LEGAL TECHNIQUE

ANSWERS TO THE 2017 BAR EXAMINATION IN CRIMINAL LAW

I.
Tonito, an 8-year-old boy, was watching a free concert at the Luneta Park with his father Tony.
The child stood on a chair to be able to see the performers on the stage. Juanito, a 10-year-old
boy, who was also watching the concert, could not see much of the performance on the stage
because Tonito was blocking his line of sight by standing on the chair. Using his elbow, Juanito
strongly shoved Tonito to get a good view of the stage. The shove caused Tonito to fall to the
ground. Seeing this, Tony struck Juanito on the head with his hand and caused the boy to fall and
to hit his head on a chair.
Tony also wanted to strangle Juanito but the latter's aunt prevented him from doing so. Juanito
sustained a lacerated wound on the head that required medical attendance for 10 days.

Tony was charged with child abuse in violation of Sec. 10(a), in relation to Sec. 3(b)(2), of R.A.
No. 7610 (Child Abuse Law) for allegedly doing an "act by deeds or words which debases,
degrades or demeans the intrinsic worth and dignity of a child as a human being." In his defense,
Tony contended that he had no intention to maltreat Juanito, much less to degrade his intrinsic
worth and dignity as a human being.

(a) Distinguish crimes mala in se from crimes mala prohibita. (3%)

(b) Was Tony criminally liable for child abuse under R.A. No. 7610? Explain your answer. (3%)

ANSWER:
(a) Mala in se is a crime or an act that is inherently immoral, such as murder arson, or rape.
Whereas, Mala prohibita, is an act that is a crime merely because it is prohibited by
statute, although the act itself is not necessarily immoral – misdemeanors such as
jaywalking and running a stoplight are mala prohibita, as are many regulatory violations.

(b) Yes, Tony is criminally liable not for child abuse under R.A. No. 7610 but for less
serious physical injuries.
 Under the Revised Penal Code, any person who shall inflict upon another physical
injuries not described in the preceding articles, but which shall incapacitate the offended
party for labor for ten days or more, or shall require
medical assistance for the same period, shall be guilty of less serious physical injuries and
shall suffer the penalty of arresto mayor.

Here, Tony struck Juanito on the head with his hand and caused Juanito to fall and hit his
head on a chair, which the latter sustained a lacerated wound on the head that required
medical assistance for 10 days.

Hence, Tony is criminally liable not for child abuse under R.A. No. 7610 but for less
serious physical injuries.

II.
Sixteen-year-old Aliswan prodded Amethyst, his girlfriend, to remove her clothing while they
were secretly together in her bedroom late one evening. Failing to get a positive response from
her, he forcibly undressed her. Apprehensive about rousing the attention of the household who
did not know of his presence inside her room, she resisted him with minimal strength, but she
was really sobbing in a muffled manner. He then undressed himself while blocking- the door.
Yet, the image of a hapless and sobbing
Amethyst soon brought him to his senses, and impelled him to leave her room naked. He did not
notice in his hurry that Amante, the father of Amethyst, who was then sitting alone on a sofa in
the sala, saw him leave his daughter's room naked.

Outside the house, the now-clothed Aliswan spotted Allesso, Amethyst's former suitor.
Knowing how Allesso had aggressively pursued Amethyst, Aliswan fatally stabbed Allesso.
Aliswan immediately went into hiding afterwards.

