Copyright © 2020, UP College of Law Bar Review Institute. Copyright protection arises from the moment of creation. No part of this publication may be reproduced, distributed, or transmitted in any form or by any means, including photocopying, recording, or other electronic or mechanical methods, without the prior written permission of the publisher. Any violation will be subject to criminal, civil, and administrative sanctions as provided under Republic Act No 8293 or the Intellectual Property Code of the Philippines, which includes imprisonment and payment of damages.Training, & Convention Division University of the Philippines Law Center SUGGESTED ANSWERS TO THE 2019 BAR EXAMINATIONS IN. CRIMINAL LAW PARTI Ad. Define/ distinguish the following terms: (a) Mala in se and mala prohibita (2%) SUGGESTED ANSWER: Le S When the acts complained of are inherently immoral, they are leemed mala in se, even if they are punished by a special law. cordingly, criminal intent must be clearly established with the other Udlements of the crime; otherwise, no crime is committed. On the other Land, in crimes that are mala prohibita, the criminal acts are not inherently Gmmoral but become punishable only because the law says that they are {forbidden [Garcia v. CA, G.R. No. 157171, March 14, 2006]. m (b) Grave, less grave, and light felonies (3%) SUGGESTED ANSWER: Under Art. 9 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), grave felonies are those to which the law attaches the capital punishment or penalties which in any of their periods are afflictive, in accordance with Art. 25 of the same Code. Less grave felonies are those which the law punishes with penalties which in their maximum period are correccional, also in accordance with Art, 25. Light felonies are those infractions of law for the commission of which a penalty of arresto menor or a fine not exceeding, P40,000 or both is provided (As amended by RA 10951). (©) Aberratio ictus, error in personae, and praeter intentionem (3%) SUGGESTED ANSWER: Under Art. 4, par. 1 of the RPC, criminal liability shall be incurred by any person committing a felony (delito) although the wrongful act done be different from that which he intended. Thus, a person committing UP LAW TRAINING AND CONVENTION DIVISION | BRIGTDEJESUS2020 | Page 1 of 19a felony is still criminally liable even if: a) there is a mistake in the identity of the victim or error in personae; b) there is a mistake in the blow or aberratio ictus; and c) the injurious result is greater than that intended or praeter intentionem. AL. Mr. X has always been infatuated with Ms. Y. Scorned by Ms. Y's disregard for his feelings towards her, Mr. X came up with a plan to abduct Ms. Y in order to have carnal knowledge of her with the help of his buddies, A,B, and C On the day they decided to carry out the plan, and while surreptitiously waiting for Ms. Y, C had a change of heart and left. This notwithstanding, Mr. X, A, and B continued with the plan and abducted Ms. Y by forcefully taking her to a deserted house away from the city. There, Mr. X restrained Ms. V's arms, while A held her legs apart. B stood as a lookout. Mr. X was then able to have carnal knowledge of Ms. Y, who was resisting throughout the entire ordeal. N © — Consequently, Mr. X was charged with the crime of Forcible bduction under the Revised Penal Code. 5 {Q__ (a)Is the charge against Mr. X proper? Explain. (8%) 5 USUGGESTED ANSWER: E No, the charge against Mr. C is not proper. Mr. X should be charged with the crime of Rape. Based on the facts, the main objective of Mr. X was Fo have carnal knowledge of Ms. Y. The crime of Forcible Abduction is absorbed in the crime of rape if the real objective of the accused was to rape the victim [People 0. Cayanan, G.R. No. 200080, Sept. 18, 2013]. (b) Assuming that A, B, and C are also charged, may they be held criminally liable together with Mr. X? Explain. (2%) SUGGESTED ANSWER: No. Only A and B may be held criminally liable together with Mr. X. Under Art. 8, par. 1 of the RPC, a conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it. With A holding Ms. Y’s legs apart and B standing as a lookout, they actively participated in the commission of the crime and are guilty as co-conspirators. [People v. Tumalip, GR. No. L-28451, October 28, 1974] C may not be held criminally liable. C dissociated himself from the conspiracy when he had a change of heart and left. His disavowal of the UP LAW TRAINING AND CONVENTION DIVISION | BRIGTDEJESUS2020 | Page 20f19conspiracy was effective since he decided not to perform his part in the conspiracy before any material act of execution leading to the Rape was committed. Mere knowledge, acquiescence, or approval of the act without cooperation is not enough to constitute one as a party to a conspiracy [Taer 2. CA, G.R, No. 85204, June 18, 1990]. AB. 