Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 60

1

Bar Exam Questions in Criminal Law I from Articles 16-113 of the Revised Penal Code and Related Laws

2005 1) Distinguish the following from each other: [Q#I (1)] (a) Complex crime under Art. 48 of the Revised Penal Code; (b) Special complex crime; and (c) Delito continuado Suggested Answer: (a) In a complex crime, the component crimes are defined and penalized under separate and distinct Article of the RPC but are allowed to be alleged in one information as an exception to Sec. 13, Rule 110 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure, because they are committed under the circumstances provided in Article 48 of the RPC, i.e., 2 or more grave or less grave felonies resulted from a single act, or one offense was a necessary means for committing the other offense. (b) In a special complex crime, also known as composite crime, the component crimes constitute a single indivisible offense and are thus penalized as one crime under one Article of the RPC, such as robbery with homicide under Art. 294 of the Code. (c) Delito continuado, also known as continued crime, is constituted by a series of overt acts committed by the offender in one place, ad therefore regarded as impelled by a single, indivisible criminal resolution; hence, punished as one crime only. 2) Under Article 27 of the RPC, as amended by RA 7659, reclusion perpetua shall be from 20 years and 1 day to 40 years. Does this mean that reclusion perpetua is now a divisible penalty? [Q#I (2)] Suggested Answer: No, reclusion perpetua is still an indivisible penalty although it has been given a fixed duration by RA 7659 (an act to impose Death Penalty on certain heinous crimes). In an en banc ruling of the Supreme Court in People vs. Lucas (240 SCRA 66), it was held that reclusion perpetua has remained an indivisible penalty as there is no clear legislative intention to make the penalty divisible. 3) Distinguish pecuniary penalties from pecuniary liabilities. [Q#I (3)] Suggested Answer: Pecuniary penalties are those which a convicted offender may be required to pay in money to the Government. They are: (a) Fine; (b) Costs of the proceedings Pecuniary liabilities, on the other hand, are those which a convicted offender is required to pay in money to the offended party and to the Government. They are: (a) Reparation of the damage caused;

Mikhail

(b) Indemnification of consequential damages; (c) Fine (d) Costs of the proceedings (Art. 38, RPC) The first 2 liabilities (nos. 1 and 2) are payable as civil indemnity to the private parties offended by the crime; while the last 2 (nos. 3 and 4) are payable to the Government 4) Taking into account the nature and elements of the felonies of coup detat and rape, may one be criminally liable for frustrated coup detat or frustrated rape? [Q#I (4)] Suggested Answer: No, a person may not be held liable for frustrated coup detat or for frustrated rape because in a frustrated felony, it is required that all acts of execution that could produce the felony as a consequence must have been performed by the offender but the felony was not produced by reason of causes independent of the will of the offender. In the said felonies, however, one cannot perform all the acts of execution without consummating the felony. The said felonies, therefore, do not admit of the frustrated stage. 5) Harold was convicted of a crime defined and penalized by a special penal law where the imposable penalty is from 6 months, as minimum, to 3 years, as maximum. [Q#III (1)] State with reasons whether the court may correctly impose the following penalties: a) A straight penalty of 10 months; b) 6 months, as minimum, to 11 months, as maximum; c) A straight penalty of 2 years. Suggested Answer: (a) The court may validly impose a straight penalty of 10 months imprisonment because the penalty prescribed by law is imprisonment of 6 months to 3 years, and the Indeterminate Sentence Law does not apply when the penalty imposed is imprisonment which does not exceed one year. (b) A prison term of 6 months as minimum, to 11 months, as maximum, may not be imposed by the court because the Indeterminate Sentence Law does not apply when the penalty imposed as maximum of the sentence is imprisonment which does not exceed one (1) year. Obviously, the Indeterminate Sentence Law has been applied where the sentence imposed reflects a minimum and a maximum. (c) The court may not validly impose a straight penalty of 2 years because the Indeterminate Sentence Law requires the court to set a minimum and a maximum of the sentence where the imprisonment to be imposed already exceeds one (1) year, unless the offender is disqualified from the benefits of the said Law. 6) E and M are convicted of a penal law that imposes a penalty of fine or imprisonment or both fine and imprisonment. The judge sentenced them to pay the fine, jointly and severally, with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency. [Q#III (2)] (a) Is the penalty proper? (b) May the judge impose an alternative penalty of fine or imprisonment? Suggested Answer:

Mikhail

(a) Imposing the penalty of fine jointly and severally on the 2 convicted accused is not proper. The penalty should be imposed individually on every person accused of the crime any of the convicted accused who is insolvent and unable to pay the fine, shall serve the subsidiary imprisonment. (b) The judge may not validly impose an alternative penalty. Although the law may prescribe an alternative penalty for a crime, it does not mean that the court may impose the alternative penalties at the same time. The sentence must be definite, otherwise, the judgment cannot attain finality. 7) The accused was found guilty of 10 counts of rape for having carnal knowledge with the same woman. In addition to the penalty of imprisonment, he was ordered to pay indemnity in the amount of P50,000 for each count. On appeal, the accused questions the award of civil indemnity for each count, considering that the victim is the same woman. How would you rule on the contention of the accused? [Q#III (3)] Suggested Answer: The contention of the accused is without merit. Each count of rape is a violation of the person of the victim and this gives rise to corresponding criminal and civil liabilities. The trial court is correct in imposing a penalty for each rape and awarding corresponding civil indemnity for each count even though the victim is the same woman. Rape is not a continued crime. 8) Maganda was charged with violation of BP 22, punishable by imprisonment of not less than 30 days but not more than 1 year or a fine of not less than but not more than double the amount of the check, which fine shall not exceed P200,000, or both. The court convicted her of the crime and sentenced her to pay a fine of P50,000 with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, and to pay the private complainant the amount of the check. Maganda was unable to pay the fine but filed a petition for probation. The court granted the petition subject to the condition, among others, that she should not changer her residence without the courts prior approval. [Q#IV(1)] (a) What is the proper period of probation? (b) Supposing before the Order of Discharge was issued by the court but after the lapse of the period of probation, Maganda transferred residence without prior approval of the court. May the court revoke the Order of Probation and order her to serve the subsidiary imprisonment? Suggested Answer: (a) The period of probation shall not be less than the total number of days of subsidiary imprisonment or more than twice the said number of days, as computed at the rate established under the RPC, which is one (1) day imprisonment for every P8 fine, but not to exceed 6 months (PD 968, Sec. 14b; Art. 39, RPC). (b) Yes, the court may revoke the Order of Probation and order the convicted accused to serve the subsidiary imprisonment, because she violated the condition of her probation before the Order of Discharge was issued by the court. The conditions of probation are not co-terminus with the period of probation; such conditions continue even after the period of probation had ended and thus requires faithful compliance or fulfillment, for as long as the court which placed the convict on probation has not issued the Order of Discharge that would release her from probation (Bala vs. Martinez, 181 SCRA 459).

Mikhail

2004 1) PX was convicted and sentenced to imprisonment of 30 days and a fine of P100. Previously, PX was convicted of another crime for which the penalty imposed on him was 30 days only. Is PX entitled to probation? Explain briefly. [Q#III (B)] Suggested Answer: Yes, PX may apply for probation. His previous conviction for another crime with a penalty of 30 days imprisonment or not exceeding I month does not disqualify him from applying for probation; the penalty for his present conviction does not disqualify him either from applying for probation, since the imprisonment does not exceed 6 years (Sec. 9, PD 968). 2) OW is a private person engaged in cattle ranching. One night, he saw AM stab CV treacherously, then throw the dead mans body into a ravine. For 25 years, CVs body was never seen nor found; and OW told no one what he had witnessed. Yesterday after consulting the parish priest, OW decided to tell the authorities what he witnessed, and revealed that AM had killed CV 25 years ago. Can AM be prosecuted for murder despite the lapse of 25 years? Reason briefly. [Q#IV (A)] Suggested Answer: Yes, AM can be prosecuted for murder despite the lapse of 25 years, because the crime has not yet prescribed and legally, its prescriptive period has not even commenced to run. The period of prescription of a crime shall commence to run only from the day on which the crime has been discovered by the offended party, the authorities or their agents (Art. 91, RPC). OW, a private person who saw the killing but never disclosed it, is not the offended party nor has the crime been discovered by the authorities or their agents. 3) TRY was sentenced to death by final judgment. But subsequently, he was granted pardon by the President. The pardon was silent on the perpetual disqualification of TRY to hold any public office. After his pardon, TRY ran for office as Mayor of APP, his hometown. His opponent sought to disqualify him. TRY contended he is not disqualified because he was already pardoned by the President unconditionally. Is TRYs contention correct? Reason briefly. [Q#IV (B)] Suggested Answer: No, TRYs contention is not correct. Article 40 of the RPC expressly provides that when the death penalty is not executed by reason of commutation or pardon, the accessory penalties of perpetual absolute disqualification and civil interdiction during 30 years from the date of the sentence shall remain as effects thereof, unless such accessory penalties have been expressly remitted in the pardon. This is because the pardon only excuses the convict from serving the sentence but does not relieve him of the effects of the conviction unless expressly remitted in the pardon. 4) The death penalty cannot be inflicted under which of the following circumstances: a) When the guilty person is at least 18 years of age at the time of the commission of the crime. b) When the guilty person is more than 70 years of age. c) When, upon appeal to or automatic review by the Supreme Court, the required for the imposition of the death penalty is not obtained. d) When the person is convicted of a capital crime but before execution becomes insane. e) When the accused is a woman while she is pregnant or within 1 year after delivery. Explain your answer or choice briefly. [Q# V (A)]

Mikhail

Suggested Answer: Understanding the word inflicted to mean the imposition of the death penalty, not its execution, the circumstance in which the death penalty cannot be inflicted is b) When the guilty person is more than 70 years of age (Art. 47, RPC). Instead, the penalty shall be commuted to reclusion perpetua, with the accessory penalties provided in Article 40, RPC. In circumstance a when the guilty person is at least 18 years of age at the time of the commission of the crime, the death penalty can be imposed since the offender is already of legal age when he committed the crime. Circumstance c no longer operates, considering the decision of the Supreme Court in People vs. Mateo (GR No. 147678-87, July 7, 2004) providing an intermediate review for such cases where the penalty imposed is death, reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment before they are elevated to the Supreme Court. In circumstances d and e, the death penalty can be imposed if prescribed by the law violated although its execution shall be suspended when the convict becomes insane before it could be executed and while his insane. Likewise, the death penalty can be imposed upon a woman but its execution shall be suspended during her pregnancy and for one year after her delivery. 5) AX was convicted of reckless imprudence resulting in homicide. The trial court sentenced him to a prison term as well as to pay P150,000 as civil indemnity and damages. While his appeal was pending, AX met a fatal accident. He left a young widow, 2 children, and a P1 Million estate. What is the effect, if any, of his death on his criminal as well as civil liability? Explain briefly. [Q#VII (A)] Suggested Answer: The death of AX while his appeal from the judgment of the trial court is pending, extinguishes his criminal liability. The civil liability insofar as it arises from the crime and recoverable under the RPC is also extinguished; but indemnity and damages may be recovered in a civil action if predicated on a source of obligation under Art. 1157 of the Civil Code, such as law, contracts, quasi-contracts and quasi-delicts, but not on the basis of delicts. (People vs. Bayotas 236 SCRA 239). Civil indemnity and damages under the RPC are recoverable only if the accused had been convicted with finality before he died. 6) DCB, the daughter of MCB, stole the earring of XYZ, a stranger. MCB pawned the earring with TBI Pawnshop as a pledge for P500 loan. During the trial, MCB raised the defense that being the mother of DCB, she cannot be held liable as an accessory. Will MCBs defense prosper? Reason briefly. [Q#VIII (B)] Suggested Answer: No, MCBs defense will not prosper because the exemption from criminal liability of an accessory by virtue of relationship with the principal does not cover accessories who themselves profited from or assisted the offender to profit by the effects or proceeds of the crime. This nonexemption of an accessory, though related to the principal of the crime, is expressly provided in Art. 20 of the RPC. 7) Together XA, YB and ZC planned to rob Miss OD. They entered her house by breaking one of the windows in her house. After taking her personal properties and as they were about to leave, XA decided on impulse to rape OD. As XA was molesting her, YB and ZC stood outside the door of her bedroom and did nothing to prevent XA from raping OD. What crime or crimes did XA, YB and ZC commit, and what is the criminal liability of each? Explain briefly. [Q#IX (B)]

Mikhail

Suggested Answer: The crime committed by XA, YB, and ZC is the composite crime of Robbery with Rape, a single, indivisible offense under Art. 294(1) of the RPC. Although the conspiracy among the offenders was only to commit robbery and only XA raped OD, the other robbers, YB and ZC, were present and aware of the rape being committed by their co-conspirator. Having done nothing to stop XA from committing the rape, YB and ZC thereby concurred in the commission of the rape by their co-conspirator XA. The criminal liability of all, XA, YB and ZC shall be the same, as principals in the special complex crime of robbery with rape which is a single, indivisible offense where the rape accompanying the robbery is just a component. 8) Distinguish between compound and complex crimes as concepts in the Penal Code. [Q#X] Suggested Answer: Compound crimes result when the offender committed only a single felonious act from which 2 or more crimes resulted. This is provided for in modified form in the first part of Article 48, RPC, limiting the resulting crimes to only grave and/or less grave felonies. Hence, light felonies are excluded even though resulting from the same single act.

2003 1) A and B, both store janitors, planned to kill their employers C at midnight and take the money kept in the cash register. A and B together drew the sketch of the store, where they knew C would be sleeping and planned the sequence of their attack. Shortly before midnight, A and B were ready to carry out the plan. When A was about to lift Cs mosquito net to thrust his dagger, a police car with sirens blaring passed by. Scared, B ran out of the store and fled, while A went on to stab C to death, put the money in the bag, and ran outside to look for B. the latter was nowhere in sight. Unknown to him, B had already left the place. What was the participation and corresponding criminal liability of each, if any? Reasons. [Q#III] Suggested Answer: There was an expressed conspiracy between A and B to kill C and take the latters money. The planned killing and taking of the money appears to be intimately related as component crimes, hence a special complex crime of robbery with homicide. The conspiracy being expressed, not just implied, A and B are bound as co-conspirators after they have planned and agreed on the sequence of their attack even before they committed the crime. Therefore, the principle in law that when there is a conspiracy, the act of one is the act of all, already governs them. In fact, A and B were already in the store to carry out their criminal plan. That B ran out of the store and fled upon hearing the sirens of the police car, is not spontaneous desistance but flight to evade apprehension. It would be different if B then tired to stop A from continuing with the commission of the crime; he did not. So the act of A in pursuing the commission of the crime which both he and B designed, planned and commenced to commit, would also be the act of B because of their expressed conspiracy. Both are liable for the composite crime of robbery with homicide. 2) State the concept of implied conspiracy and give its legal effects. [Q#IV (a)] Suggested Answer: An implied conspiracy is one which is only inferred or deduced from the manner the participants in the commission of crime carried out its execution. Where the offenders acted in

Mikhail

concert in the commission of the crime, meaning that their acts are coordinated or synchronized in a way indicative that they are pursuing a common criminal objective, they shall be deemed to be acting in conspiracy and their criminal liability shall be collective, not individual. The legal effects of an implied conspiracy are: (a) Not all those who are present at the scene of the crime will be considered conspirators; (b) Only those who participated by criminal acts in the commission of the crime will be considered as co-conspirators; and (c) Mere acquiescence to or approval of the crime, without any act of criminal participation, shall not render one criminally liable as co-conspirator. 3) The conduct of wife A aroused the ire of her husband B. Incensed with anger almost beyond his control, B could not help but inflict physical injuries on A. Moments after B started hitting A with his fists, A suddenly complained of severe chest pains. B, realizing that A was indeed in serious trouble, immediately brought her to the hospital. Despite efforts to alleviate As pains, she died of heart attack. It turned out that she had been suffering from a lingering heart ailment. What crime, if any, could be held guilty of? [Q#V] Suggested Answer: B could be held liable for parricide because his act of hitting his wife with fist blows and therewith inflicting physical injuries on her, is felonious. A person committing a felonious act incurs criminal liability although the wrongful consequence is different from what he intended (Art. 4, par.1, RPC). Although A died of heart attack, the said attack was generated by Bs felonious act of hitting her with his fists. Such felonious act was the immediate cause of the heart attack, having materially contributed to and hastened As death. Even though B may have acted without intent to kill his wife, lack of such intent is of no moment when the victim dies. However, B may be given the mitigating circumstance of having acted without intention to commit so grave a wrong as that committed (Art. 13, par. 3, RPC). 4) A was 2 months below 18 years of age when he committed the crime. He was charged with the crime 3 months later. He was 23 when he was finally convicted and sentenced. Instead of preparing to serve a jail term, he sought a suspension f\of the sentence on the ground that he was a juvenile offender. Should he be entitled to a suspension of sentence? Reasons. [Q#VIII (a)] Suggested Answer: No, A will not be entitled to a suspension of the sentence because he is no longer a minor at the time of promulgation of the sentence. For purposes of suspension of sentence, the offenders age at the time of the promulgation of the sentence is the once considered, not his age when he committed the crime. Although A was below 18 years old when he committed the crime, he was already 23 years old when sentenced, and thus no longer eligible for suspension of the sentence. 5) Can juvenile offenders, who are recidivists, validly ask for suspension of sentence? [Q#VIII (b)] Suggested Answer: Yes, so long as the offender is still a minor at the time of the promulgation of the sentence. The law establishing Family Courts, RA 8369, provides to this effect: that if the minor is found guilty, the court should promulgate the sentence and ascertain any civil liability which the accused may have incurred. However, the sentence shall be suspended without the need of application pursuant to PD 603. It is under PD 603 that an application for suspension of the

Mikhail

sentence is required and thereunder it is one of the conditions for suspension of sentence that the offender be a first time convict: this has been displaced by RA 8369. 6) Distinguish between an ordinary complex crime and a special complex crime as to their concepts and as to the imposition of penalties. [Q#X (a)] Suggested Answer: An ordinary complex crime is made up of 2 or more crimes being punished in distinct provisions of the RPC but alleged in one information either because they were brought about by a single felonious act or because one offense is a necessary means for committing the other offense or offenses. They are alleged in one information so that only one penalty shall be imposed. A special complex crime, on the other hand, is made up of 2 or more crimes which are considered only as components of a single indivisible offense being punished in one provision of the RPC. In ordinary complex crime, the penalty is specifically prescribed for all the component crimes which are regarded as one indivisible offense. The component crimes are not regarded as distinct crimes and so the penalty for the most serious crime is not the penalty to be imposed nor in its maximum period. It is the penalty specifically provided for the special complex crime that shall be applied according to the rules on imposition of the penalty. 7) When would the Indeterminate Sentence Law be inapplicable? [Q#XIII] Suggested Answer: The Indeterminate Sentence Law is not applicable to: (a) Those persons convicted of offenses punished with death penalty or life imprisonment or reclusion perpetua; (b) Those convicted of treason, conspiracy or proposal to commit treason; (c) Those convicted of misprision of treason, rebellion, sedition or espionage; (d) Those convicted of piracy; (e) Those who are habitual delinquents; (f) Those who shall have escaped confinement or evaded sentence; (g) Those who having been granted conditional pardon by the Chief Executive shall have violated the terms thereof; (h) Those whose maximum term of imprisonment does not exceed 1 year; (i) Those already sentenced by final judgment at the time of approval of this Act; (j) Those whose sentence imposes penalties which do not involve imprisonment like destierro. 8) Juan was convicted by the RTC of a crime and sentenced to suffer the penalty of imprisonment for a minimum of 8 years. He appealed both his conviction and the penalty imposed upon him to the Court of Appeals. The appellate court ultimately sustained Juans conviction but reduced his sentence to a maximum of 4 years and 8 months imprisonment. Could Juan forthwith file an application for probation? Explain. [Q#XIV] Suggested Answer: No, Juan can no longer avail of the probation because he appealed from the judgment of conviction of the trial court and therefore, cannot apply for probation anymore. Section 4 of the Probation Law, as amended, mandates that no application for probation shall be entertained or granted if the accused has perfected an appeal from the judgment of conviction.

