Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 8

- 11'.

'lltlllf Oiltl l JIN.'.Wt tr. I P l llt" Jl)(/11 llAH I' lt.AMINA llVN


I hall advise Industry Sank that the morteage ia
indivisible.. Therefore, Celestial Properties caDDot ask
for a partial release of the mortgage so lone aa the loan
has not been completely paid (Art. 2089, Civil Code).


a) After due hearing on a petition for a writ of amparo
founded on the acts of enforced disappearance and
extralegal killing of the son of the complainant
allegedly done by the respondent military officers,
the court granted the petition. May the military
officers be criminally charged in court with
enforced disappearance and extralegal killing?
Explain fully. (3%)


a) No. "Enforced disappearance 'and extralegal
killing" is not per se a criminal offense although it is
wrongful. The grant of a writ of amparo only provides a
relief; it does not establish a basis for a crime. Unless the
writ was issued because of specific overt acts shown to
have been committed by the respondent military officers
and such acts are crimes under penal laws, no criminal
charge may b routinely filed just because the petition for
the writ was granted.

b) Are human rights violations considered as crimes
in the Philippines? Explain. (3%)


b) Not necessarily, since there are human rights
violations which do not amount. to criminal offenses. In
this country, there can be no crime when there is no law
punishing an act or omission as a crime.


While Carlos was approaching his car, he saw it
being driven away by Paolo, a thief. Carlos tried to stop Paolo
.. 114
.'.lit d .J ,', /l lJ ANSW/ /;.', J O 1111 .'01111 /11111 I \!IAllNi\ IJuN
....- 11!:>

by shouting at him, but Paolo ignored him. To prevent his
. car froi being camapped, Carlosdrew his gun, aimed at the
rear wheel of the car and fired. The shot blew the tire which
caused the car to veer out of control and collide with an
oncoming tricycle, killing the tricycle driver.

a) What is the criminal liability of Carlos, if any?
Explain. (4%)


at CUlo did not incur criminal llabWty because
his act of firili.g at the rear wheel of the car to atop the
vehicle and preveat Paolo from taldnc away his (Carlo')
car la neither done with dolo nor culpa. The act doea not
constitute a crime; lt la a reasonable exercJse of his right
to prevent or repel an.actual unlawful phyical tDvaalon or
usurpation of hia property pursuant toArt. 429 of the Civil
. Cod.

b) ' What is the criminal liability of Paolo, if any?
Explain. (4%) .


b) Paolo is criminally liable for (1) carnapping
unde:r Rep.Act No.6539 for driving away the motor vehicle
of. <;arios against the latter's will and obviously with
intent to gain and (2) for homicide for the death of the
tricycle driver which reaulte from the criminal act
deliberately being committed. by Pa.olo (which la the
camapping), The homicide was the result of praeter
intentioiiemand not acomponent of the crime of carnapp!Bg
or a result of reckless imprudence or of simple negligence.


b) Paolo is crhninally liable for qualified theft
. because the object taken is a motor vehicle !Art. 31O, RPC)
and.the taking was simply without the consent of Carlos,
.t he owner of the motor vehicle.
Since the death of the !;ricycle driver was brought
about by Paolo's felonious taking of Carlos' car, Paolo is
liable for homicide because his act was the proximate
cause thereof.


b) Paolo is liable for the complex crime of frustrated
robbery, with homicide and damage to property (tricycle)
in trying to rob the car. This resulted in the shooting of
the car by Carlos and the subsequent collision destroying
the tricycle and the death of the driver.


Olimpio caught a cold and was running a fever. His
doctor prescribed paracetamol. Olimpio wen t to a d rug store
with the prescription, and the pharmacist sold him three (3)
tablets. Upon arriving home, he took a tablet. One hour
later, he had a seizure and died. The au topsy showed t hat
the tablet he had taken was not paracetamol bu t a pill to
which he was allergic. The pharmacist was charged with
murder. Is the charge proper? If not, what shou ld it be?
Explain. (6%)


The pharmacist committed a serious mistake. But
the-mistake could not characterize the death as murder
because the specific intent to kill the victim was absent.
The pharmacist could not be liable for murder.

The pharmacist should be charged instead with
reckless imprudence resulting in homicide (Art.
365, RPC) because Olimpia's death was the result
of the pharmacist's serious negligence or imprudence
as there is no specific intent to kill and no requisite
qualifying circumstance.

