Student name:

BANASIG, Lea Andrelei L.

2023 UE Midterm Exam

JUDGE MARLO B. CAMPANILLA

1. X pleaded guilty to possession of dangerous drugs

punishable by a penalty of 12 years and 1 day to 20 years of
imprisonment.

a. If you are a judge, what penalty will you impose taking

into consideration the Indeterminate Sentence Law? Will
you consider confession as a mitigating circumstance?

Answer:

Possession of dangerous drugs is an offense

punishable by a special penal law where it provides an
imposable penalty of 12 years and 1 day to 20 years
of imprisonment.

If I were the judge, the penalty I will impose,

taking into consideration the Indeterminate Sentence
Law, would be based on the imposable penalty
provided for by law wherein the minimum penalty
shall not be less than 12 years and 1 day while the
maximum penalty shall not be more than 20 years.
Accordingly, I will impose a sentence of 12 years and
one day of imprisonment as the minimum to 16 years
as the maximum.

Considering that this is an offense under a

special penal law, the provisions of the Revised Penal
Code (RPC) are not applicable, and as a result,
confession cannot be appreciated as a mitigating
circumstance that would affect the imposable
penalty.

Page 1 of 13
b. Would your answer be the same if X is a minor?

Answer:

No, my answer would not be the same if in

case the accused is a minor.

Under the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs

Act, if the accused is a minor, the penalty system
of RPC will apply. Said application would result to
a reduction of the penalty and the appreciation of
the mitigating circumstances of minority and
confession.

In the case at bar, the accused is a minor who

confessed to the offense, hence, the penalty shall
be converted from reclusion temporal to prision
mayor. Moreover, taking into consideration the
mitigating circumstances of minority and
confession, prision mayor shall be reduced to
prision correctional.

c. Can X as a child in conflict with the law apply for

probation even after the lapse of the 1 5-day period
to appeal?

Answer:

Yes, a child in conflict with the law may apply

for probation regardless if the 15-day period already
lapsed.

Under the law, a child in conflict with the law

may apply for probation at any time, even beyond the
period to file the same.

Hence, even if the 15-day period already lapsed,

X can still apply for probation because he is a minor.

Page 2 of 13
 2. 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.

Answer:

I will inform him that under the law, as a general

rule, an absolute pardon does not carry with it the
extinguishment of the accessory penalty of absolute
disqualification to hold or run for office, except when
the restoration of such has been expressly remitted
the accessory penalty or said right has been expressly
restored in the absolute pardon. As a result, he
cannot validly run for Senator. I will advise him to
request the President to expressly remit the
accessory penalty or to expressly restore his right to
hold/run for office.

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?
Explain.

Answer:

No, my answer will not be the same.

Under the RPC, amnesty as a mode of

extinguishing criminal liability, which also carries
with it the extinguishment of all of the effects of the
said criminal liability.

Page 3 of 13
 Hence, being granted amnesty, the accessory
penalty of Adamos of perpetual disqualification has
also been extinguished which effectively restored his
right to hold/run for office.

3. In 2012, Rissa published a story in an online news site,

called Raffa, where it was alleged that Mr. Willy, a businessman,
who had a link with illegal drugs, and human trafficking, and a
murder suspect lent a car to a former SC Chief Justice. After four
months, RA No. 10175, which punishes cybercrimes including
cyber libel, was enacted. However, there are no evidences proving
the illegal activities of Mr. Willy. In 2014, the story was
republished in the said site.

a. If a complaint for cyber libel involving the 2014

republication of defamatory story was filed with the
Department of Justice in 2018, can an information, which
was filed in 2019, be quashed on the ground of
prescription?

Answer:

No, the information may not be quashed on the

ground of prescription.

Based on the prevailing jurisprudence, the

offense cyber libel is punishable with an afflictive
penalty. Offenses with afflictive penalty has a 15-
year prescription.

In the case at bar, the republication was done in

the year 2014 and the information was filed on the
year 2019, five (5) years after the said republication.

Hence, the information cannot be quashed on

the ground of prescription because the 15-year period
of prescription has not yet lapsed.

Page 4 of 13
 b. Would your answer be the same if Rissa is charged of
libel?
Answer:

No, my answer would not be the same.

Under the RPC, the prescription of the felony
libel is one (1) year from its publication. In the case
at bar, the information was filed only after five (5)
years from the republication, which necessarily
means that the said crime has already prescribed.
4. Maria was suffering from battered woman syndrome. By
reason thereof, she fired her gun several times and killed her
husband, Obet. However, Raden, her 3-day-old illegitimate
grandson was hit by a stray bullet. Raden also died.

a. Differentiate justifying circumstance of self-defense and

the defense of battered woman syndrome.

Answer:

Under the RPC, both self-defense and the

defense of battered woman syndrome are considered
as justifying circumstances in which the accused will
not incur any criminal liability.

