Question 1

Eli and Dos are both known as NPA cadres. They were involved in the killing of Lucio who they
suspected of being a government informer. They were charged with murder by the prosecutor.

1. Eli and Dos’ lawyer questioned the decision of the public prosecutor to file a murder case instead of a
case for rebellion against his clients. He claimed that Eli and dos, both being NPA cadres, killed Lucio in
furtherance of rebellion. Is the prosecutor mandated to file a case for rebellion against the two? Why?

2. May the prosecutor file two separate cases for rebellion and murder against Eli and dos? Why?

3. who has the burden of proving political motivation such that this case can be deemed to be a case of
rebellion and not murder? What elements must be proven?

Response: 1. NO. Under the revised penal code, The crimes of rebellion and murder are considered as
separate crimes. The prosecution has the prerogative to choose what crimes they will charge against the
accused. They are not mandated to file a case of rebellion against the two.

2. Yes. Under the revised penal code, murder and rebellion are two separate crimes punishable under
the revised penal code. The Prosecutor may file two separate cases against the two especially when
their findings lead to the conclusion that the murder was not committed in furtherance of the objectives
of the rebellion.

3. The burden of proving whether or not there is a political motivation of rebellion rests on the defense
as law presumes the innocence of the accused. The elements that must be proven is the matching of the
overt acts of the accused and their state of mind while doing the overt acts.

Score: not graded yet

Question 2

Dixon, disgruntled with how the officials of the Provincial Government of Batangas had been
distributing aid to its constituents when the lockdown was imposed, called for a meeting in his barangay.
He asked those who attended the meeting, numbering fifty men in all, to go with him to the barangay
hall and get hold of the goods stared therein for distribution amongst themselves. Police authorities got
wind of the meeting and arrested everyone present in the meeting.

1. What crime was committed, if any? Why?

2. Pedro attended the meeting and was found to be carrying an unlicensed firearm. What is his liability,
if any? Why?

3. The lawyer for the other persons in the meeting claimed that they have not violated any law by their
mere presence. Is the lawyer correct? Why?

Response: 1. The crime committed in the present case is Illegal Assembly. The facts stated that Dixon
had assembled men to commit a crime which is the very essence of illegal assembly and with the
carrying of arms.

2. Pedro as an attendee carrying an unlicensed firearm is to be held liable as a principal of the felony
following the presumption under the law that any person found to be carrying an unlicensed fire arm
during an assembly is to be presumed as the leader or organizer of the assembly.

3. NO. The other persons present at the meeting, under the law is presumed to be accomplices of the
crime of Illegal assembly for the very reason that they had knowledge on the unlawful objectives of the
meeting and have not opposed or desisted in doing the same.

Score: not graded yet

Question 3

Go Tiak Teng, a resident Chinese married to a Filipina and doing business in Palawan, exchanged
messages through letters with the Chinese soldiers stationed in the contested reefs off the shores of
Palawan. These letters, containing information about the movements of army and government officials
in Palawan, fell into the hands of local police officers. Go Tiak Teng was apprehended.

1. On the basis of these letters, Go Tiak Teng was charged with espionage. Will the case prosper? Why?

2. Assuming that the case will prosper, and Go Tiak Teng avers the defense that he cannot be charged
with espionage because he is not a Filipino citizen, will the defense hold? Why?

3. Go Tiak Teng likewise posits that he cannot be convicted for espionage absent two witnesses who can
confirm that he actually wrote the letters, in conformity with the two- witness rule. Is Go Tiak Teng
correct? Why?

Response: 1. NO. The case will not prosper as the proper charge must be correspondence to an enemy
country and not espionage. Espionage, as defined in the Revised penal code is the unlawful entry of any
person to obtain information about the defenses of the Philippine Archipelago. In this case, The one's
chargeable with espionage is the Chinese Soldiers and not Go Tiak Teng.

2. No. Under the Revised Penal Code, Espionage can be committed by any person, whether a Filipino
Citizen or not. Go Tiak Teng cannot hold this defense on the ground of his nationality as espionage is a
Crime against National Security.

3. No. The two witness rule is only applicable in cases of Treason and not espionage. Under the revised
penal code, there is no such requirement as to the witnesses of the crime of espionage.

