Mock Bar Examination

JURISTS BAR REVIEW CENTER™
SUGGESTED ANSWERS TO 2022

COMMERCIAL LAW MOCK BAR EXAM
In 2012, Horace contracted marriage with Annika. Horace then filed a petition with
the Family Court for the declaration of nullity of his marriage to Annika on the ground of
absence of a marriage license. While this petition was pending, Horace contracted a
second marriage with Blondie. When Annika learned of this, she filed in 2014 a criminal
complaint with the prosecutor for bigamy against Horace. The information for bigamy
against Horace was subsequently filed in court. During the pendency of the criminal case,
Horace’s first marriage to Annika was declared null and void by the Family Court. No
appeal was made from this judgment. The Family Court judgment was introduced in
evidence in the criminal case by Horace. Nonetheless, in accordance with the then
prevailing case law, Horace was convicted in 2018 by the RTC of bigamy since there had
been no prior judicial declaration of nullity of his first marriage at the time he married
Blondie. The judgment of the RTC became final and executory.
While serving sentence in prison, Horace was informed by the jailhouse lawyer of
a recent Supreme Court decision promulgated in 2021, which held that the nullity of the
first marriage, regardless of whether there was a prior judicial declaration to that effect, is
an absolute defense in bigamy. The jailhouse lawyer told Horace that because of this
Supreme Court decision, he is entitled to be set free from prison. Is the jailhouse lawyer
correct?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes, the jailhouse lawyer is correct in stating that Horace is entitled to be set free
from prison.
Under, the Revised Penal Code, a law should be given retroactive effect if
favorable to the accused.
Here, the Supreme Court decision that the nullity of the first marriage is an
absolute defense in bigamy should be given retroactive effect to Horace’s case since it
will exonerate Horace from liability for bigamy and entitle him to be set free from prison.
A Supreme Court decision is part of the law of the land.
Hence, the jailhouse lawyer is correct.
A stand-up comedian by profession was, for a term of one year, appointed as

Ambassador of Ukraine to the Philippines effective 02 January 2022.
On 1 January 2022, while the Philippine registered aircraft that had taken off from
Kyiv International Airport on which he was on board en route to the Philippines was
cruising on international air space, he suddenly stood up from his seat, dragged one of
the stewardesses to the aircraft’s lavatory, and against her will and with lewd designs,
embraced, kissed, and touched her private parts.
May the Ambassador be criminally prosecuted therefor in the Philippines?

Explain briefly.
Suggested Answers to Jurists Criminal Law Mock Bar Examination. © 2022 by Jurists Review Center, Inc.
Unauthorized copying, dissemination, sharing, uploading, downloading, and storage strictly prohibited and
will be prosecuted to the full extent of the law, including the filing of administrative complaints with the
Office of the Bar Confidant, IBP, and SC as well as the filing of criminal charges. Page 1 of 13
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes, the Ambassador may be criminally prosecuted in the Philippines for his acts
aboard the Philippine registered aircraft.
Under the Revised Penal Code, its provisions may be given extraterritorial
application if the offense is committed on board a Philippine aircraft.
Here, the offense of lascivious acts punished under the Revised Penal Code was
committed on board a Philippine registered aircraft. Thus, the provisions of the code may
be given extraterritorial application to such offense committed in international air space.
The ambassador’s appointment was not yet effective when the offense was committed
and therefore he cannot invoke diplomatic immunity.
Hence, the ambassador may be criminally prosecuted in the Philippines.
Tony Stark proposed to Steve Rogers that they engage in “snatching”. Later,
however, Tony Stark undertook the snatching alone by boarding a jeepney in Recto.
Tony Stark saw Peter Parker, a passenger in the said jeepney, wearing a gold necklace.
Minutes later, Tony Stark snatched the necklace of Peter Parker, disembarked from the
jeepney, and ran away.
The following day, Steve Rogers, discovered the incident. Enraged, he confronted
Tony Stark. Tony Stark explained that he urgently needed the money because his
daughter is in the hospital. To appease Steve Rogers, Tony Stark told him to sell the
necklace. Steve Rogers then sold it to his “suki” pawnshop which has been his go to
place whenever he and Tony Stark would commit snatching.
What are the criminal liabilities of Tony Stark, Steve Rogers, and the pawnshop?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Tony Stark is liable as principal for the crime of Theft.
Under the Revised Penal Code, the following are the elements of of Theft: (1) that
there be taking of personal property; (2) that said property belongs to another; (3) that the
taking be done with intent to gain; (4) that the taking be done without the consent of the
owner; and (5) that the taking be accomplished without the use of violence against or
intimidation of persons or force upon things.
Here, Tony Stark took the gold necklace which belongs to Peter Parker, without
the consent of the latter and with intent to gain. Intent to gain is presumed from the
unlawful taking of personal property belonging to another. Finally, Tony Stark did the
taking without the without the use of violence against or intimidation of persons as he
merely snatched it from Peter Parker.
Hence, Tony Stark is liable for Theft.
On the other hand, Steve Rogers and the pawnshop are liable as principals in the
crime of Fencing.
Under the Anti-Fencing Law, Fencing is act of any person who, with intent to gain
for himself or for another, shall sell or buy any object, which he knows, or should be
known
to him, to have been derived from the proceeds of the crime of theft.
Here, Steve Rogers sold, and the pawnshop bought the necklace, with intent to
gain, knowing fully that the same has been derived from the crime of theft committed by
Tony Stark.
Hence, Steve Rogers and the pawnshop are liable as principals in the crime of
Fencing.
In the heat of anger, Rodrigo pointed a gun at Reyno. With intention to kill the
latter, Rodrigo pressed the trigger but no bullet came out of the gun. When he checked it,
he found that the trigger had jammed.
a) For what crime is Rodrigo liable?