Upon learning from Amethyst about what Aliswan had done to her, an enraged Amante wanted
to teach Aliswan a lesson he would never forget. Amante set out the next day to look for Aliswan
in his school. There, Amante found a young man who looked very much like Aliswan. Amante
immediately rushed and knocked the young man unconscious on the pavement, and then draped
his body with a prepared tarpaulin reading RAPIST AKO HUWAG TULARAN. Everyone else
in the school was shocked upon witnessing what had just transpired, unable to believe that the
timid and quiet Alisto, Aliswan's identical twin brother, had committed rape.
 (a) A criminal complaint for attempted rape with homicide was brought against
Aliswan in the Prosecutor's Office. However, after preliminary investigation, the
Investigating Prosecutor recommended the filing of two separate informations - one for
attempted rape and the other for homicide. Do you agree with the recommendation?
Explain your answer. (3%)
(b) Before the trial court, Aliswan moved that the cases should be dismissed because he was
entitled to the exempting circumstance of minority. Is his motion correct? Explain your
answer. (3%)
(c) After receiving medical attendance for 10 days, Alisto consulted you about filing the
proper criminal complaint against Amante. What crimes, if any, will you charge Amante
with? Explain your answer. (3%)
(d) Answering the criminal complaint filed by Alisto, Amante contended that he had incurred
no criminal liability for lack of criminal intent on his part, his intended victim being
Aliswan, not Alisto. What is this defense of Amante, and explain if the same will
prosper? (3%)

ANSWER:
(a) I disagree with the recommendation of the Investigating Prosecutor. The Information that
should be filed is Attempted Rape with Homicide.

In a case involving similar facts, the Supreme Court has held that the meaning of “by
reason or on occasion of rape” homicide was committed, is not limited to the victim of
the rape or attempted rape, but includes any person so long as the victim of the homicide
is linked to the rape.

Here, the real intent of Aliswan was to rape Amythest. But later on, he desisted. The
killing of Allesso was committed by Aliswan by reason or on occasion of the attempted
rape.

Hence, I disagree with the recommendation of the Investigating Prosecutor.

(b) Yes. The motion is correct.

 Under the law, the minimum age of criminal responsibility is 18.

Here, Aliswan was only 16 at the time of the commission of the crime, which exempts
him from criminal liability. But, he will be subjected to an intervention program, unless
he/she has acted with discernment, in which case, such child shall be subjected to the
appropriate proceedings in accordance with law. Although Aliswan is exempt from
criminal liability, it does not mean that he can escape from civil liability.

Hence, the motion is correct.

(c) I will charge Amante for violation of R.A. No. 7610 in relation to Art. 265 of the RPC.

Under the law, child abuse refers to the infliction of physical or psychological injury,
cruelty to, or neglect, sexual abuse or exploitation of a child. Physical injury includes but
is not limited to lacerations, fractured bones, turns, internal injuries, severe injury or
serious bodily harm suffered by a child.

Here, the victim Alisto was the twin brother of Aliswan, he is also sixteen (16) years old
and a minor. The act of Amante constitutes child abuse as he maltreated Alisto when he
inflicted on him physically with cruelty. By wrapping the body with prepared tarpaulin
reading RAPIST AKO HUWAG TULARAN, it debases, degrades or demeans the
intrinsic worth and dignity of Alisto. Also, considering that Alisto received medical
attendance for ten (10) days due to the injury he suffered from Amante, the latter is also
liable for less serious physical injuries under Art. 265 of the Revised Penal Code.

Hence, I will charge Amante for violation of R.A. No. 7610 in relation to Art. 265 of the
RPC.

(d) The defense of Amante is Mistake of Fact as his intended victim was Aliswan and not
Alisto, and this kind of defense will not prosper as Amante acted maliciously and
willfully.

Under the law, “error in personae” or mistake in identity is injuring one person who is
mistaken for another.
 Here, the act of Amante when he knocked down Alisto and became unconscious on the
pavement, and then draped his body with a prepared tarpaulin reading RAPIST AKO
HUWAG TULARAN, were unlawful. Amante’s act is called error en personae or
mistake in identity, considering that it was Alisto that became the victim and not
Aliswan. The lack of criminal intent does not apply in case of violation of special law.
Regardless of the lack of criminal intent on the part of Amante, he is still criminally liable
for violation of R.A. No. 7610.

