Suggested Answers To The Criminal Law Mock Bar Examination

JURISTS BAR REVIEW CENTERTM
SUGGESTED ANSWERS TO THE

2023 JURISTS CRIMINAL LAW MOCK BAR EXAMINATION
A passenger bus, loaded with some injured passengers from a collision accident in Alabang,
Muntinlupa, was apprehended in EDSA because it has no franchise and authority to travel along the
hi-way. The bus was then impounded and a fine of P1M was imposed. The bus owner defended his
driver arguing that he did not intend to perpetrate the violation because of the necessity to bring the
injured passengers, some of them already dying, for treatment to the hospital. Decide with reasons.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The justification of necessity by the bus driver is not tenable.
Under Criminal Law, when the crime committed is malum prohibitum, the intent of the offender
is immaterial. It is enough that the offender committed the crime with intelligence and freedom for
him to be liable.
Here, the crime committed was malum prohibitum, that is, driving a bus without a franchise.
Hence, the defense of necessity is unavailing.
Astor suspecting that this wife Fergy was committing adultery with her paramour Charles, follows
her in a rice field but loses her. While going home in the dark, Astor stumbles upon Charles and a woman
copulating in the dark. Believing that they were Charles and Fergy, Astor kills both of them. It turned
out that the woman was not Fergy. Prosecuted for murder, Astor raises the defense of mistake of fact.
Will Astor be exculpated from liability?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, Astor will not be exculpated from liability.
The Supreme Court has held that for mistake of fact to be raised as a defense, the act done
should have been lawful had the facts been as the accused believed them to be.
Here, even if the facts had been as Astor believed them to be, the killing of Fergy and her
paramour would still not be lawful as Astor would be liable for parricide but with the benefit of a special
mitigating circumstance equivalent to passion or obfuscation.
Hence, Astor will not be exculpated from liability.
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. For what crime is Rodrigo liable?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
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.
2023 Jurists Suggested Answers to the Criminal Law Mock Bar Examination. © 2023 by Jurists Review Center Inc.
Copying, dissemination, storage, use, modification, uploading, and downloading without the express written consent
of Jurists Review Center Inc. is strictly prohibited and shall be subjected to criminal prosecution and administrative
charges, including the appropriate complaint with the Bar Confidant’s Office and IBP. Page 1 of 9
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.
Same facts as the preceding question except that the reason why no bullet came out was that
there were no more bullets left inside the gun. Would Rodrigo still be criminally liable?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Rodrigo would still be criminally liable even when the reason why no bullet came out was that
there were no more bullets left inside the gun.
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 more bullets.
Hence, Rodrigo would still be criminally liable.
Zet threatened Paolo with a toy gun and demanded from him his mobile phone. Thinking that it
was a real gun, Paolo started to run though. Zet gave a chase but before Paolo could run farther away
from the former, bystanders Jun and Shawn also pursued Paolo as the latter was mistaken by the duo
for a robber. Upon seeing this, Zet desisted. When Jun and Shawn finally caught up with Paolo, he was
mauled and beaten to death by them. May Zet be held criminally liable for the killing of Paolo?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, Zet may not be held criminally liable for the killing of Pablo.
Under Criminal Law, a person is not liable for the consequences of his felonious act if the wrong
done is not the proximate cause of his felonious act.
Here, while Zet may have initially committed a felonious act against Paolo, i.e., robbery, such is
not the proximate cause of his death. Under the circumstances, the fact that Jun and Shawn had mauled
and beaten Paolo after Zet desisted is an efficient cause that intervened between Zet’s felonious act and
the killing of the victim.
Hence, Zet may not be held criminally liable for Pablo’s death.
Twin brothers Ben and Ven, aged 21 years, reside in the same house though occupying separate
rooms therein. When Ven had gone to a mall, Ben entered Ven’s room which door the latter had left
open, destroyed the lock of a drawer and got the latter’s passbook wherein it was kept. Ben later
proceeded to a bank and, misrepresenting himself as the passbook’s owner, was able to withdraw ₱5,000
from the account through a withdrawal slip wherein Ven’s signature was falsified by Ben. Is Ben liable
under the Revised Penal Code? Explain briefly.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes, Ben is liable under the Revised Penal Code for the complex crime of theft through falsification
of a commercial document.
Under the Revised Penal Code, a complex crime is committed when one offense is committed as
a necessary means for committing another offense.
Here, Ben, a private individual, counterfeited the signature of his brother Ven on a bank withdrawal
slip, a commercial document, as a necessary means of stealing his sibling’s money. As the crime of
falsification was a necessary means of committing the theft, Ben may be held liable for a complex crime.
Hence, Ben is liable for the complex crime of theft through falsification of a commercial document.
Rey is the sole eyewitness to the killing of Rene by Jon. When Rey was summoned by the trial
court in the Homicide case filed against Jon, the former got in touch with Jon and demanded ₱300,000
for him to desist from testifying therein. Not having enough money for the amount being asked by Rey,