b) Assuming that the reason why no bullet came out was that there was no more
bullet left inside the gun, would Rodrigo still be criminally liable? Explain fully.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
a) Rodrigo is liable for the crime of attempted homicide.
Under the Revised Penal Code, there is an attempted felony when the offender
commences the commission of a felony directly by overt acts but does not perform all the
acts of execution which should produce the felony by reason of some cause other than
his own spontaneous desistance.
Here, Rodrigo commenced the commission of the felony by the overt act of
shooting Reyno but because the trigger jammed, a cause other than his own
spontaneous desistance, he was not able to perform all the acts which should produce
the felony of homicide. The felony is only homicide, not murder, since although Rodrigo
had the intention to kill Reyno, his act was done in the heat of anger and without evident
premeditation.
Hence, Rodrigo is liable for attempted homicide.
b) Assuming that the reason why no bullet came out was that there was no more
bullet left inside the gun, Rodrigo would still be criminally liable.
Under the Revised Penal Code, a person is criminally liable for an impossible
crime if he performed an act which would be an offense against persons were it not for
the inherent impossibility of its accomplishment.
Here, Rodrigo performed the act of pulling the trigger of the gun aimed at Reyno
which would have been homicide, an offense against persons, were it not for the inherent
impossibility of its accomplishment since the gun did not have any bullet.
Hence, Rodrigo would still be criminally liable.
Wanting to kill a security guard and a street vendor, a tricycle driver has long been
looking for them. Upon seeing them, the tricycle driver, armed with a bolo, approached
them from behind and with intent to kill, attacked the duo one after the other. After the
security guard fell to the ground bloodied, the driver retreated and escaped.
Although the security guard sustained mortal hack wounds, he did not die as he
was immediately rushed to a hospital by bystanders, where he was medically attended to.
On the other hand, the vendor was not at all injured as he was able to ward off the bolo
attack and flee.
Charged of and prosecuted for two counts of Frustrated Murder, may the tricycle
driver be validly convicted thereof? Explain briefly.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
For the assault on the security guard, the tricycle driver may be validly convicted
of Frustrated Murder. In homicide cases, the Supreme Court had held that once the
assailant has inflicted a fatal wound upon the victim, he is deemed to have performed all
acts which would have resulted to his death, where it not for timely medical intervention
or any cause independent of the perpetrator’s will.
On the other hand, the accused may not be validly convicted of Frustrated Murder
but only of Attempted Murder. Here, the accused has commenced the commission of
Murder directly by overt acts but does not perform all acts of execution, not having
inflicted any injury, let alone a mortal one, by reason of a cause, i.e., that the vendor was
able to ward off the bolo attack and to flee.
In the Information charging a barangay chairman of Murder, the following