Score: not graded yet

Question 4

Leon and Nenita are in a relationship. One night after watching a movie, they decided to pass by a
private beach. While sitting on the sandy beach, the two, in the heat of the moment, decided to make
out and got undressed. They were apprehended and charged for grave scandal.
1. Leon and Nenita put up the defense that the beach is a private property and is therefore outside the
ambit of grave scandal. Is she correct? Why?

2. Assuming that the beach is considered private, may they still be charged with grave scandal? Why?

Response: 1. NO. Under the revised penal code, Grave scandal can be committed even inside a private
property. The "in public" words of the law is construed to be anywhere that can be seen by at least one
witness. The place mentioned is a beach and it is clear that the area is open for people to pass by and to
see thus placing it under the ambit of the law.

2. Yes. Even if the beach is considered private, they can still be charged with grave scandal given the fact
that they are in the open. The law only requires that the act should at least be seeable by at least one
witness regardless of whether the property/ place is considered public or private.

Score: not graded yet

Question 5

Baldo and five other men forcibly stopped Star Horse passenger vessel while it was on its way from the
port of Manila going to Cebu City. Baldo and his men went aboard Star Horse and started divesting the
passengers of their money and other valuables. Star Horse has a complement of twenty men excluding
Captain Kanor, the ship captain. While Baldo and his men were sowing terror aboard the ship, Captain
Kanor ordered his men to fight off Baldo and the latter’s men. The ship complement, afraid of Baldo and
his men because the latter were carrying guns, disobeyed Captain Kanor.

1. What crime/ crimes did Baldo and his men commit? Why?

2. The ship’s complement comprising of 20 men were all charged with mutiny. Will the case proper?
Why?

Response: 1. Baldo and his men clearly committed Qualified Piracy or Piracy. Piracy as defined by the
revised penal code, is the act of seizing a vessel or cargo in the high seas or in the Philippine waters.
Upon seizing the vessel by boarding the same, it became qualified piracy although qualified piracy is
now inoperable due to the suspension of the death penalty and is now considered as the same as Piracy.

2. NO. Mutiny as defined in the revised penal code is the act of the vessel's complement of seizing the
vessel and its cargo disobeying the management's command. The essence of mutiny is disobedience to
superior by committing an overt act similar to those of piracy. In this case, The disobedience of the ship's
complement does not arise into Mutiny as they merely disobeyed the orders of the captain under fear
of their suppressors and the intent to commit an overt act of Mutiny is absent.

Score: not graded yet

Question 6

Crispin was the last passenger on board Singapore Airlines on its return flight from Manila to Singapore.
As soon as the doors of the plane were closed, Crispin forced his way to the cockpit, and pointing his
smuggled gun at the pilot, told him to fly the plane to Beijing, China instead.

1. What law did Crispin violate? Why?

2. Crispin’s lawyer averred that Crispin can be charged only with grave threats, at best because the plane
was not a Philippine carrier, and it was not in flight. Is Crispin’s lawyer correct? Why?

Response: 1. None. He cannot be charged of any under Philippine laws especially of the violation of the
anti hi jacking law because under the said law, hi jacking can only be committed by forcing a Philippine
airship in flight to change its direction or course of flight. It can only be committed on Foreign Airships if
it is forced to land on Philippine domain. An Act committed on foreign airships in flight is already outside
the jurisdiction of the Philippine courts as the same is considered as an extension of the foreign
country's dominion.

2. NO. Crispin's lawyer is incorrect that he can be charged of grave threat because the Philippines cannot
assume jurisdiction over the matter. He cannot be charged of the violation of anti hi jacking because his
overt acts was done inside a foreign airship and the same was in flight. Once the doors of the plane were
completely closed next to embarkment, the airship is considered in flight. Due to this circumstance, the
foreign airship is now outside the jurisdiction of our courts as foreign airships in flight are considered as
an extension of the dominion of the foreign country from which the airship is duly registered.

Score: not graded yet

Question 7

Sgt. Pascual together with Sgt. Amador and two other police officers received information from their
asset that Berting was involved in the illegal sale of metamphetamine hydrochloride.

