CRIM

1. Rico, a hit man, positioned himself at the rooftop of a nearby building of a bank, to
serve as a lookout for Red and Rod while the two were robbing the bank, as the
three of them had previously planned. Ramiro, a policeman, responded to the
reported robbery. Rico saw Ramiro and, to eliminate the danger of Red and Rod
being caught, pulled the trigger of his rifle, intending to kill Ramiro. He missed as
Ramiro slipped and fell down to the ground. Instead, a woman depositor who was
coming out of the bank was fatally shot. After their apprehension, Rico, Red, and
Rod were charged with the special complex crime of robbery with homicide. Rico's
defense was that he never intended to shoot and kill the woman, only Ramiro. Red
and Rod's defense was that they were not responsible for the death of the woman
as they had no participation therein. (a) Is Rico's defense meritorious? (b) Is Red
and Rod’s defense meritorious? (BAR 2018)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
A. Rico’s defense is not meritorious, because the homicide was committed on the
occasion of robbery; thus, the crime committed is robbery with homicide as long
as the killing occurred on the occasion of the robbery whoever be the victim,
whether intended or not.

B. No, the defense of Red and Rod’s is also not meritorious. The concerted manner
in which the three (Rico, Red and Rod) perpetrated the crime showed clearly the
presence of conspiracy. When a homicide takes place by reason or on the
occasion of robbery, all those who took part shall be guilty of the special complex
crime of robbery with homicide, whether or not they actually participated in the
killing. Regardless of the fact that the killing of the woman depositor was
individually performed by Rico, the basic principal in conspiracy is that the “act of
one is the act of all”, the criminal liability of Rod and Red is one and the same with
that of Rico (P. v. Hinlo (G.R. No. 212151, Feb. 18, 2015).

2. Mr. O, a 75-year old retiree who has been a widower for the last ten (10) years,
believed that, at past 70, he is licensed to engage in voyeurism to satisfy his lustful
desires. If not peeping into his neighbors' rooms through his powerful single
cylinder telescope, he would trail young, shapely girls along the hallways and
corridors of shopping malls. While going up the escalator, he stayed a step behind
a mini-skirted, 20-year old girl, and, in the heat of the moment, put his hand on her
left buttock and massaged it. The girl screamed and hollered for help. Mr. O was
thus apprehended and charged with Acts of Lasciviousness under Article 336 of
the Revised Penal Code. Mr. O's counsel, however, claimed that Mr. 0 should only
be charged with the crime of Unjust Vexation Is the contention of Mr. O's counsel
tenable? Explain. (BAR 2019)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, the contention of Mr. O’s counsel is untenable. Under Article 366 of the RPC,
the elements of Acts of Lasciviousness are: (1) that the offender commits any act
 of lasciviousness or lewdness; (2) that the lascivious act is committed against a
person of either sex; and (3) that it is done under any of the following
circumstances: (a) by using force or intimidation; (b) when the offended party is
deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious; (c) by means of fradulent
machination or grave abuse of authority; or (d) when the offended party is under
12 years of age or is demented. Lascivious conduct is defined as “the intentional
touching, either directly or through clothing, of the genitalia, anus, groin, breast,
inner thigh, or buttock, or the introduction of any object into the genitalia, anus or
mouth, of any person, whether of the same or opposite sex, with an intent to abuse,
humiliate, harass, degrade, or arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person,
bestiality, masturbation, lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of a
person”. [Orsos v. People, G.R. No. 214673, November 20, 2017] Here, when Mr.
O touched the buttocks of the offended party, he was animated with lewdness;
thus acts of lasciviousness was committed.

3. Following his arrest after a valid buy-bust operation, Tommy was convicted of
violation of Section 5, Republic Act 9165. On appeal, Tommy questioned the
admissibility of the evidence because the 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. What is the "chain of custody" requirement in
drug offenses? What is its rationale? What is the effect of failure to observe the
requirement? (BAR 2009)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
"Chain of custody" requirement in drug offenses refers to the duly recorded,
authorized movement and custody of seized dangerous drugs, controlled
chemicals, plant sources of dangerous drugs, and laboratory equipment for
dangerous drugs from the time of confiscation/seizure thereof from the offender,
to its turn-over and receipt in the forensic laboratory for examination, to its
safekeeping and eventual presentation/offer in court as evidence of the criminal
violation, and for destruction. (Dangerous Drugs Board Regulation No.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 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.
Failure to observe the "chain of custody" requirement renders the evidence
questionable, not trustworthy and insufficient to prove the corpus delicti beyond
reasonable doubt. Hence, Tommy would be acquitted on reasonable doubt.

4. Sexy boarded a taxi on her way home from a party. Because she was already
tipsy, she fell asleep. Pogi, the taxi driver, decided to Take advantage of thE
situation and drove Sexy to a deserted place where he raped her for a period of
two (2) weeks. What crime did Pogi commit? (BAR 2014)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
 The crime committed by Pogi is kidnapping and serious illegal detention with rape.
Since Sexy was raped for two weeks, there was a clear deprivatio of liberty, which
constitutes the crime of kidnapping with serious illegal detention. The crime is
comimitted when one kidnaps or detains another, or in any other manner deprives
her of his liberty and the kidnapping or detention has lasted more than three days
or the victim is a female. Since as a consequence of the detention, the victim is
raped, the crime committed is special complex crime of kidnapping with rape. No
matter how many rapes had been committed in the special complex crime of
kidnapping with rape, the resultant crime is only kidnapping with rape. This is
because these composite acts are regarded as a single indivisible offense as in
fact RA No 7659 punishes these acts with only single penalty (People v. Mirandilla,
Jr. GR No. 186417, July 27, 2011).

5. Delmo learned that his enemy, Oscar was confined at the ICU of the Philippine
Medical Center. Intending to kill Oscar, Delmo disguised himself as a nurse,
entered the ICU, and saw a man lying on the hospital bed with several life-saving
tubes attached to the body. Delmo disconnected the tubes and left. Later, the
resident physician doing his rounds entered the ICU and, seeing the disconnected
tube, replaced them. The patient survived. It turned out that the patient was Larry,
as Oscar had been discharged from the hospital earlier. Delmo was charged with
frustrated murder, qualified by evident premeditation and treachery as aggravating
circumstances. Discuss the propriety of the charge. (BAR 2009)

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. 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, the death of the victim was not accomplished. Treachery qualifies the
crime, because the means, 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. Evident premeditation is absorbed in treachery.