is not liable for perjury.

In a case involving similar facts, the Supreme Court held that there was no perjury
since an answer under the regular procedure is not required by law to be verified or under
oath.

Hence Ganda is not liable for perjury. [Flordelis v. Himalaloan, 31 July 1978, cited in
Regalado, Criminal Law Conspectus 468]

Deductive format

No, Ganda is not liable for perjury.

Under the Criminal Law, there is no perjury if the statement is not required by law to be
verified or under oath.

Here the answer was filed under the regular procedure.

Hence the answer is not required to be verified or under oath and thus Ganda is not
liable for perjury.

-oOo-

Suggested Answers for Jurists Mock Bar Examinations in Criminal Law. All rights reserved 2016 by Jurists Review Center
Inc. Unauthorized reproduction, use, or dissemination is strictly prohibited and shall be prosecuted to the full extent of the
law, including administrative complaints with the Office of the Bar Confidant, Supreme Court. Page 8 of 8