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. qQ __ Is the contention of Mr. O's counsel tenable? Explain. (2.5%) an —3UGGESTED ANSWER: ee ‘© No, the contention of Mr. O's counsel is un tenable. Under Article 166 of the RPC, the elements of Acts of Lasciviousness are: (1) that the [Offender commits any act of lasciviousness or lewdness; (2) that the (fascivious act is committed against a person of either sex; and (3) that it is Adone under any of the following circumstances: (a) by using, force or Ointimidation; (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. AA In dire need of money, Mr. R decided to steal from his next-door neighbor, Mrs. V. On the night of May 15,2010, Mr. R proceeded with his plan and entered Mrs. V's bedroom by breaking one of the windows from UP LAW TRAINING AND CONVENTION DIVISION | BRIGTDEJESUS2020 | Page 30f19the outside. Finding, Mrs. V sound asleep, he silently foraged through her cabinet, and stashed all the bundles of cash and jewelries he could find. As Mr. R was about to leave, he heard Mrs. V shout, "Stop or I will slioot yout", and when he turned around, he saw Mrs. V cocking a rifle which was pointed at him. Fearing for his life, Mr. R then lunged at Mrs. V and was able to wrest the gun away from her. Thereafter, Mr. R shot Mrs. V, which resulted in her death. Mr. R's deeds were discovered on the very same night as he was seen by law enforcement authorities fleeing the crime scene. (a) What crime/s did Mr. R commit under the Revised Penal Code? Explain. (2.5%) sU TED ANSWER: Mr. R committed Robbery with Homicide under Art. 293, in relation to Art. 294, par. 1 of the RPC. The elements of the crime are: a) the taking of personal property with the use of violence or intimidation against the erson; b) the property taken belongs to another; c) the taking, is gharacterized by intent to gain or animus lucrandi; and d) on the occasion r by reason of the robbery, the crime of homicide, as used it is generic Gense, was committed. It must be established that the original criminal “Aesign of the malefactor is to commit robbery and the killing is merely (incidental thereto. Here, Mr. R’s intent to commit robbery preceded the king of Mrs. V’s life. The killing took place on the occasion or by reason Caf the robbery. the prosecution file the criminal charge against Mr. R in order to E © (b)Based on your answer in question (a), within what period should a co avoid prescription? Explain. (2%) SUGGESTED ANSWER: The prosecution should file the criminal charge within 20 years from the date of discovery. Under Art. 90 of the RPC, crimes punishable by reclusion perpetua shall prescribe in 20 years. Here, the crime of Robbery with Homicide is punished by reclusion perpetua. Thus, the crime shall prescribe in 20 years. (©) May Mr. R validly invoke the justifying circumstance of self- defense? Explain. (2.5%) SUGGESTED ANSWER: No, Mr. R may not invoke the justifying circumstance of self- defense. There was no unlawful aggression on the part of Mrs. V, who was defending her property. As the owner of the cash and jewelry, Mrs. V had UP LAW TRAINING AND CONVENTION DIVISION | BRIGTDEJESUS2020 | Page 4 0f 19the lawful right to take back the goods stolen by Mr. R who was actually the unlawful aggressor. (People v. Salamuddin, 52 Phil. 670) In August 2018, B entered into a contract with S for the purchase of the latter's second-hand car in the amount of P400,000.00, payable in two (2) equal monthly installments. Simultaneous with the signing of the contract and S's turnover of the car keys, B executed, issued, and delivered two (2) post-dated checks, all payable to S, with the assurance that they will all be honored on their respective maturity dates. However, all two (2) checks were dishonored for being, drawn against insufficient funds. Consequently, notices there for were duly issued to and received by B, but this notwithstanding, no payment arrangements were made by him. Further, upon S's investigation, it was uncovered that B's checking account had only P50,000.00 when it was opened in June 2018 and no further deposits were made after that. S also found out that B knew fully rel of such circumstances at the time he issued the two (2) checks. N What crime/s should B be charged with and for how many counts? oO Cixplain. (6%) 5 {SUGGESTED ANSWER: > LU Bshould be charged with 1 count of Estafa and 2 counts of violation Oo B.P. 22. Under Art. 315, par. 2(d) of the RPC, estafa by postdating,a check (or issuing a check in payment of an obligation is committed when: (a) the 7pffender post-dated a check, or issued a check in payment of an obligation; cand (b) such postdating or issuing a check was done when the offender had no funds in the bank, or his funds deposited therein were not sufficient to cover the amount of the check. Here, B’s act of postdating checks in payment of an obligation was the efficient cause of the defraudation. Postdating the checks was committed prior to or simultaneously with the commission of the fraud. B should also be charged with 2 counts of violation of B.P. 22 or the Bouncing Checks Law. B.P. 22 may be violated by making or drawing and issuing any check to apply on account or for value, knowing at the time of issue that he does not have sufficient funds in or credit with the drawee bank for the payment of such check, which check is subsequently dishonored for insufficiency of funds or credit, or would have been dishonoured for the same reason had not the drawer, without any valid reason, ordered the bank to stop payment. Here, all the elements of the offense are present. B issued 2 checks which was subsequently dishonored by the drawee bank for insufficiency of funds. The gravamen of B.P. 22 is the issuance of the check, thus, the issuance of each bouncing check constitutes as one count of the offense. UP LAW TRAINING AND CONVENTION DIVISION | BRIGTDEJESUS2020 | Page 5 of 19While a BP 22 case and an estafa case may be rooted from an identical set of facts, they nevertheless present different causes of action, which, under the law, are considered "separate, distinct, and independent" from each other. [Rimando v. Aldaba, G.R. No. 203583, October 13, 2014] Ab. Mr. A has a long-standing feud with Mr. B. As payback for Mr. B's numerous transgressions against him, Mr. A planned to bum down Mr. B's rest house One night, Mr. A went to the rest house and started pouring gasoline on its walls. However, just as Mr. A had lit the match for burning, he was discovered by Mr. B' s caretaker, Ms. C, and was consequently prevented from setting the rest house on fire. Mr. A was then charged with Frustrated Arson. (a)Is the charge of Frustrated Arson proper? Explain. (2%) uccEsTED ANSWER: S SI No, the proper charge is Attempted Arson, Under Art. 6 of the RPC, here is an attempt when the offender commences the commission of a Felony directly by overt acts and does not perform all the acts of execution hich should produce the felony by reason of some cause or accident Ligther than his own spontaneous desistance. Here, Mr. A commenced the lommission of arson by pouring gasoline on the house and lighting a atch. However, he did not perform all the acts of execution which ancludes setting the rest house on fire. Thus, Mr. A should only be liable Cfor Attempted Arson. (b) Assuming that Mr. A successfully burned down Mr. B's rest house, and as a result, Ms. C was trapped therein and was subsequently killed in the fire, what crime/s did Mr. A commit? Explain. (3%) SUGGESTED ANSWER: In cases where both burning and death occur, in order to determine what crime was committed, there is a need to ascertain the main objective of the malefactor: (a) if the main objective is the burning of the building or edifice but death results by reason or on occasion of arson, the crime is simply arson, and the resulting homicide is absorbed; (b) if the main objective is to Kill a particular person who may be in the building or edifice, when fire is resorted to as a means to accomplish such goal, the crime committed is murder only; and (3) if the objective is to kill a particular person, and in fact the offender has already done so, but the fire is resorted to as a means to cover up the killing, then there are two separate and distinct crimes committed- homicide/murder and arson. [People v. UP LAW TRAINING AND CONVENTION DIVISION | BRIGTDEJESUS2020 | Page 6 of 19Sota and Gadjadli, G.R. No. 203121, November 29, 2017] Here the main purpose was to burn the house and the death of Mr. C was only incidental, hence, arson was committed and the homicide is absorbed. A. Mr. Lis a newspaper reporter who writes about news items concerning the judiciary. Mr. L believed that members of the judiciary can be criticized and exposed for the prohibited acts that they commit by virtue of the public nature of their offices. Upon receiving numerous complaints from private citizens, Mr. L released a scathing newspaper expose involving Judge G and his alleged acts constituting graft and corruption. Consequently, Mr. L was charged with the crime of Libel. In response, Mr. L contended that truth is a valid defense in Libel and in this relation, claimed that he was only exposing the truth regarding Judge G's misdeeds. Further, Mr. L contended that in any event, his expose on Judge G is based on the complaints he received from private citizens, and as