DENISE LAGULAO-CABASAN

1. Anthony dela Cruz, an ex-policeman and a suspected drug pusher,

lives in a duplex townhouse unit. Operatives of the Station Drug
Enforcement Team of the Philippine National Police obtained a
search warrant but the name of the person in the search warrant
did not match with the address indicated therein. Anthony was
eventually found, as he is always on the go, but in a different
address, at the boarding house of his girlfriend. Anthony resisted
but the operatives insisted on the search. Drugs were found and
seized, and Anthony was prosecuted and eventually convicted by
the trial court. Is the search valid?

Answer:
No. A valid search warrant provides the specified person and placed to be
search and the things to be seized.

In the case at bar, Anthony was found, but not in the same address as provided for in
the said search warrant. He was found in his girlfriend’s boarding house, a different
address from that of what is stated. A valid search warrant requires that the search and
seizure should be done in such a specified place which is in the Duplex Townhouse Unit
of Anthony not on his girlfriend’s abode.

The search made, therefore, by the operatives in the wrong address cannot be used in
admissibility, that being said, Anthony’s prosecution and conviction is invalid.

2. Jomel Fernando was charged with and subsequently found guilty

of the crime of murder for the killing of a policeman. On appeal,
Jomel claims that he should have been charged with the crime of
rebellion, not murder, as he is a member of the New People’s
Army, and he killed the policeman as a means to or in furtherance
of subversive ends. Is the contention of Jomel correct?

Answer:
No. Political motives should be established first. The court cannot decide that the
crime committed is rebellion. It must first consider the facts and other circumstantial
evidence that would prove that Jomel really did commit rebellion and not murder.

Rebellion is committed by rising publicly and taking arms against the government
for a purpose of removing allegiance and deprivation of power to the President or
Congress. In an old case of People vs Lovedioro, the court have provided that motives
are important to relate to an act and a membership in an organization dedicated to the
furtherance of rebellion will not make one immediately guilty of rebellion.
In the case stated above, it seems that political motive wasn’t neither proved nor
established. Thus, Jomel is guilty of murder not of rebellion.

3. Jomar Soriano is the leader of a labor organization. He gave

speeches advocating the principles of communism and urging the
audience to join the uprising of labor groups against the
administration. Is Jomar guilty of conspiracy to commit rebellion?

Answer:
No. In the case at bar, Jomar is encouraging a sector to take up
arms against the administration by giving speeches advocating
communism and urging them to join the uprising. He proposes,
there’s no conspiracy of two or more persons since through his
speech he only inspires them to join. There is only proposal to
commit rebellion but not conspiracy to commit one.

4. Karla filed a criminal complaint against Franco for falsification of

public document because the latter allegedly falsified leave forms.
It was alleged that Franco made it appear in his leave application
that he was on forced leave and on vacation leave on certain
dates. In truth, Franco was serving a 20-day prison term because
of his conviction of the crime of slight physical injuries. Is Franco
liable for the crime of falsification of documents?

Answer:
Yes. Franco is guilty of Falsification of Public Officer, or Employee or Notary or
Eccelsiastical Minister when he made untruthful statements in a narration of facts
alleging that he was on forced leave and on vacation leave when in fact he wasn’t.

Franco has a legal obligation to tell the truth as a public officer, he lied and made
a different reason in his form making it appear differently. He is, therefore, guilty of
falsification by public officer.

5. Ronald, a Filipino citizen living in Iran, has knowledge of treason

committed by someone and does not report its commission to the
proper authorities. What crime/s did Ronald commit? Explain.

Answer:
Ronald did not commit any crime since the said felony he has
knowledge thereof has already been committed, if he knew it
before it was committed or that there was a conspiracy to commit
treason then he would’ve committed a crime which is misprision of
treason.
 Even though he wasn’t able to report such commission to the
authority he is not liable for any crime under RPC because treason
was already committed.

6. James is the brother of Laurence. Laurence travelled to the United

States to visit their mother who is a US citizen. Laurence is a
government employee and is required to file his Statement of
Assets and Liabilities (SALN). James forged the signature of
Laurence but what he entered in the SALN of Laurence are all true.
Did James commit a crime?

Answer:

Yes. James committed the crime of Falsification by Private

individuals and use of falsified documents because he made it
appear that Laurence made it when in fact he was out of the
country visiting their mother.

The information provided in the SALN may all be true but the
signature is forge. James made it appear in the said document that
it was Laurence who made the signature when in facts it wasn’t.