Mikhail

2002 1) A asked B to kill C because of a grave injustice done to A by C. A promised B a reward. B was willing to kill C, not so much because of the reward promised to him but because he also had his own long-standing grudge against C, who had wronged him in the past. If C is killed by B, would A be liable as principal by inducement? [Q#II] Suggested Answer: No, A would not be liable as a principal by inducement because the reward he promised B is not the sole impelling reason which made B to kill C. To bring about criminal liability of a coprincipal, the inducement made by the inducer must be the sole consideration which caused the person induced to committed the crime and without which the crime would not have been committed. The facts of the case indicate that B, the killer supposedly induced by A, had his own reason to kill C out of a long standing grudge. 2) How are the maximum and the minimum terms of the indeterminate sentence for offenses punishable under the RPC determined? [Q#III (A)] Suggested Answer: For crimes punished under the RPC, the maximum term of the indeterminate sentence shall be the penalty properly imposable under the same Code after considering the attending mitigating and/or aggravating circumstances according to Article 64 of the RPC. The minimum term of the same sentence shall be fixed within the range of the penalty next lower in degree to that prescribed for the crime under the said Code. 3) Under the law, what is the purpose for fixing the maximum and the minimum terms of the indeterminate sentence? [Q#III (B)] Suggested Answer: The purpose of the law in fixing the minimum term of the sentence is to set the grace period at which the convict may be released on parole from imprisonment, unless by his conduct he is not deserving of parole and thus he shall continue serving his prison term in jail but in no case to go beyond the maximum term fixed in the sentence. 4) A was charged with homicide. After trial, he was found guilty and sentenced to 6 years & 1 day of prision mayor, as minimum, to 12 years & 1 day of reclusion temporal, as maximum. Prior to his conviction, he had been found guilty of vagrancy and imprisoned for 10 days of arresto menor and fined P50. Is he eligible for probation? Why? [Q#IV (A)] Suggested Answer: No, he is not. The benefits of the Probation Law (PD 968) do not extend to those sentenced to serve a maximum term of imprisonment of more than 6 years (Section 9a). It is of no moment that in his previous conviction A was given a penalty of only 10 days of arresto mayor and a fine of P50. 5) May a probationer appeal from the decision revoking the grant of probation or modifying the terms and conditions thereof? [Q#IV (B)] Suggested Answer: No. Under Section 4 of the Probation Law, an order granting or denying probation is not appealable.

Mikhail

10

6) A vehicular accident occurred on the national highway in Bulacan. Among the first to arrive at the scene of the accident was A, who found one of the victims already dead and the others unconscious. Before rescuers could come, A, taking advantage of the helpless condition of the victims, took their wallets and jewelry. However, the police, who responded to the report of the accident, caught A. What crime or crimes did A commit? Why? [Q#V] Suggested Answer: A committed the crime of qualified theft because he took the wallets and jewelry of the victims with evident intent to gain and on the occasion of a vehicular accident wherein he took advantage of the helpless condition of the victims. But only one crime of qualified theft was committed although there were more than one victim divested of their valuables, because all the taking of the valuables were made on and the same occasion, thus constituting a continued crime.

2001 1) Juan de Castro already had 3 previous convictions by final judgment for theft when he was found guilty of Robbery with Homicide. In the last case, the trial judge considered against the accused both recidivism and habitual delinquency. The accused appealed and contended that in his last conviction, the trial court cannot consider against him a finding of recidivism and, again, of habitual delinquency. Is the appeal meritorious? Explain. [Q#III] Suggested Answer: No, the appeal is not meritorious. Recidivism and habitual delinquency are correctly considered in this case because the basis of recidivism is different from that of habitual delinquency. Juan is a recidivist because he had been previously convicted by final judgment for theft and again found guilty for Robbery with Homicide, which are both crimes against property, embraced under the same Title of the RPC. The implication is that he is specializing in the commission of crimes against property, hence aggravating in the conviction for Robbery with Homicide. Habitual delinquency, which brings about an additional penalty when an offender is rd convicted a 3 time or more for specified crimes, is correctly considered because had already 3 previous convictions by final judgment for theft and again convicted for Robbery with Homicide. And the crimes specified as basis for habitual delinquency includes, inter alia, theft and robbery. 2) After trial, Judge Juan Laya of the Manila RTC found Benjamin Garcia guilty of murder, the victim having sustained several bullet wounds in his body so that he died despite medical assistance given in the Ospital ng Maynila. Because the weapon used by Benjamin was unlicensed and the qualifying circumstance of treachery was found to be present, Juan Laya rendered his decision convicting Benjamin and sentencing him to reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment. Are reclusion perpetua and life imprisonment the same and can be imposed interchangeably as in the forgoing sentence? Or are they totally different? State your reasons. [Q#VII] Suggested Answer: The penalty of reclusion perpetua and the penalty of life imprisonment are totally different from each other and therefore, should not be used interchangeably. Reclusion perpetua is a penalty prescribed by the RPC, with a fixed duration of imprisonment from 20 years & 1 day to 40 years, and carries with accessory penalties.

Mikhail

11

Life imprisonment, on the other hand, is a penalty prescribed by special laws, with no fixed duration of imprisonment and without any accessory penalty. 3) Police Sgt. Diego Chan, being a member of the Theft and Robbery Division of the Western Police District and assigned to South Harbor, Manila, was privy to and more or less familiar with the schedules, routes and hours of the movements of container vans, as well as the mobile police patrols, from the pier area to the different export processing zones outside Metro Manila. From time to time, he gave valuable and detailed information on these matters to a group interested in those shipments in said container vans. On several instances, using the said information as their basis, the gang hijacked and pilfered the contents of the vans. Prior to their sale to fences in Banawe, Quezon City and Bangkal, Makati City, the gang informs Sgt. Chan who then inspects the pilfered goods, makes his choice of the valuable items and disposes of them through his own sources or fences. When the highjackers were traced on one occasion and arrested, upon custodial investigation, they implicated Sgt. Chan and the fiscal charged them all, including Sgt. Chan as co-principals. Sgt. Chan, in his defense, claimed that he should not be charged as a principal but only as an accessory after the fact under PD 532, otherwise know as the Anti-Piracy and Anti-Highway Robbery Act of 1972. Is the contention of Sgt. Chan valid and tenable? Explain. [Q#VIII] Suggested Answer: No, the contention of Sgt. Chan is not valid or tenable because by express provision of PD 532, Sec. 4, a person who knowingly and in any manner, aids or protects highway robbers/brigands, such as giving them information about the movement of police officers or acquires or receives property taken by brigands, or who directly or indirectly abets the commission of highway robbery/brigandage, shall be considered as accomplice of the principal offenders and punished in accordance with the rules in the RPC. 4) On June 1, 1988, a complaint for concubinage committed in February 1987 was filed against Roberto in the MTC of Tanza, Cavite for purposes of preliminary investigation. For various reasons, it was only on July 3, 1998 when the judge of said court decided the case by dismissing if for lack of jurisdiction since the crime was committed in Manila. The case was subsequently filed with the City Fiscal of Manila but it was dismissed on the ground that the crime had already prescribed. The law provides that the crime of concubinage prescribes in 10 years. Was the dismissal by the fiscal correct? Explain. [Q#XVI] Suggested Answer: No, the Fiscals dismissal of the case on alleged prescription is not correct. The filing of the complain with the MTC, although only for preliminary investigation, interrupted and suspended the period of prescription in as much as the jurisdiction of a court in a criminal case is determined by the allegations in the complain or information, not by the result of proof. (People vs. Galano 75 SCRA 193) 5) A, a subdivision developer, was convicted by the RTC of Makati for failure to issue the subdivision title to a lot buyer despite full payment of the lot, and sentenced to suffer one year imprisonment. A appealed the decision of the RTC to the CA but his appeal was dismissed. May A still apply for probation? [Q#XVII] Suggested Answer: No, A is no longer qualified to apply for probation after he appealed from the judgment of conviction by the RTC. The Probation Law (PD 968) now provides that no application for probation shall be entertained or granted if the accused has perfected an appeal from the judgment of conviction (Sec. 4, PD 968).

Mikhail

12

2000 1) For defrauding Lorna, Alma was charged before the MTC of Malolos, Bulacan. After a protracted trial, Alma was convicted. While the case was pending appeal in the RTC of the same province, Lorna who was then suffering from breast cancer, died. Alma manifested to the court that with Lornas death, her (Almas) criminal and civil liabilities are now extinguished. Is Almas contention correct? What if it were Alma who died, would it affect her criminal and civil liabilities? Explain. Suggested Answer: No, almas contention is not correct. The death of the offended party does not extinguish the criminal liability of the offender, because the offense is committed against the State (People vs. Misola 87 Phil 830). Hence, it follows that the civil liability of Alma based on the offense committed by her is not extinguished. The estate of Lorna can continue the case. On the other hand, if it were Lama who died pending appeal of her conviction, her criminal liability shall be extinguished and therewith the civil liability under the RPC (Art. 89 (1)). However, the claim for civil indemnity may be instituted under the Civil Code (Art. 1157) if predicated on a source of obligation other than delict, such as law, contracts, quasi-contracts and quasi-delicts (People vs. Bayotas 236 SCRA 239). 2) Name at least 2 exceptions to the general rule that in case of acquittal of the accused in a criminal case, his civil liability is likewise extinguished. Suggested Answer: (a) When the civil action is based on obligations not arising from the act complained of as a felony. (b) When acquittal is based on reasonable doubt or acquittal is on the ground that guilt of has not been proven beyond reasonable doubt. (Art. 29, Civil Code) (c) Acquittal due to an exempting circumstance, like insanity; (d) Where the court states in its judgment that the case merely involves a civil obligation; (e) Where there was a proper reservation for the filing of a separate civil action; (f) In cases of independent civil actions provided for in Arts. 31, 32, 33, and 34 of the Civil Code; (g) When the judgment of acquittal includes a declaration that the fact from which the civil liability might arise did not exist (Sapiera vs. CA 314 SCRA 370); (h) Where the civil liability is not derived or based on the criminal act of which the accused is acquitted (Sapiera vs. CA 314 SCRA 370). 3) One fateful night in January 1990, while 5-year old Albert was urinating at the back of their house, he heard a strange noise coming from the kitchen of their neighbor and playmate, ARA. When he peeped inside, he saw Mina, Aras stepmother, very angry and strangling the 5-year old Ara to death. Albert saw Mina carry the dead body of Ara, place it inside the trunk of her car and drive away. The dead body of Ara was never found. Mina spread the news in the neighborhood that Ara went to live with her grandparents in Ormoc City. For fear of his life, Albert did not tell anyone, even his parents and relatives, about what he witnessed. Twenty and a half (20 & ) years after the incident, and right after his graduation from Criminology, Albert reported the crime to NBI authorities. The crime of homicide prescribes in 20 years. Can the State still prosecute Mina for the death of Ara despite the lapse of 20 & years? Explain. Suggested Answer: Yes, the State can still prosecute Mina for the death of Ara despite the lapse of 20 & years. Under Article 91 of the RPC, the period of prescription commences to run from the day on

Mikhail

13

which the crime is discovered by the offended party, the authorities or their agents. In the case at bar, the commission of the crime was known only to Albert, who was not the offended party nor an authority or an agent of an authority. It was discovered by the NBI authorities only when Albert revealed to them the commission of the crime. Hence, the period of prescription of 20 years for homicide commenced to run only from the time Albert revealed the same to the NBI authorities. 4) A was a 17-year old working student who was earning his keep as a cigarette vendor. B was driving a car along busy Espaa Street at about 7:00 p.m. Beside B was C. The car stopped at an intersection because of the red signal of the traffic light. While waiting for the green signal, C beckoned A to buy some cigarettes. A approached the car and handed 2 sticks of cigarettes to C. While the transaction was taking place, the traffic light changed to green and the car immediately sped off. As the car continued to speed towards Quiapo, A clung to the window of the car but lost his grip and fell down on the pavement. The car did not stop. A suffered serious injuries which eventually caused his death. C was charged with Robbery with Homicide. In the end, the Court was not convinced with moral certainty that the guilt of the C has been established beyond reasonable doubt and thus, acquitted him on the ground of reasonable doubt. Can the family of the victim still recover civil damages in view of the acquittal of C? Explain. Suggested Answer: Yes, as against C, As family can still recover civil damages despite Cs acquittal. When the accused in a criminal prosecution is acquitted on the ground that his guilt has not been proven beyond reasonable doubt, a civil action for damages for the same act or omission may be instituted. Such action requires only a preponderance of evidence (Art. 29, Civil Code). If As family can prove the negligence of B by preponderance of evidence, the civil action for damages against B will prosper based on quasi-delict. Whoever by act or omission causes damage to another, there being fault or negligence, is obliged to pay for the damage done. Such fault or negligence, about pre-existing contractual relation between the parties, is called a quasidelict (Article 2176, Civil Code). This is entirely separate and distinct from civil liability arising from negligence under the Penal Code. 5) Flordeluna boarded a taxi on her way home to Quezon City which was driven by Roger. Flordeluna noticed that Roger was always placing his car freshener in front of the car aircon ventilation but did not bother asking Roger why. Suddenly, Flordeluna felt dizzy and became unconscious. Instead of bringing her to Quezon City, Roger brought Flordeluna to his house in Cavite where she was detained for 2 weeks. She was raped for the entire duration of her detention. May Roger be charged and convicted of the crime of rape with serious illegal detention? Explain Suggested Answer: No, Roger may not be charged and convicted of the crime of rape with serious illegal detention. Roger may be charged and convicted of multiple rapes. Each rape is a distinct offense and should be punished separately. Evidently, his principal intention was to abuse Flordeluna; the detention was only incidental to the rape. 6) Despite the massive advertising campaign in media against firecrackers and gun-firing during the New Years celebrations, Jonas and Jaja bought 10 boxes of super lolo and pla-pla in Bocaue, Bulacan. Before midnight of December 31, 1999, Jonas and Jaja started their celebration by having a drinking spree at Jonas place by exploding their high-powered firecrackers in their neighborhood. In the course of their conversation, Jonas confided to Jaja that he has been keeping a long-time grudge against his neighbor Jepoy in view of the latters refusal to lend him some money. While under the influence of liquor, Jonas started throwing lighted super lolos inside Jepoys fence to irritate him and the same exploded inside the latters yard. Upon knowing that the throwing of the super lolo was deliberate, Jepoy became furious and sternly warned

Mikhail

14

Jonas to stop his malicious act or he would get what he wanted. A heated argument between Jonas and Jepoy ensued but Jaja tried to calm down his friend. At midnight, Jonas convinced Jaja to lend him his .45 caliber pistol so that he could use it to knock down Jepoy and to end his arrogance. Jonas thought that after all, explosions were everywhere and nobody would know who shot Jepoy. After Jaja lent his firearm to Jonas, the latter again started throwing lighted super lolos and pla-plas at Jepoys yard in order to provoke him so that he would come out of his house. When Jepoy came out, Jonas immediately shot him with Jajas .45 caliber gun but missed his target. Instead, the bullet hit Jepoys 5-year old son who was following behind him, killing the boy instantaneously. (a) What crime(s) can Jonas and Jaja be charged with? Explain. (b) If you were the judge, how would you decide the case? Explain. Suggested Answer: (a) Jonas and Jaja can be charged with the complex crime of attempted murder with homicide because a single act caused a less grave and a grave felony (Article 48, RPC). Attempted murder is a less grave felony, while consummated homicide is a grave felony: both are punishable by afflictive penalties. (b) I would convict Jonas as principal by direct participation and Jaja as co-principal by indispensable cooperation for the complex crime of murder with homicide. Jaja should e held liable as co-principal and not only as accomplice because he knew of Jonas criminal design even before he lent his firearm to Jonas and still he concurred in that criminal design by providing the firearm. 7) (a) Define corpus delicti. (b) What are the elements of corpus delicti? Suggested Answer: (a) Corpus Delicti literally means the body or substance of the crime or the fact that a crime has been committed, but does not include the identity of the person who committed it. (People vs. Pascual 44 OG 2789) (b) The following are the elements of corpus delicti: a) Existence of a certain act or result forming the basis of the criminal charge; and b) Existence of a criminal agency as the cause of the act or result.

1999 1) Andres is charged with an offense defined by a special law. The penalty prescribed for the offense is imprisonment of not less than 5 years but not more than 10 years. Upon arraignment, he entered a plea of guilty. In the imposition of the proper penalty, should the Indeterminate Sentence Law be applied? If you were the judge trying the case, what penalty would you impose on Andres? Suggested Answer: Yes, the Indeterminate Sentence Law should be applied because the minimum imprisonment is more than 1 year. I will impose an indeterminate sentence, the maximum of which shall not exceed the maximum fixed by law and the minimum shall not be less than the minimum penalty prescribed by the same. I have the discretion to impose the penalty within the said minimum and maximum. 2) Under what circumstance is the Indeterminate Sentence Law not applicable?

Mikhail

15

Suggested Answer: Indeterminate Sentence Law does not apply to: (a) Persons convicted of offenses punished with death penalty or life imprisonment; (b) Those convicted or treason, conspiracy or proposal to commit reason; (c) Those convicted of misprision of treason, rebellion, sedition or espionage; (d) Those convicted of piracy; (e) Those who are habitual delinquents; (f) Those who shall have escaped from confinement or evaded sentence; (g) Those who violated the terms of conditional pardon granted by the Chief Executive; (h) Those whose maximum term or imprisonment does not exceed 1 year; (i) Those who, upon approval of the law (December 5 1933), had been sentenced by final judgment; (j) Those sentenced to the penalty of destierro or suspension. 3) A was convicted of illegal possession of grease guns and 2 Thompson sub-machine guns punishable under the old law with imprisonment of from 5 to 10 years. The trial court sentenced the accused to suffer imprisonment of 5 years and 1 day. Is the penalty thus imposed correct? Explain. Suggested Answer: The penalty imposed, being only a straight penalty, is not correct because it does not comply with the Indeterminate Sentence Law which applies to this case. Said law requires that if the offense is punished by any law other than the RPC, the court shall sentence the accused to an indeterminate sentence, the maximum term of which shall not exceed the maximum penalty fixed by the law and the minimum shall not be less than the minimum penalty prescribed by the same. 4) A, actuated by malice and with the use of a fully automatic M-14 sub-machine gun, shot a group of persons who ere seated in a cockpit with one burst of successive, continuous, automatic fire. Four (4) persons were killed thereby, each having hit by different bullets coming from the submachine gun of A. Four (4) cases of murder were filed against A. The trial court ruled that there was only one crime committed by A for the reason that, since A performed only one act, he having pressed the trigger of his gun only once, the crime committed was murder. Consequently, the trial judge sentenced A to just one penalty of reclusion perpetua. Was the decision of the trial judge correct? Explain Suggested Answer: The decision of the trial judge is not correct. When the offender made use of an automatic firearm, the acts committed are determined by the number of bullets discharged inasmuch as the firearm being automatic, the offender need only press the trigger once and it would fire continually. For each death caused by a distinct and separate bullet, the accused incurs distinct criminal liability. Hence, it is not the act of pressing the trigger which should be considered as producing the several felonies, but the number of bullets which actually produced them. 5) What constitutes a complex crime? How many crimes may be involved in a complex crime? What is the penalty therefore? Suggested Answer:

Mikhail

16

A complex crime is constituted when a single act caused 2 or more grave or less grave felonies or when an offense is committed as a necessary means to commit another offense (Article 48, RPC). At least 2 crimes are involved in a complex crime: either 2 or more grave or less grave felonies resulted from a single act, or an offense is committed as a necessary means for committing another. The penalty for the more serious crime shall be imposed and in its maximum period (Article 48, RPC). 6) Two (2) young men, A and B, conspired to rob a residential house of things of value. They succeeded in the commission of their original plan to simply rob. A, however, was sexually aroused when he saw the lady owner of the house and so, raped her. The lady victim testified that B did not in any way participate in the rape but B watched the happening from a window and did nothing to stop the rape. Is B as criminally liable as A for robbery with rape? Explain Suggested Answer: Yes, B is as criminally liable as A for the composite crime of robbery with rape under Art. 294(1). Although the conspiracy of A & B was only to rob, B was present when the rape was being committed which gave rise to a composite crime, a single indivisible offense of robbery with rape. B would not have been liable had he endeavored to prevent the commission of the rape. But since he did not when he could have done so, he in effect acquiesced with the rape as a component of the robbery and so he is also liable for robbery with rape.