Such, should be deemed as a mere fair commentary on a matter of public Cihterest. (a) Are the contentions of Mr. L tenable? Explain. (3%) {SUGGESTED ANSWER: 5 LU Mr. L’s contention that truth is a valid defense in libel is tenable. Inder Art. 361 of the RPC, if the defamatory statement is made against a (Public official with respect to the discharge of his official duties and qfunctions, and the truth of the allegations is shown, the accused will be ntitled to an acquittal even though he does not prove that the imputation was published with good motives and for justifiable ends (Lopez v. People, G.R. No. 172203, February 14, 2011). US20; (b)What is the effect on the criminal liability of an accused if he or she publishes a libelous article on an online news platform? Explain. (2%) SUGGESTED ANSWER: The accused may be liable under RA 10175, or the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012. Under Sec. 4(c)(4), a cybercrime offense includes the unlawful or prohibited acts of libel as defined in Art. 355 of the RPC committed through a computer system or any other similar means which may be devised in the future. Thus, RA 10175 penalizes the publication of a libelous article on an online news platform, and the penalty to be imposed shall be one (1) degree higher than that provided under the RPC, pursuant to Section 6 thereof. UP LAW TRAINING AND CONVENTION DIVISION | BRIGTDEJESUS2020 | Page 7 0f19AB. After a successful entrapment operation by the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency, Mr. D, a known drug pusher, was arrested on January 15,2019 for having been caught in flagrante delicto selling a pack of shabu, a prohibited drug, to the poseur-buyer. Consequently, Mr. D was frisked by the arresting officer, and aluminum foils, plastic lighters, and another plastic sachet of shabu were obtained from him. The items were marked immediately upon confiscation, and they were likewise inventoried and photographed at the place of arrest. Throughout the process, a media representative was able to witness the conduct of the marking, inventory, and photography of the seized items in the presence of Mr. D. Mr. D was then charged with the crimes of Ilegal Sale and Tegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs. In defense, he lamented that the chain of custody procedure under Section 21, Article Il of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, as amended, was not followed because only a media representative was present. In response, the prosecution maintained that the said media representative was a very credible reporter and as such, the presence of any other witness was unnecessary. N WY (a)Was the chain of custody procedure validly complied with in this case? BD __ lfnot, was the deviation from such procedure justified? Explain. (3%) Ww SUGGESTED ANSWER: No, the chain of custody was not validly complied with. Under Sec. (QI of RA 9165, as amended by RA 10640, the presence of at least two Ainsulating, witnesses are required: (1) an elected public official, and (2) a Cepresentative from the media, or a representative from the National Prosecution Service. Here, only a media representative was present to witness the conduct of marking, inventory and photography. Further, the credibility of the media reporter as the lone witness in a buy-bust operation is neither a plausible explanation nor an unacceptable justification for the PDEA’s non-compliance with the chain of custody rule. The Supreme Court listed the following acceptable justifications in case of the absence of witnesses: (1) their attendance was impossible because the place of arrest was a remote area; (2) their safety was threatened by an immediate retaliatory action of the accused; and (3) earnest efforts to secure the presence of the witnesses within the period required under Art. 125 of the RPC prove futile through no fault of the arresting officers [People v. Sipin, as cited in People v. Lim, G.R. 231989, September 04, 2018]. (b) What is the consequence of an unjustified deviation from the chain of custody rule to the criminal case against Mr. D? Explain. (2%) UP LAW TRAINING AND CONVENTION DIVISION | BRIGTDEJESUS2020 | Page 8 of 19SUGGESTED ANSWER: The unjustified deviation from the chain of custody rule would lead to Mr, D’s acquittal. Well settled is the rule that the procedure under Sec. 21 is a matter of substantive law and cannot be brushed aside as a simple procedural technicality [People v. Aiio, G.R. No. 230070, March 14, 2018]. AD X and Y approached Mayor Z and requested him to solemnize their marriage. On the day of the ceremony, X and Y proceeded to Mayor Z's office but he was not there. Mayor Z's chief of staff, Mr. U, however, represented that he himself can