Hence, the defense of Amante is Mistake of Fact as his intended victim was Aliswan and
not Aristo, and this kind of defense will not prosper as Amante acted maliciously and
willfully.

III.
Overjoyed by the award to his firm of a multi-billion government contract for the development
of an economic and tourism hub in the Province of Blank, Mr. Gangnam allotted the amount of
P100 Million to serve as gifts for certain persons instrumental in his firm's winning the award.
He gave 50% of that amount to Governor Datu, the official who had signed the contract with the
proper authorization from the
Sangguniang Panlalawigan; 25% to Bokal Diva, the Sangguniang Panlalawigan member who
had lobbied for the award of the project in the Sangguniang Panlalawigan; and 25% to Mayor
Dolor of the Municipality where the project would be implemented. Governor Datu received his
share through his wife, Provincial First Lady Dee, who then deposited the amount in her personal
bank account.

Previously, upon facilitation by Bokal Diva, Mr. Gangnam concluded an agreement with Mayor
Dolor for the construction of the Blank Sports Arena worth ₱800 Million. The project was highly
overpriced because it could be undertaken and completed for not more than ₱400 Million. For
this project, Mayor Dolor received from Mr. Gangnam a gift of ₱10 Million, while Bokal Diva
got ₱25 Million.

In both instances, Bokal Diva had her monetary gifts deposited in the name of her secretary,
Terry, who personally maintained a bank account for Bokal Diva's share in government projects.

(a) May each of the above-named individuals be held liable for plunder? Explain your
answer. (4%)
 (b) Define wheel conspiracy and chain conspiracy. Is either or both kinds existent herein?
Explain your answer. (4%)
(c) What provisions of R.A. No. 3019 (Anti-Graft & Corrupt Practices Act), if any, were
violated by any of the above-named individuals, specifying the persons liable therefor?
Explain your answer. (4%)
(d) What crimes under the Revised Penal Code, if any, were committed, specifying the
persons liable therefor? Explain your answer. (4%)

ANSWER:
(a) Not all of them could be held liable for plunder.

Under the law, the crime of plunder is the accumulation of ill-gotten wealth through a
combination or series of overt criminal acts in the aggregate amount of 50,000,000.00 by
a public official.

Here, Governor Datu received the amount of P50,000,000.00 after he signed the contract
in favor of the firm of Mr. Gangnam. His wife Provincial First Lady Dee is also liable as
the amount given to Governor Datu, his husband, was deposited in her account. She is
considered as co-conspirator. Bokal Diva is also liable for plunder, as he was the one who
lobbied for the award of the Project to the firm of Mr. Gangnam in the Sanguniang
Panlalawigan. He received 25% of or P25,000,000.00 and another P25,000,000.00 in
another project of Mr. Gangnam in the construction of an overpriced Blank Sports Arena
in the Municipality to which Dolor is the Mayor. The aggregate amount has a total of
P50,000,000.00. Terry, the Secretary of Bokal Diva is also liable as co-conspirator. The
amount was deposited in her bank account.

Hence, not all of them could be held liable for plunder.

(b) In Macapagal-Arroyo vs. People, citing Estrada v. Sandiganbayan, the Court has
recognized two nuances of appreciating conspiracy as a means to commit a crime, the
wheel conspiracy and the chain conspiracy.
 The wheel conspiracy occurs when a single person or group deals individually with two
or more other persons or groups. The conspiracy alleged against former President Estrada
and his co-conspirators was a wheel conspiracy, where the hub was Estrada and the
spokes were the other accused individuals. In the American case of Kotteakos v. United
States, Simon Brown, the hub, assisted 31 independent individuals to obtain separate
fraudulent loans from the US
Government, but there was no common purpose or overall plan among them.

The chain conspiracy theory recognizes successive communication and cooperation in a

vertical chain to achieve a criminal objective. In United States v. Bruno, 19 of the US
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, 88 defendants were indicted for a conspiracy to
import, sell, and possess narcotics. The court ruled that what transpired was a single chain
conspiracy in which the smugglers knew that the middlemen must purchase drugs from
retailers. Once the State proves the conspiracy, each co-conspirator is as criminally liable
as the others, for the act of one is the act of all.