They however, differ in the aspect that in self-

defense, there is a need to prove that all the elements
of self-defense are present which are; (1) unlawful
aggression; (2) reasonable necessity to repel it; and
(3) sufficient provocation. On the other hand, in the
defense of battered woman syndrome, there is no
need to prove that all of the above-mentioned
elements of self-defense were present, provided that
the accused can sufficiently prove that the cycle of
abuse under the condition of a “battered women” is
present.

Page 5 of 13
 b. Is Maria criminally liable for the deaths of Obet and
Raden? If yes, what are the crimes committed by her?

Answer:

Maria is not criminally liable for the deaths of

Obet and Raden.

Under the RPC, battered woman syndrome

justifies the killing, which effectively disproves
criminal liability. Moreover, under the same law,
mistake in the blow, can only be considered if the
action of the accused was unlawful from the
beginning.

In the case at bar, the killing of Obet was

considered as justifying circumstance, which means
that the action was lawful, thus any injury which
would arise from it will not be considered a crime.
Hence, the mistake in the blow that killed Raden will
not give rise to any criminal liability.

5. Titanic, a cargo vessel registered in France but owned by

Dado Dela Cruz, a Filipino citizen, was crossing the Manila Bay.
Officers of the Philippines Navy on the basis of a verified
information that the vessel is transporting cocaine stopped and
searched the ship. They found 10,000 kilos of cocaine.

a. Can the Philippines assume jurisdiction over the crime of

transportation of dangerous drugs under Section 5 of RA No.
9165?

Answer:

Yes, the Philippines can assume jurisdiction

over the crime of transportation of dangerous drugs.

Page 6 of 13
 Under the territoriality rule, criminal laws are
enforceable within the Philippine territory, including
the internal waters.

In the case at bar, the vessel was crossing the

Manila Bay, carrying 10,000 kilos of cocaine which is
an offense punishable under the Comprehensive
Dangerous Drugs Act, falling in the offense of
transporting dangerous drugs.

Hence, crossing within the internal waters of the

Philippine territory, carrying dangerous drugs, wichi
violates the statute, the Philippines can assume
jurisdiction over the said crime.

b. Would your answer be the same in question no. 5 (a) if

they merely found 1 gram of cocaine in the pocket of the captain
of the ship?

Answer:

No, my answer would not be the same.

Under the law, transporting dangerous drugs can

only be considered as such if the quantity is
evidently for commercial use or sale. Otherwise, the
offense will only fall to possession and not
transporting of dangerous drugs.

In the case at bar, the one (1) gram of cocaine,

especially so when it was found inside the pocket,
cannot be considered as transporting it but may
however fall under the offense of “possession”.

Page 7 of 13
 c. Would your answer be the same in question no. 5 (b) if
the ship is travelling between the islands of cebu and bohol?

Answer:

Yes, my answer will still be the same because the

vessel is still travelling within the internal waters of
the Philippine territory in which the criminal laws
are enforceable.

6. Eddie brought his son Randy to a local faith healer

known as "Mother Himala." He was diagnosed by the faith healer
as being possessed by an evil spirit. Eddie thereupon authorized
the conduct of a "treatment" calculated to drive the spirit from
the boy’s body. Unfortunately, the procedure conducted resulted
in the boy’s death.
The faith healer and three others who were part of the healing
ritual were charged with murder and convicted by the lower
court. If you are appellate court Justice, would you sustain the
conviction upon appeal? Explain your answer.

Answer:

No, I would not sustain the conviction.

Under the RPC, there are two ways to commit a

felony. It could either be dolo, which is an
intentional felony, or culpa, which is a wrongful act
resulting from negligence or imprudence.

In the case at bar, it cannot be construed that

the faith healer acted with intent to kill Randy. The
faith healer was conducting a “treatment” which he
considered as a method to cure Randy. But the fact
that he was not a licensed doctor, there was an
apparent negligence which may result to criminal
liability of reckless imprudence resulting to the death
of Randy.

Page 8 of 13
 Thus, the conviction of murder by the lower
cannot be sustained in the absence of proof that said
actions were intentional felony.

7. While Carlos was approaching his car, he saw it being

driven away by Paolo, a thief. Carlos tried to stop Paolo by
shouting at him, but Paolo ignored him. To prevent his car from
being carnapped, Carlos drew his gun, aimed at the rear wheel of
the car and fired. The shot blew the tire which caused the car to
veer out of control and collide with an oncoming tricycle, killing
the tricycle driver.

a. What is the criminal liability of Carlos, if any? Explain.

Answer:

Carlos does not incur any criminal liability.

Under the RPC, any person who exercises his

right to defend his property, will not incur any
criminal liability pursuant to help-self doctrine. Any
injury caused by the exercise of such right will not
give rise to any criminal liability.

In the case at bar, Carlos was merely exercising

his right to defend his property. Hence, he cannot be
held criminally liable for the death of the tricycle
driver.

b. What is the criminal liability of Paolo, if any? Explain.

Answer:

Paolo is criminally liable for both carnapping and

the death of the tricycle driver.