1. What pre operations steps should be taken by the police officers prior to the conduct of a buy bust
operation? After the conduct of the buy bust operation?

Response: Pre operation steps:

Before a valid buy bust operation can be conducted, the police officers must first hold a probable cause
on conducting the operation. Afterwards they should inform their headquarters of the matter and that
they should be granted by a person in authority to proceed with the operation. Upon having information
of the case, they must conduct a surveillance days prior the planned buy bust. Only after gaining
sufficient confirmation of the information through the buy bust can they form a task force group for the
operation and the preparation of the necessary props like the marked money for the transactions.

AFTER THE CONDUCT OF THE BUY BUST OPERATION

After a successful buy bust operation, the officers can now apprehend the suspect and proceed to the
procedure for the chain of custody stated in Sec. 21 of RA 9165. Upon seizure of the items used in the
transaction, it must be photographed and marked for inventory by the apprehending officer in front of
the suspect and the public officers then and there where the items have been seized. Then, together
with the suspect and the items the apprehending officer will now turn them over to the investigating
officer for investigation. Then the investigating officer will turnover the items seized to the forensic
chemist for confirmation that what has been seized is an illegal drug. After confirmation and issuance of
a certification that the items are indeed illegal substances, an information will now be filed and the
items are turned over to the courts for proper adjudication.

Score: not graded yet

Question 8

Mr. Garcia, a teacher at the Lopez Elementary School, was watering his plants on Saturday morning
when he saw Cardo assaulting a tricycle driver. Mr. Garcia tried to stop Cardo, but Cardo turned his ire
on him and hit him with an iron pipe. Barangay tanods came to Mr. Garcia’s aid and they were likewise
hit by Cardo.

1. May Cardo be charged with Direct Assault for hitting Mr. Garcia with the iron pipe? Why?

2. May Cardo be likewise charged with Direct Assault for hitting the barangay tanods? Why?

3. Cardo is new to the barangay having arrived there just two weeks before the incident. Cardo’s lawyer
put up the defense that Cardo did not know that the men he hit were barangay tanods. Will this defense
hold? Why?

Response: 1. NO. Cardo cannot be charged with direct assault for hitting Mr Garcia. Under the revised
penal code, direct assault can only be committed against a person in authority or their agents. Teachers,
under the Article 152 of the same code are considered only as a person in authority if the assault is
made against the capacity of his office. Therefore, Direct Assault cannot be committed against Mr.
Garcia because the assault is not made against his capacity as a teacher.

2. YES. In this case, the barangay tanods are in the scene in furtherance of their duties and was attacked
in their capacities as tanods. Under the revised penal code the tanods are considered as persons in
authority and is thereby attacked in Violation of Direct Assault.

3. Yes. Under the revised penal code, Ignorance of the fact that the victims of the assault was a person in
authority negates liability under Direct assault. One of the elements of the crime is that the offender
must be knowledgeable of the fact that he assaulted a person in authority. Hence, Direct assault cannot
apply.

Score: not graded yet

Question 9

Baldo knew that he cannot pass the examination given to drivers as a requirement for the issuance of a
driver’s license, but he needed to have one for him to be able to drive a public utility vehicle as his
source of livelihood. Through the help of a fixer at LTO, he filled out the required personal data sheet
and the LTO registrar’s simulated signature was affixed therein. Baldo was charged with falsification of
public documents.

1. Baldo, through his lawyer, put up the defense that no damage was done to anyone, neither was there
any intent to cause damage such that absent any damage nor crime was committed. Is Baldo correct?
Why

2. Baldo likewise put up the defense that the personal data sheet did not become a public document
because the signature of the LTO Registrar was simulated. Is he correct? Why?

Response: 1. NO. Under the revised penal code, falsification of public documents does not require that
damage or intent to do damage is present. The mere act of falsifying a public document is already
punishable under the code for reasons that what was violated was the integrity and the faith on public
offices and documents.

2. NO. Under the revised penal code and a settled jurisprudence, a personal data sheet is still classified
as a public document regardless whether the signature of the LTO registrar is simulated. The reason is
that a Public document is presumed to be valid on its face in the eyes of the public and that damage
resulting from the falsified document is immaterial as long as the act of falsifying a public document is
proven.