1998 1) King went to the house of Laura who was alone. Laura offered him a drink and after consuming 3 bottles of beer, King made advances to her and with force and violence, ravished her. Then King killed Laura and took her jewelry. Doming, Kings adopted brother, learned about the incident. He went to Lauras house, hid her body, cleaned everything and washed the bloodstains inside the room. Later, King gave Jose, his legitimate brother, one piece of jewelry belonging to Laura. Jose knew that the jewelry was taken from Laura but nonetheless he sold it for P2,000. What crimes or crimes did King, Doming and Jose commit? Discuss their criminal liabilities. Suggested Answer: King committed the composite crime of Rape with Homicide as a singe indivisible offense, not a complex crime, and theft. The taking of Lauras jewelry when she is already dead is only theft. Domings acts, having been done with knowledge of the commission of the crime and obviously to conceal the body of the crime to prevent its discovery, makes him an accessory to the crime of rape with homicide under Article 19 (2) of the RPC, but he is exempt from criminal liability therefore under Article 20 of the Code, being an adopted brother or the principal. Jose incurs criminal liability either as an accessory to the crime of theft committed by King, or as a fence. Although he is a legitimate brother of King, the exemption under Article 20 does not include the participation he did, because he profited from the effects of such theft by selling the jewelry knowing that the same was taken from Laura. Or Jose may be prosecuted for fencing under the Anti-Fencing Law (PD 1612) since the jewelry was the proceeds of theft and with intent to gain, he received it from King and sold it. 2) What is the doctrine of implied conspiracy?

Mikhail

17

Suggested Answer: The doctrine of implied conspiracy holds 2 or more persons participating in the commission of a crime collectively responsible and liable as co-conspirators although absent any agreement to that effect, when they act in concert, demonstrating unity of criminal intent and a common purpose or objective. The existence of a conspiracy shall be inferred or deduced from their criminal participation in pursuing the crime and thus the act of one shall be deemed the act of all. 3) Distinguish between recidivism and quasi-recidivism. Suggested Answer: In recidivism: (a) The convictions of the offender are for crimes embraced in the same title of the RPC; and (b) This circumstance is generic aggravating and therefore can be offset by an ordinary mitigating circumstance. Whereas in quasi-recidivism: (a) The convictions are not for crimes embraced in the same Title of the RPC, provided that it is a felony that was committed by the offender before serving sentence by final judgment for another crime or while serving sentence for another crime; and (b) This circumstance is a special aggravating circumstance which cannot be offset by any mitigating circumstance. 4) Guy, while driving a passenger jeepney owned and operated by Max, bumped Demy, a pedestrian crossing the street. Demy sustained injuries, which required medical attendance for 3 months. Guy was charged with reckless imprudence resulting to physical injuries. Convicted by the MTC, Guy was sentenced to suffer a straight penalty of 3 months of arresto mayor and ordered to indemnify Demy in the sum of P5,000 and to pay P1,000 as attorneys fees. Upon finality of the decision, a writ of execution was served upon Guy, but was returned unsatisfied due to his insolvency. Demy moved for a subsidiary writ of execution against Max. the latter opposed the motion on the ground that the decision made no mention of his subsidiary liability and that he was not impleaded in the case. How will you resolve the motion? Suggested Answer: The motion is to be granted. Max as an employer of Guy and engaged in an industry (transportation business) where said employee is utilized, is subsidiarily civilly liable under Article 103 of the RPC. Even though the decision made no mention of his subsidiary liability, the law violated (RPC) itself mandates for such liability and Max is deemed to know it because ignorance of the law is never excused. And since his liability is not primary but only subsidiary in case his employee cannot pay, he need not be impleaded in the criminal case. It suffices that he was duly notified of the motion for issuance of a subsidiary writ of execution and thus given the opportunity to be heard.

5) Under Article 47 or RA 7659, the death penalty shall be imposed in all cases in which it must be imposed under existing laws. What are the exceptions to the imposition of the death penalty? Suggested Answer: The death penalty shall not be imposed although prescribed under existing laws: (a) When the accused is less than 18 years of age at the time of the commission of the offense;

Mikhail

18

(b) When the accused is more than 70 years of age already; (c) When upon appeal or automatic review of the case by the Supreme Court, the required majority vote for the imposition of the death penalty is not obtained. 6) Juan and Arturo devised a plan to murder Joel. In a big narrow alley near Joels house, Juan will hide behind the big lamppost and shoot Joel when the latter passes through on his way to work. Arturo will come from the other end of the alley and simultaneously shoot Joel from behind. On the appointed day, Arturo was apprehended by the authorities before reaching the alley. When Juan shot Joel as planned, he was unaware that Arturo was arrested earlier. Discuss the criminal liability of Arturo, if any. Suggested Answer: Arturo, being one of the 2 who devised the plan to murder Joel, thereby becomes a coprincipal by direct conspiracy. What is needed only is an overt act and both will incur criminal liability. Arturos liability as a conspirator arose from his participation in jointly devising the criminal plan with Juan, to kill Jose. And it was pursuant to that conspiracy that Juan killed Joel. The conspiracy here is actual, not by inference only. The overt act was done pursuant to that conspiracy whereof Arturo is co-conspirator. There being a conspiracy, the act of one is the act of all. Arturo, therefore, should be liable as a co-conspirator but the penalty on him may be that of an accomplice only (People vs. Nierra 96 SCRA 1; People vs. Medrano 114 SCRA 335) because he was not able to actually participate in the shooting of Joel, having been apprehended before reaching the place where the crime was committed. 7) A, B, C and D all armed, robbed a bank and when they were about to get out of the bank, policemen came and ordered them to surrender but they fired on the police officers who fired back and shot it out with them. (a) Suppose a bank employee was killed and the bullet which killed him came from the firearm of the police officers, with what crime shall you charge A, B, C and D? (b) Suppose it was robber D who was killed by the policemen and the prosecutor charged A, B, and C with Robbery with Homicide. They demurred arguing that they (A, B, and C) were not the ones who killed robber D, hence, the charges should only be Robbery. How would you resolve their argument? Suggested Answer: (a) A, B, C, and D should be charged with the crime of robbery with homicide because the death of the bank employee was brought about by the acts of said offenders on the occasion of the robbery. They shot it out with the policeman, thereby causing such death by reason or on the occasion of a robbery; hence, the composite crime of robbery with homicide. (b) The argument is valid considering that a separate charge for homicide was filed. It would be different if the charge filed was for the composite crime of robbery with homicide, which is a single, indivisible offense.

1997 1) A and B pleaded guilty to the crime of parricide. The court found 3 mitigating circumstances, namely, plea of guilty, lack of instruction and lack of intent to commit so grave a wrong as that committed. The prescribed penalty for parricide is reclusion perpetua to death. Impose the proper principal penalty.

Mikhail

19

Suggested Answer: The proper penalty is reclusion perpetua. Even if there are 2 or mitigating circumstances, a court cannot lower the penalty by one degree (Article 63 (3) RPC; People vs. Formigones 87 Phil 685). Where the crime is punishable by a penalty composed of 2 indivisible penalties, and there are some mitigating circumstances without an aggravating circumstance, the lesser penalty shall be imposed. In this case, the lesser penalty is reclusion perpetua [mine]. 2) A was convicted of the complex crime of estafa though falsification of public document. Since the amount involved did not exceed P200, the penalty prescribed by law for estafa is arresto mayor in its medium and maximum periods. The penalty prescribed by law for falsification of public document is prision mayor plus fine not to exceed P5,000. Impose the proper penalty. Suggested Answer: The proper penalty is any range within prision correccional as minimum to any range within prision mayor maximum as maximum. This is in accordance with People vs. Gonzales (73 Phil 549), where it was ruled that for the purpose of determining the penalty next lower in degree, the penalty that should be considered as a starting point is the whole of prision mayor, it being the penalty prescribed by law, and not prision mayor in its maximum period, which is only the penalty actually applied because of Article 48 of the RPC. The penalty next lower in degree therefore is prision correccional and it is within the range of this penalty that the minimum should be taken. 3) Assume in the preceding problem that there were 2 mitigating circumstances and no aggravating circumstance, impose the proper prison penalty. Suggested Answer: There being 2 mitigating circumstances without any aggravating circumstance, the proper prison penalty is arresto mayor as minimum to prision correccional maximum as maximum. Under Article 64(5) of the RPC, when a penalty contains 3 periods, each one of which forms a period in accordance with Articles 76 and 77 of the same Code, and there are 2 or more mitigating circumstances and no aggravating circumstances, the penalty next lower in degree should be imposed. For purposes of the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the penalty next lower in degree should be determined without regard as to whether the basic penalty provided by the RPC should be applied in its maximum or minimum period as circumstances modifying liability may require. The penalty next lower in degree to prision correccional. Therefore, as previously stated, the minimum should be within the range of prision correccional in its maximum period. 4) The accused was found guilty of grave oral defamation in 16 informations which were tried jointly and was sentenced in one decision to suffer in each case a prison term of 1 year and 1 day to 1 year and 8 months of prision correccional. Within the period to appeal, he filed an application for probation under the Probation Law. Could he possibly qualify for probation? Suggested Answer: Yes. In Francisco vs. CA (243 SCRA 384), the Supreme Court held that in case of one decision imposing multiple prison terms, the totality of the prison terms should not be taken into account for the purpose of determining the eligibility of the accused for probation. The law uses the word maximum term, and not total term. It is enough that each of the prison terms does not exceed 6 years. The number of offenses is immaterial for as long as the penalties imposed, when taken individually and separately, are within the probationable period. 5) What do you understand by the so-called heinous crimes?

Mikhail

20

Suggested Answer: Heinous crimes are those grievous, odious, and hateful offenses and which by reason of their inherent or manifest wickedness, viciousness, atrocity, and perversity, are repugnant and outrageous to the common standards and norms of decency and morality in a just, civilized and ordered society. They are punishable by reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment to death. 6) What are the instances when the death penalty could not be imposed, although it should otherwise ordinarily be meted out? Suggested Answer: (a) When the guilty party is below 18 years of age at the time of the commission of the crime or when the offender is more than 70 years of age; (b) When upon appeal or automatic review of the case by the Supreme Court, the required majority vote is not obtained for the imposition of the penalty, in which case the penalty shall be reclusion perpetua. 7) A was charged in an information with the crime of grave oral defamation but after trial, the court found him guilty only of the offense of simple slander. He filed a motion for reconsideration contending that, under the law, the crime of simple slander would have prescribed in 2 months from commission, and since the information against him was filed more than 4 months after the alleged commission of the crime, the same had already prescribed. The Solicitor General opposed the motion on 2 grounds: first, in determining the prescriptive period, the nature of the offense charged in the information should be considered, not the crime proved; second, assuming that the offense had already prescribed, the defense was waived by the failure of A to raise it in a motion to quash. Resolve the motion fore reconsideration. Suggested Answer: The motion for reconsideration should be granted. The accused cannot be convicted of the offense of simple slander although it is necessarily included in the offense of grave slander charged in the information, because, the lesser offense had already prescribed at the time the information was filed (Magat vs. People 201 SCRA 21). Otherwise, prosecutors can easily circumvent the rule of prescription in light offenses by the simple expedient of filing a graver offense which includes such light offense. While the general rule is the failure of an accused to file a motion to quash before he pleads to the complaint or information, shall be deemed a waiver of the grounds of a motion to quash, the exceptions to this are: (1) no offense was charged in the complaint or information; (2) lack of jurisdiction; (3) extinction of the offense or penalty; and (4) double jeopardy. Since the ground invoked by the accused in his motion for reconsideration is extinction of the offense, then it can be raised even after plea. In fact, it may even be invoked on appeal (People vs. Balagtas). 8) After raping the complainant in her house, the accused struck a match to smoke a cigarette before departing from the scene. The brief light from the match allowed him to notice a watch in her wrist. He demanded that she hand over the watch. When she refused, he forcibly grabbed it form her. The accused was charged with and convicted of the special complex crime of robbery with rape. Was the court correct? Suggested Answer: No, the court erred in convicting the accused of the special complex crime of robbery with rape. The accused should instead be held liable for 2 separate crimes of robbery and rape, since the primary intent or objective of the accused was only to rape the complainant, and his commission of the robbery was merely an afterthought. The robbery must precede the rape, in order to give rise to the special complex crime for which the court convicted the accused.

Mikhail

21

1996 1) At the height of an altercation, Pedrito shot Paulo but missed, hitting Tiburcio instead, resulting in the death of the latter. Pedrito, invoking the doctrine of aberratio ictus, claims exemption from criminal liability. If you were the judge, how would you decide the case? Suggested Answer: I will convict Pedrito and find him guilty of the complex crime of Homicide with Attempted Homicide. The single act of firing at Paulo resulted in the commission of 2 felonies, one grave (homicide) and the other (less grave (attempted homicide) thus falling squarely under Article 48 of the RPC; hence, the penalty would be for the more serious crime (homicide) in its maximum period (17 years, 4 months and 1 day to 20 years) 2) Jose, Domingo, Manolo and Fernando, armed with bolos, at about 1:00 a.m., robbed a house at a desolate place where Danilo, his wife, and 3 daughters were living. While the 4 were in the process of ransacking Danilos house, Fernando, noticing that one of Danilos daughters was trying to get away, ran after her and finally caught up with her in a thicket somewhat distant from the house. Fernando, before bringing back the daughter to the house, raped her first. Thereafter, the 4 carted away the belongings of Danilo and his family. (a) What crime did Jose, Domingo, Manolo and Fernando commit? Explain. (b) Suppose, after the robbery, the 4 took turns in raping the 3 daughters Danilo inside the latters house, but before they left, they killed the whole family to prevent identification. What crime did the 4 commit? Explain. Suggested Answer: (a) Jose, Domingo, and Manolo committed Robbery while Fernando committed the complex crime of Robbery with Rape. Conspiracy can be inferred from the manner the offenders committed the robbery, but the rape was committed by Fernando at a place distant from the house where the robbery was committed, not in the presence of the other conspirators. Hence, Fernando alone should answer for the rape, rendering him liable for the special complex crime. (People vs. Canturia et al, GR No. 108490, June 22, 1995) (b) The crime would be Robbery with Homicide because the killings were by reason (to prevent identification) and on the occasion of the robbery. The multiple rapes committed and the fact that several persons were killed (homicide), would be considered as aggravating circumstances. The rapes are synonymous with ignominy, and the additional killing is synonymous with cruelty. (People vs. Plaga 202 SCRA 531) 3) In 1975, Pedro, then a resident of Manila, abandoned his wife and their son, Ricky, who was then only 3 years old. Twenty years later, an affray took place in a bar in Olongapo City between Pedro and his companions, on one hand, and Ricky and his friends,, upon the other, without the father and son knowing each other. Ricky stabled and killed Pedro in the fight, only to find out, a week later, when his mother arrived from Manila to visit him in jail, that the man whom he killed was his own father. (a) What crime did Ricky commit? Explain. (b) Suppose Ricky knew before the killing that Pedro is his father, but nevertheless killed him out of bitterness for having abandoned him and his mother, what crime did Ricky commit? Explain.

Mikhail

22

Suggested Answer: (a) Ricky committed parricide because the person killed was his own father, and the law punishing the crime does not require that the rime be knowingly committed. Should Ricky be prosecuted and found guilty of parricide, the penalty to be imposed is Article 49 of the RPC for Homicide (the crime he intended to commit) but in its maximum period. (b) The crime committed should be parricide if Ricky knew before the killing that Pedro is his father, because the moral basis for punishing the crime already exists. His having acted out of bitterness for having been abandoned by his father may be considered mitigating.

1995 1) (a) When was the constitutional proscription against the imposition of the death penalty lifted? (b) When is the execution of the death penalty suspended under the RPC? (c) When is the death penalty commuted under the RPC? Suggested Answer: (a) The constitutional proscription against the imposition of the death penalty was lifted with the enactment of RA 7659, otherwise known as the Heinous Crimes Law, which took effect on December 31, 1993 (People vs. Martin Simon 234 SCRA 555) (b) Death penalty shall not be executed (1) upon a woman while she is pregnant; (2) upon a woman within 1 year after delivery; (3) upon a person over 70 years old (Article 83, RPC); (4) upon a convict who becomes insane after final sentence (Article 79, RPC). (c) Under Article 83, death penalty is commuted to reclusion perpetua when the convict reaches the age of 70 years. 2) (a) What are heinous crimes? (b) Name 10 specific heinous crimes. Suggested Answer: (a) Heinous crimes are those grievous, odious, and hateful offenses and which by reason of their inherent or manifest wickedness, viciousness, atrocity, and perversity, are repugnant and outrageous to the common standards and norms of decency and morality in a just, civilized and ordered society. They are punishable by reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment to death. (b) The 10 specific heinous crimes are: (1) Treason; (2) Qualified Piracy; (3) Qualified Bribery; (4) Parricide; (5) Murder; (6) Kidnapping and Serious Illegal Detention; (7) Robbery with Homicide; (8) Destructive Arson; (9) Rape committed by 2 or more persons, or with a deadly weapon or with homicide; (10) Plunder. 3) Joe and Marcy were married in Batanes in 1955. After 2 years, Joe left Marcy and settled in nd Mindanao where he later met and married Linda on June 12, 1960. The 2 marriage was registered in the civil registry of Davao city 3 days after its celebration. On October 10, 1975, Marcy, who remained in Batanes, discovered the marriage of Joe to Linda. On March 1, 1976, Marcy filed a complaint for bigamy against Joe. The crime of bigamy prescribes in 15 years

Mikhail

23

computed from the day the crime is discovered by the offended party, by the authorities or their agents. Joe raised the defense of prescription of the crime, more than 15 years having elapsed from the celebration of the bigamous marriage up to the filing of Marcys complaint. He nd contended that the registration of his 2 marriage in the civil registry of Davao City was constructive notice to the whole world of the celebration thereof thus binding upon Marcy. Has the crime of bigamy charged against Joe already prescribed? Discuss fully. Suggested Answer: No, the prescriptive period for the crime of bigamy is computed from the time the crime was discovered by the offended party, the authorities or their agents. The principle of constructive notice which ordinarily applies to land or property disputes should not be applied to the crime of bigamy, as marriage is not property. Thus, when Marcy filed a complaint for bigamy on March 7, 1976, it was well within the reglementary period as it was barely a few months from the time of discovery on October 10, 1975. (Sermonia vs. CA 233 SCRA 155) 4) In a case for violation of Section 8 of the Dangerous Drugs Act, accused Vincent was given e benefit of the mitigating circumstance of voluntary plea of guilt and drunkenness not otherwise habitual. He was sentenced to suffer a penalty of 6 years & 1 day and to pay fine of P6,000 with the accessory penalties provided by law, plus costs. Vincent applied for probation. The probation officer favorably recommended his application. (a) If you were the judge, what action will you take on the application? Discuss fully. (2) Suppose that Vincent was convicted of a crime for which he was sentenced to a maximum penalty of 10 years. Under the law, he is not eligible for probation. He seasonably appealed his conviction. While affirming the judgment of conviction, the appellate court reduced the penalty to a maximum of 4 years and 4 months taking into consideration certain modifying circumstances. Vincent now applies for probation. How will you rule on his application? Discuss fully. Suggested Answer: (a) I will deny the application for probation. The accused is not entitled to probation as Sec. 9 of the Probation Law specifically mentions that those who are sentenced to serve a maximum term of imprisonment of more than 6 years are not entitled to the benefits of the law. (b) The law and jurisprudence are to the effect that appeal by the accused from a sentence of conviction forfeits his right to probation. (Francisco vs. CA). 5) (a) What are the elements of fencing? (b) What is the difference between a fence and an accessory to theft or robbery? (c) Is there any similarity between them? Suggested Answer: (a) The elements of fencing are: (1) Robbery or theft has been committed; (2) The accused, who is not a principal or accomplice, buys, receives, possesses, keeps, acquires, conceals, or disposes, or buys and sells, or in any manner deals in any article, item, object or anything of value, which has been derived from the proceeds of said crime; (3) The accused knows or should have known that said article, item, object or anything of value has been derived from the proceeds of the crime of robbery or theft; and (4) There is, on the part of the accused, intent to gain for himself or for another.