- 116
SUGGlS no ANSWl::HS JO lfll 20011 BAR EXAM/NA 1/UN
.', lJt.(,/ IL IJ 11N.WI./i:, I U 1111 ,'()(1/1 / l/\li I A i\1\1/ Ni\ /JUN


Manolo revealed to his friend Domeng his de.ire to
kW Cece. He likewise confided to Domeng his desire to
borrow his revolver. Domeng lent it. Manolo shot Cece in
Manila with Domeng's revolver. As hia gun was used in
the killing, Domeng asked Mayor Tan to help him escape.
The mayor gave Domeng PS,000 and told him to proceed
to Mindanao to hide. Domeng went to Mindanao. The
mayor was later cllaqed as an accessory to Cece'smurder.

a) , Can he be held liable for the charge? Explain. (4%)


a) Giving Domeng the benefit of'a milder criminal
responsibility of an accomplice, not of a co-principal by
indispensable cooperation of Ma.nolo, Mayor Tan could
not be liable as an accessory to Cece's murder. To incur
crim jnal liability of an accessory for helping or a11sisting
in the escape of an offender, he must be a principal of the
crime committed. Unless Domengwould be considered as
a co-principal by indispensable cooperation in the
commission of the murder, tlie Mayor, by assisting him to
escape, would be an accessory to the felony.

b) Can he be held liable for any other offense?
Explain fully. (3%)


b) Although the Mayor may not be held liable as an
accessory to the killing of Cece, he may be held liable for
obstruction of justice under Presidential Decree No. 1829
for assistingDomeng, who was involved in the commission
of a crime, to escape from Manila to Mindanao.
Eman, a vagrant , fou nd a bag containing
identificatfon cards and a diamond ring along Roxas Blvd.
Knowing that it was not his, he went to the nearest police
station to seek help in finding the owner of the bag. At the
precinct PO 1 Melvin attended to him. In the investigation
Eman proposed to PO l Melvin, "in case you don't find t he
owner let's just pawn the ring and split the proceeds fi ft y-
fifty (50 / 50) ." PO 1 Melvin then went straight to the pawnsh p
and pawned the ring for P50,000. Eman never saw PO l
Melvin again.

a) What is the criminal liability of Eman, if any?
Explain. (3%)


a) Eman has no criminal liability, unless he received
part of the proceeds of the pawned ring. The facts do not
state that Eman received any part of the P50,000.00
proceeds of the ring pledged. The facts state that after
turning over the bag to PO 1Melvin, Eman never saw PO 1
Melvin again. The proposal Eman made to PO 1Melvin is
not a crime as to bring about criminal liability.

b) What is the criminal liability of PO l Melvin, if
any? Explain, (3%)


b) PO 1 Melvin is criminally liable for theft for
having pawned the ring, which he does not own, and
appropriating the proceeds thereof without the consent of
the owner thus demonstrating intent to gain.

POl Melvin is simply substituted to the possession
Eman had when the latter found the bag containing the
ring. He was under a legal obligation to deliver it to its
owner and his failure to do so amounts to a "taking"
which would constitute theft when shown to be motivated
by intent to gain (Art. 308,par. 1,RFC; People v. Avila, 44
Phil. 720, 727 [1923]).

., 118
\ f/1111- t l l P !\N \Wt N 1 11 1 1 111 :1 111t1 t 1 l t -' l \ t1111t1 1 t 1i u


Hubert and Eunice were married in the Philippines.
Hubert took graduate studies in New York and met his
foi:;m.er girlfriend Eula. They renewed their friendship and
fuW.lly decided to get married. The first wife, Eunice, heard
about the marriage and secured a copy of the marriage
contract in New York. Eunice filed a case of bigamy against
Hubert in the Philippines.

a) Will the case prosper? Explain. (4%)

_ The inter-island vessel Ml V Viva Lines I, while cruising
off Batanes, was forced to seek shelter at the harbor of
Kaoshiung, Taiwan because of a strong typhoon. While
anchored in said harbor, Max, Baldo and Bogart arrived in a
speedboat, fired a bazooka at the bow of the vessel boarded
it and divested the passengers of their money and jewelry.
A passeng r of Ml V Viva Lines I, Dodong, took advantage of
the coi:-fus10n.to settle an old grudge with another passenger,
and killed him. After their apprehension, all four were
charged with qualified piracy before a Philippine court.