qualifying/aggravating circumstances were alleged therein: treachery, abuse of superior
strength, nighttime, and cruelty.
During the trial, the prosecution was able to prove not only the above-mentioned
circumstances but “recidivism” as well.
The trial court judge later convicted the barangay chairman of Murder as charged,
qualified by treachery and aggravated by abuse of superior strength, nighttime, cruelty
and recidivism.
Is the judge correct in appreciating all of the foregoing circumstances? Explain

briefly.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Except for the appreciation of treachery and cruelty as qualifying and generic
aggravating circumstances, respectively, the judge is mistaken in appreciating abuse of
superior strength, nighttime and recidivism as aggravating circumstances against the
Barangay Chairman.
Under the Criminal Law, in order for qualifying and aggravating circumstances to
be appreciated against the accused, they must be alleged in the Information and proved
by the prosecution by proof beyond reasonable doubt.
Here, although recidivism was established by the prosecution, the same was not
alleged in the Information and the appreciation of which ran counter to his constitutional
right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him. While abuse
of superior strength and nighttime were alleged in the Information and proven during the
trial, these circumstances should not have been appreciated against the Barangay
Chairman as it is settled that both are absorbed in treachery.
The court in an ejectment case issued a favorable decision in favor of the plaintiff,
Matt Murdock, against the informal settlers of a compound known as Hell’s Kitchen. It
became final and executory. A writ of execution was subsequently issued. However,
despite several attempts, the writ of execution was returned unsatisfied. Apparently, the
mayor of the town, King Pin, is preventing the implementation of the writ of execution. In
fact, Mayor King Pin, during an attempt to demolish the shanties, mentioned to the sheriff
the following words: “Mga putang-ina ninyo, para kayong mga hari, basta na lang kayo
mangingiba ng bahay ng may bahay, hindi man lang kayo nagpapaalam sa akin, sige,
ituloy ninyo yan at pagbabarilin ko kayo, komo may dala kayong order.” On the same
occasion, the sheriff was approached by Echo and Elektra, both of whom are working for
Mayor King Pin. Echo and Elektra told the sheriff that if he will not desist from the
demolition something untoward might happen to him or that he might be slapped with a
court case.
Aggrieved, Matt Murdock charged King Pin, Echo, and Elektra with violation of
Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 alleging that they were in a conspiracy when they acted
with evident bad faith by preventing the implementation of a valid court order, and by
giving the informal settlers unwarranted benefits. During the pendency of the criminal
case before the Sandiganbayan, King Pin died.
a) What is the effect of the death of King Pin insofar as his criminal and civil
liabilities are concerned?
b) Decide on the criminal liabilities of Echo and Elektra.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
a) The effect of the death of King Pin insofar as his criminal and civil liabilities are
concerned is that these liabilities are extinguished.
Under the Criminal Law, the accused’s death during the pendency of the criminal
action shall extinguish not only his criminal but also the civil liability ex delicto [SR R111,
Rules of Criminal Procedure]
b) Echo and Elektra are not criminally liable.
The Supreme Court has held that mere presence at the scene of the crime at the
time of its commission, and mere companionship are insufficient to constitute a
conspiracy, and to make a person criminally liable.
Here, the only evidence against Echo and Elektra is their presence at the
demolition site to accompany Mayor King Pin. The acts performed by Echo and Elektra
like informing the sheriff that he might be slapped with a court case do not qualify as overt
acts made in pursuance or in furtherance of the conspiracy.
Hence, Echo and Elektra are not criminally liable.
8
Gerald, married to Bea, contracted another marriage with Julia in Singapore. While
Gerald and Julia stayed in Singapore for their honeymoon, Bea discovered the
clandestine marriage between the two. Devastated and aggrieved, Bea filed a criminal
complaint against Gerald for violation R.A. No. 9262, particularly for psychological
violence. Gerald filed a motion to quash arguing that Philippine courts have no jurisdiction
over the case. Decide.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The motion to quash on the ground of lack of jurisdiction should be denied.
Under R.A. No. 9262, a court has jurisdiction to try a violation thereof in the place
where any of the elements of the crime occurred.
Here, while the marital infidelity occurred in Singapore, the element of mental or
emotional anguish occurred in the Philippines. The RTC thus has jurisdiction to try the
case.
Hence, the motion to quash should not be granted. [AAA v. BBB, 11 January 2018,
Tijam, J.]
A jail warden was convicted of Direct Bribery, a crime punished under the Revised
Penal Code with prisión mayor in its minimum and medium periods and a fine of not less
than the value of the gift and not more than three times such value. The dispositive
portion of the final judgment reads:
“WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered finding the accused

guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Direct Bribery as defined and punished
under Article 210 of the Revised Penal Code and is hereby sentenced to
suffer: (a) an indeterminate penalty of two (2) years of prision
correccional as minimum to eight (8) years of prision mayor as maximum;
(b) a penalty of fine of ₱600,000.00, and in case of insolvency, the
accused shall suffer subsidiary imprisonment in accordance with Art. 39
of the Revised Penal Code; and (c) a straight penalty of one (1) year of
prision correccional, for Conniving with or consenting to Evasion, the
crime agreed upon.”
Upon serving the prison terms, may the jail warden be required to undergo
subsidiary imprisonment in case he fails or refuses to pay the fine? Explain briefly.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, the jail warden may not be required to undergo subsidiary imprisonment in
case he fails or refuses to pay the fine.
Under the Revised Penal Code, subsidiary imprisonment will not be imposed if the
principal penalty imposed is higher than prison correccional.
10
Pedro had suspected Juan and John to have smashed and broken the headlights
of his car. When he saw them together a week later, Pedro, with intent to kill, shot Juan
and John. Juan was hit in the chest while John suffered a bullet wound on his left
shoulder. When Pedro approached his victims to finish them off, he suddenly felt a
twinge of conscience that he walked away and left. Juan and John survived, but
according to the attending physician of the former, he would have died had he not been
medically attended to right after the incident.
For what crime(s) may Pedro be held liable?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
For the shooting of Juan, Pedro may be held liable for Frustrated Homicide.
Under Criminal Law, a felony is frustrated when the offender performs all
the acts of execution which would produce the felony as a consequence but which,
nevertheless, do not produce it by reason of causes independent of the will of the
perpetrator.
In homicide cases, the offender is said to have performed all acts of

execution if he has inflicted a mortal wound. In this case, Pedro has performed all
the acts of execution when he inflicted a fatal wound and were it not for timely
medical intervention, a cause that is independent of Pedro’s will, Juan would have
died.
As regards the injuries he inflicted on John, Pedro should be held liable for
Serious, Less Serious or Slight Physical Injuries only.
Under Criminal Law, the spontaneous desistance of an accused exempts

him from criminal liability for the crime he intended to commit but not for any other
criminal act he may have already committed.
Here, while Pedro may have initially intended to kill John, Pedro was not
able to perform all acts of execution as he did not inflict a fatal wound on John
because of his spontaneous desistance. However, Pedro is liable for the crime of
serious, less serious, or slight physical injuries because he had already shot John
when he desisted.
11
Tina lent her gold ring to Trish for the latter to use during a party. Trish however
pawned the gold ring to the J.C. David Pawnshop without the knowledge of Tina. Since
Trish did not pay her debt to the pawnshop, the latter sold the gold ring at a public auction
and the ring was bought by Nilda, who was unaware of the act of Trish.
a) What crime if any was committed by Trish?

b) May Tina still recover the ring from Nilda?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
a) The crime committed by Trish is estafa through misappropriation.
Under the Revised Penal Code, estafa through misappropriation is committed

when the offender misappropriates personal property received under a duty to return the
same. [Art. 315(1)(b)]
Here, Trish had a duty to return the ring which she borrowed from Tina and she
misappropriated it when she pawned the same.
Hence, Trish is liable for estafa through misappropriation.