Under the law, carnapping is an offense punished

by law. It was apparent that Paolo, with intent to
gain, and without the consent of the rightful owner,
took the car which can be considered as carnapping.
Moreover, under the RPC, a person’s action which is
the proximate cause of the death of another, will be
held responsible for such death.

Page 9 of 13
 In the case at bar, Paolo is liable for carnapping
since he took the car without the consent of Carlos
and drove it away. Consequently, he is also
criminally liable for the death of the tricycle because
without his felonious action, there could be no
proximate cause which would result to the said
death.

8. Charlie hated his classmate, Brad, because the latter was

assiduously courting Lily, Charlie’s girlfriend. Charlie went to a
veterinarian and asked for some poison on the pretext that it
would be used to kill a very sick, old dog. Actually, Charlie
intended to use the poison on Brad.

The veterinarian mistakenly gave Charlie a non-toxic powder

which, when mixed with Brad’s food, did not kill Brad

b. Did Charlie commit any crime? If so, what and why? If

not, why not?

Answer:

Yes, Charlie committed an impossible crime of

murder.

Under the RPC, impossible crime is committed

when the act of the accused did not result to the
intended crime because of ineffectual or inadequate
means. What the law punishes is the tendency of the
person to commit the crime.

In the case at bar, Charlie only failed to

accomplish his desired outcome of poisoning of Brad
because the powder was non-toxic, but that fact is
unknown to him which evidently shows his intent to
really kill Brad.

c. Would your answer be the same if Brad proved to be

allergic to the powder, and after ingesting it with his food,
fell ill and was hospitalized for ten (10) days? Explain

Page 10 of 13
 Answer:

No, my answer would not be the same. Charlie

may be charged with the crime frustrated murder.

Under the RPC, a crime in its frustrated stage, is

one when the accused performed all the necessary
acts to commit and accomplish the crime but
nevertheless, it did not produce the desired outcome
by reason which is independent from the will of the
accused.

In the case at bar, Charlie with intent to kill

Brad did not succeed not because the powder was
non-toxic, since Brad was allergic to it, but for the
reason that there was timely and appropriate medical
intervention which saved the life of Brad. Here,
Charlie already committed all the necessary act to
kill Brad but due to medical intervention which is
independent from the former’s will, Brad did not die.

Hence, Charlie is criminally liable for the crime

of frustrated murder.

9. Ponciano borrowed Ruben’s gun, saying that he would use it

to kill Freddie. Because Ruben also resented Freddie, he readily
lent his gun, but told Ponciano: “O, pagkabaril mo kay Freddie,
isauli mo kaagad, ha.” Later, Ponciano killed Freddie, but used a
knife because he did not want Freddie’s neighbors to hear the
gunshot

a. What, if any, is the liability of Ruben? Explain.

Answer:

Ruben does not incur any criminal liability.

Under the RPC, a person can only be held

criminally liable when he either directly participated
in the commission of the crime, or when he is an
accomplice whose previous or simultaneous acts are
not indispensable to the commission of the crime, or

Page 11 of 13
 when he is an accessory who came into the picture
after the commission of the crime to help conceal it.

In the case at bar, Ruben did not directly

participated in the killing of Freddie because the gun
he lent Ponciano was not the weapon used to kill the
former. Nor did Ruben help in any way by his
previous or simultaneous acts. Morever, Ruben did
not help conceal the crime.

Therefore, Ruben did not take any participation

in the commission of the crime either as principal,
accomplice or accessory which would not incur him
any criminal liability.

b. Would your answer be the same if, instead of Freddie, it

was Manuel, a relative of Ruben, who was killed by
Ponciano using Ruben’s gun? Explain.

Answer:

Yes, my answer would still be the same.

Pursuant to the same legal basis as mentioned

above, Ruben’s action by lending the gun does not in
any way consider him as either principal, accomplice
or accessory to the crime, especially so when the
person killed is not Freddie but Manuel. His act of
lending the gun is not an indispensable to the said
killing for the reason that Ponciano may use any
other weapon to accomplish the crime to kill.

10. (a) Distinguish grave, less grave, and light felonies. (b)
What is the classification of a felony and its penalty of fine in the
amount of P40,000? (c) When are light felonies punishable, and
who are liable for light felonies?

Answer:
(a)

 Grave Felonies are those which the law attaches

capital or afflictive punishments.

Page 12 of 13
 Less grave felonies are those which the law attaches
correctional penalty and/or a fine of exceeding
P40,000.

 Light felonies are those which the law attached the

penalty of arresto menor and/or a fine not exceeding
P40,000.
(b)

The classification of felony if its penalty is fine

exactly in the amount of P40,000 is a light felony,
pursuant to Section 9 of the RPC which provides
that light felonies are those which the law attaches a
fine not exceeding P40,000.

(c)

Light felonies can only be punished when the

felony is in its consummated stage. Moreover, only
principals and accomplices are liable for it, not
including accessories.

Page 13 of 13