PRACTICE EXAM

1. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) found Tiburcio guilty of frustrated homicide and sentenced
him to an indeterminate penalty of four years and one day of prision correccional as minimum,
to eight years of prision mayor as maximum, and ordered him to pay actual damages in the
amount of 1125,000.00. Tiburcio appealed to the Court of Appeals which sustained his
conviction as well as the penalty imposed by the court a quo. After sixty days, the Court of
Appeals issued an Entry of Judgment and remanded the records of the case to the RTC. Three
days thereafter, Tiburcio died of heart attack. Atty. Abdul, Tiburcio's counsel, filed before the
RTC a Manifestation with Motion to Dismiss, informing the court that Tiburcio died already, and
claiming that his criminal liability had been extinguished by his demise.

a. Should the RTC grant the Motion to Dismiss the case? Explain.
b. Assuming that Tiburcio's death occurred before the Court of Appeals rendered its decision,
will you give a different answer? Explain. (2015 BAR)

2. Roman and Wendy are neighbors. On Valentine's Day, without prior notice, Roman visited
Wendy at her condo to invite her to dinner, but Wendy turned him down and abruptly left,
leaving her condo door unlocked. Roman attempted to follow, but appeared to have second
thoughts; he simply went back to Wendy's condo, let himself in, and waited for her return. On
Wendy's arrival later that evening, Roman grabbed her from behind and, with a knife in hand,
forced her to undress. Wendy had no choice but to comply. Roman then tied Wendy's hands to
her bed and sexually assaulted her five (5) times that night. Roman was charged with, and was
convicted of, five (5) counts of rape, but the judge did not impose the penalty of reclusion
perpetua for each count. Instead, the judge sentenced Roman to 40 years of imprisonment on
the basis of the three-fold rule. Was the judge correct? (2013 BAR)

3. a) What are the limitations upon the power of congress to enact penal laws? b) State the
characteristics of criminal law and explain each.

4. Distinguish between crimes mala in se and crimes mala prohibita. May an act be malum in
se and be, at the same time, malum prohibitum?

5. Robbie and Rannie are both inmates of the National Penitentiary, serving the maximum
penalty for robbery which they committed some years before and for which they have been
sentenced by final judgment. One day, Robbie tried to collect money owed by Rannie. Rannie
insisted that he did not owe Robbie anything, and after a shouting episode, Rannie kicked
Robbie in the stomach. Robbie fell to the ground in pain, and Rannie left him to go to the toilet
to relieve himself. As Rannie was opening the door to the toilet and with his back turned against
Robbie, Robbie stabbed him in the back with a bladed weapon that he had concealed in his
waist. Hurt, Rannie ran to the nearest “kubol” where he fell. Robbie ran after him· and, while
Rannie was lying on the ground, Robbie continued to stab him, inflicting a total of 15 stab
wounds. He died on the spot. Is Robbie a recidivist, or a quasi-recidivist?

6: E and M are convicted of a penal law that imposes a penalty of fine or imprisonment or both
fine and imprisonment. The judge sentenced them to pay the fine, jointly and severally, with
subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency. a. Is the penalty proper? Explain. b. May the
judge impose an alternative penalty of fine or imprisonment?

7. On January 1990, while 5-year old Albert was urinating at the back of their house, he heard a
strange noise coming from the kitchen of their neighbor and playmate, Ara. When he peeped
inside, he saw Mina, Ara’s stepmother, very angry and strangling the 5- year old Ara to death.
Albert saw Mina carry the dead body of Ara, place it inside the trunk of her car and drive away.
The dead body of Ara was never found. Mina spread the news in the neighborhood that Ara
went to live with her grandparents in Ormoc. For fear of his life, Albert did not tell anyone, even
his parents and relatives. 20 and ½ years after the incident, and right after his graduation in
Criminology, Albert reported the crime to NBI authorities. The crime of homicide prescribes in 20
years. Can the State still prosecute Mina for the death of Ara despite the lapse of 20 and ½
years? Explain.