Mikhail

24

(b) One difference between a fence and an accessory to theft or robbery is the penalty involved; a fence is punished as a principal under PD 1612 and the penalty is higher, whereas an accessory to robbery or theft under the RPC is punished 2 degrees lower than the principal, unless he bought or profited from the proceeds of theft or robbery arising from robbery in Philippines highways under PD 532 where he is punished as an accomplice, hence the penalty is one degree lower. Also, fencing is a malum prohibitum and therefore there is no need to prove criminal intent of the accused; this is not so in violations of the RPC. (c) Yes, there is a similarity in the sense that all the acts of one who is an accessory to the crimes of robbery or theft are included in the acts defined as fencing. In fact, the accessory in the crimes of robbery or theft could be prosecuted as such under the RPC or as a fence under PD 1612. (Dizon-Pamintuan vs. People 234 SCRA 63) 6) Pascual operated a rice thresher in Barangay Napnud where he resided. Renato, a resident of the neighboring Barangay Guihaman, also operated a mobile rice thresher which he often brought to Barangay Napnud to thresh the palay of the farmers there. This was bitterly resented by Pascual. One afternoon, Pascual and his 2 sons confronted Renato and his men who were operating their mobile rice thresher along a feeder road in Napnud. A heated argument ensued. A barangay captain who was fetched by one of Pascuals men tried to appease Pascual and Renato to prevent a violent confrontation. However, Pascual resented the intervention of the barangay captain and hacked him to death. What crime was committed by Pascual? Discuss fully. Suggested Answer: Pascual committed the complex crime of homicide with assault upon a person in authority (Arts. 148 and 249 in rel. to Art. 48, RPC). A barangay chairman is, in law, a person in authority and if he is attacked while in the performance of his official duties or on the occasion thereof, the felony of direct assault is committed. Article 48 of the RPC, on the other hand, provides that if a single act produces 2 or more grave or less grave felonies, a complex crime is committed. Here, the single act of the offender in hacking the victim to death resulted in 2 felonies, homicide which is grave, and direct assault which is less grave. 7) Victor, Ricky, Rod and Ronnie went to the store of Mang Pandoy. Victor and Ricky entered the store while Rod and Ronnie posted themselves at the door. After ordering beer, Ricky complained that he was shortchanged although Mang Pandoy vehemently denied it. Suddenly Ricky whipped out a knife as he announced Hold-up ito! and stabbed Mang Pandoy to death. Rod boxed the stores salesgirl Lucy to prevent her from helping Mang Pandoy. When Lucy ran out of the store to seek help from people next door, she was chased by Ronnie. As soon as Ricky had stabbed Mang Pandoy, Victor scooped up the money from the cash box. Then Victor and Ricky dashed to the street and shouted, Tumakbo na kayo! Rod was 14 and Ronnie was 17. The money and other articles looted from the store of Mang Pandoy were later found in the houses of Victor and Ricky. (a) Discuss fully the criminal liability of Victor, Ricky, Rod, and Ronnie. (b) Are the minors Rod and Ronnie entitled to suspended sentence under PD 603? Suggested Answer: (a) All are liable for the special complex crime of robbery with homicide. The acts of Ricky in stabbing Mang Pandoy to death, of Rod in boxing the salesgirl to prevent her from helping Mang Pandoy, of Ronnie in chasing the salesgirl to prevent her in seeking help,

Mikhail

25

of Victor in scooping up money from the cash box, and of Ricky and Victor in dashing to the street and announcing the escape, are all indicative of conspiracy. The rule is settled that when homicide takes place as a consequence or on the occasion of a robbery, all those who took part in the robbery are guilty as principals of the crime of robbery with homicide, unless the accused tried to prevent the killing (People vs. Baello 224 SCRA 218). Rod and Ronnie are entitled to 2 and 1 degrees lower, respectively from the penalty of the principal under Article 68, RPC. (b) No, because the benefits of suspension of sentence is not available where the youthful offender has been convicted of an offense punishable by life imprisonment or death, pursuant to PD 603, Art. 192. The complex crime of robbery with homicide is punishable by reclusion perpetua to death under Art. 294(1), RPC. (People vs. Galit 230 SCRA 486). 8) Homer was convicted of homicide. The trial court appreciated the following modifying circumstance: the aggravating circumstance of nocturnity, and the mitigating circumstances of passion and obfuscation, no intent to commit so grave a wrong, illiteracy and voluntary surrender. The imposable penalty for homicide is reclusion temporal, the range of which is 12 years & 1 day to 20 years. Taking into account the attendant circumstances, and applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, determine the proper penalty to be imposed on the accused. Suggested Answer: It appears that there is one aggravating circumstance and 4 mitigating circumstances. Paragraph 4, article 64 should be applied. Hence, there will be off-setting of modifying circumstances, which will now result in the excess of 3 mitigating circumstances. This will therefore justify in reducing the penalty to the minimum period. The existence of an aggravating circumstance, albeit the 4 mitigating. Will not justify the lowering of the penalty to the next lower degree under Par. 5 of said Article, as this is applicable only if there is not aggravating circumstance present. Since the crime is Homicide and the penalty therefore is reclusion temporal, the maximum sentence under the Indeterminate Sentence Law should be the minimum of the penalty, which is 12 years and 1 day to 14 years and 8 months. The minimum penalty will thus be the penalty next lower in degree, which is prision mayor in its full extent. Ergo, the proper penalty would be 6 years and 1 day, as minimum, to 12 years and 1 day, as maximum. I believe that because of the remaining mitigating circumstances after the offsetting it would be very logical to impose the minimum of the minimum sentence under the SIL and the maximum sentence. 9) Harry, an OFW, arrived from Saudi Arabia with considerable savings. Knowing him to be loaded, his friends Jason, Manuel, and Dave invited him to poker session at a rented beach cottage. When he was losing almost all his money which to him was his savings of a lifetime, he discovered that he was being cheated by his friends. Angered by the betrayal, he decided to take revenge on the 3 cheats. Harry ordered several bottles of Tanduay Rhum and gave them to his companion to drink, as they did, until they all fell asleep. When Harry saw his companion already sound asleep, he hacked all of them to death. Then he remembered his losses. He rifled through the pockets of his victims and got back all the money he lost. He then ran away but not before burning the cottage to hide his misdeed. The following day, police investigators found among the debris the charred bodies of Jason, Manuel, Dave, and the caretaker of the resort. After preliminary investigation, the Provincial Prosecutor charged Harry with the complex crime of arson with quadruple homicide and robbery. Was Harry properly charged? Discuss fully.

Mikhail

26

Suggested Answer: No, Harry was not properly charged. Harry should have been charged with 3 separate crimes, namely: murder, theft and arson. Harry killed Jason, Manuel and Dave with evident premeditation, as there was considerable lapse of time before he decided to commit the crime and the actual commission of the crime. In addition, Harry employed means which weakened the defense of Jason, Manuel, and Dave. Harry gave them the liquor until they were drunk and fell asleep. This gave Harry the opportunity to carry out his plan of murder with impunity. The taking of the money from the victims was a mere afterthought of the killings. Hence, Harry committed the separate crime of theft and not the complex crime of robbery with homicide. Although theft was committed against dead persons, it is still legally possible as the offended parties are the estates of the victims. In burning the cottage to hide his misdeed, Harry became liable for another separate crime, arson. This act of burning was not necessary for the consummation of the 2 previous offenses he committed. The fact that the care taker died from the blaze did not qualify Harrys crime into a complex crime of arson with homicide for there is no such crime. Hence, Harry was improperly charged with the complex crime of arson with quadruple homicide and robbery. Harry should have been charged with 3 separate crimes murder, theft, and arson.

1994 1) When is there preventive imprisonment? Suggested Answer: There is preventive imprisonment when an offender is detained while the criminal case against him is being heard, either because the crime committed is a capital offense and not bailable, or even if the crime committed was bailable, the offender could not post the required bail for his provisional liberty. 2) When is the accused credited with the full time of his preventive imprisonment, and when is he credited with 4/5 thereof? Suggested Answer: An accused is credited with the full time of his preventive imprisonment if he voluntarily agreed in writing to abide by the rules of the institution imposed upon its prisoners, provided that: (a) the penalty imposed on him for the crime committed consists of a deprivation of liberty; (b) he is not disqualified from such credit for being a recidivist, or for having been previously convicted for 2 or more times of any crime, or for having failed to surrender voluntarily for the execution of the sentence upon being so summoned (Art. 29, RPC). Where the accused, however, did not agree, he would only be credited with 4/5 of the time he had undergone preventive imprisonment. 3) Differentiate reclusion perpetua from life imprisonment. Suggested Answer: Reclusion perpetua is that penalty provided for in the RPC for crimes defined in and penalized therein except for some crimes defined by special laws which impose reclusion perpetua, such as violations of the Dangerous Drugs Act or of PD 1860; while life imprisonment is a penalty usually provided for in special laws. Reclusion perpetua has a duration of 20 years and 1 day to 40 years under RA 7659, while life imprisonment has no duration; reclusion perpetua

Mikhail

27

may be reduced by one or 2 degrees; reclusion perpetua has accessory penalties while life imprisonment does not have any accessory penalties (People vs. Baguio 196 SCRA 459; People vs. Panellos 205 SCRA 546). 4) Differentiate delito continuado from a continuing crime. Suggested Answer: Delito continuado or continuous crime, is a term used to denote as only one crime for a series of felonious acts arising from a single criminal resolution, not susceptible of division, which are carried out in the same place and at about the same time, and violating one and the same penal provision. The acts done must be impelled by one criminal intent or purpose, such that each act merely constitutes a partial execution of a particular crime, violating one and the same penal provision. It involves a concurrence of felonious acts violating a common right, a common penal provision and impelled by a sing criminal impulse (People vs. Ledesma 73 SCRA 77). On the other hand, a continuing offense is one whose essential ingredients took place in more than one municipality or city, so much so that the criminal prosecution may be instituted and the case tried in the competent court of any one of such municipality or city. The term Continued crime or delito continuado mandates that only one information should be filed against the offender although a series of felonious acts were performed; the term continuing crime is more pertinently used with reference to the venue where the criminal action may be instituted. 5) Itos was convicted of an offense penalized by a special law. The penalty prescribed is not less than 6 years but not more than 12 years. No modifying circumstance attended the commission of the crime. If you were the judge, will you apply the Indeterminate Sentence Law? If so, how will you apply it? Suggested Answer: I will apply the provisions of the Indeterminate Sentence Law, as the last sentence of Section 1 of Act 4103, specifically provides the application thereof for violations of special laws. Under the said provision, the minimum must not be less than the minimum provided in the special law and the maximum shall not be more than the maximum provided therein. 6) At about 9:30 p.m., while Dino and Raffy were walking along Padre Faura Street, Johnny hit them with a rock injuring Dino at the back. Raffy approached Dino, but suddenly, Bobby, Steve, Danny, and Nonoy surrounded the duo. Then Bobby stabbed Dino. Steve, Danny, Nonoy, and Johnny kept on hitting Dino and Raffy with rocks. As a result, Dino died. Bobby, Steve, Danny, Nonoy, and Johnny were charged with homicide. Is there conspiracy in the case? Suggested Answer: Yes, there is conspiracy among the offenders, as manifested by their concerted actions against the victims, demonstrating a common felonious purpose of assaulting the victims. The existence of the conspiracy can be inferred or deduced from the manner the offenders acted in commonly attacking Dino and Raffy with rocks, thereby demonstrating a unity of criminal design to inflict harm on their victims.

1993 1) B imitated the signature of A, registered owner of a lot in a special power of attorney (SPA), naming him (b) as the attorney-in-fact of A. On February 13, 1964, B mortgaged the lot to a bank using the SPA to obtain a loan of P8,500. On the same day, both the SPA and the mortgage

Mikhail

28

contract were duly registered in the Registry of Deeds. Because of Bs failure to pay, the bank foreclosed the mortgage and the lot was sold to X in whose name a new title was issued. In March 1974, A discovered that the property was already registered in the name of X because of an ejectment case filed against him by X. (a) If you were the lawyer of A, with what crime or crimes would you charge B? Explain. (b) If you were the counsel of B, what would be your defense? Discuss. Suggested Answer: (a) The crime committed is estafa thru falsification of public document. (b) My defense will be prescription because the crime was committed in 1964 and almost 29 years had already elapsed since then. Even if we take Falsification and Estafa individually, they have already prescribed. It is to be noted that when It comes to discovery, the fact that the crime was discovered in 1964 will be of no moment because the offended party is considered to have constructive notice on the forgery after the Deed of Sale where his signature had been falsified was registered in the office of the Register of Deeds (Cabral vs. Puno 70 SCRA 606). 2) Juanito was found guilty of Robbery by the RTC and sentence to 4 years, 2 months and 1 day of prision correccional as minimum to 8 years and 20 days of prision mayor as maximum. Juanito appealed to the CA which found him guilty only of Theft and sentence him to a straight penalty of 1 year. The decision of the appellate court was promulgated. (a) Is Juanito entitled to the benefits of Probation Law which became effective on January 3, 1978? Why? (b) Suppose the prison term imposed by the RTC is only 2 years as minimum to 6 years as maximum and Juanito did not appeal. When he applied for probation, it was discovered that in March 1960, a MTC has sentenced him to a 6-month imprisonment for less serious physical injuries which he fully served. May his application for probation be granted? Reason out. Suggested Answer: (a) Juanito is not entitled to probation because the law requires the filing of the application within the period for perfecting an appeal. (b) He is not entitled to the Probation Law because Section 9(c) provides that probation shall no be extended to those who have previously been convicted by final judgment of an offense punishable by imprisonment of not less than 1 month and 1 day or a fine of not more than P200. 3) As a result of a misunderstanding during a meeting, Joe was mauled by Nestor, Jolan, Reden and Arthur. He ran towards his house but the 4 chased and caught him. Thereafter, they tied Joes hands at his back and attacked him. Nestor used a knife; Jolan, a shovel; Arthur, his fists; and Reden, a piece of wood. After killing Joe, Reden ordered the digging of a grave to bury Joes lifeless body. Thereafter, the 4 left together. Convicted for the killing of Joe, Arthur now claims that his conviction is erroneous as it was not he who inflicted the fatal blow. Would you sustain the claim? Suggested Answer: No, Arthurs claim is without merit. The offenders acted in conspiracy in killing the victim and hence, liable collectively. The act of one is the act of all. The existence of a conspiracy among the offenders can be clearly deduced or inferred from the manner they committed the killing, demonstrating a common criminal purpose and intent. There being a conspiracy, the individual acts of each participant is not considered because their liability is collective.

Mikhail

29

1992 1) Librado was convicted of malversation for which he was imposed the indeterminate penalty of imprisonment with the following accessory penalties provided by law a fine of P6,000 without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency; perpetual special disqualification; indemnification to the government in the amount of P6,000 and to pay costs. If he dies pending appeal, what is the legal effect of his death on his criminal and pecuniary liabilities? Suggested Answer: Under Article 89, RPC and jurisprudence (People vs. Jose 71 SCRA 273, People vs. Alison 44 SCRA 523), death of the accused pending appeal extinguished his criminal and civil liabilities. Civil liability includes pecuniary liabilities such as fine. Hence, the same, together with the disqualification and the costs are extinguished 2) At the height of the eruption of Mt. Pinatubo at around midnight, Aniceto joined some neighbors in evacuating his family, a few possessions and 2 horses to higher ground. Miguel, taking advantage of the darkness and the confusion, got one of the horses and asked his friend Doro to accompany him to Angeles City where he sold the same to an acquaintance Peping. Searching for his horse, Aniceto found it, with identifying brand intact, in the possession of Peping who paid good money for it. Whereupon, Aniceto reported to the Prosecutors office. May Peping be indicted under the Anti-Fencing Law. Explain. Suggested Answer: Peping should be held liable for violation of the Anti-Fencing Law. He bought the horse which he should have known to have been derived from robbery or theft. The horse was duly branded; this should have forewarned Peping. Besides, he should have demanded a certificate of ownership from Miguel. 3) Johnny Gitara was convicted of the crime of estafa by the RTC. He was imposed the indeterminate penalty of imprisonment of 3 years, 2 months and 1 day as minimum and 6 years as maximum, both of prision correccional and was ordered to indemnify the offended party in the amount of P3,000. He filed an application for probation upon promulgation of the judgment. What is the legal effect of his application for probation on the judgment of conviction? Does said application interrupt the running of the period of appeal? Suggested Answer: The filing of the application for probation is considered as a waiver of the right of the accused to appeal; the decision has become final. In view of the finality of the decision, there is no period of appeal to speak of.

1991 1) A was charged with homicide. During the trial, uncontradicted evidence consisting of medical certificates were presented showing that the accused had sustained injuries in 10 previous occasions while engaged in fisticuffs with different persons. He was also confined at the National Mental Hospital for medical ailment diagnosed as homicidal and suicidal instincts. During his second confinement thereat, he escaped. Upon conviction, the prosecution objected to the application of the Indeterminate Sentence Law contending that the accused is a habitual

Mikhail

30

delinquent and an escapee from the National Mental Hospital. If you are the judge, rule on the objection. Suggested Answer: The objection should be overruled. A could not be legally considered a habitual delinquent. Habitual delinquency cannot be validly invoked without being alleged in the Information and proven during the trial. Besides, there is no indication that A was convicted within 10 years from last conviction or release, 3 times or oftener of the crimes or robbery, theft, estafa, physical injuries or falsification. Being an escapee from the Mental Hospital will not disqualify his from the application of the ISL as Section 2 thereof contemplates having escaped from confinement or evaded sentence. Confinement presupposes imprisonment by virtue of a final judgment. 2) A complaint for rape was filed by the victim against her father. When the victim was about to finish her testimony, she and her aunt executed separate affidavits of desistance wherein they stated that they are forgiving the accused. The judge dismissed the case. Is the dismissal proper? Suggested Answer: No, the dismissal of the case is not proper. While the affidavit of desistance executed by the victim amounts to a pardon, the same does not extinguish criminal liability. In the crime of rape and other private crimes, pardon by the offended party only bars prosecution if given before the institution of the criminal action. After the criminal action had been instituted, such pardon only waives the civil liability but not the criminal liability of the offender. 3) Imagine that you are a Judge trying a case, and based on the evidence presented and the applicable law, you have decided on the guilt of 2 accused. Indicate the 5 steps you would follow to determine the exact penalty to be imposed. Stated differently, what are the factors you must consider to arrive at the correct penalty? Suggested Answer: (a) Determine the crime committed; (b) Stage of execution and degree of participation; (c) Determine the penalty; (d) Consider the modifying circumstances; (e) Determine whether the Indeterminate Sentence Law is applicable or not. 4) Rolando was charged with murder. The penalty for murder is reclusion temporal maximum to death. The trial court convicted Rolando, but lowered the penalty by 1 degree because of the attendance of 3 ordinary mitigating circumstances and the absence of any aggravating circumstance. The court then imposed an indeterminate sentence of 6 years and 1 day of prision mayor as minimum to 17 years and 1 day of reclusion temporal as maximum. Is the penalty correct Suggested Answer: Technically and legally, the sentence of 6 years and 1 day to 17 years and 1 day is correct. Since there are 3 mitigating without any aggravating circumstance, the penalty provided for by law should be reduced by 1 degree, that is, prision mayor (maximum) to reclusion temporal (medium), which will be the maximum of the indeterminate sentence. Otherwise stated, the maximum will have a range of 10 years and 1 day up to 17 years and 4 moths. Since the maximum imposed by the Judge is 17 years and 1 day, it is well within the maximum range. The

Mikhail

31

minimum of 6 years and 1 day is also within the range of the next lower in degree of prision correccional maximum up to prision mayor medium. 5) Boyet Mar was charged with consented abduction by a 17-year old complainant. The accused made wedding arrangements with the girl, but her parents insisted on the prosecution of the case. To avoid further embarrassment of a court trial for him and the girl, the accused entered a plea of guilty. He then filed a petition for probation before serving sentence, but the court denied the petition on the ground that it would be better for the accused to serve the sentence so that he would reform himself and avoid the scandal in the community that would be caused by the grant of the petition. The accused served sentence but he brought the matter to the Supreme Court in a petition for certiorari. Did the trial court act correctly in denying the petition for probation? Suggested Answer: The trial court acted incorrectly. In Balleta vs. Leviste (92 SCRA 719), the Judge precisely denied the petition for probation on the same excuse stated in the problem. The Supreme Court held that an accused must fall within any one of the disqualifications stated in Section 9 of PD 960 in order to be denied probation. 6) Jose Lopez was convicted for the crime of serious physical injuries and, taking into account 2mitigating circumstances, was sentenced to suffer imprisonment of 4 months and 20 days, and to indemnify the victim in the amount of P25,000 as actual and compensatory damages. He applied for probation, which was granted by the court; however, the order of probation directed him to pay in installment, at the rate of P1,000 a month, the damages awarded to the offended party. Jose was able to pay only 3 monthly installments. Because of such failure, the offended party filed a motion for the execution of the civil aspect of the decision. Is the order directing the payment of the damages in installment valid? Did it not modify the decision after it had become final? Suggested Answer: Yes, the order directing the payment in installment is proper. It did not modify the final decision but only in the manner of its execution.