b) Yes, Tina may still recover the ring from Nilda provided Tina reimburses Nilda
the price she paid for the ring.
Under the Criminal Law, the owner may recover a movable of which he has been
unlawfully deprived of from one who purchased it in good faith at a public sale, provided
the owner reimburses the buyer the purchase price. [Art. 103, Revised Penal Code; Art.
559, Civil Code]
Here, Tina was unlawfully deprived through estafa of a movable, that is the ring.
The ring was acquired at a public sale or auction by Nilda who was in good faith as she
was not aware of Trish’s act.
Hence, Tina may still recover the ring from Nilda, provided Tina reimburses Nilda
the price she paid at the public auction.
12
Kokold discovered that his wife Nymfee was having an affair with Casanova, the
husband of Fria. Casanova was aware that Nymfee is a married woman. Kokold was livid
with rage and told his wife that he will file a complaint for adultery against her and
Casanova. Shaking with fear, Nymfee begged for her husband’s forgiveness and
promised that she will forsake Casanova. Kokold relented and forgave Nymfee.
However, Kokold had a change of mind and filed the complaint for adultery against
Nymfee and Casanova. Will the criminal case for adultery prosper?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes, the criminal complaint for adultery will prosper.
Under the Revised Penal Code, in order for pardon by the offended party to bar a
criminal prosecution for adultery, the pardon must be extended to both offenders.
Here, the pardon by Kokold was extended only to Nymfee but not to the other
offender Casanova. Thus, the pardon is not a bar to the criminal prosecution for adultery.
Hence, the criminal complaint for adultery will prosper.
Alternative answer:
No, the criminal complaint for adultery will not prosper.
Under the Criminal Law, pardon by the offended party of the adulterous act will bar
a prosecution for adultery.
Here, the pardon by Kokold of Nymfee was a pardon of the adulterous act. He is
not required to pardon also Casanova. Thus, the pardon is a bar to the criminal
prosecution for adultery.
Hence, the criminal complaint for adultery will not prosper.
[Note: This alternative answer is based on the Spanish text of the Revised Penal
Code which speaks of pardon of the adulterous act}
13
Tom Cruz purchased 500 copies of Primer-Reviewer on Remedial Law from Lexus
Publishing Inc. Simultaneous with the delivery of the books to him, Cruz issued to Lexus
Publishing a check drawn on his bank account. Cruz then sold the books to Pareto Law
Bookstore, which paid for them in cash. When Lexus Publishing deposited the check it
bounced for reason of account closed. Despite a written notice of dishonor given by
Lexus Publishing to Cruz, he failed to make good the check within ten banking days from
notice.
a) What crime or crimes, if any, did Tom Cruz commit?

b) May Lexus Publishing recover the law books from Pareto Law Bookstore?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
a) Tom Cruz committed the crime of estafa and the violation of B.P. Blg. 22.
Under the Revised Penal Code, Estafa is committed by the issuance in payment of
a simultaneous obligation of a check which was dishonored for insufficiency or absence
of funds and the drawer fails to make good the check within 3 days from notice. Under
B.P. Blg. 22, the violation thereof is also committed by the issuance of a check which was
dishonored for reason of insufficiency or absence of funds and no payment was made
within 5 banking days after notice.
Here, the check was issued in payment of a simultaneous obligation for the
delivery of the books and the check was dishonored for reason of absence of funds as
the account was already closed. There was no payment within 5 banking days from
notice by Cruz.
Hence, Cruz committed the crime of estafa and the violation of B.P. Blg. 22.
b) No, Lexus Publishing may no longer recover the books from Pareto Law
Bookstore.
The Supreme Court has held that an owner may no longer recover the movables
of which he was unlawfully deprived of if the ownership thereof had been transferred to
another person. [EDCA Publishing v Santos, 186 SCRA 614 (1990); Art. 1506, Civil
Code]
Here, the ownership of the books had already been transferred to Pareto
Bookstore by virtue of the contract of sale and the delivery of the books.
Hence, Lexus Publishing may no longer recover the books from Pareto Bookstore.
14
Carlos, as mortgagee, extrajudicially foreclosed on the real estate mortgage

executed by Mario. After due proceedings, the land subject of the mortgage was bought
by Pedro in the foreclosure sale. Since Mario was still in the land and did not want to
give up possession, Pedro filed with the RTC a petition for issuance of writ of possession.
In the certification against forum shopping attached to the petition, Pedro stated that he
had not commenced any action against Mario when in truth he (Pedro) had previously
filed an unlawful detainer case against Mario over the subject land and such ejectment
suit was still pending. May Pedro be held liable for perjury?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, Pedro may not be held liable for perjury.