Jon failed to pay up.
Is Rey guilty of a crime punished under the Revised Penal Code? Explain briefly.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes, Rey is guilty of the crime of light threats punished under the Revised Penal Code.
Under the Revised Penal Code, anyone who threatens another of the infliction of a wrong upon
his or her honor, which does not amount to a crime but is coupled with a demand for money or the
imposition of a condition is liable for the crime of light threats.
Here, while the threat made by Rey that he will testify in court as a witness against John relates
to the infliction of a wrong upon the latter’s honor, the same does not constitute a crime. The threat was
accompanied by a demand for money.
Hence, Rey is liable for light threats as punished under the Revised Penal Code.
AAA and BBB were married in 2006. BBB started working in Singapore as a chef in 2007 and he
acquired permanent residency status there. In Singapore, he also began an affair with a Singaporean
woman with whom he is cohabiting. He was charged in an information before the RTC of Pasig City,
where AAA resides, with the violation of Section 5(i) of RA 9262 (Anti-Violence against Women and their
Children Act), that is, the crime of causing mental and emotional anguish to his wife. BBB filed a motion
to quash on the ground that the RTC has no jurisdiction since the illicit relation occurred or is occurring
outside of the country. Should the motion to quash be granted?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, the motion to quash should not be granted.
R.A. No. 9262 provides that 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.
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 the 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.
Here, Pedro had already 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.
For the shooting of John, Pedro should be held liable only for serious, less serious or slight
physical injuries.
Under the Criminal Law, when the accused has not performed all the acts of execution which
would produce the felony, his spontaneous desistance exempts the accused from criminal liability for the
crime he intended to commit, but not for the crime he had committed before his desistance.
Here, Pedro spontaneously desisted from committing homicide when he walked away from John,
thereby exempting him from criminal liability for homicide as the shoulder wound he inflicted on John was
not a mortal one and thus he had not performed all the acts of execution. He is, however, liable for the
crime he had committed, which is physical injuries.
10
Joyce was lent by Arthur ₱500,000 payable on or before the latter’s birthday and for which the
former executed a promissory note. On and after its due date, Joyce refused to pay the loan despite
repeated demands. One morning, Arthur sought Joyce and upon seeing her, poked a gun at her while
presenting a deed for the sale of her car to him. Arthur ordered her to sign the same at that instant so
that Joyce’s car would be applied as payment to the debt or else she would be shot to death. For fear
that Arthur would make good of his threat, Joyce obliged.
Is Arthur guilty of a crime punished under the Revised Penal Code? Explain briefly.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes, Arthur is guilty of the crime of grave coercion punished under the Revised Penal Code.
Under the Revised Penal Code, the crime of grave coercion is committed by any person who,
without any authority of law, shall, among others, compel another to do something against his will,
whether it be right or wrong, by means of threats or intimidation.
Here, Arthur, by means of intimidation and threats, compelled Joyce to sign the deed of sale
against her will. Even assuming that Joyce may rightly be compelled to pay Arthur the loan, still, he has
no authority under the law, to force her, let alone by means of intimidation or threats, to sign any document
to transfer her property as payment of the debt.
Hence, Arthur is guilty of grave coercion.
11
In 2000, first-year college students and sweethearts Mario and Maria, both aged 17 years,
exchanged marital vows in a ceremony presided by Martin, a Regional Trial Court judge. Thereafter,
they cohabited as spouses until Maria abandoned Mario in 2010.
A year later, Maria petitioned the court to annul her marriage with Mario. While the petition for
annulment was pending, Mario married his former girlfriend Marita, which marriage has all the requisites
for its validity. Mario was later charged with and prosecuted for Bigamy.
May Mario be validly convicted of the crime charged? Explain briefly.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, Mario may not be validly convicted of Bigamy, the crime charged.
The Supreme Court has held that the nullity of the first marriage is an absolute defense in a
prosecution for bigamy since bigamy presupposes a valid first marriage.
Here, the marriage between Mario and Maria is void from the beginning as it was contracted when
both were below 18 years of age. That the petition for annulment was still pending is immaterial since a
prior judicial declaration of nullity is not a requirement for a person charged with bigamy to avoid criminal
liability, a void marriage being void from the beginning.
Hence, Mario may not be convicted of Bigamy. [Pulido v. People, 27 July 2021, e.b., Hernando, J.]
12
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.
13
Aaron is the defendant in a civil case being tried in the Manila Regional Trial Court. Together with
his lawyer, Aaron went to Singapore to take the deposition of a witness who, Aaron hoped, would support
his defense. The deposition was taken in the function room of the Singapore Hotel before Mr. Aguila, the
Philippine Consul General. Neither the plaintiff nor his counsel attended the deposition taking. After the
deposition taking, Aaron, not satisfied with the results, persuaded Mr. Aguila to make substantial changes
