I. a) What are the elements of the crime of bigamy? (5%) 1. Offender has been legally married 2.

Marriage has not been legally dissolved or, in case his or her spouse is absent, the 3. absent spouse could not yet be presumed dead according to the New Civil Code 4. He contracts a second or subsequent marriage 5. Second or subsequent marriage has all the essential requisites for validity. b) If you were the judge in a bigamy case where the defense was able to prove that the first 111arriage was null and void or a nullity, would you render a judgment of conviction or acquittal? Explain your answer. (2%) I will render a judgment of conviction. In the case of Teves v Bongalon , this Supreme Court stated it has consistently held that a judicial declaration of nullity is required before a valid subsequent marriage can be contracted; or else, what transpires is a bigamous marriage, reprehensible and immoral. Assuming the existence of the first marriage when accused contracted the second marriage and the subsequent judicial declaration of nullity of the second marriage on the ground of psychological incapacity, would you render a judgment of conviction or acquittal? Explain your answer. (3%) I will still render a judgment of conviction. In the case of Tenebro v CA, the Supreme Court stated that an individual who contracts a second or subsequent marriage during the subsistence of a valid marriage is criminally liable for bigamy, notwithstanding the subsequent declaration that the second marriage is void ab initio on the ground of psychological incapacity. II a) What is a privileged mitigating circumstance? (5%) A privileged mitigating circumstance is one which can never be offset by any aggravating circumstance. It operates to reduce the penalty by one to two degrees, depending upon what the law provides. b) Distinguish a privileged mitigating circumstance from an ordinary mitigating circumstance as to reduction of penalty and offsetting against aggravating circumstance/s. (5%) 1. As to the nature of the circumstances Ordinary mitigating circumstances can be offset by aggravating circumstances. Privilege mitigating circumstance can never be offset by any aggravating circumstance. 2. As to effect Ordinary mitigating circumstances, if not offset, will operate to reduce the penalty to the minimum period, provided the penalty is a divisible one. Privilege mitigating circumstances operate to reduce the penalty by one or two degrees, depending upon what the law provides.

Ill a) Is the crime of theft susceptible of commission in the frustrated stage? Explain your answer in relation to what produces the crime of theft in its consummated stage and by way of illustration of the subjective and objective phases of the felony. (5%) Theft is produced when there is deprivation of personal property due to its taking by one with intent to gain. It is immaterial to the product of the felony that the offender, once having committed all the acts of execution for theft, is able or unable to freely dispose of the property stolen since the deprivation from the owner alone has already ensued from such acts of execution. The crime is consummated after the accused had material possession of the thing with intent to appropriate the same, although his act of making use of the thing was frustrated. theft is already produced upon the taking of personal property of another without the latters consent. Unlawful taking, or apoderamiento, is deemed complete from the moment the offender gains possession of the thing, even if he has no opportunity to dispose of the same. (Valenzuela vs People) b) What are the constitutional provisions limiting the power of Congress to enact penal laws? (5%) Limitations on the power of the Congress to enact penal laws 1. Must be general in application. It refers to the persons that shall be covered by the law 2. Must not partake the nature of ex post facto law (punishes an act which was innocent when committed, it implies retroactive application) 3. Must not partake the nature of Bill of Attainder (imposes punishment without due process) 4. Must not impose cruel and unusual punishment or excessive fines IV a) A postal van containing mail matters, including checks and treasury warrants, was hijacked along a national highway by ten (10) men, two (2) of whom were armed. They used force, violence and intimidation against three (3) postal employees who were occupants of the van, resulting in the unlawful taking and asportation of the entire van and its contents. a) If you were the public prosecutor, would you charge the ten (10) men who hijacked the postal van with violation of Presidential Decree No. 532, otherwise known as the Anti-Piracy and Anti-Highway Robbery Law of 1974? Explain your answer. (5%) Yes, highway robbery/brigandage as defined under PD 532 is the seizure of any person for ransom, extortion or other unlawful purpose, or the taking away of the property of another by means of violence against or intimidation of persons or force upon things or other unlawful means, committed by any person on any Philippine Highway. PD 532 punishes as highway robbery or brigandage only acts of robbery perpetrated by outlaws indiscriminately against any person or persons on Philippine highways as defined therein and not acts of robbery committed against only a predetermined or particular