1990 1) Rico was convicted of raping Letty, his former sweetheart, by the RTC of Manila and he was ordered to serve the penalty of life imprisonment, to indemnify Letty in the amount of P30,000 and to support their offspring. Pending appeal in the Supreme Court, Rico died. His widow, Bernie, moved for the dismissal of the case. (a) What is the legal effect of Ricos death on his criminal liability? Explain your answer. (b) How about on his civil liability? State your reasons. Suggested Answer: (a) The criminal liability of Rico is extinguished on the basis of Article 89(1) of the RPC. Article 89 (1) provides that the death of the offender totally extinguishes the criminal liability as to the personal penalties; and as to pecuniary penalties, only when the death of the offender occurs before final judgment.

(b) The civil liability of Rico survives. (People vs. Sendaydiego 74 OG 4371; People vs. Tirol GR No. L-30588, January 31, 1981; People vs. Naboa, et al 132 SCRA 410)

Mikhail

32

2) Oscar owns and operates a gift and jewelry shop. Pilar sold to him for P1,000 a 5-carat diamond ring which she stole. (a) May Oscar be held criminally liable under the Anti-Fencing Law? Explain your answer. (b) How can Oscar acquire immunity from criminal prosecution for purchasing the diamond ring from Pilar and thus enable him to sell the same to the general public for a profit? Explain your answer. Suggested Answer: (a) Yes, he is liable for fencing. The price is unconscionable. This shows that he would have known of the fact that the ring was stolen. Section 2 of PD 1612, provides that: Fencing is the act of any person who, with intent to gain for himself or for another, shall buy, receive x x x, sell or dispose of, or shall buy and sell, or in any other manner deal in any article x x x of value which he knows, or should be known to him, to have been derived from proceeds of the crime of robbery or theft. (b) Oscar should secure a clearance/permit to sell the 2 hand ring from the proper PNP station commander pursuant to Section 6, PD 1612. The said section states that any person who fails to secure the clearance or permit, upon conviction, shall be punished as a fence. 3) Rina, who was a suspended Clerk of Court, was convicted of malversation and was sentenced to imprisonment, to pay a fine of P5,000 and to indemnify the government in the same amount. Pending appeal in the CA, she was extended an absolute pardon by the President. Thus, she applied for reinstatement, payment of backwages, and absolution from payment of the fine and indemnity. Decide the issue with reasons. Suggested Answer: Rina cannot apply for reinstatement, etc. as there was no effective pardon by the President. It is basic that pardon can only be granted after final conviction. (Barrioquinto vs. Fernandez 85 Phil 642) 4) (a) Carlos was charged and convicted of murder. He was sentenced to life imprisonment and to indemnify the offended party in the amount of P30,000. He sought a reconsideration of the penalty on the ground that he should be entitled to the benefits of the Indeterminate Sentence Law. Decide with Reasons. (b) Suppose that instead of filing a motion for reconsideration, he applies for probation. If you were the judge, will you grant the same? Explain your answer. Suggested Answer: (a) Carlos is not entitled to avail of the Indeterminate Sentence Law because Section 2 of said law specifically disqualifies and disallows application thereof to persons sentenced to life imprisonment. (b) I will not grant the application for probation as it is clear in the Probation Law that the benefit thereof shall not apply to those sentenced to serve a maximum term of imprisonment of more than 6 years.
nd

1989 1) Mario, a law student wanted to avenge the death of his brother, Jose, in the hands of Pedro and his gang. So, Mario talked to Dalmacio, known tough guy, to kill Pedro by promising him P50,000

Mikhail

33

to be paid after he had accomplished the killing. Dalmacio agreed. Since Pedro was to appear in court the following day at 9:00 a.m. at the city hall to attend the hearing involving the death of Jose, Mario told Dalmacio to carry out the plan at that exact time in the court room, to which Dalmacio assented. At 8:50 a.m., Mario went to see Captain Malonso of the Police Department and told him that Dalmacio would kill Pedro at 9:00 a.m. at the city hall. He asked Captain Malonso to prevent it and so the latter rushed to the city hall but arrived at 9:05 a.m. when Dalmacio had already killed Pedro. Is Mario liable as co-principal with Dalmacio for the killing of Pedro? Give your reasons. Suggested Answer: Mario is a principal by inducement. By promising to give P50,000 to Dalmacio, which is an agreement for a consideration for the purpose of avenging his brothers death the inducement was made directly with the intention of procuring the commission of the crime. Furthermore, the facts show that Dalmacio has no personal reason to kill Pedro except the inducement, which is therefore the determining cause for the commission of the crime by Dalmacio. Marios change of mind and heart at the last minute, which did not, after all, prevent the consummation of the crime, because it was too late, does not alter the course of his criminal liability as a co-principal by inducement. Desistance from carrying out a criminal design is no defense if such desistance has not actually and successfully prevented the commission of the crime. 2) Pedro was convicted of the crime of damage to property through reckless imprudence for bumping the car of Jose and the court sentenced him to pay a fine of P3,000. Pedro failed to pay the amount of the fine for he was insolvent. Later the court ordered the incarceration of Pedro so that the latter could serve subsidiary imprisonment to satisfy the fine. Pedro filed a petition for habeas corpus alleging that his confinement is illegal. Will the petition prosper? Give your reasons. Suggested Answer: The petition for habeas corpus will prosper. Subsidiary penalty is not an accessory penalty which inheres to a principal penalty and may therefore be imposed even if it is not expressly provided in the sentence. It is a penalty in lieu of the penalty imposed in the sentence. Hence, unless the judgment or sentence expressly provides for subsidiary imprisonment, the culprit cannot be made to undergo the same. (People vs. Fajardo 65 Phil 639). In this case, the court merely sentenced Pedro to pay a P3,000 fine. It was only later that the Court ordered the incarceration of Pedro to serve subsidiary imprisonment after Pedro failed to pay the amount of the fine. Subsidiary imprisonment cannot be imposed unless it is expressly provided in the sentence. 3) Andres is charged with an offense defined by a special law. The penalty prescribed for the offense is imprisonment of not less than 5 years but not more than 10 years. Upon arraignment, he entered the plea of guilty. In the imposition of the proper penalty, should the Indeterminate Sentence Law be applied? If you were the judge trying the case, what penalty would you impose on Andres? Suggested Answer: The Indeterminate Sentence Law should be applied in this case. By express provision of said law, it is applicable to offenses punishable by special laws. The indeterminate sentence in such cases shall consist of a maximum term which shall not exceed the maximum fixed by the special law and a minimum term which shall not be less than the minimum term prescribed by the same. If I were the judge trying the case, I would impose a penalty consisting of any duration not more than 10 years as maximum term. It could be 5 years and 1 day to 7 years; 7 years, 6

Mikhail

34

months and 1 day to 9 years; or any other sentence where the minimum term is not less than 5 years and the maximum term not more than 10 years. The plea of guilty cannot be considered as a mitigating circumstance in this case. The imposition of the indeterminate penalty in a special law rests upon the discretion of the court. Also, the pleas of guilty as a mitigating circumstance under the RPC is appreciated only in a divisible penalty. It cannot be applied to a penalty which is not divisible into periods of fixed duration, like the penalty provided in special laws. 4) Jose is charged with bigamy. The RPC prescribes the penalty of prision mayor for this offense. The information filed against Jose alleged one aggravating circumstance. Upon being arraigned, he entered a plea of guilty and invoked the additional mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender which the trial court admitted. If you were the judge trying the case, from what range of the prescribed penalty would you determine the proper penalty (to constitute the maximum term of an indeterminate sentence) to be imposed on Jose? Suggested Answer: I would take the maximum term of the Indeterminate sentence from the range of prision mayor in its minimum period. This is so because while there are 2 ordinary mitigating circumstances present, one of them is offset by an aggravating circumstance. Consequently, it is as if the crime is attended by only one ordinary circumstance and this will result in the imposition of the minimum period of the penalty prescribed by law. The presence of 2 or more ordinary mitigating circumstances will give rise to a privileged mitigating circumstance only if there is no aggravating circumstance present and the penalty prescribed by law is divisible. In this case, while the penalty of prision mayor is divisible, and while there are 2 ordinary mitigating circumstances present, there is an aggravating circumstance. This precludes the reduction of the penalty by one degree inasmuch as the 2 ordinary mitigating circumstances cannot be considered as a privileged mitigating circumstance. 5) Emilio and Andres were walking home from the farm at 8:00 p.m. when they met Asiong whom Emilio suspected as the one who stole his fighting cock 2 days before. Emilio confronted Asiong and after a heated discussion, a bolo fight between the 2 ensued. Asiong sustained fatal wounds and died. Emilio asked Andres to help him carry the body of Asiong and bury it behind the bushes. After burying Asiong, Emilio picked up the jute bag Asiong was then holding and found inside P600 which Emilio and Andres divided each getting P300. A week after the investigation by the police, a complaint was filed in the Office of the Provincial Fiscal against Emilio and Andres for robbery with homicide with the aggravating circumstances of nighttime and uninhabited place. If you were the fiscal, what information or informations will you file against Emilio and Andres? What are their respective criminal liabilities? Suggested Answer: If I were the fiscal, I would file 2 separate informations against Emilio and Andres, one for homicide with Emilio as principal and Andres as accessory, and another for theft against both Emilio and Andres as principals. This is so because of the following reasons: (a) The killing of Asiong by Emilio is homicide. It is not attended by any qualifying circumstance of murder. It was a killing at the spur of the moment, in the course of a bolo fight, as an aftermath of a heated discussion. (b) Neither was the killing by reason of or on the occasion of a robbery. There was no intention of either Emilio or Andres to rob Asiong either prior to or in the course of the killing. The taking of Asiongs P600 was only an afterthought, after the killing was already perpetrated. There is no casual or other connection between the act of killing and the act of taking the money. (c) Andres is liable as an accessory in the homicide case because he had no participation either as co-principal or accomplice in the killing of Asiong who died solely because of the wounds

Mikhail

35

inflicted on him in his bolo-fight with Emilio, the principal. However, when Andres agreed to help Emilio carry the body of Asiong and bury it behind the bushes, thus concealing or destroying the body of the crime (corpus delicti) to prevent its discovery, he became an accessory to the crime of homicide (Art. 19, RPC). (d) With respect to the taking of the P600 which Emilio and Andres divided between themselves, they committed the crime of theft as co-principals. It is theft because, with intent to gain but without violence against or intimidation of persons nor force upon things, they took personal property of another without the latters consent. They acted with unity of purpose and intention, thus making them co-principals by direct participation. 6) A was charged with theft and upon arraignment, pleaded guilty to the charge. He was detained for failure to post bail. After 2 months, a decision was rendered, sentencing A to an indeterminate sentence of 6 months and 1 day as a minimum, to 1 year and 1 month as maximum, and to pay the offended party the amount of P700. On January 16, 1985, the very days the sentence was read to A, the judge issued a Commitment Order addressed to the Provincial Jail Warden. On January 28, 1985, A applied for probation but his application was denied on the ground that the sentence of conviction became final and executory on January 16, 1985, when A commenced to serve his sentence. Is A eligible for probation? Suggested Answer: A is still eligible for probation since he filed his application for probation within 15 days from the promulgation of the judgment. Under the Probation Law, the accused may apply for probation within the period for perfecting an appeal which is 15 days from promulgation or notice of judgment. The judge committed an error in issuing a Commitment Order on the same day of promulgation. A commitment order for the convict to begin serving his sentence can be validly issued only if the period for perfecting an appeal has expired with no appeal being taken. The fact that in compliance with such order, which is void, the accused commenced to serve his sentence does not bar him from availing himself of the benefits of the Probation Law. There is nothing in the Probation Law that bars an accused who has commenced to serve his sentence from filing an application for probation provided he does so within the period for perfecting an appeal. 7) What is the purpose of the probation law? Suggested Answer: The purposes of the Probation Law are to: (a) Promote the correction & rehabilitation of an offender by providing him with individualized treatment; (b) Provide an opportunity for the reformation of a penitent offender which might be less probable if he were to serve a prison sentence; and (c) Prevent the commission of offenses.

1988 1) When are light felonies punishable and who are liable in light felonies? Suggested Answer: Light felonies, according to Article 7 of the RPC are punishable, only when they have been consummated, with the exception of those committed against persons or property.

Mikhail

36

Article of the RPC provides that the following are criminally liable for light felonies: (1) Principals (2) Accomplices. 2) (a) State the 2 classes of penalties under the RPC. Define each. (b) May censure be include in a sentence of acquittal? Why or why not? Suggested Answer: (a) The 2 classes of penalties under Article 25 of the RPC are as follows: (1) Principal (2) Accessory A principal penalty is defined as that provided for a felony and which is imposed by court expressly upon conviction. An accessory penalty is defined as that deemed included in the imposition of the principal penalty. (b) Censure may not be included in a sentence of acquittal because censure is a penalty. Censure is repugnant and is essentially inconsistent and contrary to an acquittal (People vs. Abellera 69 Phil 623). 3) (a) State the application of the Indeterminate Sentence Law. (b) Who are the offenders disqualified from availing themselves of the benefits of the probation law? Suggested Answer: (a) The Indeterminate Sentence Law applies in cases where the penalty impose is more than 1 years and the ISL shall apply where there is a minimum penalty which is not lower than the penalty next lower in degree provided by law and the maximum not higher than the maximum penalty provided by law in cases of felonies but when it comes to statutory offenses, it must be lower than the minimum penalty provided by law and not higher than the maximum penalty provided by law except in the following cases as provided by Section 2 of Act 4103: (1) Death penalty; Life imprisonment; (2) Those convicted of treason, conspiracy or proposal to commit treason; (3) Those convicted of misprision of treason, rebellion, sedition or espionage; (4) Those convicted of piracy (5) Habitual delinquents (6) Those who shall have escaped from confinement or evaded sentence; (7) Those having been granted conditional [pardon by the Chief Executive shall have violated the terms thereof; (8) Those whose maximum term of imprisonment does not exceed 1 year (b) The following offenders are disqualified from availing of the benefits of the Probation Law: (1) Those sentenced to serve a maximum term of imprisonment of more than 6 years; (2) Convicted of any crime against the national security or public order; (3) Those who have previously been convicted by final judgment of an offense punished by imprisonment of not less than 1 month and 1 day and/or a fine of not less than P200; (4) Those who have been once on probation;

Mikhail

37

4) (a) How is criminal liability totally extinguished? (b) How is criminal liability extinguished partially? (c) If an accused is acquitted, does it necessarily follow that no civil liability arising from the acts complained of may be awarded in the same judgment? Explain briefly. Suggested Answer: (a) Article 89 of the RPC provides for the following causes of total extinction of criminal liability: (1) Death of the convict as to personal penalties; as to pecuniary liabilities, liability therefore is extinguished only when death occurs before final judgment; (2) Service of sentence; (3) Amnesty; (4) Absolute pardon; (5) Prescription of the crime; (6) Prescription of the penalty; (7) Marriage of the offended woman as provided in Article 344. (b) Article 94 of the RPC provides for the following causes of partial extinction of criminal liability: (1) Conditional pardon; (2) Commutation of sentence; (3) Good conduct allowances while serving sentence; (4) Parole; (5) Probation. (c) If an accused is acquitted, it does not necessarily follow that no civil liability arising from the acts complained of may be awarded in the same judgment exceptif there is an express waiver of the liability, and if there is a reservation to file a separate civil action. 5) Juan Cruz, driver of a cargo truck owned and operated by VICMICO, a sugar central, while driving recklessly, caused Jorge Abad to fall from the truck resulting in injuries which caused his death. Juan Cruz was convicted or homicide thru reckless imprudence and was ordered to pay the heirs of the deceased Abad P12,000. The respondent judge issued an order granting a motion for execution of the civil liability of the accused Juan Cruz, but the return of the Sheriff showed that the accused was insolvent. Petitioners, heirs of the deceased Abad, now filed a motion for execution of the employers subsidiary liability under Article 103 of the RPC. Respondent judge denied the motion, stating that the employer VICMICO, not having been notified that his driver was facing a criminal charge, a separate action had to be filed. Hence, a petition for mandamus was filed. Decide the case. Suggested Answer: Mandamus will lie. There is no need for a separate civil action because the driver was convicted (Martinez vs. Barredo). All you need is a motion for execution with a notice to the employer that states compliance with the requisites imposed by Article 103 of the RPC ( that there is an employer-employee relationship, that the employer is engaged in an industry and that the drivers is insolvent).

Mikhail

38

1987 1) Juan had a land dispute with Pedro for a number of years. As Juan was coming down his house, he saw his brother Rodolfo attack Pedro with a bolo from behind. Rodolfo was about to hit Pedro nd a 2 time while the latter was prostate on the ground, when Carling, Pedros son, shouted, Ill kill you. This distracted Rodolfo who then turned to carling. Rodolfo and carling fought with their bolos. While the 2 were fighting, Juan shouted to his brother Rodolfo: Kill them both, they are our enemies. Carling suffered a number of wounds and died on the spot. Pedro, who was in serious condition, was rushed to the hospital. He died 5 days later. Jose, father of Juan and Rodolfo, told his sons to hide in Manila, and he gave them money for the purpose. When the police investigators saw Jose, he told the police investigators that Juan and Rodolfo went to Mindanao. What are the criminal liabilities, if any, of Juan and Jose respectively, for the crime(s) committed by Rodolfo? Suggested Answer: Juan, the brother of Rodolfo, has no criminal liability. What he shouted to Rodolfo when the latter was fighting with Carling was not the only reason why Carling was killed; hence, he cannot be a principal by inducement. To be a principal by inducement, the inducement must be the only reason why the crime is committed. (People vs. Kiichi et al 61 Phil 609) Jose, father of Juan and Rodolfo, is an accessory to the crime of murder committed by Rodolfo because he assisted Rodolfo to escape to Manila. But he is not criminally liable because of his relationship to Rodolfo (Article 20, RPC). 2) Jose purchased roofing materials worth P20,000 from PY & Sons Construction Company owned by Pedro, and paid the latter a check in the said amount. The following day, Pedro deposited the check, but it was returned dishonored because it was drawn against a closed account. Notwithstanding written demands, Jose failed to make good said check. Atty. Saavedra, counsel for Pedro, filed 2 complaints against Jose with the Office of the Provincial Fiscal, one fore estafa under Article 315 of the RPC and another for violation of BP 22. Atty. San Pascual, counsel for Jose, claimed that if his client was at all liable, he could only be liable for violation of BP 22 and not for estafa under Article 315 of the RPC because one precludes the other and because BP 22 is more favorable to the accused as it carries a lighter penalty. The investigating fiscal, on his resolution, stated that only one crime was committed, namely, the complex crime of estafa under Article 315 of the RRPC and violation of BP 22 because the single act of issuing the bouncing check constitutes 2 offenses, one under Article 315 of the RPC and another under BP 22. If you were the Provincial Fiscal asked to review the matter, how would you resolve it? Suggested Answer: The resolution of the investigating fiscal is erroneous. There is no complex crime of estafa under Article 315 of the RPC and the violation of BP 22. A complex crime refers only to felonies which are punished in the RPC. BP 22 which punished the offense of issuing a worthless check is a special law. 3) Pedro, a municipal treasurer, receive from the Provincial Treasurer of the Province 5 brand new typewriters for use in the municipal treasurers office. Each typewriter is valued a t P10,000. Since Pedro needed money for the hospitalization of his sick son, he sold 4 of the typewriters to his friend, Rodolfo, a general merchant in San Isidro for P2,000 each or a total of P8,000. Rodolfo, as a general merchant knew that one typewriter could easily be between P6,000 to P10,000, and for this reason he readily agreed to buy the 4 typewriters. Rodolfo then resold the typewriters at P6,000 thus making a profit of P16,000. Two months after the transaction, Pedro was audited and the investigation as to his accountabilities led to the discovery that Rodolfo bought the 4 typewriters from Pedro. Is Rodolfo liable as an accessory or for violation of the AntiFencing Law?