in the transcripts of stenographic notes. Aaron offered $5,000 in Singaporean currency which Aguila
readily accepted. Leona, vacationing daughter of Aguila, was given $200 by Aaron when she made the
alterations in the transcripts. The deponent, with neither notice nor knowledge of the alterations, signed
the deposition.
May Aaron, Aguila, and Leona be prosecuted in a Philippine court for offenses punishable under
our Revised Penal Code? What are the offenses, if any? Explain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, Aaron and Leona may not be prosecuted in a Philippine court for offenses punishable under
our Revised Penal Code.
Under the Territoriality Principle of our criminal law, the provisions of the Revised Penal Code do
not have extraterritorial effect and thus crimes committed abroad are not punishable under the Revised
Penal Code.
Here, Aaron and Leona committed the crimes in Singapore .
Hence, the provisions of the Revised Penal Code do not apply extraterritorially to them and thus
they may not be prosecuted in a Philippine court for offenses punishable under our Revised Penal Code.
On the other hand, Aguila may be prosecuted in a Philippine court.
Under the Revised Penal Code, its provisions may be given extra-territorial effect to public officers
who commit an offense in the exercise of their functions.
Here, Aguila, the Philippine consul general, committed the crime of bribery when he accepted
5,000 Singaporean dollars to make alterations in the transcripts of stenographic notes. Such offense of
bribery was committed in the exercise of his functions of taking depositions abroad.
Hence, the provisions of the Revised Penal Code may be given extraterritorial effect to Aguila and
he can be prosecuted for bribery in a Philippine court.
Aaron committed the crime of corruption of a public officer. Leona committed falsification of a
public document as a principal by direct participation and Aaron as a principal by inducement.
14
Willy is engaged in a rent-a-car business while Amy has been his long-time client. On August 23,
2022, she rented a 2020 Nissan Terra VL from Willy for five days for a fee at the rate of ₱5,500 per day
and for which she has paid the sum of ₱27,500. On August 29, 2022, Amy pledged the motor vehicle to
Kenneth for ₱400,000, with the latter knowing the transaction between Willy and Amy. On September 1,
2022, the same vehicle was stolen by Luis, a member of a car-theft syndicate, and since then, it has yet
to be found. When Willy learned of this, he, through a letter addressed to and received by Amy and
Kenneth, demanded from them the return of said car or the amount of ₱1,850,000. However, Amy and
Kenneth failed to comply therewith. For what crime/s may Amy and Kenneth be held liable? Explain
briefly.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Amy may be held liable for carnapping.
Under the Criminal Law, carnapping is defined as the unlawful taking, with intent to gain, of a
motor vehicle belonging to another without the latter’s consent.
Here, while Willy may have initially consented to the taking of the motor vehicle by Amy on August
23, the latter’s possession over the same on August 29 has become merely physical or material since
the lease period had expired. Thus, when Amy disposed of said car to Kenneth for consideration by way
of pledge, she, without any authority to retain its possession at that time, is deemed to have unlawfully
taken it with intent to gain since she did not get the consent of Willy. [New Anti-Carnapping Law of 2016]
Hence, Amy is liable for carnapping.
Kenneth may be held liable for fencing.
Under the Criminal Law, fencing is committed by any person who, with intent to gain, deals or
transacts with any object which he knows or should be known to him to have been derived from robbery
or theft.
Here, Kenneth dealt or transacted with the car that was pledged to him by Amy despite knowing
that it was the subject of carnapping, a crime which is similar by its nature to theft. Intent to gain is
presumed from his act of transacting with the car without the consent of the owner Willy.
Hence, Kenneth is liable for fencing.
15
Same basic facts as the previous question except that the transaction between Amy and Kenneth
occurred on August 25, 2022. Will your answer be the same? Explain briefly.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, my answer will not be the same. Amy may be held liable for estafa by misappropriation as a
principal by direct participation, while Kenneth may be held liable as an accessory thereto.
Under the Revised Penal Code, the crime of estafa by misappropriation is committed by any
person who, to the damage of another, misappropriates or converts, any money or other personal
property received by him under any obligation involving the duty to return the same. The offender should
have acquired not only physical possession of the subject property but juridical possession as well.
Here, Amy had a duty to return the same motor vehicle under the lease contract. At the time Amy
pledged the motor vehicle to Kenneth, she had juridical possession since she still had the right to retain
its possession even against the owner since her lease over the same has yet to expire. Amy failed to
return the car to Willy and misappropriated the same by pledging it to Kenneth.
Hence, Amy may be held liable for estafa by misappropriation.
Kenneth may be held liable as an accessory to the estafa committed by Amy.
Under the Revised Penal Code, accessories are those who, having knowledge of the commission
of the crime, and without having participated therein, either as principals or accomplices, take part after
its commission by profiting themselves or assisting the offender to profit by the effects of the crime.
Here, Kenneth, not being a principal or an accomplice thereto, has profited himself and assisted
Amy to profit by the effects thereof after its commission by accepting a pledge thereof and he knew of
