Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
Angeles City
School of Law
CRIMINAL LAW II
2nd Semester, SY 2016-2017
Section: Law 1B
Examination
Part IV
The examinee must (a) write his or her answers on yellow ('legal pad') paper; and (b)
submit the same to Mr. Ramil Tafalla, Staff Assistant, on March 4, 2017, at 3:00 PM.
This examination will be graded and should prepare the examinee for the final
examination in Criminal Law II. Those who fail to submit their answers on or before
said date and time will be given a grade of zero (0) for said examination. The highest
grade is one hundred (100) for complete and correct answers submitted on time. Those
who submitted their complete and correct answers ahead of said date and time will be
given extra points.
1. Choose which of the following are correct. In the crime of robbery with homicide:
(a) it is immaterial that the death would supervene by mere accident; or that the
victim of homicide is other than the victim of robbery, or that two or more persons are
killed; or the victim of homicide is one of the robbers; or that aside from the
homicide, rape, intentional mutilation, or usurpation of authority, is committed by
reason or on the occasion of the crime;
(b) once a homicide is committed by or on the occasion of the robbery, the felony
committed is robbery with homicide;
(c) all the felonies committed by reason of or on the occasion of the robbery are
integrated into one and indivisible felony of robbery with homicide;
(d) the word "homicide" is used in its generic sense; and thus, homicide, includes
murder, parricide, and infanticide;
(e) even if any or all of the circumstances (treachery, abuse of superior strength and
evident premeditation) alleged in the information have been duly established by the
prosecution, the same would not qualify the killing to murder and the crime
committed by accused is still robbery with homicide, the aggravating circumstance of
treachery is to be considered or regarded as a generic aggravating circumstance only,
to help determine the imposable penalty;
(f) robbery with homicide is a composite crime with its own definition and special
penalty in the Revised Penal Code;
(g) there is no special complex crime of robbery with murder under the Revised Penal
Code; and
(h) the presence of any or all of the circumstances of treachery, abuse of superior
strength and evident premeditation, alleged in the information which have been duly
established by the prosecution, would qualify the killing to murder and the crime
committed by accused is robbery with murder. Explain your answer.
2. Is this statement correct: Unlike violation of domicile in Art. 128, trespass to
dwelling is committed only in one way, that is, by entry into the dwelling against the
express or implied will of the dweller thereof. With the requirement of being against
the will of the dweller, it is not sufficient that it be without his consent but it must be
with his express or implied prohibition. Parenthetically, express prohibition is
required only if the dweller is in a position and has the opportunity to make the same
under the circumstances? Explain your answer.
3. Choose which of the following instances have been held to be indicative of implied
prohibition in the crime of trespass to dwelling, viz:
1
(a) the door was ajar and unlocked but the sole occupant of the room was asleep;
(b) the door was tied with a string;
(c) it was already at a late hour of the night and the family had already gone to sleep;
(d) the entry was made thru an opening not intended for that purpose;
(e) a German Shepard dog was tied near the door. Explain your answer.
4. Is there trespass to dwelling if the consent to enter did not come from the owner of
the house but was given by a person of sufficient discretion living therein, such as a
minor who was 12 years old, or by a boarder in that house who was the mistress of
the accused? Explain your answer.
5. (a) Is there trespass to dwelling if entry to the house had been expressly prohibited by
the master or owner of the house and the outsider later entered the same at the
invitation of the masters servant who was the said outsiders fiance? Explain your
answer.
(b) Should the outsider and the servant be both found guilty of trespass? Explain your
answer.
6. (a) May the owner of a house commit trespass to dwelling if the house was leased to
his tenant who duly objected to the owners entry? Explain your answer.
(b) Is the following statement correct: trespass as a crime is not necessarily to be
anchored upon the ownership of the house but also upon valid rights of possession
there over by its dweller, as well as the validity and timeliness of his objection to the
entry of any person not otherwise authorized to do so by specific provision of law or
judicial process? Explain your answer.
7. Boy Manok had no intent to kill anyone when he clandestinely entered a dwelling
house. However, he committed homicide when he was discovered inside the house by
Inday who was an occupant who raised the alarm about his presence.
(a) Is Boy Manok guilty of separate crimes of trespass to dwelling and homicide?
Explain your answer.
(b) If his intent from the start was to surreptitiously enter the house to kill an
occupant thereof and which he committed once inside the house, is the crime only
homicide, with dwelling and unlawful entry as aggravating circumstances?
Explain your answer.
(c) Is it correct to state that since trespass was not deliberately adopted as a necessary
means, but was incidental to the purpose of Boy Manok to kill the Inday, the two
offenses cannot be complexed? Explain your answer.
8. Reyes informed the Angeles Electric Company that Aling Bing had an electric jumper
transformer installed in her house to steal electricity from said company. However,
when company inspectors entered and searched the house without her consent, they
did not find said jumper transformer. What crime, if any, was committed (See Abanto,
15 Phil. 223)? Explain your answer.
9. Kit and Jim positioned themselves in front of Celsos house and angrily demanded
that Celso come out and fight them. When Celso did not come out of said house, Kit
and Jim used their axes to destroy the wooden door of the house. Still, Celso
remained inside. After shouting invectives at Celso, Kim and Jim left the place. What
crime, if any, was committed (See Duruelo, 7 Phil. 497)? Explain your answer.
10. Who are liable for theft?
1. Those who, with intent to gain, but without violence against or intimidation of persons
nor force upon things, take personal property of another without the latters consent.
2. Those who having found lost property, fail to deliver the same to the local authorities
or to its owner.
2
3. Those who after having maliciously damaged the property of another, remove or make
use of the fruits or object of the damage caused by them.
4. Those who enter an enclosed estate or a field where trespass is forbidden or which
belongs to another and, without the consent of its owner, hunt or fish upon the same
or gather fruits, cereals or other forest or farm products.
In theft, the taking away or carrying away of personal property of another is not required as in larceny in
common law. (People vs. Mercado, 65 Phil. 665) Note the phrase used in Art. 308, which is, "shall take personal
property of another" not shall take away such property.
The theft was consummated when the culprits were able to take possession of the thing taken by them. It is not
an indispensable element of theft that the thief carry, more or less far away, the thing taken by him from
its owner. (People vs. Jaranilla, 55 SCRA 563)