victim although in a highway. The number of perpetrators is no longer an essential element of the crime of brigandage as defined by PD 532. Based on the definition, the hijacking of the postal van by the 10 men falls under those acts that would be considered as highway robbery. It can be committed by any person regardless of whether armed or not, with the use of force, violence or intimidation to facilitate the unlawful taking of the property. b) If you were the defense counsel, what are the elements of the crime of highway robbery that the prosecution should prove to sustain a conviction? (5%) The prosecution should prove that the robbery must be indiscriminate to fall under the decree. Indiscriminate means that the victim of the brigandage is not predetermined and that the malefactors have been habitually engaged in depredation of innocent inhabitants who travel from place to place. The prosecution must prove that the 10 men were part of a band of outlaws organized for the purpose of hijacking any vehicle in the national highway and that the hijacking of the postal van was not predetermined or an isolated case by presenting evidences that would prove that previous attempts of similar robberies have been committed by the malefactors. V a) Who is an accomplice? (5%) An accomplice is one who: 1. Concurs with the criminal design of the principals by direct participation; 2. Cooperates in the execution of the offense by previous or simultaneous acts, with the intention of supplying material or moral aid in the execution of the crime in an efficacious way b) Distinguish an accomplice from a conspirator as to their knowledge of the criminal design of the principal, their participation, the penalty to be imposed in relation to the penalty for the principal, and the requisites/elements to be established by the prosecution in order to hold them criminally responsible for their respective roles in the commission of the crime. (5%) ACCOMPLICE In both, they agree with the criminal design They come to know about it after the principals have reached the decision, and only then do they agree to cooperate in its execution. They are merely instruments who perform acts not essential to the perpetration of the offense Penalty is one degree lower than that prescribed by the Code

CONSPIRATOR In both, they agree with the criminal design They come to know the criminal intention because they themselves have decided upon such course of action They are the authors of the crime. Where there is conspiracy, the act of one is the act of all. All conspirators are liable as co principals regardless of the extent and character of their participation. Penalty same as the penalty imposed on the principal. Conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it. Requisites: 1. There is an agreement 2. The participants acted in concert or simultaneously which is indicative of a meeting of the minds towards a common criminal goal or criminal objective VI a) What is the fundamental principle in applying and interpreting criminal laws, including the Indeterminate Sentence Law? (5%) Doctrine of Pro Reo - Whenever a penal law is to be construed or applied, and the law admits two interpretations, one lenient to the offender and one strict to the offender that interpretation which is lenient or favorable to the offender will be adopted. The doctrine is peculiar to criminal law. This is also true with criminal prosecutions and rules on evidence in criminal cases b) How is the Indeterminate Sentence Law applied in imposing a sentence? (5/o) The court must, instead of a single fixed penalty, determine two penalties, referred to in the Indeterminate Sentence Act as the MAXIMUM and MINIMUM terms. The law should be applied in imposing a prison sentence for a crime punishable either by special law or by the Revised Penal Code. When the crime is punishable by a special law The court shall sentence the accused to an indeterminate penalty, the maximum term of which shall not exceed the maximum fixed by said law and the minimum term shall not be less than the minimum prescribed by the same. When the crime is punished by the Code The court shall sentence the accused to an indeterminate penalty, the maximum term of which shall be that which, in view of the attending circumstances, could be properly imposed under the rules of the Revised Penal Code, and the minimum term of which shall be within the range of the penalty next lower to that prescribed by the Code for the offense.

The court cannot put the minimum penalty in the same period and the same degree as the maximum penalty, because the minimum penalty shall be within the range of the penalty next lower to that prescribed by the Code for the offense. The penalty next lower must be based on the penalty prescribed by the Code for the offense, without considering in the meantime the modifying circumstances, such as, the mitigating or aggravating circumstances. The mitigating or aggravating circumstances is required to be considered only in the imposition of the maximum term of the indeterminate sentence. When there is a privileged mitigating circumstance, so that the penalty has to be lowered by one degree, the starting point for determining the minimum term of the indeterminate penalty is the penalty next lower from that prescribed by the Code for the offense.

VII a) Who are brigands? (5%) Four armed persons form a band of robbers for the purpose of committing robbery in the highway, or kidnapping persons for the purpose of extortion or to obtain ransom or for any other purpose to be obtained by means of force and violence. (RPC art 306) -law says "more than 3 armed persons".

b) Distinguish brigandage from robbery in band as to elements, purpose of the offender and agreement among the offenders. (5%) Both brigandage and robbery in band require that offenders form a band of robbers. In brigandage,he purpose of the offenders is any of the following: 1. commit robbery in a highway, 2. Kidnap persons for purposes of ransom or extortion, 3. Other purpose to be obtained by means of force and violence; in robbery in band the purpose is only to commit robbery, not necessarily in highway. If agreement between more than 3 armed men was to commit only a particular robbery the offense is not brigandage but only robbery in band. In brigandage, the mere formation of a band for any of the purpose mentioned is sufficient as it would not be necessary to show that the band actually committed the robbery in the highway. However in robbery in band, it is necessary that the band actually committed the robbery, as a mere conspiracy to commit robbery is not punishable. (reyes, rpc page 725)