(c) Governor Datu, his wife, First Lady Dee, Bokal Diva, her Secretary Terry and
Mayor Dolor are all liable for violation of Section 3 (b) of Republic Act No. 3019.

Under the law, directly or indirectly requesting or receiving any gift, present, share,
percentage, or benefit, for himself or for any other person, in connection with any
contract or transaction between the Government and any other party, wherein the public
officer in his official capacity has to intervene under the law, is an act or omission of
public officers which shall constitute corrupt practices of any public officer and is hereby
declared to be unlawful.

Here, Governor Datu, his wife, First Lady Dee, Bokal Diva, her Secretary Terry and
Mayor Dolor are all liable for the acts they have committed and it constitutes as corrupt
practices of public officers.

Hence, Governor Datu, his wife, First Lady Dee, Bokal Diva, her Secretary Terry and
Mayor Dolor are all liable for violation of Section Section 3 (b) of Republic Act No.
3019,
 (d) Mr. Gangnam is liable for corruption of public officials under Art. 212 of the Revised
Penal Code.

Under the Article 212 of the Revised Penal Code, the same penalties imposed upon the
officer corrupted, except those of disqualification and suspension, shall be imposed upon
any person, who shall have made the offers or promises or given the gifts or presents.

Here, the elements of corruption of public officials under Article 212 of the Revised
Penal Code, that are present in this case are: that the offender makes offers or promises,
or give gifts or presents to a public officer; and that the offers or promises are made or the
gifts or presents are given to a public officer under circumstances that will make the
public officer liable for direct bribery or indirect bribery.

Hence, Mr. Gangnam is liable for corruption of public officials under Art. 212 of the
Revised Penal Code.

IV.
Maita was the object of Solito's avid sexual desires. Solito had attempted many times to entice Maita to
a date in bed with him but Maita had consistently refused. Fed up with all her rejections, Solito
abducted Maita around 7 p.m. one night. With his cohorts, Solito forced Maita into a Toyota lnnova and
drove off with her to a greenpainted house situated in a desolate part of the town. There, Solito
succeeded in having carnal knowledge of Maita against her will.

Meanwhile, the police authorities were tipped off that at 11:30 p.m. on that same night Solito would be
selling marijuana outside the green-painted house. Acting on the tip, the PNP station of the town
formed a buy-bust team with PO2 Masahol being designated the poseur buyer. During the buy-bust
operation, Solito opened the trunk of the Toyota lnnova to retrieve the bag of marijuana to be sold to
PO2 Masahol. To cut the laces that he had tied the bag with, Solito took out a Swiss knife, but his doing
so prompted PO2 Masahol to effect his immediate arrest out of fear that he would attack him with the
knife. PO2 Masahol then confiscated the bag of marijuana as well as the Toyota lnnova.

(a) Two informations were filed against Solito in the RTC - one for forcible abduction with rape,
raffled to Branch 8 of the RTC; the other for illegal sale of drugs, assigned to Branch 29 of the RTC. Was
Solito charged with the proper offenses based on the circumstances? Explain your answer. (5%)

(b) While the Prosecution was presenting its evidence in Branch 29, Branch 8 convicted Solito.
Immediately after the judgment of conviction was promulgated, Solito filed in both Branches a motion
for the release of the Toyota lnnova. He argued and proved that he had only borrowed the vehicle from
his brother, the registered owner. Branch 8 granted the motion but Branch 29 denied it. Were
the two courts correct in their rulings? Explain your answer. (5%) (a) The charge of Forcible Abduction
with Rape filed with RTC, Branch 8 is not correct. The principal objective of the abduction of Maita by
Solito is to rape her. Thus, forcible abduction is absorbed in the crime of rape. (People vs.
Sabadlab, 668 SCRA 237, 14 March 2012) [Bersamin, J., First Division]