The Supreme Court has held that a person is not liable for perjury if the sworn
statement is not required by law. [Padolina v. Go, 21 June 1999 (res.)]
Here, the sworn certification against forum shopping is not required of a petition for
the issuance of a writ of possession since the same is not an initiatory pleading.
Hence, Pedro is not liable for perjury.
15
During the start of the pandemic, the Department of Health, through Peter Parker,
Tony Stark, and Steve Rogers, purchased several boxes of paracetamol and sodium
ascorbate from Avengers Pharmaceutical Company. Citing the urgency of the situation,
the purchase was made through a direct sale and was not conducted via public bidding.
Several months later, it was discovered that the paracentral and sodium ascorbate
purchased from Avengers Pharmaceutical Company were all overpriced. A criminal
complaint for violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 was filed against Peter Parker,
Tony Stark, and Steve Rogers.
If you were the judge, how would you rule on this case?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
If I were the judge, I will rule in favor of Peter Parker, Tony Stark, and Steve
Rogers.
The Supreme Court has held that the absence of public bidding in the procurement
of goods does not automatically equate to evident bad faith and manifest partiality. The
guilt of an accused charged with violation of R.A. No. 3019 must be determined through
the lens of the anti-graft and corruption law and not the procurement law
Here, the failure of Peter Parker, Tony Stark, and Steve Rogers to conduct public
bidding in accordance with the relevant procurement laws does not make them
automatically liable for a violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019. The direct purchase of
paracetamol and sodium ascorbate was based on the honest belief of the accused that
the same was warranted under the urgent circumstances.
Hence, I will rule in favor Peter Parker, Tony Stark, and Steve Rogers.
16
Ghor, a driver, was engaged by Thor to drive for his client, an unknown woman
with the alias Sexy, using Thor's vehicle, i.e., a Revo. After driving Sexy to
Commonwealth Ave., Sexy instructed Ghor to proceed to Hapi Chan Restaurant without
her and to meet with a certain Star Lord who would get Sexy's bag for a fee, which the
latter placed on the backseat of the Revo.
On the other hand, SPO3 Valkyrie received a tip that a drug trade would happen in
front of Hapi Chan Restaurant involving a pusher named Sexy on board on a Revo.
Acting on the said tip, Valkyrie went undercover. Valkyrie went to the restaurant and
walked towards the car matching with the description that she received. When she
opened the door, she saw Ghor to whom she asked where Sexy is. Instead of giving a
responsive answer, Ghor asked him if she is Star Lord to which she answered in the
affirmative. Forthwith, Ghor told him to get the blue bag at the back seat and leave the
money there as instructed by Sexy. At once, SPO3 Valkyrie took the blue bag from the
Revo and opened it. She then saw six (6) brown envelopes containing white crystalline
substance inside a plastic bag which turned out to be shabu. Ghor was subsequently
arrested and was charged with illegal possession of dangerous drugs.
Is Ghor criminally liable?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, Ghor is not criminally liable.
Under the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act, one of the elements of the crime
of illegal possession of dangerous drugs is animus possidendi. The accused must
knowingly, freely, intentionally, and consciously possessed the prohibited drugs in his
person.
Here, it cannot be said that Ghor knowingly, freely, intentionally, and consciously
possessed the bag containing shabu. Ghor is not the owner of the vehicle where the drug
was recovered. He is a mere driver who followed the instructions of his principal, Thor,
and the latter's client, Sexy, which, on their face, are lawful instructions.
Hence, Ghor is not criminally liable.
17
A confidential informant appeared in the office of SPO2 ABC and reported that a
certain Salim was engaged in illegal drug activities in Alabang. ABC called her team
leader and a buy-bust operation was coordinated. ABC was assigned as the poseur
buyer.
Thereafter, ABC went to Starmall, Alabang to meet with Salim. The confidential
informant introduced ABC to Salim and she told him that she wanted to buy shabu. He
told her that he will get the shabu somewhere and will meet her in the food court. After 15
minutes, Salim returned and they simultaneously exchanged the money for the shabu.
After getting the shabu, ABC removed her jacket which was the pre-arranged signal.
Immediate back up came to arrest Salim. A commotion occurred during the arrest
because bystanders inside the food court wanted to help Salim who shouted "Tulungan
niyo ako papatayin nila ako." The authorities were not able to do anything in the vicinity
because of the commotion. After Salim was arrested, he was brought together with the
evidence to Brgy. Pinyahan, Quezon City. Upon reaching Brgy. Pinyahan, they
immediately conducted an inventory of the seized drugs which was done before the
barangay officials of the said barangay.
If you were the defense counsel of Salim, what defense are you going to invoke in
favor of your client?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
If I were the defense counsel of Salim, I am going to invoke in his favor the
defense that there is a violation of the chain of custody rule.
Under the Chain of Custody Rule, there must be witnesses during the arrest or
immediately thereafter, which include an elected public official and a representative from
the National Prosecution Service (NPS) or media. It also requires that the inventory of the
seized drugs must be immediately conducted after the arrest, in the presence of the
witnesses. According to the Supreme Court, strict adherence is required in order to
preserve the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized drugs.
Here, when Salim was arrested at Starmall, Alabang, there was no elected public
official or a representative from NPS or media. Further, the drugs were inventoried in
Quezon City, which happened after an appreciable lapse of time from the arrest. As such,
the integrity and evidentiary value of the shabu in this case are seriously in doubt.
Hence, I will invoke the violation of the chain of custody rule.