a) No, a case for bigamy filed inthe Philippine wW
not prosper because the bigamous marriale appears to
Jiave been committed in New York, U.S.A., not in the
PhWpplnea. The &overning niie of procedure aa to the
: place where the crimlnal action is to be inaUtuted directs
tliat the erfminal action should be instituted and tried in
the. court of the municipality or territory where the
offense was committed, or where any of lta euential
ingredients occurred if it were a continuine crime. In
criu>inal cases, the venue where the action should be
.instituted la juriadlctional; if thia is not complied with, it
would render the proecution invalid or void.
b) If Eunice gave her consent to the second marriage,
what will your answer be? Explain ..(3%)

b) The answer would be the S&!Jle even ifthe wife by
the first marriage, which la aubsiatlnC, gave her consent
to the second marriage. Bigamy la a public crime and not
subject to ap-eement between the victim lU!d the accused .
Moreover, the legal obstacle to the instltution of a case
for bigamy in the PhWppinea isjurisdictional and cannot
be cuaed or waived by the parties affected.

a) Was the charge of qualified piracy against the
three persons (Max, Baldo and Bogart) who boarded
the inter-island vessel correct? Explain. (4'%)


a) The charge is correct. Qualified Piracy was
committed when the offenders seized the vessel by firing
on or boarding the same. In the problem, they even went
further by divesting the passengers of their money and
jewelry. The vessel was anchored in the harbor of
Kaoshiung, Taiwan and it is submitted that the crime was
committed within the territorial jurisdiction of another
country. The Supreme Court has ruled that the high seas
contemplated under Art. 122 of the Revised Penal Code
includes the three-mile limit of any state ( People v. Lo l- lo,
et al., 43 Phi l. 19[1922]). Moreover, piracy is an offense
that can be tried anywhere because it is a crime against
the Law of Nations.


a) No, because the territoriality principle of criminal
law applies. The crime happened in Taiwan where the
vessel was anchored. It was not committed in the high
seas or in Philippine waters.

b) Was Dodong correctly charged before the Philippine
court for qualified piracy? Explain. (3%)

,.. 120
-- 121


b) Ho, Dod.ong was not correctly chaqed with
qualified piracy because committing piracy waa never in
h1a .mind nor did he have any involvement in the piracy
couimitted. He mei:ely took advantage of the situation in
kJIHng the passenger. He should be charged with murder
. since there was evident premeditation and intent to kill.


Francis and Joan were sweethearts, but their parents
had objected to their relationship because they were first
cousins. They forged a pact in writing to commit suicide.
The agreement was to shoot each other in the head which
they did. Joan died. Due to medical assistance, Francis
survived. Is Francis criminally liable for the death of Joan?
Explain. (5%)


Yes, Francis is crimina11y liable for Joan's death. His
act of shooting her, although done pursuant to a solemn
pact, is nevertheless felonious and is the proximate cause
of Joan's death (Art. 4, par. 1, RPC). Moreover, the mere
ac.t of giving assistance to a suicide is a crime (Art. 253,


Dennis leased his apartment to Myla for Pl0,000 a
month. Myla failed.to pay the rent for 3 months. Gabriel, the
son of D.ennis, prepared a demand letter falsely alleging that.
-his father had authorized him to collect the unpaid rentals.
Myla paid the unpaid rentals to Gabriel' who kept the
. a) Did Gabriel commit a crime? Explain. (4%)

. j

Yes. Gabriel committed a crime; it was either the
cdme of falsification of a private document (if damage or
at least intent to cause damage could be proved) or the
crime of swindling only. It could not be both falsification
and swindling or a complex crime of estafa through
falsification since the document falsified is a private
document. The two crimes cannot go together.

b) Can Gabriel invoke his relationship with Dennis
to avoid criminal liability? Explain. (3%)


If Gabriel would be made criminally liable for
falsification of a private document, he cannot invoke his
relationship with Dennis, his father, to avoid criminal
liability because Art. 332 of the Revised Penal Code
provides exemption from criminal liability in crimes
against property only fo:r theft, swindling or malicious
mischief but not for falsification of documents.

If he would be made criminally liable for swindling,
he can invoke his relationship with Dennis because this
crime cannot be complexed with falsification of a private
document. The charge could, therefore, stand alone The
exemption in Art. 332 will obtain.

Upon opening a letter containing 17 money orders, the
mail carrier forged the signatures of the payees on the
money orders and encashed them. What crime or crimes did
the mail carrier commit? Explain briefly. (6%)


The mail carrier's act of opening the letter containing
the 17 money orders and encashing them constitutes a
. - : :- - -... ; :.