Mikhail

39

Suggested Answer: Rodolfo is not liable for violation of the Anti-Fencing Law as this law refers only to the buy and sell of articles of value which are the proceeds of robbery and theft. Rodolfo is liable as an accessory to the crime of malversation as he purchased the typewriters for P2,000 each only although he knew it could easily be sold for P6,000 to P10,000. Therefore he profited or assisted the principal to profit from the effects or proceeds of the commission of the crime. 4) PM, a rich businessman, was convicted of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment by the RTC, and to pay the heirs of the victim the total amount of P250,000. While his appeal was pending before the Supreme Court, PM died. The defense counsel manifested that PMs death extinguished not only the criminal liability but also the pecuniary liability because the death occurred before the final judgment, since the case was pending appeal. He invoked Article 89 or the RPC which provides the criminal liability is totally extinguished: 1. By the death of the convict, as to the personal penalties; and as to pecuniary penalties, liability therefore is extinguished only when the death of the offender occurs before the final judgment. As a Solicitor in the Office of the Solicitor General, do you agree with the defense counsels argument? Suggested Answer: As Solicitor General, I will not agree to the argument of the defense counsel that the death of PM while his appeal was pending extinguished not only his criminal liability but also his pecuniary liability. Article 89 of the RPC which provides that the pecuniary liability of the accused is extinguished only when the death of the offender occurred a before the final judgment, refers to his liability to pay the fine (People vs. Sendaydiego 81 SCRA 120). The civil liability, however, survives the death of the offender because death is not a valid cause for the extinguishment of civil obligation. (Torrijos vs. CA 67 SCRA 394) 5) Jose, Pedro and Juan robbed ABC Bank of P200,000 and using a stolen car, immediately proceeded to Quezon City. The police recovered the money and the car. After the trial, during which the bank lawyer intervened as private prosecutor, the court convicted Jose, Pedro, and Juan of robbery and ordered the forfeiture of the money (P200,000) and the car in favor of the government as proceeds and instrument of the crime, respectively. The bank lawyer received a copy of the judgment, but did not do anything. Jose, Pedro, and Juan did not appeal the judgment and began service of sentence. Two months later, Armando, the owner of the stolen car, learned of the judgment. He comes to you seeking your well-considered opinion on whether it is still possible to recover his car. As legal counsel, what will you tell him? Explain briefly. Suggested Answer: As legal counsel, I would advise Armando to file a civil action for the recovery of his car against its legal custodian. The car was stolen and therefore it belonged to Armando, an innocent party, who has not participated in the commission of the robbery by Jose, Pedro, and Juan. The car is, therefore, not subject to confiscation. 1986 1) Mahigpit is the general manager of Blue Chips Co. He fire Alibugha, Bulagsak, Bisyoso, and Mabisyo for gross incompetence. The following day, the four dismissed employees happened to meet by change at a restaurant, a block from the residence of Mahigpit. Then and there, the 4 hatched a plant to beat up Mahigpit so he would not be so harsh to his personnel in the future. Immediately thereafter, the 4 proceeded to Mahigpits house. After being allowed to enter, a heated discussion ensued. Mahigpit ordered the 4 to leave his house immediately. Thereupon, Alibugha and Bulagsak started raining blows on Mahigpit while Bisyoso held him by his arms. Mabisyo proceeded to the second floor of the residence where he chanced upon Katulong, the housemaid of Mahigpit.

Mikhail

40

Katulong saw what was going on and rushed to a window, shouting for help. Mabisyo hit Katulong on the head with a metal flower vase. The 4 then fled from the house. When the police arrived at the scene, they found Mahigpit dead on the floor of the sala and Katulong, also dead, near the window on the second floor. Alibugha, Bulagsak, Bisyoso, and Mabisyo were charged with murder on 2 counts. The Fiscal stated that the 2 offenses were characterized by conspiracy and, therefore, all the accused should be equally guilty for all the consequences of their criminal acts. Is the Fiscal correct? [Q# 3] Suggested Answer: Regarding the death of Mahigpit, only Alibugha, Bulagsak, and Bisyoso are criminally liable. They acted pursuant to a conspiracy to beat the deceased, whose death is the direct, natural and logical consequence of the crime agreed upon to be committed. Mabisyo is not liable for the death of Mahigpit because although he participated in the plan to beat him, he did not personally perform any overt act as his contribution to realize the common criminal objective. Regarding the death of the housemaid, only Mabisyo will be liable. The others are not criminally liable as the death of the housemaid is not covered in the conspiracy not is it a necessary consequence thereof. 2) Alpha company owns a hardware store. Because of financial difficulties, it filed a petition for suspension of payments with the SEC. Pollux, 17 years of age, is the youngest brother of one of the SEC Commissioners. Without the knowledge of his brother, Pollux approached the president of Alpha and asked for a gift of 50 bags of cement. Prosecuted for violation of Section4 of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, Pollux pleaded guilty. During the trial of Pollux, his counsel argued that his client was entitled to mitigating circumstances. If you were the fiscal, would you have a legal basis for opposing the request for mitigation of the penalty? [Q# 4] Suggested Answer: There is no legal basis for approving the request for a mitigation of the penalty. The reason is, the penalty provided in the Anti-Graft Law, whether the offender is a public officer or a private person, is indeterminate, which means it is not divisible, that is, it cannot be divided into periods of fixed duration, in order to appreciate any attending mitigating circumstance. The penalty is imprisonment of not less than 1 year or more than 10 years. 3) Aristides was found guilty by the trial court of challenging Bodinus to a duel and scoffing at Bodinus because of the latters refusal to accept the challenge. The court sentenced Aristides to a penalty of imprisonment from 4 months and one day to 2 years and 4 months. In the dispositive portion of the decision, the court found Aristides entitled to probation and suspended the execution of the sentence for a period of 2 years. Aristides did not appeal the decision State the purposes of the Probation Law and explain whether or not the action of the Judge promotes or serves these purposes. [Q# 6] Suggested Answer: The purposes of the Probation Law are: [1] To promote the correction and rehabilitation of the offender by providing him with individualized treatment; [2] To provide an opportunity for the reformation of a penitent offender which might be less probable if he were to serve a prison sentence; [3] To prevent the commission of offenses. The action of the Judge certainly promotes or serves these purposes because it gives a first time offender a second chance to maintain his place in society, through a process of reformation, which is

Mikhail

41

better achieved, when he is not mixed with hardened criminals. The accused is afforded to reform and rehabilitate himself without the stigma of a prison record. However, probation cannot be granted without an application filed by the offender after conviction and sentence. Besides, if probation is granted, mandatory and optional conditions must be provided in the order of the court. 4) Aristarchus, a resident of Iloilo, checked in at the Manila Hotel while attending to some business in Manila. Heeding the notice posted in his room requesting the tenants to deposit their valuables in one of the hotels deposit boxes near the reception counter in the lobby, Aristarchus deposited P10,000 cash in one of the hotels deposit boxes. As he was about to go up to his room, armed men entered the lobby, told everybody to lie flat on the floor, and divested the guests of their money and valuables. They also forcibly opened the safety deposit boxes, scooped out their contents and fled. Aristarchus sued the hotel, claiming that the hotel is subsidiarily liable for the P10,000 deposited in the safety deposit box and for P5,000 taken from his wallet while he was lying face down on the floor. Is the hotel subsidiarily liable? [Q# 8] Suggested Answer: Manila Hotel is not subsidiarily civilly liable. Although Aritarchus has complied with the notice of the hotel regarding the depositing of his money in one of the hotels deposit boxes, the hotel is not liable as such were lost because of robbery committed with violence or intimidation against persons (Art. 102, par. 2, RPC).

1985 1) Minority is generally a privileged mitigating circumstance which entitles the minor offender to a suspended sentence. It may, however, under certain circumstances, be considered as a mere ordinary circumstance, in which case, the offender may be immediately sentenced and made to serve the penalty imposed upon him instead of being placed under suspended sentence. Discuss. [Q# 1] Suggested Answer: Minority as a privileged mitigating circumstance is considered in the imposition of the penalty (Art. 68, RPC). However, the age of the minor at the time of the commission of the crime may be considered in suspending the sentence upon conviction. So under the Child and Youth Welfare Code (PD 603), a minor under 18 years old at the time of the commission of the offense and at the time of the trial, if found guilty after trial, may apply for the suspension of the sentence. The only instance where there is no suspension of the sentence in spite of minority is that provided in Article 80 of the RPC, where the minor under 16 years old at the time of the commission of a light felony if found guilty, the sentence is immediately imposed. But Article 80 has been expressly repealed by PD 1179. As a matter of fact, the Supreme Court held in People vs. Sanchez (132 SCRA 103) that there are only 2 instances where there can be no suspended sentence, to wit: [1] if the offense committed by a minor is punishable by death or life imprisonment; [2] if the minor is 18 years and above at the time of the commission of the offense and at the time of the trial. 2) Arthur, a 17-year old student and aggrieved by the death of his only brother in a previous rally at the hands of the police, fired at a motorcycle cop passing by their place. He, however, missed his target and instead hit Jason, a passerby, who died instantaneously. (a) As an investigating fiscal, what charge(s) will you file against Arthur? (b) Upon arraignment, Arthur pleaded guilty and invoked the additional mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender. As a judge and applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, what penalty will you impose upon Arthur? (c) May Arthur apply for and be entitled to probation under PD 968?

Mikhail

42

Suggested Answer: (a) I would file against Arthur an information for the complex crime of Direct Assault with Homicide. The motorcycle cop is an agent of a person in authority. Firing at the peace officer is attacking rd him, one of the modes of committing Direct Assault (Article 148, RPC). Since a 3 person was hit instead, resulting in his instantaneous death, the single act of shooting resulted in 2 grave felonies, to wit, direct assault and homicide, a compound complex crime (Article 48, RPC). (b) As a judge, I will first consider the imposable penalty under the RPC for the complex crime of Direct Assault with Homicide. The penalty is for the more serious crime to be imposed in its maximum period (Art. 48, RPC). The age of Arthur at the time of the commission of the crime, which is 17 years, is a privileged mitigating circumstance. Under Article 68, par. 2 of the RPC, the imposable penalty is to be lowered by one degree. There being 2 mitigating circumstances, which are voluntary plea of guilty and voluntary surrender, without any aggravating circumstance, he penalty, being divisible, is again to be lowered by one degree (Art. 64, par. 5, RPC). The imposable penalty, lowered by 2 degrees, will be the maximum of the indeterminate sentence. The minimum will be one degree next lower than the maximum (Act 4103). (c) Arthur may apply for and be entitled to probation if the maximum of the indeterminate sentence does not exceed 6 years and 1 day. 3) Finding Carlos Torres guilty of ROBBERY as charged, Judge Cruz nevertheless dismissed the case against him, it appearing from the evidence that Carlos Torres had already been previously convicted in 15 other criminal cases and sentenced to a total penalty of 305 years ruling that anyway, the total penalty which he may be compelled to serve cannot in any case exceed 40 years under the three-fold rule. Comment on the legality of the aforesaid pronouncement. [Q# 2] Suggested Answer: The dismissal of the robbery case by Judge Cruz is improper and irregular. Dismissal is inconsistent with the finding of guilt of the accused. The duty of the Court is to apply the law and to impose the penalty provided upon the accused found guilty of the crime charged. The reason that the accused Carlos Torres had been previously convicted in 15 other crimes and sentenced to 305 years, and the total penalty that the accused may be compelled to serve cannot exceed 40 years under the three-fold rule does not find application in the law. The three-fold rule applies to the service of the penalties and not in the imposition of the penalties (People vs. Escares, 102 Phil. 677). 4) While waiting for his car, AB was approached by CD, who offered him a new set of auto mechanic tools costing P3,000 for only for only P500. AB paid CD P500 and thereafter gave the brand new set of tools as a birthday gift to his godson, an auto mechanic. It turned our later that CD is the object of a police manhunt upon complaint of his employer for the theft of more than 100 sets of similar tools. Threatened with criminal prosecution for violation of the Anti-Fencing Law, he consulted you as to his probable criminal liability for the said transaction. Put down in writing your advice and explanation on his query. [Q# 12] Suggested Answer: Fencing is the act of any person, who, with intent to gain for himself, or for another, shall buy, receive, possess, keep, acquire, conceal, sell or dispose of or shall buy and sell or in any other manner deal in any article, item or object or anything of value, which he knows or should be known to him to have been derived from the proceeds of the crime of robbery or theft (PD 1612). Considering

Mikhail

43

that CD was a total stranger to AB that the former was the one who approached the latter to sell auto mechanic tools costing P3,000 for only P500, that CD was not in the business of selling auto mechanic tools nor was he representing any store engaged in such business, AB should have been placed on guard that the object purchased by him was the proceed of the crime of robbery or theft. AB should be liable for fencing. I would advice him to show his good faith in purchasing the auto mechanic tools that he requested from CD, the seller, a receipt, with a warranty to defend his ownership from a claim of any person whatsoever.

1984 1) A kidnapped a boy and demand a ransom of P100,000 from the boys parents. In time, the ransom was paid and the victim was released. When X (As adopted sister) learned that A was being hunted by the police for kidnapping, she took him into her house and concealed him. A was thus able to elude the police. Did X incur any criminal responsibility? [Q# 1] Suggested Answer: X has no criminal liability. She is not a principal because she did not take part in the commission of the act, or induce another to commit, or cooperated in the commission of the offense by another act, without which it will not have been accomplished (Art. 17, RPC). Neither is she an accomplice because she did not cooperate in the execution of the offense by previous or simultaneous acts (Art. 18). She is not also an accessory because, although she harbored, or concealed or assisted in the escape of the principal, the crime is not treason, parricide, murder or an attempt to take the life of the Chief Executive, or the author thereof is known to be habitually guilty of some other crime (Art. 19[3], RPC). 2) Does acquittal in a criminal case carry with it exemption from civil liability? [Q# 6] Suggested Answer: Acquittal in a criminal case carries with it exemption from civil liability where there is a declaration in a final judgment that the fact from which the civil action might arise does not exist (Tan vs. Socony, 91 Phil. 672). In the following cases, acquittal in the criminal action does not carry with it exemption from civil liability: [1] When the acquittal is on the ground that the guilt of the accused has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt (Art. 29, Civil Code); [2] When the acquittal is due to an exempting circumstance, except accident and lawful/insuperable cause (Art. 12, RPC); [3] In cases of Quasi-delict (Art. 2177, Civil Code); [4] When the finding of the court in acquitting the accused is that there is only civil responsibility and not criminal responsibility (De Guzman vs. Alva, 51 OG 1311); [5] In case of independent civil action under Articles 31, 32, 33, and 34 of the Civil Code. 3) Does novation or compromise affect the criminal liability of a person accused of estafa? [Q# 10] Suggested Answer: Novation or compromise does not affect the criminal liability of a person accused of estafa if it occurs after the filing of the criminal action in court. So, partial payment or extension of time to pay the amount misappropriated does not extinguish criminal liability because a criminal offense is

Mikhail

44

committed against the People and the offended party may not waive or extinguish the criminal liability that the law imposes for the commission of the offense (People vs. Gervacio, December 24, 1957) But it the compromise is executed before a criminal action is instituted, as where the amount misappropriated was converted into a contract of loan, and the accused was made to acknowledge the debt, there is novation of contract so as to extinguish any incipient criminal liability of the accused, but the novation must be expressed and must refer only to the incipient criminal liability. It prevents the rise of criminal liability as long as it occurs prior to the filing of criminal liability, as long as it occurs prior to the filing of the criminal information (Guingona vs. City Fiscal, 127 SCRA 201). 4) Under the probation law, the filing of an application for probation shall be deemed a waiver of the right to appeal. Is this waiver mandatory or irrevocable? [Q# 11] Suggested Answer: The waiver provided in the Probation Law is not irrevocable. The offender may still withdraw his application for probation and file an appeal if the period to do so has not yet prescribed. Probation law is interpreted liberally in favor of the accused. It is not served by a harsh and stringent interpretation of its provisions. Appeal and probation spring from the same policy considerations of justice, humanity and compassion. If it appears that the application for probation was improvidently filed by the offender who was assisted by counsel de oficio and not by his counsel of record who was in a better position to consider fully the strength of a possible appeal, being fully familiar with the case, the waiver rule cannot be considered irrevocable (Yusi vs. Judge Morales, 121 SCRA 653). 5) On a plea of guilty, X was convicted of homicide through reckless imprudence and was sentenced to a prison term. The judgment made no pronouncement regarding his civil liability. X forthwith applied for probation. The following day, the private prosecutor, who was not given the chance to present evidence on Xs civil liability, filed a motion to set the case for the reception of said evidence. Although supported by the fiscal, the motion was denied by the judge on the ground that it was filed out of time. According to the judge, the prosecution should have asked for leave to prove civil liability of the defendant before judgment was rendered, not thereafter, for a hearing for that purpose after judgment would in effect nullify the order of suspension of the sentence and would defeat the very purpose of the Probation Law. Was the denial of the motion in accordance with law? [Q# 15] Suggested Answer: The denial of the motion was not in accordance with law. The granting of probation affects only the criminal liability of the offender. This is shown by the statutory definition of probation which is a disposition under which the defendant after conviction and sentence is released subject to the conditions imposed by the court and to the supervision of the probation officer. The conviction and sentence phrase shows that probation affects only the criminal aspects of the case. The suspension of the sentence imposed on the accused who is granted probation has no bearing on his civil liability. There is no legal basis in the conclusion of the trial court that hearing to prove the civil liability of the accused would nullify the order of suspension of the sentence and would defeat the very purpose of the Probation Law. The denial of the motion would violate the right of the complainant to due process. The motion was filed on the day after the judgment of conviction was rendered and hence, before it became final. Besides, the civil liability of the accused is not part of the penalty for the crime committed. It is personal to the offended party (Budlong vs. Apalisok, 122 SCRA 935)

1983 1) X already had 3 previous convictions by final judgment for theft when he was found guilty of robbery with homicide. In the last case, the trial judge considered against X both recidivism and habitual

Mikhail

45

delinquency. X appealed, contending that conviction for one crime cannot twice be considered against the accused, once for the purpose of using it as basis for finding recidivism, and again, to establish habitual delinquency. Resolve with reasons. [Q# 3] Suggested Answer: The appeal is not meritorious. Recidivism and habitual delinquency have different legal effects. In the conviction for robbery with homicide, recidivism is appreciated as an aggravating circumstance because the previous convictions for theft are embraced in the same title of the Code as robbery with homicide, which are crimes against property. Habitual delinquency is also considered because of the three previous convictions by final judgment for theft, for the imposition of the additional penalty. 2) A proposed to B that they rob a certain store, to which B agreed. Later, however, B undertook the robbery alone and made off with P2,000 cash. The following day, after making some shallow explanation, B apologized to A and gave the latter P500, which A somewhat grudgingly accepted. What is As liability, if any, and the legal basis thereof. [Q# 4] Suggested Answer: A is liable as an accessory. Although A proposed that robbery be committed in a certain store, such proposal is not punished by law. So, if B, to whom the proposal was made, committed the robbery alone, only he will be liable for the robbery. But since A received fro B P500 which he knew to be part of the amount of P2,000, which was robbed, A is liable as an accessory because he profited from the proceeds of the crime. 3) With lewd design, an illiterate newsboy forced a 16-year old girl to lie on the grass and tried to make love to her, but no penetration was effected because of the valiant resistance of the victim. What crime was committed? What mitigating circumstance, if any, would you appreciate in favor of the offender? [Q# 5] Suggested Answer: Attempted rape. When the newsboy forced the girl to lie on the grass and tried to make love to her, his intention was to have sexual intercourse with her. But there was no penetration because of the resistance of the girl. So all the acts of execution to produce the crime of rape were not performed due to a cause other than the spontaneous desistance of the offender. [Note: To consummate rape, under the first paragraph of the present Art. 266-A, it is not necessary that there be penetration. It is sufficient that the penis comes in contact with the labia.] There is no mitigating circumstance. Although the newsboy is illiterate, that in itself is not mitigating. Lack of sufficient intelligence and knowledge of the full significance of all acts constitute the mitigating circumstance of lack of instruction (People vs. Geronimo, 55 SCRA 246). 4) X, an unlettered prisoner serving sentence for homicide, killed a co-prisoner with evidence premeditation, after which he voluntarily surrendered to the prison guard and confessed his wrongdoing. Upon arraignment, he pleaded guilty to the murder charge. After a brief trial to ascertain beyond reasonable doubt the guilt of the accused and the presence or absence of modifying circumstances, the trial judge imposed the penalty prescribed by law for murder in its maximum period, disregarding the mitigating circumstances established by the defense. (a) Did the judge act correctly? Why? (b) If the murder was committed outside of prison before X began to serve his sentence for homicide, would you answer be different? Reasons.