7. Julius and Angela are husband and wife but now live separate
lives. They have been separated for 5 years. Julius, a member of
the Philippine Army, filed his Statement of Assets and Liabilities
(SALN), and made it appear that he filed it jointly with Angela, who
is also a government employee and works with the Office of the
Civil Registrar. Julius forged the signature of Angela in his SALN.
Did Julius commit a crime?
Answer:
Yes. Julius committed the crime of perjury. He made a false affidavit that he and
his estranged wife are still together and that he also forge her signature to attest such
facts in his SALN. He made a deliberate assertion of falsehood for making it appear that
they still live together. The said mistake is a material fact especially with the forgery
added.

8. Without permission or a warrant, policemen in plain clothes

entered the house of Peter, a suspected smuggler, and attempted
to arrest him without explaining to him the cause or nature of their
presence there. Resisting the arrest, Peter called to his neighbors
for help, thinking that the armed men are bandits. Based on the
foregoing, is Peter guilty of the crime of assault upon agents of
authority?
Answer:
No. Peter called for help because he was not properly informed of what is
happening when the policemen barged in his house. It is the job of the police officer to
inform Peter of why they are present under what circumstances. Peter was only
protecting himself and should not be guilty of assault upon agents of authority. It is the
policemen not Peter who violated their oath or duty.

9. If piracy was committed outside the Philippine waters, will

Philippine courts have jurisdiction over the offense?

Answer:
Yes. Philippine courts have jurisdiction over such offense since it is an offense
against the law of nations. Any court has jurisdiction to the crime. It is the common
enemy of mankind and any courts all over the world can have jurisdiction.

Several policemen, led by Police Captain Gelzar effected the arrest of accused Remar. As
his rights was being read to him, Remar approached the policemen and hit one of them
in the breast with his fist, at which instant the policeman seized him by the wrist and the
resistance stopped. Is Remar guilty of direct assault?
Answer:
Yes. Remar is guilty of direct assault. There is two ways to commit direct assault
and Remar is guilty of the second one wherein there is no public uprising but he
employed force in attacking the police while they are engaged in the performance of
their duty.

Remar made an attack, with employed force to an agent of the person in

authority. Thus, he is guilty of direct assault.

10. What is the crime committed if the escapee is a detention prisoner

or serving final judgment?
Answer:
The crime committed is Evasion of Service of Sentence, since the offender is
convict by final judgment, serving his sentence and he evades his term of sentence by
escaping.

11. Karen and Nina were public school teachers. Karen’s son was a
student of Nina. Karen confronted Nina after learning from her son
that Nina called him a “bondying” while in class. Karen slapped
Nina on the cheek and pushed her, causing Nina to fall and hit the
concrete floor. As a result, Nina suffered a contusion, as shown in
a medical certificate issued by a doctor. Nina also continued to
suffer abdominal pains. Is Nina liable for any crime?
Answer:
 Yes. Nina is guilty of bullying against the said student. DepEd has made it clear
that the anti-bullying law also applies to teachers who bully their students. Teachers are
considered person in authority but their powers cannot be abused making the life of a
student a living hell. They are considered as role models, they are also subject to the
Anti-Bullying Act.

12. Maria, a teacher, posted on her Facebook account that a patient

infected with COVID-2019 died at the Capiz Memorial Medical
Center (CMMC), which has caused panic among people in the
Province of Capiz. The PNP Regional Anti-Cybercrime Unit of
Western Visayas conducted a fact-checking operation. The report
was then proven to be false by the CMMC Human Resource and
Legal Officer. What crime/s did Maria commit, if any? Explain.
Answer:
No. As of today there is no imposed law against spreading of fake news
yet, Maria is not guilty of anything under the RPC. There is no law punishing
such, therefore, there is no crime.

13. Can Treason be committed outside the Philippines? How?

Answer:
Yes. It can be committed outside the Philippines. If all the elements to
commit treason is present it doesn’t matter if he is outside the
Philippines because Treason can be committed in the Philippines or
elsewhere as provided for in the Revised Penal Code.

14. What is the criminal liability, if any, of a police officer who, while
Congress was in session, arrested a member thereof for
committing a crime punishable by a penalty higher than prision
mayor?

Answer:
The police officer committed no criminal liability because he is just doing his
job, but if the penalty of the crime committed was lower than prision mayor
then he may have answered for a criminal liability.