solemnize their marriage and just have Mayor Z sign the marriage certificate when the latter comes back. Consequently, upon X and V's assent, Mr. U solemnized the marriage, despite his lack of authority therefor. (a) What crime may Mr. U be charged with under the Revised Penal Code Oo (RPC)? Explain. (2.5%) qQ SUGGESTED ANSWER: CT ©... S Mr. Ucan be charged with the crime of Usurpation of Authority or pfticial Functions. Under Art. 177 of the RPC, Usurpation of Authority ay be committed by performing any act pertaining to any person in Uguthority or public officer of the Philippine Government or of a foreign overnment or any agency thereof, under the pretense of official position, (gnd without being lawfully entitled to do so. Here, despite his lack of qputhority, Mr. U knowingly solemnized a marriage pertaining to Mayor Z. (b) Assuming that Mayor Z signed the marriage certificate which stated that he solemnized the marriage of X and Y, what crime may Mayor Z be charged with under the RPC? Explain. (2.5%) UP LAW TRAINING AND CONVENTION DIVISION | BRIGTDEJESUS2020 | Page 9 of 19SUGGESTED ANSWER: Mayor Z may be charged with Falsification under Art. 171, par. 2 of the RPG, Its elements are: (1) that the offender is a public officer; (2) that the takes advantage of his official position; and (3) that he falsifies a document by causing it to appear that persons have participated in any act of proceeding when they did not in fact so participate. Here, all the elements of the crime are present. Mayor Z signed the marriage certificate which states that he solemnized the marriage of X and Y when in fact, he did not participate in its solemnization. A.10. Distinguish Rebellion under the Revised Penal Code and Terrorism under the Human Security Act of 2007. (2.5%) SUGGESTED ANSWER: Under Art. 134 of the RPG, rebellion is, by nature, a crime of the Qhasses or of a multitude; it is a vast movement of men and a complex net Gf intrigues and plots (People v. Almazan, CA, 37 O.G. 1932). Its elements fre: 1) that there be a public uprising and taking arms against the Qovernment; and 2) that the purpose of the uprising or movement is either : a) remove from the allegiance to said government or its laws the “territory of the Philippines or any part thereof, or any body of land, naval, r other armed forces, or b) deprive the Chief Executive or Congress, [wholly or partially, of any of their powers and prerogatives. o Under RA 9372, or the Human Security Act of 2007, rebellion may be cSubsumed in the crime of terrorism; it is one of the means by which terrorism can be committed. Sec. 3 states that a person who commits an act punishable as rebellion, thereby sowing and creating a condition of widespread and extraordinary fear and panic among the populace, in order to coerce the government to give in to an unlawful demand shall be guilty of the crime of terrorism. END OF PART I UP LAW TRAINING AND CONVENTION DIVISION | BRIGTDEESUS2020 | Page 10 0f 19PART IT B11. Ms. M, a Malaysian visiting the Philippines, was about to depart for Hong Kong via an Indonesian-registered commercial vessel. While on board the vessel, which was still docked at the port of Manila, she saw her mortal enemy, Ms. A, an Australian citizen. Ms. A was seated at the front portion of the cabin and was busy using her laptop, with no idea whatsoever that Ms, M was likewise onboard the ship. Consumed by her anger towards Ms. A, Ms. M stealthily approached the Australian from behind, and then quickly stabbed her neck with a pocketknife, resulting in Ms. A's immediate death. Operatives from the Philippine National Police - Maritime Command arrested Ms. M for the Killing of Ms. A and thereafter, intended to charge her under the Revised onal Code (RPC). Ms. M contended that the provisions of the RPC cannot Se applied and enforced against her because both she and the victim are not Gilipino nationals, and besides, the alleged crime was committed in an donesian-registered vessel. (Q, @)Is Ms. M's contention against the application of the RPC against her 3 tenable? Explain. (3%) SUGGESTED ANSWER: 2 No, the RPC can be applied and enforced against Ms. M although Shoth the offender and the offended party are foreign nationals and the crime was committed onboard a foreign vessel. Based on the territorial principle, the English rule adopted in the Philippines, crimes perpetrated aboard foreign vessels are generally triable in the courts of the country within the territory in which they were committed. [People v. Wong Chen, G.R. No, L-18924, October 19, 1922] Moreover, under the Principle of Generality, the penal laws of the Philippines apply to all who live or sojourn in the country regardless of their citizenship. The fact that the vessel