8. Enumerate the differences between pardon and amnesty.

9. Senator Adamos was convicted of plunder. About one year after beginning to serve his
sentence, the President of the Philippines granted him absolute pardon. The signed pardon
states: "In view hereof, and in pursuance of the authority vested upon me by the Constitution, I
hereby grant absolute pardon unto Adamos, who was convicted of plunder in Criminal Case No.
XV32 and upon whom the penalty of reclusion perpetua was imposed." He now comes to you
for advice. He wants to know if he could run for senator in the next election. a. What advice will
you give Adamos? Explain. b. Assuming that what Adamos committed was heading a rebellion
for which he was imposed the same penalty of reclusion perpetua, and what he received was
amnesty from the government, will your answer be the same?

10. A, B, C and D all armed, robbed a bank and when they were about to get out of the bank,
policemen came and ordered them to surrender but they fired on the police officers who fired
back and shot it out with them. Suppose a bank employee was killed and the bullet which killed
him came from the firearm of the police officers, with what crime shall you charge A, B, C and
D?

11. Pedro, Pablito, Juan, and Julio, all armed with bolos, robbed the house where Antonio, his
wife, and three (3) daughters were residing. While the four were ransacking Antonio's house,
Julio noticed that one of Antonio's daughters was trying to escape. He chased and caught up
with her at a thicket somewhat distant from the house, but before bringing her back, raped her.
a. What crime or crimes, if any, did Pedro, Pablito, Juan, and Julio commit? Explain. b.
Suppose, after the robbery, the four took turns in raping the three daughters inside the house,
and, to prevent identification, killed the whole family just before they left. What crime or crimes,
if any, did the four malefactors commit? (2016 BAR)

12. X was a minor who was suffering an illness which diminishes the exercise of his will-power
at the time he committed the homicide with incomplete self-defense on his part. He voluntarily
surrendered to the persons in authority and thereafter voluntarily plead guilty. What is the
penalty of X after appreciating all the mitigating/aggravating circumstances?

13. A, as principal by induction, B, and C agreed to kill D. B and C killed D with treachery, which
mode of committing the offense had not been previously agreed upon by them with A. A was not
present when B and C killed D with treachery. How should the aggravating circumstance in this
case be appreciated?

14. For homicide, the penalty is reclusion temporal. X was charged with the crime of frustrated
homicide. X voluntarily surrendered to the authorities. In the trial, the mitigating circumstance of
immediate vindication to a grave offense was in attendant. What should be the penalty imposed
to X?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:

1. a. NO. The RTC may not grant the motion to dismiss because the Court of Appeals,
having
issued an Entry of Judgment, the decision has become final and executory. Moreover, the
pecuniary penalty, such as the civil liability arising from the crime consisting of actual damages
of P25,000 survives the death of Tiburcio.

b. YES. The RTC decision must be set aside and the case against Tiburcio must consequently
be dismissed. The demise of Tiburcio which occurred before the Court of Appeals rendered its
decision causes his criminal liability, as well as his civil liability ex delicto, to be totally
extinguished inasmuch as there is no longer a defendant to stand as the accused, the civil
action is instituted therein for recovery of civil liability ex delicto is ipso facto extinguished,
grounded as it is on criminal case.

2. A: NO, the three-fold rule is applicable only in connection with the service of the
sentence not in the imposition of the proper penalties. The court must impose all penalties for all
the crimes for which the accused have been found guilty. Thus, the court should not make a
computation in it decision and sentence the accused to not more than the three-fold of the most
severe of the penalties imposable. The computation under the three-fold rule is for the prison
authorities to make.

3. Answer:
a) The limitations upon the power of congress to enact penal laws are as
1. Congress cannot enact an ex post facto law.
2. Congress cannot enact a bill of attainder.
3. Congress cannot provide for a cruel punishment.