ANSWER:
A. Yes, The charge of rape through forcible abduction is correct
Under the Revised Penal Code, It is accepted law that, even if the victim was coerced into
submission, rape constitutes the primary intent of the accused. Forced kidnapping is
absorbed. As forced abduction is a necessary component of committing rape, the doctrine
of absorption rather than Article 48 of the RPC is relevant.
Therefore, Solito kidnapped Maita. one evening. Maita was coerced into a Toyota lnnova
by Solito and his accomplices, who then took her to a green-painted home in a barren
area of the town. There, despite Maita's will, Solito was able to have carnal knowledge of
her.
Hence, Solito is liable for Forcible abduction.
B.  Yes, the ruling of both courts are correct.

In a decision by the supreme court held, Objects of lawful commerce confiscated in the
course of an enforcement of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act that are the
property of a third person are subject to be returned to the lawful owner who is not liable
for the unlawful act. But the trial court may not release such objects pending trial and
before judgment.

Therefore, RTC, Branch 8 correctly ruled the release of the vehicle. The crime of rape
was already terminated leading to the conviction of Solito. Further, the confiscation or
retention of the said vehicle has no more purpose even on appeal. the Order of denial of
release of the Motor Vehicle by RTC, Branch 29 was also correct.

V.
To aid in the rebuilding and revival of Tacloban City and the surrounding areas that had been
devastated by the strongest typhoon. to hit the country in decades, the Government and other
sectors, including NGOs, banded together in the effort. Among the NGOs was Ba..,gon Waray,
Inc. (BaWI), headed by Mr. Jose Ma. Gulang, its President and CEO. BaWI operated mainly as a
social amelioration and charitable institution. For its activities in the typhoon-stricken parts of
Leyte Province, BaWI received funds from all sources, local and foreign, including substantial
amounts from legislators, local government officials and the EU. After several months,
complaints were heard about the very slow distribution of relief goods and needed social services
by BaWI. The COA reported the results of its audit to the effect that at least P10 Million worth
of funds coming from public sources channeled to BaWI were not yet properly accounted for.
The COA demanded reimbursement but BaWI did not respond. Hence, Mr. Gulang was
criminally charged in the Office of the Ombudsman with malversation of public funds and
failure of accountable officer to render accounts as respectively defined and punished by Art.
217 and Art. 218 of the Revised Penal Code. He was also· charged with violation of Sec. 3(e) of
R.A. No. 3019 for causing undue injury to the Government. In his defense, Mr. Gulang mainly
contended that he could not be held liable under the various· charges because he was not a public
officer.

ANSWER:
(a) Who is a public officer? (2%)
The law provides that any person who, by direct provision of the law, popular election or
appointment by competent authority, shall take part in the performance of public functions in the
Government of the Philippine Islands, of shall perform in said Government or in any of its
branches public duties as an employee, agent or subordinate official, of any rank or class, shall
be deemed to be a public officer.”

(b) Discuss whether the crimes charged against Mr. Gulang are proper. Explain your answer.
(3%)
No, the crime charged against Mr. Gulang is not proper.
Under the Revised Penal Code, one element for malversation is that, the offender must be
a public officer discharging administrative, judicial or official functions and a public officer is
hereby unlawful: causing undue injury including the government.
Here, Mr. Gulang is the president and CEO of the non-government organization, BaWi,
such position therein does not discharge administrative, judicial, or official function and the
undue injury to the government would not be assumed since his position does not lawfully
insinuate him as a public officer.
Hence, the crime charged against Mr. Gulang is not proper.

VI.

Answer with brief explanations the following queries:

(a) If the slightest penetration of the female genitalia consummates rape by carnal knowledge,
how does the accused commit attempted rape by carnal knowledge? (2%)

- Under a jurisprudence where the Supreme Court has held that there is an attempt to
commit rape when the offender commences its commission directly by overt acts but
does not all perform all the acts of execution of having carnal knowledge which should
produce the felony by reason of some cause or accident other than his own spontaneous
desistance.