Mikhail

46

Suggested Answer: (a) The judge acted correctly. The reason is because X was a quasi-recidivist, as he killed his fellow prisoner while he was serving the sentence for homicide (Article 160, RPC). The penalty for the second crime is to be imposed in its maximum period without regard to the attending mitigating and aggravating circumstances. (People vs. Bautista 2 OG 2117). (b) The same answer because there is quasi-recidivism since the offender who was convicted by nd final judgment of homicide committed the 2 felony, which in this case is murder, before beginning to serve the sentence for homicide (Article 160, RPC). 5) Three persons A, B, and C were all found guilty of homicide. Each of them had been previously convicted of an offense: A, for robbery; B, for estafa; and C, for frustrated murder. In the homicide case, against whom may the aggravating circumstance of recidivism be appreciated? Suggested Answer: Only against C. The reason is, homicide for which A, B and C were found guilty is embraced in the same title of the Code as frustrated homicide, for which C had been previously convicted. Recidivism is a personal cause which should affect only C, to whom it is attendant (Art. 62). 6) Having caught A in flagrante Delicto dong the sex act with his [Bs] wife, B shot and killed A while the latter was still in the compromising act. B was sentenced to reclusion perpetua for murder after a protracted trial. It was only on appeal that he was given the proper penalty of destierro under Article 247 of the RPC. During the pendency of the case, the accused was under preventive detention which lasted for about 8 years. (a) In serving his sentence, is B entitled to credit for his preventive imprisonment? (b) What is the philosophy of the legal provision imposing the penalty of destierro for the above crime? [Q# 10] Suggested Answer: (a) A can be credited for his preventive imprisonment. deprivation of liberty (People vs. Bastasa, 6 OG 5844). Destierro as a penalty involves also

(b) The philosophy of the legal provision imposing the penalty of destierro is that is intended more for the protection of the offender rather than as a penalty (People vs. Coricor, 79 Phil. 672) which is to remove the offender from the vicinity and to protect him from acts of retaliative or reprisal principally from the relatives of the deceased spouse (People vs. Lauron, 57 OG 7369). 7) A convict serving sentence for robbery escaped from the penitentiary and killed a rival gang member. Found guilty of homicide, he was given a straight prison term. He moved for reconsideration, contending that not being a habitual delinquent, he was entitled to an indeterminate sentence. Decide with reasons. [Q# 11] Suggested Answer: The convict is not entitled to an indeterminate sentence because when he committed the crime of homicide, he escaped from the penitentiary while serving the sentence for robbery. Section 2 of the Indeterminate Sentence Law enumerates the cases in which the law cannot apply and one of those is if the offender escaped from confinement or evaded his sentence.

Mikhail

47

8) Julius planned to do away with Mario, a business rival. With a bolo in hand, Julius waited in ambush at a dark alley where Mario used to pass every night on his was home. When a figure came by, Julius struck his with the bolo again and again, thinking that he was Mario. It turned out that the victim was Julius own father who had the same general appearance as Marion. What crime was committed? Citing legal principles, for what crime should Julius be punished? Why? [Q# 12] Suggested Answer: The crime committed is parricide. The problem refers to mistake in identity of Mario, a business rival, is different from the crime committed, which is the killing of the father of Julius, the offender. Under Article 49 of the RPC, the offender, however, will be punished for the crime intended, which is murder, as the victim was ambushed at right and therefore treachery attended the killing of the victim, the penalty of which is to be imposed in its maximum period. The reason is that the penalty for the crime committed, which is parricide, prescribes a penalty higher than murder which the accused intended to commit. 9) Charged with estafa in September 1983, the accused was found guilty and sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of 4 years, 2 months and 1 day of prision correccional, as minimum, to 8 years and 1 day of prision mayor, as maximum, and to pay a fine of P3,000, aside from the indemnification of the victim, with subsidiary imprisonment for both fine and indemnity in case of insolvency. Was subsidiary imprisonment properly imposed? [Q# 13] Suggested Answer: Subsidiary imprisonment was not properly imposed because the principal penalty which is 4 years, 2 months, 1 day of prision correccional, as minimum, to 8 years and 1 day of prision mayor, as maximum, is higher than prision correccional (Art. 39, par. 3, RPC). Besides, there is no subsidiary imprisonment for indemnity, as it is limited only to non-payment of fine (Art. 39, RPC). 10) When the last day of the prescriptive period for the filing of a criminal information falls on a Sunday or any other holiday, may it be filed in court on the next working day? [Q# 15] Suggested Answer: The information cannot be filed on the next working day following the last day of the prescriptive period for the filing of a criminal information which falls on a Sunday or on a holiday. Statutes of limitations in criminal cases are granted by the State as an amnesty and are liberally construed in favor of the accused. The provisions of the Revised Administrative Code of the Rules of Court cannot apply as it will lengthen the period of prescription of the crime (Yapdiangco vs. Buencamino, June 24, 1983). 11) When a person convicted by final judgment is placed on probation and finally discharged after the probation period, is he still required to satisfy his pecuniary liabilities under the RPC? [Q# 17] Suggested Answer: Under the Probation Law (PD 968) if the person who is placed on probation is finally discharged, such will operate to fully discharge the offender of his liability for the fine imposed. Under Article 38 of the RPC, fine is one of the pecuniary liabilities of the offender. The other pecuniary liabilities, which are reparation for damages caused and indemnification for consequential damage, which constitute the civil liability of the offender, are not extinguished because probation affects only the criminal aspect of the case. This is clearly evident in the conviction and sentence clause of the definition of probation under PD 968 (Budlong vs. Apalisok, June 24, 1983).

Mikhail

48

1982 1) A committed the crime of murder. His father, B, the chief of police of X town, who had knowledge of As commission of the crime, concealed his son to evade arrest and prosecution. Is B guilty as accessory to the crime of murder? Is B guilty of some other crime? If he is, what crime did he commit? If not, why not? [Q# 5] Suggested Answer: B is not guilty as an accessory to the crime of murder committed by his son whom he concealed to evade arrest and prosecution. The reason is, B is a relative of A and, under Art. 2 of the RPC, is exempt from criminal liability as an accessory except if he profited or assisted the offender to profit from the effects of the commission of the crime. B, however, should be guilty of prevaricacion or dereliction of duty for having failed maliciously to institute the prosecution for the punishment of A, his son, whom he knew to have committed a crime, as B is an officer of the law charged with the prosecution of offenses. 2) Homicide is punishable by reclusion temporal. The accused, 17 years of age, committed the crime of frustrated homicide while under the state of passion and obfuscation, and acting in immediate vindication of a grave offense committed by the deceased against his wife. Accused, thereafter, surrendered voluntarily, immediately after the commission of the offense, and pleaded guilty at the trial. What is the proper penalty to be imposed upon him? In your answer, disregard the civil liability but consider the Indeterminate Sentence Law. Explain fully the procedure adopted in the computation of the penalty. [Q# 7] Suggested Answer: The proper penalty to be imposed upon A is arresto mayor in its minimum period. Frustrated homicide is punished by one degree next lower than consummated homicide. Since the penalty for homicide is reclusion temporal, one degree next lower will be prision mayor, which is the penalty for frustrated homicide. The accused was 17 years old when he committed the crime. Since minority is a privileged mitigating circumstance, prision mayor should be lowered by one degree under Art. 68 of the RPC, which will be prision correccional. Voluntary surrender and voluntary plea of guilty will reduce again the imposable penalty by one degree as there was no aggravating circumstance present, and the imposable penalty is divisible in nature (Art. 64, par. 5, RPC). So, prision correccional will be lowered by one degree, which is arresto mayor. The maximum imprisonment in arresto mayor is 6 months. The Indeterminate Sentence Law will not apply under Sec. 2 thereof because the term of imprisonment in the penalty does not exceed one year. Since passion and obfuscation and immediate vindication of a grave offense were also present, whether based on the same fact or on different facts, arresto mayor is to be imposed in the minimum period as there is no attending aggravating circumstance. 3) What penalties, among those mentioned in the RPC, may be served concurrently and what penalties cannot be served concurrently? [Q# 8] Suggested Answer: Penalties which may be served concurrently: Perpetual or temporary absolute disqualification, or perpetual or temporary special disqualification, public censure or suspension from public office. These penalties may be served with imprisonment. Penalties which cannot be served concurrently: Imprisonment like reclusion temporal and prision mayor, which must be served successively, one after the other, in the order of severity. 4) May an accused person sentenced to destierro be credited with a portion of the time during which he had undergone preventive imprisonment? If not, why not? If in the affirmative, what portion of the time of preventive imprisonment should be credited to him? [Q# 15]

Mikhail

49

Suggested Answer: An accused sentenced to destierro can be credited with a portion of his period of preventive suspension in the service of the sentence consisting of deprivation of liberty because destierro as a penalty involves also deprivation of liberty although partial (People vs. Bastasa, 88 SCRA 184).

1981 1) In the course of an argument over a parcel of land, which each one claimed as his own, B hit A on the face. A week later, C, father of A, and B were disputing the ownership of the same property. Coming from behind, A clubbed B on the head, causing him to topple unconscious to the ground. Then C told A, that serves him right. Postmortem examination disclosed that B died instantly from the blow he received on the head. A and C were charged by the Prosecuting Fiscal for the death of B. Is C criminally liable as a principal by inducement for the death of B? [Q# 4] Suggested Answer: C is not a principal by inducement. The requisites of a principal by inducement are: [1] that the inducement be made directly with the intention of procuring the commission of the crime, and [2] that such inducement be the determining cause of the said commission of the crime induced (People vs. Omine Kiicihi, 61 Phil. 609). The facts of the problem show that when C told A after A clubbed Bs head causing him to topple unconscious to the ground that that serves him right, A had already committed the crime of killing B. So, the utterances of C cannot be the determining cause of the commission of the crime. Furthermore, A had a reason of his own in committing the crime (People vs. Caimbre, 110 Phil. 370). There was no inducement. 2) An accused was charged with Illegal Possession of a caliber .45 pistol. Upon arraignment, he pleaded guilty to the charge and invoked his plea as a mitigating circumstance. Can the court consider that plea as a mitigating circumstance in imposing the proper penalty on him? [Q# 6] Suggested Answer: The plea of guilty cannot be considered a mitigating circumstance. Alleged possession of a firearm is punished by a special law. The imposition of the penalty provided in a special law rests upon the discretion of the curt. Furthermore, the plea of guilty as a mitigating circumstance under the RPC is appreciated only in a divisible penalty. It cannot be applied to a penalty which is indeterminate, that is, not divisible into periods of fixed duration, which is the penalty provided in special laws like the law punishing illegal possession of firearms. 3) Is it necessary that the principal of a crime be convicted first before one may be found guilty and punished as an accessory? [Q# 8] Suggested Answer: It is not necessary that the principal be convicted before the accessory be found guilty and punished. Neither the letter nor the spirit of the law (Art. 19, RPC) requires that the principal be convicted before one may be punished as an accessory. As long as the corpus delicti is conclusively proved and the accessorys participation is established, he can be held criminally responsible and meted the corresponding penalty (People vs. Inovero, 63 OG 3160). 4) Isidro, 21, was convicted of Consented Abduction and sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of 3 months and 1 day of arresto mayor, as minimum, to 2 years, 4 months and 1 day of prision correccional, as maximum. Isidro did not appeal but he filed a petition for probation. The probation officer recommended favorable action on the application, stating that the accused did not intend to

Mikhail

50

cause a grave wrong and had the potential of a good probationer. The trial court denied probation on the ground that it would be better for the accused to serve his sentence so that he could reform himself and correct his selfish tendencies. Admittedly, Isidro does not fall within any of the classes of disqualified offenders under the Probation Law. Would you sustain the action of the trial Judge in a certiorari case assailing it? [Q# 9] Suggested Answer: I will not sustain the action of the trial judge. His denial of the application for probation was arbitrary, capricious, and whimsical. He should have considered the recommendation of the Probation Officer which was made after a post investigation of the offender in accordance with the Probation Law, that the offender was entitled to probation (Balleta vs. Judge Leviste, 92 SCRA 715). 5) M is a Municipal Treasurer convicted for Malversation of Public Funds in the amount of P10,000. He was sentenced by the CFI to suffer an indeterminate penalty of 6 years, and 1 day of prision mayor, as minimum, to 11 years, 6 months and 21 days also of prision mayor, as maximum, and to indemnify the Municipality in the amount of P10,000. M appealed the decision of the Trial Court to the Court of Appeals. Pending the appeal, M died of heart attack. Will Ms death extinguish his civil liability? [Q# 10] Suggested Answer: Ms death did not extinguish his civil liability. The obligation to indemnify the government for the amount malversed survived because the death occurred after final judgment as rendered by the CFI. In the case of People vs. Sendaydiego (81 SCRA 124), it was held that an accountable public officer may still be civilly liable for the funds improperly disbursed although he has no criminal liability. In the problem given, the death of M extinguished his criminal liability. But the appeal will continue with respect to his civil liability as if no criminal case has been instituted against him, thus making applicable Art. 30 of the Civil Code. In other words, as affirmed in the case of People vs. Tirol (102 SCRA 558), the appeal will continue to determine the criminal liability of the deceased accused as the basis of the civil liability for which his estate may be liable. 6) T is a public school teacher. One of her pupils, B, tripped another classmate, C, causing C to fall on the floor and suffer a contusion on the forehead. So, T, with her bamboo pointer, whipped B on the thigh, which produced a linear bruise. If you were the Judge before whom a slight physical injury case was filed against T, how would you decide the case? [Q# 16] Select the correct answer from the following and explain: [1] I will acquit T because in school and during school activities, the teacher exercises parental authority over her pupils. [2] I will acquit T because she just tried to discipline B for his misconduct. It was farthest from Ts thought to commit any criminal offense. The means she actually used to punish B was moderate and she was not motivated by ill-will, hatred or malevolent intent. [3] I will convict T because the State should exercise utmost vigilance to assure that teachers refrain from inflicting corporal punishment. [4] I will convict T because teachers in the exercise of their authority in loco parentis cannot inflict any corporal punishment even though moderate. [5] I will convict T because if no physical injuries resulted the act is still penalized by the RPC as illtreatment. Suggested Answer: [1] I will acquit T because in school and during school activities, the teacher exercises parental authority over her pupils.

Mikhail

51

The teacher, under the Civil Code, exercises substitute parental authority over the students. As such, the teacher can discipline the pupil in the same manner that the parent does to the child. [2] I will acquit T because she just tried to discipline B for his misconduct. It was the farthest from Ts thought to commit any criminal offense. The means she actually used to punish B was moderate and she was not motivated by ill-will, hatred or malevolent intent. The whipping of the student for the act she had done in tripping another classmate was to discipline her. The teacher did not, therefore act with criminal intent. That nature of the injuries suffered by the student, linear bruises on the thigh, show that the teacher merely intended to discipline her. She was not motivated by ill-will, hatred or malevolent intent. 7) Without asking for any document of ownership, A bought from B, a person who claimed to be a balikbayan from Saudi Arabia, a 1980 model National TV set for P500. Two days later, a policeman visited A and informed him that the TV set he had bought from B, who already confessed to the robbery, was stolen from the house of C. Claiming that he bought the TV set in good faith, A refused to surrender it to C. So, A was charged under the Anti-Fencing Act of 1979. Is A criminally liable under this Act? [Q#17] Suggested Answer: A is criminally liable under the Anti-Fencing Law of 1979. Under this law, mere possession of any good, article, item, object or anything of value which has been the object of robbery or theft shall be prima facie evidence of fencing. Fencing is committed if a person, who, with intent to gain for himself or another, shall but, receive, possess, kept, acquire, conceal, sell, or dispose of, or shall buy and sell or in any manger deal in any article, item, object or anything of value, which he knows or should be known to him, to have been derived from the proceeds of robbery or theft. The law involves second hand articles. A purchased the 1980 model National TV set as a second hand item. His failure to ask any document of ownership and, if B was indeed a balik-bayan, whether he brought the TV set with him when he returned to the Philippines as evidenced by a carrier manifest since the TV set certainly cannot be hand carried, and since the price was considerably cheap, are circumstances which show that he should have known that the TV set was a proceed of robbery or theft.

1980 1) H made a bet of P10 with I in a game of beto-beto. H won but I refused to pay the amount. A dispute arose between them, which culminated in a fistfight. J, the father of H, and K, the brother or H, intervened. When the fight began, H held the hand of I, J seized the front part of Is shirt, and while they were dealing blows on one another, K came with a balisong and stabbed I, inflicting upon him a mortal wound. H, J and K were charged with Homicide. Is it proper to hold all the accused responsible for the fatal wound inflicted upon the victim by K? [Q# IV] Suggested Answer: It is not proper to hold H and J liable for the fatal wound inflicted upon the victim by K because of the absence of conspiracy. He and J are not co-principals of K in the killing of the victim. The liability of H, J, and K is not collective but individual. They have not acted concertedly for the realization of a common criminal objective. H and J, who dealt blows on the victim without causing any physical injury, could be liable for ill-treatment (Art. 266, par. 3, RPC). 2) L pointed a .45 caliber revolver at M without good reason. There ensued a struggle between the 2 for the weapon. N, a female companion of L, approached the combatants and quickly wounded M in the chest with a knife, as a consequence of which, M died almost instantly. Can L be convicted as an accomplice? [Q# V]

Mikhail

52

Suggested Answer: L is not liable as an accomplice. An accomplice must be aware of the criminal design of the principal and must perform acts, whether previous or simultaneous, showing his approval or concurrence to said criminal design. The facts of the problem clearly shows that while L and M were struggling for the possession of the revolver, N, the female companion of L, approached the combatants and wounded M in the chest with a knife which caused his death. L had no knowledge of what N would do, and he did not perform any act subsequent to the stabbing to show that he approved of what N did (People vs. Cajandab, 52 SCRA 161). 3) Under Article 29 of the RPC, offenders who have undergone preventive imprisonment shall be credited in the service of their sentence consisting of deprivation of liberty, with the full time during which they have undergone preventive imprisonment. An accused was sentenced to destierro for having killed his wife under exceptional circumstances. He had been preventively detained for a period of almost 12 years. Would he be entitled to the benefits of Article 29 in so far as his preventive imprisonment is concerned? [Q# VI(a)] Suggested Answer: Article 29 provides that an offender who has undergone preventive imprisonment shall be credited in the service of his sentence consisting of deprivation of liberty, with the full time of the period of his preventive imprisonment, if he has agreed in writing to observe the rules of discipline applied to convicted prisoners, and 4/5 if there is no written commitment. The penalty of destierro involves also deprivation of liberty (People vs. Abilong, 82 Phil. 172). The problem does not show whether there is a written commitment. So, the deduction of the full period of preventive imprisonment cannot technically be applied. However, the period of preventive imprisonment is almost 12 years. Hence, even if 4/5 thereof (of 12 years) is applied, the result will be more than 8 years. The duration of destierro is from 6 months and 1 day to 6 years. The accused therefore is entitled to be released because the period of his preventive imprisonment exceeds the penalty of destierro imposed upon him. 4) An accused was found guilty of double murder and was meted out 2 sentences of reclusion perpetua. How would the accused serve the sentences? [Q# VI(b)] Suggested Answer: The rule is if 2 or more penalties in view of their nature cannot be served simultaneously, such must be served successively in the order of severity in accordance with the scale of severity of penalties provided in Art. 70 of the RPC, but in no case is he to serve more than 3 times the most severe penalty, and which is not to exceed 40 years. If the penalties are the same, such is to be considered as the most severe penalty (Aspra vs. Director of Prisons, 85 Phil. 737). In the problem, 2 penalties of reclusion perpetua were imposed upon the accused. In view of their nature, these penalties cannot be served simultaneously. Reclusion perpetua has a duration of 30 years. Multiplied by 3 (3 times the most severe penalty) the result is 90 years. The accused should serve however imprisonment not exceeding 40 years (Art. 70, RPC). 5) Convicted of the special complex crime of rape with homicide, an accused was sentenced to death. On automatic review to the Supreme Court, his counsel pleaded the mitigating circumstances of plea of guilty and voluntary surrender which were not offset by any aggravating circumstance, and prayed that the penalty be reduced to reclusion perpetua. The existence of said modifying circumstances was, in fact, established. Is the contention legally tenable? [Q# VII] Suggested Answer: The intention is not legally tenable. Death is a single and indivisible penalty. Under Article 63 of the RPC, it could be applied regardless of any mitigating or aggravating circumstances which

Mikhail

53

attended the commission of the crime (People vs. Amit, 32 SCRA 95). The mitigating circumstances of plea of guilty and voluntary surrender cannot have the affect of reducing the death penalty to reclusion perpetua. 6) P was sentenced from 6 years and 1 day to 12 years and 1 day, and ordered to pay a fine of P2,000. may P be compelled to serve subsidiary imprisonment in case of failure to pay the fine? [Q# VIII] Suggested Answer: P cannot be compelled to serve subsidiary imprisonment. Article 39, par. 3 of the RPC provides that there is no imprisonment if the principal penalty is higher than prision correccional. The penalty of 6 years and 1 day to 12 years and 1 day is higher than prision correccional, which has a maximum of 6 years only. The mere addition of 1 day to 6 years is already higher than prision correccional and in such case, there can be no subsidiary imprisonment for failure to pay the fine (Rosario vs. Director of Prisons, March 6, 1950). 7) T was charged in an information with the complex crime of reckless imprudence resulting in damage to property, in the sum of P700, and slight physical injuries, both resulting from a single act of imprudence. The incident which gave rise to the quasi-offense occurred on November 14, 1979. the accused was charged on March 14, 1980. Should the resulting offense be considered a complex crime subject to one penalty? [Q# X] Suggested Answer: The resulting offenses cannot be considered as a complex crime. The slight physical injuries which resulted from a single act of imprudence which occurred on Nov. 14, 1979, prescribed already when the accused was charged on March 14, 1980. Slight physical injuries, being a light felony, prescribes in 2 months (Art. 90, RPC). Another reason is that a complex crime exists if a single act results in 2 grave or less grave felonies. If one of the resulting offenses is light, like slight physical injuries, as stated in the problem, there can be no complex crime (Lontok vs. Gorgonio, April 30, 1979). 8) Under the Child and Youth Welfare Code, what is the controlling criterion to determine whether or not an accused is a youthful offender so as to entitle him to suspension of sentence? Is there any difference between the RPC and the Child and Youth Welfare Code in so far as suspension of the sentence of a juvenile offender is concerned? [Q# XII] Suggested Answer: Under the Child and Youth Welfare Code, the youthful offender must be under 18 years old not only at the time of the commission of the crime but also at the time of the trial so as to be entitled to suspension of sentence (People vs. Casiguran, Nov. 7, 1979). Under the Child and Youth Welfare Code, the youthful offender who is found guilty after trial must file an application for the suspension of the pronouncement of the sentence, which the Court may grant if the interest of the minor and of the public so requires. Under Article 80 of the RPC, which covers a minor under 16 years of age at the time of the commission of a grave or less grave felony and at the time of the trial, which was expressly repealed by PD 1179, the suspension of the pronouncement of the sentence upon the minor where there is evidence of guilt is automatic.