was registered in Indonesia is likewise irrelevant. Thus, the killing committed by Ms. M while onboard an Indonesian-registered vessel that is docked at the port of Manila is triable within the jurisdiction of the Philippines. (b) Assuming that the provisions of the RPC can be applied against Ms. M, what crime under the RPC should she be charged with? Explain. (2%) UP LAW TRAINING AND CONVENTION DIVISION | BRIGTDEJESUS2020 | Page 1 of 19SUGGESTED ANSWER: Ms. M should be charged with the crime of Homicide under the RPC. Article 249 of the RPC punishes any person who shall kill another without the attendance of any of the qualifying circumstances mentioned in Art. 248, including, treachery. The suddenness of the attack does not by itself, suffice to support a finding of alevosia, even if the purpose was to kill, so long as the decision was made all of a sudden and the victim’s helpless position was accidental [People v. Lubreo, 200SCRAT1]. In a number of cases, the Court held that treachery cannot be appreciated simply because the attack was sudden and unexpected [People v. Vilbar]. ALTERNATIVE ANSWER: Ms. M should be charged with Murder. She killed Ms. A by stealthily approaching the latter from behind and stabbing the latter’s neck ith a pocketknife. Ms. M therefore employed means and methods hich tend directly and specially to insure the execution of the planned illing, without risk to herself arising from the defense which Ms. A ight make. Hence, there was treachery on Ms. M’s part, and treachery Qualifies an act of killing to Murder. n ivf B12. > LU In November 2018, Mr. N, a notorious criminal, was found guilty of three 5) counts of Murder and was consequently sentenced with the penalty of {4} K committed two counts of Direct Assault. The elements of direct ~qssault under Art, 148 of the RPC are: 1) that the offender makes an attack, mploys force, makes a serious intimidation or makes a serious resistance; ) that the person assaulted is a person in authority or his agent; 3) that at (the time of the assault, the person in authority or his agent is engaged in Ahhe actual performance of official duties, or that he is assaulted by reason Of the past performance of official duties; 4) that the offender knows that the one he is assaulting is a person in authority or his agent in the exercise of his duties; and 5) that there is no public uprising. Art. 152 further provides that teachers, professors, and persons charged with the supervision of public or duly recognized private schools, colleges, and universities in the actual performance of their professional duties or on the occasion of such performance shall be deemed persons in authority. Here, all the elements of direct assault are present, where K repeatedly punched Ms. L, a person in authority engaged in the performance of her official duties. K also committed Direct Assault against J. Art. 152 states that any person who comes to the aid of persons in authority shall be deemed an agent of a person in authority. Here, while K was attacking Ms. L, K also hit J, an agent of a person in authority who came to the aid of a person in authority [Gelig v. People, G.R. No. 173150, July 28, 2010]. B.20. UP LAW TRAINING AND CONVENTION DIVISION | BRIGTDEJESUS2020 | Page 18 of 19Mr. S, a businessman and information technology practitioner, claimed to have devised an innovative business model. He would diligently compile a list of known personalities and entities in the fields of entertainment, arts, culture, and sports, and acquire numerous domain names in the internet using the names of these known personalities and entities for the purpose of selling these registered domain names to said personalities and entities in the future. Does Mr. $'s "innovative business model" expose him to any criminal liability under the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012? If so, for what crime? Explain. (2.5%) SUGGESTED ANSWER: Yes. Mr. §’s “business model” exposes him to liability for Cyber Squatting under Section 4(a)(6) of the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012. Cyber Squatting is the acquisition of a domain name over the internet in bad faith to profit, mislead, destroy reputation, and deprive others from egistering the same, if such a domain name is: (i) similar, identical or Gionfusingly similar to an existing trademark registered with the ppropriate government agency at the time of the domain name registration; (ii) identical or in any way similar with the name of a person ther than the registrant, in case of a personal name; and (iii) acquired Lwithout right or with intellectual property interests in it. > 1D OF PART II BRIGTDE. UP LAW TRAINING AND CONVENTION DIVISION | BRIGTDEJESUS2020 | Page 19 of 19