(b) What crime is committed by a capataz who enrolls two fictitious names in the payroll and
collects their supposed daily wages every payday? (2%)

- The Revised Penal Code provides that any person who shall publicly use a fictitious
name or a name other than his real name for the purpose of concealing a crime, evading
the execution of judgement or to cause damage.

(c) What is now the age of doli incapax in the Philippines? (2%) (d) Why is there no crime of
frustrated serious physical injuries? (2%)

- Under the Welfare Act of 2006, a child fifteen (15) years of age or under at the time of
the commission of the offense shall be exempt from criminal liability.

(d) Why is there no crime of frustrated serious physical injuries? (2%)

- Under a jurisprudence where the Supreme Court has held that in frustrated felony, the
reason of the non-accomplishment of the crime is some cause independent of the will of
the perpetrator, and the crime of physical injuries is determined on the gravity of the
injury whereby in its nature deemed as accomplished.

Hence, the crime of physical injury as a whole is considered consummated.

VII.

Bernardo was enraged by his conviction for robbery by Judge Samsonite despite insufficient
evidence. Pending his appeal, Bernardo escaped in order to get even with Judge Samsonite.
Bernardo learned that the judge regularly slept in his mistress' house every weekend. Thus, he
waited for the judge to arrive on Saturday evening at the house of his mistress. It was about 8:00
p.m. when Bernardo entered the house of the mistress. He found the judge and his mistress
having coffee in the kitchen and engaging in small talk. Without warning, Bernardo stabbed the
judge at least 20 times. The judge instantly died. Prosecuted and tried, Bernardo was convicted
of direct assault with murder. Rule with reasons whether or not the conviction for direct assault
with murder was justified, and whether or not the trial court should appreciate the following
aggravating circumstances against Bernardo, to wit:

- The crime charged against Bernardo shall not prosper.

under the revised penal code provides that any person or persons who without public

(1) disregard of rank and age of the victim, who was 68 years old;
(2) dwelling;
(3) nighttime;
(4) cruelty;
(5) quasi recidivism. (10%)

VIII.
Porthos made a sudden turn on a dark street, and his Rolls-Royce SUV bumped the rear of a
parked Cadillac Sedan inside which Aramis was then taking a nap. Angered by the violent
Impact, Aramis alighted and confronted Porthos who had also alighted. Aramis angrily and
repeatedly shouted at Porthos: Putang Ina mo! Porthos, displaying fearlessness, aggressively
shouted back at Aramis: Wag kang magtapang-tapangan dyan, papatayin kita! Without saying
anything more, Aramis drew his gun from his waist and shot Porthos in the leg. Porthos' wound
was not life threatening.

(a) What are the kinds of unlawful aggression, and which kind was displayed in this case?
Explain your answer. (3%)
- Unlawful aggression is of two kinds: actual or material unlawful aggression, and
imminent unlawful aggression. There was neither material nor imminent unlawful
aggression here on the part of Porthos, while Aramis displayed fearlessness and
aggressively shouted back at him, there was no physical force or weapon that might
endanger his life. In other words, it was not life threatening. It was Aramis who was the
aggressor here in view of his act in actually shooting Phortos, although on his leg only.
Hence, we could conclude that there was no intent to kill.
(b) Standing trial for frustrated murder, Aramis pleaded self-defense. The Prosecution's
contention was that the plea of self-defense applied only to consummated killings. Rule, with
explanations, on the tenability of Aramis' claim of self-defense, and on the Prosecution's
contention. (3%)

- Aramis cannot plead that his act in shooting Porthos was self defense.

Under the Revised Penal Code, the elements of self defense are as follows: unlawful
aggression, necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel the unlawful aggression,
and lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself.