.,. 122

,'.1/1 .1 ,/ \ II /J AN',W / II' / II 1111 .'111111 / Iii/I I "lJ\llfJ\ 111 N

"' I , _ 1

continued crime of quallfled theft, because the object
taken ill mall matter and the taking was with evident
intent to gain (Art. 310, RPC).

Moreover, the mail carrier's act of forging the
signatures of the payees of said money orders constitutes
falsification of commercial documents. It was made to
appear that the payees signed them when in fact they did
not. When the mail carrier encashed the money orders,
he defrauded and caused damage to the remitters who
gave the cash. The mail carrier further incurred the
crime of estafa through falsification of commercial

Ricky was reviewing for the bar exam when the
commander of a vigilante group came to him and showed
him a list of five policemen to be liquidated by them for graft
and corruption. He. was further asked if any_ of them is
innocent. After going over the list, Ricky pointed to two of the
policemen as honest. Later, the vigilante group liquidated
the three other policemen in the list. The commander of the
vigilante group reported the liquidation to Ricky. Is Ricky
criminally liable? Explain. (7%)


No, Ricky is not criminally liable because he has not
done any overt act that the law punishes as a crime. He did
not conspire with the vigilante group. Although his act of
pointing out two policemen as honest men may imply his
acquiescence to the vigilante'sconclusion that the others
were corrupt and deserved to be killed, mere acquiescence
to a crime, absent any criminal participation, does not
make one a co-conspirator.


Raissa and Martin are married to each other but had
been separated for the last five years. Raissa decided to wed
Juan, her suitor, who had no inkling that she was married.
Raissa and Juan accomplished an application for marriage
license which they subscribed and -swore to before the Local
Civil Registrar. Raissa declared, in the application, that she
is . single. The marriage license was issued. In due time, the
couple were married by the mayor. Raissa and Juan had
their first sexual intercourse later in the evening.

What crime or crimes, if any, did Raissa commit?
Explain briefly. (7%)


Raissa committed the crime of bigamy for contracting
a second marriage while her marriage to Martin is still
subsisting. There was neither judicial declaration of:
dissolution or nullity ofthe first marriage with Martin nor
a judicial declaration of legal absence of Martin. The
falsehood she stated in the application for "the license
which she swore to, although felonious, should be
considered absorbed in the crime of bigamy since they are
routine incidents iiicontracting any maniage, including
a bigamous marriage. It is absorbed' in the crime of'
bigamy. , .

Raissa also committed adultery by having sexual
intercourse with Juan, who is not her husband. She is
still legally married to Martin; The intercourse cannot
be absorbed the'bigam.'ous marriage because the eriri'l
of biga:tny was already consummated when adultecy:wa:s;
committed. It should not be overlooked, however, that
adultery is a private crime. Itrequires a complaint solely
from the offended spouse. A complaint from Martin is
indispensable to prosecute Raissa's adultery.


Lucas had been the stay-in houseboy of spouses Nestor
and Julia for five years. One night, while Nestor and Julia
were out having dinner, Lucas and his friend Pedro gained_
entry into the masters' bedroom with the use of a falsekey;
. . . .; ' . . . " . . . -:: . :

.,. 124

.'.(/( ,( ,/ ',// /) AN:;W/ u:. / ! ! / Ill )1/ll/l / 1,.\ /; I .\i\1\1/NJ\ ll< >N

They found Julia'sjewelry box in one of the cabinets, which
was unlocked. Lucas believed that Julia's jewelry was
inside the box. Unknown to Lucas and Pedro, ,the box was
empty. Pedro took the box and left the bedroom with Lucas.
They were shocked when they saw Nestor in the sala,
pointing a gun at them. Nestor ordered them to stop and
hand over the box. F'edro complied. It turned out that Nestor
had just arrived in time to see Lucas and .Pedro leaving the
masters' bedroom with the box.

State with reasons, the crime or crimes, if any, Lucas
and Pedro committed. (7%)


Lucas committed qualified theft. Pedro committed
simple theft only. There was taking of personal property.
the jewelry box, belongfnl to another (Julia), with intent
to gain and without the consent of the owner but without
violence, intimidation of persons or force upon things.
The use of a false key iii legally considered as a force upon
things, 'if uHd to gain entry to the house or building but
not when used enter a locked .room inside such house or
building. Thus, the taking only constitutes theft.