the commission of estafa since the motor vehicle was pledged to him by a mere lessee.
Hence, Kenneth may be held liable as an accessory to the crime of estafa.
16
In his Statements of Assets, Liabilities, and Net Worth (SALN) subscribed under oath before a
notary public and which he submitted to the Administrator of the Land Registration Authority, Ferdinand,
the Registrar of Deeds of Taguig City, declared to owning a house and lot in Pasig City and a sports utility
vehicle.
It was, however, uncovered that, at the time he filed the SALN, he also owns a yacht and farm lot
in Abra, which he did not declare therein. He was later charged with and tried for Perjury before the trial
court.
May Ferdinand be convicted of the crime charged? Explain briefly.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes, Ferdinand may be convicted of perjury, the crime charged.
Under the Revised Penal Code, perjury is the deliberate making of untruthful statements upon
any material matter under oath in cases in which the law so requires.
Here, the submission of the SALN under oath by Ferdinand is required by the Code of Conduct
and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees. His deliberate omission to completely disclose
and declare all his assets without a valid justification is a material untruthful statement.
Hence, Ferdinand is liable for perjury.
17
Pokwang and Ganda are friends residing in Pasay City. Pokwang lent P3,000,000 to Ganda
evidenced by a promissory note. Ganda failed to pay the note despite demand so Pokwang filed with
the Regional Trial Court an action for collection of P3,000,000 against Ganda. In her verified answer,
Ganda claimed that she never borrowed money from Pokwang which was a clear lie. Is Ganda liable for
perjury?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, Ganda is not liable for perjury.
Under the Criminal Law, there is no perjury if the statement is not required by law to be verified
or under oath.
Here, the answer was filed under the regular procedure since the amount of the demand exceeds
P2,000,000.
Hence, the answer is not required to be verified or under oath and thus Ganda is not liable for
perjury.
18
Pokwang was bumped by a car negligently driven by Guapo. Pokwang sued Guapo before the
Metropolitan Trial Court of Pasay City for P2,000,000 damages arising out of the incident. In his verified
answer, Guapo claimed that it was another person driving the car, which was a bare-faced lie. Is Guapo
liable for perjury?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes, Guapo is liable for perjury.
Under the Criminal Law, there is perjury if the untruthful statement is required by law to be verified
or under oath.
Here, the answer filed is governed by the Rule on Summary Procedure since the amount of the
demand does not exceed P2,000,000 and said Rule requires that pleadings, such as the answer, must
be verified or under oath. The answer contained an untruthful statement that it was another person not
Guapo who was driving the car.
Hence, Guapo is liable for perjury.
19
Ramon issued ten post-dated checks in favor of the Ironworks Enterprises on June 1, 2022. The
checks were issued on the same date for the amount of Php500,000.00 each, and postdated to mature
on December 1, 2022. Come December 23, 2022, all checks were presented for payment but dishonored
for being drawn against a Closed Account. John, the general manager of the Ironworks Enterprises
demanded that Ramon make good of all checks 20 days after receipt of the letter of demand.
Unfortunately, Ramon ignored the demand.
On January 15, 2023, John instituted a criminal complaint for ten counts of Estafa and ten counts
of the violation of BP 22. During the preliminary investigation, Ramon filed his counter-affidavit denying
the commission of Estafa considering that the checks were issued for payment of past deliveries from
Ironworks Enterprises. His counsel also argued against the claim that ten counts of Estafa were
committed with ten counts of the violation of BP 22. According to him, if ever, there could only be 1 count
of Estafa and 1 count of the violation of BP 22 since the checks were issued with the single criminal
intention of paying Ramon’s indebtedness.
Thereafter, the Public Prosecutor found probable cause for the filing of information for 1 count of
Estafa and another information for 1 count of the violation of BP 22. According to the resolution,
considering that the checks were issued for a single purpose, the series of acts of issuing the ten bad
checks should be considered a continued or continuing crime. As such, there could only be 1 count of
Estafa and 1 count of the violation of BP 22. Is the resolution correct?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, the resolution finding probable cause for one count of Estafa and only one count of the
violation of B.P. Blg. 22 is not correct.
There is no probable cause to charge Ramon with Estafa.
Under the Revised Penal Code, Estafa through the issuance of a check is committed only when
the check is issued in payment of an obligation contracted at the time of the issuance of the check.
Here, the ten checks were issued in payment of past deliveries or obligations. The obligations
were contracted long before the issuance of the checks.
Hence, there was no Estafa.
The resolution finding probable cause to charge Ramon with only one count of the violation of
B.P. Blg. 22 on the ground that there is a continued or continuing crime is not correct.
The Supreme Court has held that the doctrine of continued or continuing crimes does not apply
to crimes which are mala prohibita.
Here, the crime of the violation of B.P. Blg. 22 is a malum prohibitum. Since criminal intent is not
a necessary element of mala prohibita crimes, the continued or continuing crime cannot be applied to a
series of acts.
Thus, Ramon should be charged with ten counts of the violation of B.P. Blg. 22. [See People v.
Ramoy and Padilla, G.R. No. 212738, March 9, 2022]
Hence, the resolution is not correct.
-oOo-