However, other limitations may be considered like: 1. Congress cannot enact a law
which shall punish for a condition.Congress shall punish an act an3 not the condition or
status. (?) (Robinson vs California).
2. Congress should consider Article 21 of the Revised Penal Code which provides that
"penalties that may be imposed. No felony shall be punishable by any penalty not prescribed by
law prior to its commission."

b) The characteristics of criminal law are as follows:

1. GENERALITY — That the law is binding upon all persons who reside tosojourn in
the Philippines, irrespective of age, sex, color, creed, or personalcircumstances.
 2. TERRITORIALITY — That the law is applicable to all crimes committed within the
limits of Philippine territory, which includes its atmosphere, interior waters and maritime zone
(Art. 2).
3. PROSPECTIVITY — That the law does not have any retroactive effect,except if it
favors the offender unless he is a habitual delinquent (Art. 22) or the law otherwise provides.
Article 2 if the Revised Penal Code however provides for the following exception: a) "Treaty
stipulations or by a law of preferential application"

4. Answer. Crimes mala in se are felonious acts committed by dolo or culpa

as defined in the Revised Penal Code. Lack of criminal intent is a valid defense,except when
the crime results from criminal negligence. On the other hand,crimes mala
prohibita are those considered wrong only because they are prohibited by statute.
They constitute violations of mere rules of convenience designed to secure a more orderly
regulation of the affairs of society.

Yes, an act may be malum in se and malum prohibitum at the same time.In People v. Sunico, et
aL. (CA 50 OG 5880) it was held that the omission or failure of election inspectors and poll
clerks to include a voter's name in the registry list of voters is wrong per se because it
disenfranchises a voter of hisright to vote. In this regard it is considered as malum in se. Since it
is punished under a special law (Sec. 101 and 103, Revised Election Code), it is considered
malum prohibitum.

5. A: Robbie is considered a quasi-recidivist pursuant to Article 160 of the RPC. At the time
he stabbed Rannie which resulted in the latter’s death, he had been convicted by final judgment
and had been serving sentence at the National Penitentiary. In quasi-recidivism, the first and
second offenses need not be embraced in the same title of the RPC. A recidivist, on the other
hand, requires that the crimes committed must be embraced in the same title of the RPC.
Because the killing of Rannie and the robbery, in which Robbie was previously convicted by
final judgment, were not under the same title, Robbie cannot be considered a recidivist.

6. A: a. NO. The penalty should be imposed individually on every person accused of the
crime. Any of the convicted accused who is insolvent and unable to pay the fine, shall serve the
subsidiary imprisonment. b. NO. Although the law may prescribe an alternative penalty for a
crime, it does not mean that the court may impose the alternative penalties at the same time.
The sentence must be definite. Otherwise, the judgment cannot attain finality.

7. A: YES. The State can still prosecute Mina for the death of Ara despite the lapse of 20 &
½ years. Under Article 91, RPC, the period of prescription commences to run from the day on
which the crime is discovered by the offended party, the authorities or their agents. In the case
at bar, the commission of the crime was known only to Albert, who was not the offended party
nor an authority or an agent of an authority. It was discovered by the NBI Authorities only when
Albert revealed to them the commission of the crime. Hence, the period of prescription of 20
years for homicide commenced to run only from the time Albert revealed the same to the NBI
Authorities.

8. A: The following are the differences between pardon and amnesty:

In pardon – The convict is excused from serving the sentence but the effects of conviction
remain unless expressly remitted by the pardon; hence, for pardon to be valid there must be a
sentence already final and executory at the time the same is granted. Moreover, the grant is in
favor of individual convicted offenders, not to a class of convicted offenders; and the crimes
subject of the grant may be common crimes or political crimes. Finally, the grant is a private act
of the Chief Executive which does not require the concurrence of any other public officer or
office.