18
Draft an information for violation of B.P. Blg. 22. The amount of the check involved
is ₱3 million and the venue of the criminal case is in Manila.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT
NATIONAL CAPITAL JUDICIAL REGION
BRANCH ____, MANILA
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,

Plaintiff,
-versus- CRIMINAL CASE NO. ______________

For: Violation of B.P. Blg. 22
JOHN DOE,
Accused,
x-------------------------------------------x
INFORMATION
The undersigned prosecutor accuses JOHN DOE of the violation of Batas
Pambansa Blg. 22, committed as follows:
That on 1 April 2022, the said accused willfully and feloniously drew and issued in
the City of Manila to Juan Dela Cruz for value Bank of the Philippine Islands Check No.
123456 dated 1 April 2022 in the amount of THREE MILLION PESOS (₱3,000,000.00),
said accused knowing at the time of issue that he did not have sufficient funds in or credit
with the drawee bank for the payment in full of such check upon its presentment, which
check when presented for payment on 4 April 2022 or within 90 days from the date
thereof was dishonored by the drawee bank for insufficiency of funds or credit, and
despite receipt of notice of such dishonor on 7 April 2022, said accused failed to pay the
payee Juan Dela Cruz the amount of said check or to make arrangements for full
payment of the same within five banking days after receipt of such notice.
Contrary to law.
(Signature of Investigating Prosecutor)

(Designation)
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a preliminary examination in this case has been
conducted by me in accordance with law; that I have found probable cause to hold the
accused for trial; and that the filing of this information is with the prior authority and
approval of the City Prosecutor.
Manila, 9 September 2022.
(Signature of Investigating Prosecutor)
(Jurat and signature of officer administering oath)

Mock Bar Examination

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Mock Bar Examination

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

JURISTS BAR REVIEW CENTER™

SUGGESTED ANSWERS TO 2022

Hence, the jailhouse lawyer is correct.

A stand-up comedian by profession was, for a term of one year, appointed as

May the Ambassador be criminally prosecuted therefor in the Philippines?

Hence, the ambassador may be criminally prosecuted in the Philippines.

Tony Stark is liable as principal for the crime of Theft.

Hence, Tony Stark is liable for Theft.

a) For what crime is Rodrigo liable?

a) Rodrigo is liable for the crime of attempted homicide.

Hence, Rodrigo is liable for attempted homicide.

Hence, Rodrigo would still be criminally liable.

In the Information charging a barangay chairman of Murder, the following

Is the judge correct in appreciating all of the foregoing circumstances? Explain

b) Echo and Elektra are not criminally liable.

Hence, Echo and Elektra are not criminally liable.

The motion to quash on the ground of lack of jurisdiction should be denied.

“WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered finding the accused

In homicide cases, the offender is said to have performed all acts of

Under Criminal Law, the spontaneous desistance of an accused exempts

a) What crime if any was committed by Trish?

a) The crime committed by Trish is estafa through misappropriation.

Under the Revised Penal Code, estafa through misappropriation is committed

Hence, Trish is liable for estafa through misappropriation.

Yes, the criminal complaint for adultery will prosper.

Hence, the criminal complaint for adultery will prosper.

No, the criminal complaint for adultery will not prosper.

Hence, the criminal complaint for adultery will not prosper.

a) What crime or crimes, if any, did Tom Cruz commit?

Carlos, as mortgagee, extrajudicially foreclosed on the real estate mortgage

No, Pedro may not be held liable for perjury.

Is Ghor criminally liable?

No, Ghor is not criminally liable.

Hence, Ghor is not criminally liable.

Hence, I will invoke the violation of the chain of custody rule.

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,

-versus- CRIMINAL CASE NO. ______________

(Signature of Investigating Prosecutor)

Manila, 9 September 2022.

(Signature of Investigating Prosecutor)

(Jurat and signature of officer administering oath)

You might also like