The crime is qualified theft as to Lucas only, although
there isevident conspiracy between him and Pedro, because
the circumstance qualifying the theft is personal only to
Lucas but not to Pedro.

The theft is already consummated because the
offenders had already taken out of the cabinet Julia's
jewelry box, which she Intended to remain in the cabinet.
The asportation was completed when they succeeded in
taking out Julia's jewelry box from the cabinet.


Lucas and Pedro may be held liable only for an
impossible crime of theft because what they had in mind
in taking the jewelry box was to take Julia's jewelry.
However, it turned out to be empty. The impossibility of
committing t:i:ue crime of theft is factual or physical since
there is no jewelry to steal inside the box.'


Lucas and Paolo would als.o be liable for possession of
picklocks or similar tools under Art. 304, in relation to
Art. 305 of the Penal Code.


Eliseo, the deputy sheriff, conducted the execution
sale of the property of Andres to satisfy the judgment against
him in favor of ABC Corporation, a government-owned or
controlled corporation with an original charter. However,
the representative of the corporation failed to attend the
auction sale, Gonzalo, the winning bidder, pu rchased the
property for Pl00,000 which he paid to Eliseo. Instead of
remitting the amount to the Clerk of Court as ex-officio
Provincial Sheriff, Eliseo lent the amount to Myrna, his
officemate, who promised to repay the amount within two
months, with interest thereon. However, Myrna reneged on
her promise. Despite demands of ABC Corporation, Eliseo
failed to remit the said amount.

a) State with reasons, the crime or crimes, if any,
committed by Eliseo. {4%)


. a) The crime committed by Eliseo is malversation
since he is a public officer who received the amount in his
offieial capacity; thus he is accountable for it.

b) Would your answer to the first question be the
sa m e if A BC Co r por a tio n we re a p rivate
corporation? Explain. (3%)

Br 126
SUGGl:STLV ANSWl::I<S IU I I IL ll!Uil I11\li I .X11MIN!\ 11< JN
......................................................................... 127


b) The crime would still be malversation even if
ABC Corporation, in whose favor the judgment was
rendered, were a private corporation. This is because the
Pl00,000.00 came from the sale of property levied upon
or seized upon execution ordered by the court. The
property was in custodia lcgis. Although not strictly
public property, it has become impressed with the character
of public property when Eliseo, in his official capacity,
coi:iducted the execution sale and received it proceeds. As
long as Eliseo has not accounted for and turned over the
proceeds officially, he is not relieved of his official

Roger, the leader . of a crime syndicate in Malate,
Manila, demanded the payment by Antonio, the owner of a
motel in that area, of Pl0,000 a month as "protection
money". With the monthly payments, Rger assured, the
syndicate would provide protection to Antonio, his business,
and his employees. Should Antonio refuse, Roger warned,
the motel owner would either be killed or his establishment
destroyed. Antonio refused to pay the protection money.
Days later, at around 3:00 in the morning, Mauro, a member
of the criminal syndicate, arrived at Antonio's home and
hurled a grenade into an open window of the bedroom where
Antonio, his wife and their three year-old daughter were
sleeping. All three of them were killed instantly when the
grenade exploded.

State, with reasons, the crime or crimes that had been
committed as well as the aggravating circumstances, if any,
attendant thereto. (7%)


By demanding "protection money" under threat and
intimidation that the businessman (Antonio) would be
killed or his establishment destroyed if he would refuse to

pay the protection money, the crime of grave threats is
committed by Roger, the leader of the crime syndicate.

For killing the businessman, his wife and three year-
old daughter, the complex crime of multiple murder was
committed by Mauro, a member of the same .crime
syndicate. The killing is qualified by the use of an
explosive (hand grenade). The treachery attending the,
killing shall be separately appreciated as another
aggravating circumstance aside from the use of explosive
as the qualifying circumstance.

O.ther aggravating circumstances which may be
appreciated are:
1. Dwelling.._ because the killings were committed
in the home of the victims who had not given . any

2. Nocturnity, considering that the offenders
carried out the killing at around 3:00 AM, indicative of a
deliberate choice of nighttime for the commission of t.he

3. Treachery, under Art. 14, par. 16, RPC, mentioned
above, considering that victims were all asleep when
killed; and

4. The offense was committed by a person who
belongs to an organized / syndicated crime group under
the Heinous Crimes Law (Sec. 23 R.A. 7659), amending for
this purpose Art. 62( l) of the Revised Penal Code.