Here, the burden of proving self defense lies upon Aramis, which he was not able to
satisfy one significant element if not all elements, provided that the most important of
these element is absent from the procurement of such offense viz unlawful aggression,
which is incumbent in the next preceding element. Inherently, all elements are absolute
and must be present accordingly.

Hence, Aramis cannot invoke self defense.

(c) Porthos insisted that the element of treachery was present. To rule out treachery, Aramis
asserted that both he and Porthos were then facing and confronting each other when he fired the
shot. Rule, with reasons, on the respective contentions. (3%)

- The contention of Porthos of invoking the presence of the element of treachery is

tenable.

Under the Revised Penal Code, two conditions must concur in order for treachery to be
appreciated, the assailant employed means, methods or forms in the execution of the
criminal act which give the person attacked no opportunity to defend himself or to
retaliate; and means, methods or forms of execution were deliberately or consciously
adopted by the assailant.

Here, there is treachery because of the element of surprise. Porthos has no opportunity or
chance to defend himself when Aramis suddenly drew his gun and shoot Porthos
although they were facing each other.

Hence, the contention is tenable.

 IX.

During the nationwide transport strike to protest the phase out of old public utility
vehicles, striking jeepney drivers Percy, Pablo, Pater and Sencio, each armed with guns,
hailed several MMDA buses then providing free transport to the stranded public to stop
them from plying their routes. They later on commandeered one of the buses without
allowing any of the passengers to alight, and told the driver to bring the bus to Tanay,
Rizal. Upon reaching a remote area in Tanay, Percy, Pablo, Pater and Sencio forcibly
divested the passengers of their cash and valuables. They ordered the passengers to leave
thereafter. Then, they burned the bus. When a tanod of the barangay of the area came
around to Intervene, Pater fired at him, instantly killing him. After Percy, Pablo, Pater
and Sencio were arrested, the police authorities recommended them to be charged with
the following crimes, to wit:

(1) Carnapping;

(2) Robbery,

(3) Direct assault with homicide;

(4) Kidnapping;

(5) Arson. State your legal opinion on the recommendation of the police authorities on
the criminal liabilities incurred by Percy, Pablo, Pater and Sencio. (10%)

X.

Sammy Peke was convicted of a violation of R.A. No. 123456 for selling fake books. The law
prescribes the penalty of prision correccional, a divisible penalty whose minimum period is six
months and one day to two years and four months; medium period is two years, four months and
one day to four years and two months; and maximum period is four years, two months and one
day to six years. At arraignment, Sammy Peke pleads guilty to the crime charged.

(a) Explain how the Indeterminate Sentence Law is applied in crimes punished by special laws.
(3%)
 (b) Supposing the trial judge imposes a straight penalty of imprisonment for one year, is the
penalty correct in the context of the Indeterminate Sentence Law? Explain your answer. (3%)

XI.

In his homily, Fr. Chris loudly denounced the many extrajudicial killings committed by the men
in uniform. Policeman Stone, then attending the mass, was peeved by the denunciations of Fr.
Chris. He immediately approached the priest during the homily, openly displayed his firearm
tucked in his waist, and menacingly uttered at the priest: Father, may kalalagyan kayo kung hindi
kayo tumigil. His brazenness terrified the priest, who cut short his homily then and there. The
celebration of the mass was disrupted, and the congregation left the church in disgust over the
actuations of Policeman Stone, a co-parishioner. Policeman Stone was subsequently charged.
The Office of the Provincial Prosecutor is now about to resolve the case, and is mulling on what
to charge Policeman Stone with. May Policeman Stone be properly charged with either or both
of the following crimes, or, if not, with what proper crime?

(a) Interruption of religious worship as defined and punished under Art. 132 of the Revised
Penal Code; and/or

(b) Offending the religious feelings as defined and punished under Art. 133 of the Revised Penal
Code. Explain fully your answers. (8%)