VIII a) Who is a habitual delinquent? (5%) A habitual delinquent is a person who, within a period of 10 years from the date of his release or last conviction of the crimes of falsification, robbery, estafa, theft, serious or less serious physical injuries, is found guilty of said crimes a third time or oftener. b) Distinguish habitual delinquency from recidivism as to the crimes committed, the period of time the crimes are committed, the number of crimes committed and their effects in relation to the penalty to be imposed on a convict. (5%) Habitual Delinquent Recidivism - Serious/less serious physical injuries, - Crimes not specified; crimes must be robbery, theft, estafa/swindling, found under the same title of the RPC falsification Time limit not more than 10 years between each conviction At least 3 convictions required Special aggravating circumstance, cannot be offset by any mitigating circumstance No time limit between first conviction and the subsequent conviction Two convictions are enough Generic aggravating circumstance which can be offset by an ordinary mitigating circumstance; if not offset, it would only increase penalty prescribed to its maximum period

IX a) Define conspiracy. (5%) Conspiracy is an agreement between two or more persons, concerning the commission of a felony, and the execution of the felony be decided upon. (Reyes, book 1, Page 129) b) Distinguish by way of illustration conspiracy as a felony from conspiracy as a manner of incurring liability in relation to the crimes of rebellion and murder. (5%) REBELLION A and B agreed and decided to rise publicly and take arms against the government with the help of their followers. Even if they did not carry out their plan to overthrow the government, A an B are liable for conspiracy to commit rebellion. But if A and B and their followers did rise publicly and take arms against the government to overthrow it, thereby committing rebellion, their conspiracy is not a felony. They are liable for rebellion and their conspiracy is only a manner of incurring criminal liability for rebellion. MURDER A, B and C after having conceived a criminal plan, got together, agreed and decided to kill D. if A, B and C failed to carry out the plan for some reason or another,

they are not liable for having conspired against D, because the crime they conspired to commit, which is murder, is not treason, rebellion or treason.(Reyes, book 1, page 126) X a) Explain and illustrate the stages of execution of the crime of homicide, taking into account the nature of the offense, the essential elernent of each of the stages of execution and the manner of committing such intentional felony as distinguished "from felony committed through reckless imprudence. (5%) Attempted Homicide The accused intended to kill his victim but he was not able to perform all the acts of execution necessary to consummate the killing. The wounds inflicted did not affect vital organs. They were not mortal. He first warned his victim before shooting him. In this case, the offense that was committed is just attempted homicide, because the offender, was not able to perform all the acts of execution which will consummate the crime. The nature of the offense that was committed is attempted homicide, because of the fact that the offender had intended to kill the victim. Frustrated Homicide The accused with intent to kill, stabbed his victim. However, the victim quickly recovered being the result of prompt medical treatment. In such case, the offense that was committed is only frustrated homicide. This is so, because the offender, had performed 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 his will. As distinguished from a felony committed through reckless imprudence, the latter crime, cannot be committed in a frustrated stage, the reason for such, is because of the fact that the element of intent to kill is incompatible with negligence or imprudence. In such cases, intent in felonies by means of dolo is replaced with lack of foresight or skill in felonies by culpa.(People vs. Castillo, 76 Phil. 72) Consummated Homicide If the victim, from the above mentioned example in the frustrated homicide, succeeded in killing the victim, the crime is consummated homicide. This is so, because in such case, all the elements necessary for the execution and accomplishment are present and the actor has nothing more to do but to wait for the happening of the crime.

b) AA was arrested for committing a bailable offense and detained in solitary confinement. He was able to post bail after two (2) weeks of detention. During the period of detention, he was not given any food. Such deprivation caused him physical discomfort What crime, if any, was committed in connection with the solitary confinement and food deprivation of AA? Explain your answer. (5%) The crime of Maltreatment of Prisoners was committed when AA was solitarily confined and deprived of food during his detention. Maltreatment is committed not only by

physical maltreatment but as well as moral, psychological and other kinds of maltreatment. Under Article 235 of the Revised Penal Code, in addition to his liability of physical injuries or damage caused, maltreatment of prisoner may be committed by any public officer or employee who is overdoing himself in the correction or handling of a prisoner or detention prisoner under his charge by the imposition of punishment not authorized by the regulation, or by inflicting such punishment in a cruel or humiliating manner. Solitary confinement and food deprivation are not allowed by law as form of punishment.