Suggested Answers To The Criminal Law Mock Bar Examination

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

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

Suggested Answers To The Criminal Law Mock Bar Examination

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

JURISTS BAR REVIEW CENTERTM

SUGGESTED ANSWERS TO THE

No, Astor will not be exculpated from liability.

Hence, Astor will not be exculpated from liability.

Rodrigo is liable for the crime of attempted homicide.

Hence, Rodrigo is liable for attempted homicide.

Hence, Rodrigo would still be criminally liable.

No, the motion to quash should not be granted.

Hence, the motion to quash should not be granted.

For what crime(s) may Pedro be held liable?

Hence, Arthur is guilty of grave coercion.

May Mario be validly convicted of the crime charged? Explain briefly.

a) What crime if any was committed by Trish?

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

Hence, Trish is liable for estafa through misappropriation.

Here, Aaron and Leona committed the crimes in Singapore .

On the other hand, Aguila may be prosecuted in a Philippine court.

Amy may be held liable for carnapping.

Kenneth may be held liable for fencing.

Hence, Kenneth is liable for fencing.

Hence, Amy may be held liable for estafa by misappropriation.

Kenneth may be held liable as an accessory to the estafa committed by Amy.

Hence, Kenneth may be held liable as an accessory to the crime of estafa.

May Ferdinand be convicted of the crime charged? Explain briefly.

Hence, Ferdinand is liable for perjury.

No, Ganda is not liable for perjury.

Yes, Guapo is liable for perjury.

Hence, Guapo is liable for perjury.

There is no probable cause to charge Ramon with Estafa.

Hence, there was no Estafa.

Hence, the resolution is not correct.

You might also like