1979 1) Adan and Eve were lovers, but their relationship turned sour. Adan tried to win back Eve but to no avail. Almost hopeless, Adan went to see 2 of his friends, Bruno and Cora. Adan asked the 2 to accompany him to the house of Eve. He told the 2: This is my last attempt at reconciliation. I must

Mikhail

54

succeed even if I have to rape Eve. The trio proceeded to the house of Eve using the car owned and driven by Bruno. When they reached the house, Adan went up, Cora stayed near the gate as lookout and Bruno remained in the car. Adan failed to win back Eve, and, true to his threat, raped her. He went down the house, informed Bruno and Cora about the incident, and they, thereafter, went to a Disco Club and danced the night away. Will a charge of rape prosper against the three? [Q# XII] Suggested Answer: Adan, Bruno and Cora can be charged with rape. Adan as a principal by direct participation, Bruno and Cora as accomplices. When Bruno and Cora brought Adan to the house of Eve, they knew of the criminal design of Adan, which is to rape Eve if there would be no reconciliation. Cora acted as lookout and Bruno remained in the car while Adan went inside the house. They therefore performed acts showing their approval or concurrence to the criminal design of Adan, which facilitated the commission of the crime. There is no conspiracy because concerted acts have not been performed to realize the same criminal objective.

1978 1) Discuss the components of civil liability arising from crimes. Do these components exist in all crimes? [Q# II-c] Suggested Answer: The components of civil liability are restitution, reparation for damages caused and indemnification for consequential damages. These components do not exist in all crimes. For example, if the crime is not against property, like less serious physical injuries, there is no restitution nor reparation for damages caused. In the crime of occupation of real property, which is a crime against property, these 3 forms of civil liability may exist, that is, there must be restoration of the property occupied, reparation for any damages caused, and indemnification for any damages suffered by the commission of the crime. 2) An accessory is subordinate to that of the principal. Is it necessary that the principal should first be found and declared guilty before the accessory can be held liable? [Q# III-a] Suggested Answer: It is not necessary that the principal be first found guilty before the accessory can be held liable, provided the evidence is clear as to the commission of the crime. What is controlling is the Spanish text of the RPC which provides that the principal may be found guilty and not the English translation which speaks of the author being guilty of treason, parricide, murder, etc. (People vs. Billon, CA 48 OG 1391). This was reiterated in the case of People vs. Inovero (CA 65 OG 748), where it was held that the death of the principal does not preclude the conviction of an accessory in a murder case. What death extinguishes is the criminal liability of the principal but not the crime committed, and the accessory, having something to do with the commission of the crime, must suffer its consequence. 3) A bus driver was found guilty of damage to property through reckless imprudence. He was sentence to pay a fine of P5,000 and the costs. The driver was insolvent and could not pay the fine. May the driver be required to serve subsidiary imprisonment? [Q# IV-a] Suggested Answer: No, because subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency to pay the fine, is not expressly provided in the sentence (People vs. Fajardo, 65 Phil. 639).

Mikhail

55

4) Jose, a teenager of 16 years, was found guilty of homicide. Because of his age, he was held to be a youthful offender pursuant to PD 603, and instead of passing sentence, the judge ordered him committed to the government rehabilitation center in Tanay, Rizal. Jose was released after a year and a half because of good behavior. He later applied for and was appointed to the position of clerk in the CFI of Rizal. Among the papers he submitted was an application form under oath in which Jose stated he had never been charged with, much less convicted of, any crime, in complete disavowal of his previous conviction. What offense/s did Jose commit? [Q# X-b] Suggested Answer: Jose did not commit any offense. Under PD 603, the records of his case are deemed privileged, and there is no liability for perjury or for concealment or misrepresentation by reason of his failure to acknowledge the case or recite any fact related thereto in response to any inquiry made to him for any purpose.

1977 1) When L, a notorious robber in the neighborhood, was apprehended by an irate crowd, and while L was being held from behind by M, N stoned L, hitting him on the head. O hit him on the knee with a piece of wood, and P stabbed him on the chest, which stabbing was the cause of the death of L. Said acts were committed almost simultaneously to the surprise of M. What criminal liability, if any, was incurred by M, N, O, and P? [Q# II-a] Suggested Answer: M has no criminal liability for what N, O, and P did because their acts surprised him and, hence, M was not aware of what they would have done. The criminal liability of N, O and P is individual and not collective. The facts of the problem show that these offenders did not act concertedly in pursuance of a common purpose. They had no knowledge of each others criminal intent. There is no unity of action and intention to hold that the act of one is the act of all. Mere simultaneousness of acts does not of itself indicate concurrence of will nor the unity of action and purpose, which are the basis of the opportunity of 2 or more persons (People vs. Ibaez, 77 Phil. 664). 2) While C was approaching his car, he saw D slowly driving it away. So he shouted at D to stop, but D instead accelerated his speed. To prevent his car from being carnapped, C drew at once his revolver and fired at D who was by then about 20 meters away, fatally hitting him on the head. When charged for the death of D, C interposed the defense of his rights to property. If you were the judge, will you acquit or convict C? [Q# II-b] Suggested Answer: I would not suspend the sentence. The benefits of Article 80, as modified by PD 603, would apply only to minors under 18 years old not only at the time of the commission of the crime, but also at the time of the trial (People vs. Celespara, 82 Phil. 399). The law provides that if the Court grants the request of the minor found guilty of the offense charged, for the suspension of the pronouncement of the sentence, said minor is ordered committed to an institution under the supervision of the DSWD until such minor shall have reached his majority x x x. This means that if he is already of age at the promulgation of the sentence, he cannot be committed anymore. 3) During the trial for homicide, the defense was able to prove 4 generic mitigating circumstances while the State was able to prove only one aggravating circumstance. Offsetting the mitigating and aggravating circumstances, there still remain 3 mitigating circumstances. So the judge imposed a penalty lower by one degree than the penalty provided by law. Did the judge err in imposing a penalty lower by one degree than the penalty provided by law? [Q# IV-a]

Mikhail

56

Suggested Answer: The Judge erred in imposing the penalty lower by 1 degree. Article 64, par. 5, which prescribes the penalty next lower in degree if the imposable penalty is divisible as is the penalty for homicide which is reclusion temporal, applies if there are 2 or more mitigating circumstances present without any attending aggravating circumstance. 4) On June 1, 1960, a complaint for falsification of private document committed on March 1, 1960, was filed against U with the MTC of Polo, Bulacan for preliminary investigation. For one reason or another, it was only on July 2, 1972, that the MTC decided the case by dismissing it for lack of jurisdiction, as the crime was committed in Quezon City. So the case was filed in the City Fiscal of Quezon City, but the case was dismissed for the reason that it had already prescribed. Actually, falsification of private document prescribes in 10 years. Do you agree with the action taken by the City Fiscal? [Q# IV-b] Suggested Answer: I do not agree with the action taken by the City Fiscal of Quezon City because the crime has not yet prescribed. The complaint for falsification of a private document committed on March 1, 1960 filed in the MTC of Polo, Bulacan on June 1, 1960 interrupted the running of the period of prescription of the crime. The doctrine is that the filing of a complaint in the MTC, even if it is merely for the purpose of preliminary investigation, where the offense charged is beyond the jurisdiction of the Court, interrupts the period of prescription. Article 91 of the RPC provides for the interruption of prescription by the filing of the complaint or information, and does not distinguish whether the complaint is filed in court for preliminary investigation or for action on the merits. The delay in the decision of the case by the MTC which was promulgated on July 2, 1972 only was beyond the control of the offended party and in accordance with a case recently decided by the Supreme Court should not deprive the offended party of his right to obtain vindication (People vs. Galano, January 31, 1977). 5) T lodged in the Maharlika Hotel without notifying the management of the hotel of the goods he brought along with him. Neither did he follow the directions of the hotel with respect to the care and vigilance over said goods. One evening, the bellboy of the hotel poked a gun on T and divested him of his goods. Assuming that the said bellboy absconded, may the owner of the hotel be made subsidiarily liable for the restitution of said goods, or to pay the value therefore? [Q# V-a] Suggested Answer: The owner of the hotel is subsidiarily civilly liable for the restitution of the goods or to pay the value thereof. The nature of the business of the hotel is to provide not only lodging for the guests but also security to their persons and effects. The necessity for this security is apparent from the provisions of Article 1998-2003 of the new Civil Code and Article 102 of the RPC. The security mentioned is not confined to effects delivered to the hotel management for safekeeping but also to all effects brought in the hotel. The reason is that the hotel management has supervision and control over their inns and the premises thereof. Article 103 of the RPC expressly provides for subsidiary civil liability of the innkeeper for any robbery through violence or intimidation committed by the innkeepers employees as in the problem which is committed by the bellboy of the hotel.

1976 1) X, Y and Z fired their guns almost simultaneously at the principal victim, resulting in his and his drivers death. Is there conspiracy among the accused in the commission of the crime? [Q# I-b] Suggested Answer: There is conspiracy among the accused X, Y, and Z. The fact that the 3 fired almost simultaneously at the principal victim shows that they have acted in concert pursuant to a common

Mikhail

57

criminal objective. There is, therefore, a unity of action and intention (People vs. San Luis, 85 Phil. 485). To establish conspiracy, proof of previous agreement is not necessary. It is enough that if at the time of the commission of the crime, all the accused have the same purpose and were united in execution (People vs. Binasing, 63 OG 5208). 2) X, after promising Y to give him P10,000, induced the latter (Y) to kill Z, who at the time was vacationing in an isolated island in the sea which can easily be reached by a boat. W, who owns the only motor boat in the locality, offered to transport and actually transported Y to said island. Upon reaching the island, Y killed Z. Indicate whether X, Y, and W is a principal or accomplice in the commission of the crime. [Q# II-a] Suggested Answer: X is a principal by inducement. By promising to give Y P10,000 to kill Z, which is an agreement for a consideration, the inducement was made directly with the intention of procuring the commission of the crime. Further, the facts above show that Y has no personal reason to kill Z except the inducement, which is, therefore, the determining cause for the commission of the crime by Y (People vs. Kiichi, 61 Phil. 609). Y is a principal by direct participation because he killed Z pursuant to the inducement or agreement for a consideration and he, therefore, personally took part in the execution of the act constituting the crime (Art. 17, par. 1). W is neither a principal nor an accomplice. Although W offered and actually transported Y to the island where Z was vacationing, as he owns the only motor boat in the locality, the facts of the problem do not show that W has any knowledge of the criminal design nor purpose of Y. to be a principal by indispensable cooperation, it is essential that there be either anterior conspiracy or unity of criminal purpose and intention immediately before the commission of the crime. This means participation in the same criminal resolution of Y, the principal by direct participation. W is not a principal by direct participation because he did not participate directly in the execution of the act constituting the crime. Clearly, he also is not a principal by inducement because he did not induce Y to kill Z. W is not an accomplice because he has also no knowledge of the criminal design of Y, the principal by direct participation. If W has knowledge of the criminal purpose of Y, then he will be a principal by indispensable cooperation because he cooperated in the commission of the crime by Y, which is the transporting of Y to the island in his boat, which is the only one in the locality, without which, the crime would not have been accomplished (Art. 17, par. 3) 3) X seduced Y, a minor. He was prosecuted for seduction. After pleading for forgiveness, Y, without even consulting her parents, pardoned X. Did the pardon extinguish the criminal action against X? What about his civil liability? [Q# II-b] Suggested Answer: The pardon of X by Y who is a minor did not extinguish the criminal liability of X. to extinguish the criminal liability of the offender in the crime of seduction and similar private crimes, the pardon of the offended party who is a minor must have the concurrence of her parents. The reason is seduction strikes at the familys honor and inflicts injury not only to the offended party but also to her parents (People vs. Lacson, CA 56 OG 9460). Since she is a minor, she is still under patria potestas. The civil liability is also not extinguished, for the same reason, since there is no express waiver (Art. 23, RPC). Besides, in the crime of seduction, not only the offended party but also her parents are entitled to moral damages (Art. 2219, Civil Code; People vs. Fontanilla, GR No. L-25354, June 28, 1968). The right to support cannot also be renounced (Art. 321, Civil Code).

Mikhail

58

1975 1) A shot and killed D with an unlicensed firearm. The Fiscal filed charges against A one for homicide and another for illegal possession of firearm. The defense counsel contended that only one charge should have been filedthe complex crime of homicide with illegal possession of firearm, as the use of the unlicensed firearm was a necessary means to commit the homicide. Is the contention meritorious? [Q# I] Suggested Answer: The contention of the defense counsel is not meritorious. A complex crime refers only to felonies (Art. 48, RPC; People vs. Araneta, 48 Phil. 650). The offender will be liable only for the crime of homicide, aggravated by the illegal possession of firearm. [mine] 2) A seduced B, a woman, and was subsequently convicted. While serving sentence, A married B but immediately after the ceremony, he abandoned her and left for parts unknown. Subsequently arrested, the Fiscal filed a motion in Court for As recommitment to prison to serve his unexpired term, contending that As marriage to B was in bad faith and only to escape criminal liability. A, however, contended that under the provisions of Art. 344, par. 4 of the RPC, his criminal liability has been extinguished, for under the said article in cases of seduction, abduction, acts of lasciviousness and rape, the marriage of the offender with offended party shall extinguish the criminal action or remit the penalty already imposed upon him. Is As contention tenable? [Q# II] Suggested Answer: As contention is not tenable. The marriage of the offender to the offended party subsequent to his conviction for seduction must be done in good faith in order to extinguish his criminal liability (People vs. Velasco, January 21, 1974). The conduct of the offender after the marriage, by abandoning the woman and leaving for parts unknown, shows that he did not have any bona fide intention in making her his wife (People vs. Santiago, 51 Phil. 68). Such marriage cannot extinguish his criminal liability nor remit the penalty imposed upon him. 3) As a rule, if the offender is a criminal case is acquitted, his civil liability is also extinguished. What are the exceptions? [Q# V] Suggested Answer: (a) If the guilt of the accused has not been established beyond reasonable doubt (Art. 29, Civil Code); (b) If the acquittal is due to non-imputability or an exempting circumstance; (c) In independent civil actions for torts under Articles 31, 32, 33, and 34 of the Civil Code; (d) In case the civil action is based on a quasi-delict under Article 2177 of the Code; (e) In case the judgment in the criminal action does not declare that the fact upon which the civil action might arise does not exist. 4) In what cases are mitigating and aggravating circumstances not considered in the imposition of the penalty? Suggested Answer: (a) If the penalty is single and indivisible; (b) If the offense is punished by a special law; (c) If the penalty provided in an ordinance is a fine;

Mikhail

59

(d) In felonies committed by negligence or imprudence; (e) If the offender is a Muslim or a non-Christian (People vs. Moro Disimban, January 31, 1951). 5) The purpose of the Indeterminate Sentence Law is to uplift and redeem valuable human material and prevent unnecessary and excessive deprivation of personal liberty and economic unusefulness. Explain how the law achieves that purpose. [Q# VIII] Suggested Answer: The Indeterminate Sentence Law provides for an indeterminate sentence which has a minimum and a maximum. After the prisoner has served the minimum, depending upon his conduct and behavior during confinement, he may be released on parole. The law, therefore, encourages the prisoner to reform. Once released on parole, provided the conditions are not violated, he will no longer serve the remainder of the sentence. The law hence treats the accused first as an individual and second as a member of society. It shortens his term of imprisonment, depending upon his behavior. 6) A stole the car of B and later sold it to C, who purchased the car in good faith, for valuable consideration and without knowledge that it was stolen. A was subsequently convicted for the theft of the car and the judgment became final and executory. B, thereafter, filed a petition in the criminal case that an order be issued directing C to return the car to him (B) but C opposed the petition alleging that he bought the car in good faith and that the proper relief is for B to file a separate civil action before the proper court where the ownership of the car may be litigated. The court granted Bs petition and ordered C to return the car to B. Is the court order correct? [Q# VIII] Suggested Answer: The order of the court is correct. The civil liability of the accused in the crime of theft, which is against property, includes restitution of the thing stolen, even if it be found in the possession of another who acquired it in good faith (Art. 105, RPC). The order of restitution may be made in the same criminal case upon petition of the complainant. There is no need for a separate civil action. (Reyes vs. Ruiz, 27 Phil 478) 7) Who are civilly liable for the act of the insane or minor exempt from criminal liability? [Q# XVIII] Suggested Answer: Under par. 1 of Article 101, those civilly liable for the act of the insane or minor exempt from criminal liability are those who have such person in their legal authority, guardianship or control except if there was no fault or negligence on their part. Under PD 603, the civil liability of a youthful offender shall devolve upon his father, and in case of hi death or incapacity, upon his mother, or in case of her death or incapacity, upon the guardian. If they are insolvent, the insane or minor shall respond with his property which are not exempt from execution. 8) Who is a youthful offender as defined in PD 603? If you were a judge and found a youthful offender guilty of a crime, how would you sentence him? [Q# XX] Suggested Answer: A youthful offender is one who is over 9 years old and under 18 years of age at the time of the commission of the offense. If a youthful offender is found guilty, I would defer his sentence and suspend all proceedings after determining the imposable penalty and his civil liability, if any. I would then order the minor committed to the custody of the DSWD or to any training institution operated by the government until he reaches 18 years of age, or for a shorter period as I might deem proper after considering the

Mikhail

60

reports of the DSWD or of such training agency under whose care the minor was committed (Art. 192, PD 603). If the youthful offender is found incorrigible of his continued stay in the training institution is found inadvisable and is returned to the court, the judgment would be pronounced. The youthful offender shall be credited in the service of the sentence with the full time spent in actual confinement (Art. 197, PD 603). If he behaved properly during confinement, upon recommendation of the DSWD, his case will be dismissed (Art. 196, PD 603), but it shall not obliterate his civil liability for damages (Art. 198, PD 603).

Michael D. Maestrado

Mikhail