In amnesty – The criminal complexion of the act constituting the crime is erased, as though
such act was innocent when committed; hence, the effects of the conviction are obliterated.
Amnesty is granted is in favor of a class of convicted offenders, not to individual convicted
offenders; and the crimes involved are generally political offenses, not common crimes.
Amnesty is a public act that requires the conformity or concurrence of the Philippine Senate.

9. A: a. If I were the counsel of Senator Adamos, I will give him the advice that he cannot
run in the Senatorial race since the terms of the pardon has not expressly restored his right to
hold public office or remitted the Accessory penalty of perpetual absolute disqualification. Under
Article 36 of the Revised Penal Code, a pardon shall not work the restoration of the right to hold
public office unless such right be expressly restored by terms of the pardon. Under Article 41,
the penalty of reclusion perpetua shall carry with it perpetual absolute disqualification which the
offender shall suffer even though pardoned as to the principal penalty, unless the same shall
have been expressly remitted in the pardon. (Risos-Vidal v. Lim, G.R. No. 206666, January 21,
2015) b. If he was given amnesty, he can run in the Senatorial race. Under Article 89 of the
Revised Penal Code, criminal liability is totally extinguished by amnesty, which completely
extinguishes the penalty and all its effects. Thus, the amnesty extinguishes not only the principal
penalty of reclusion perpetua but also its effects such as the accessory penalty of perpetual
absolute disqualification. Amnesty looks backward and abolishes and puts into oblivion the
offense itself, it so overlooks and obliterates the offense with which he is charged, so that the
person released by amnesty stands before the law precisely as though he had committed no
offense. (Barrioquinto v. Fernandez, G.R. No. L-1278, January 21, 1949)

10. A: A, B, C and D should be charged with the crime of robbery with homicide because the
death of the bank employee was brought about by the acts of said offenders on the occasion of
robbery. They shot it out with the policeman, thereby causing such death by reason or on the
occasion of robbery; Hence, the composite crime of robbery with homicide.

11. a. Julio is liable for special complex crime of robbery with rape since he had carnal
knowledge of Antonio’s daughter on occasion or by reason of robbery. Even if the place of
robbery is different from that of rape, what is important is the direct connection between the
crimes (People v. Canastre, G.R. No. L-2055, December 24, 1948). Pedro, Pablito, and Juan
are liable for robbery by a band since more than three armed malefactors took part in the
commission of robbery. There were four of them. Under Art. 296 of RPC, any member of a
band, who is present at the commission of a robbery by a band, shall be punished as principal
of any of the assaults committed, unless it be shown that he attempted to prevent the same.
However, Pedro, Pablito, and Juan are not liable for rape since they were not presentwhen the
victim was raped and thus, they had no opportunity to prevent the same. They are only liable for
robbery by band (People v. Anticamaray, G.R. No. 178771, June 8, 2011).

b. They are liable for special complex crime of robbery with homicide. It is immaterial that
several persons are killed and the number of rapes committed by reason or on occasion of the
crime. Since homicides are committed by or on occasion of the robbery, the multiple rapes
committed shall be integrated into one and indivisible felony of robbery with homicide (People v.
Diu, G.R. No. 201449, April 3, 2013)

12. Minority and Incomplete self-defense will lower the imposable penalty by two degrees.
The two ordinary mitigating circumstances will operate to lower the penalty imposed after the
application of the two privilege mitigating circumstance. The remaining ordinary mitigating
circumstance shall operate to make the penalty in its minimum period. Thus, X will suffer the
penalty of arresto mayor in its minimum period.

13. A: The aggravating circumstance of treachery should not be taken into account against
A, but against B and C only. But if A was present and had knowledge of the treachery with
which the crime was committed by B and C, he is also liable for murder, qualified by treachery.

14. A: Since the penalty for frustrated homicide is prision mayor and there are two other
ordinary mitigating circumstance present, the maxium term of sentence is Prision correccional in
its medium period while the mimimum term of sentence is Arresto mayor within the range or.