AdSense

Wednesday 27 July 2016

Penalties; Perpetual Absolute Disqualification (Criminal Law)

2007 Bar Exam Question and Suggested Answer on Penalties (Criminal Law)


QUESTION:


No. I. What are the penalties that may be served simultaneously? (10%)


SUGGESTED ANSWER:


The penalties that may be served simultaneously are imprisonment/destierro and:

1. Perpetual absolute disqualification;
2. Perpetual special disqualification;
3. Temporary absolute disqualification;
4. Temporary special disqualification;
5. Suspension from public office, the right to vote and be voted for, and the right to follow a profession or calling;

Fine; and any principal penalty with its accessory penalties.

Source:
"A Compilation of the Questions and Suggested Answers in the Philippine Bar Examinations 2007-2013 in Criminal Law", Compiled and Arranged by Rollan, Faith Chareen and Salise, Hector Christopher (University of San Jose-Recoletos School of Law), ANSWERS TO BAR EXAMINATION QUESTIONS by the UP LAW COMPLEX (2007, 2009, 2010) & PHILIPPINE ASSOCIATION OF LAW SCHOOLS (2008)

Thursday 28 January 2016

Criminal Liability; Accessories (Criminal Liability)

2013 Bar Exam Question and Suggested Answer on Criminal Liability, Accessories (Criminal Law)


QUESTION:


No. III. Modesto and Abelardo are brothers. Sometime in August, 1998 while Abelardo was in his office, Modesto, together with two other men in police uniform, came with two heavy bags. Modesto asked Abelardo to keep the two bags in his vault until he comes back to get them. When Abelardo later examined the two bags, he saw bundles of money that, in his rough count, could not be less than P5 Million. He kept the money inside the vault and soon he heard the news that a gang that included Modesto had been engaged in bank robberies. Abelardo, unsure of what to do under the circumstances, kept quiet about the two bags in his vault. Soon after, the police captured, and secured a confession from, Modesto who admitted that their loot had been deposited with Abelardo.

What is Abelardo's liability? (7%)


SUGGESTED ANSWER:


Abelardo is not criminally liable.

To be criminally liable as an accessory under Article 19 of the Code, such person must have knowledge of the commission of the crime. The term “knowledge “ under the law is not synonymous with suspicion. Mere suspicion that the crime has been committed is not sufficient.

Moreover, the facts as given in the problem would show lack or absent of intent to conceal the effects of the crime as Abelardo is described as being “unsure of what to do under the circumstances.”

Even if he can be considered as an accessory under paragraph 2 of Article 19, RPC, Abelardo is not liable, being the brother of Modesto under Article 20, RPC.


Source:
"A Compilation of the Questions and Suggested Answers in the Philippine Bar Examinations 2007-2013 in Criminal Law", Compiled and Arranged by Rollan, Faith Chareen and Salise, Hector Christopher (University of San Jose-Recoletos School of Law), ANSWERS TO BAR EXAMINATION QUESTIONS by the UP LAW COMPLEX (2007, 2009, 2010) & PHILIPPINE ASSOCIATION OF LAW SCHOOLS (2008)

ANTI-FENCING LAW

Bar Exam Questions and Suggested Answers on Fencing (Anti-Fencing Law) 


QUESTION (2013):


No. VI. Roberto bought a Toyota Fortuner from Iñigo for P500,000. While driving his newly-bought car, Roberto met a minor accident that made the examination of his vehicle's Registration Certificate necessary. When the policeman checked the plate, chassis and motor numbers of the vehicle against those reflected in the Registration Certificate, he found the chassis and motor numbers to be different from what the Registration Certificate stated. The Deed of Sale covering the sale of the Fortuner, signed by Iñigo, also bore the same chassis and motor numbers as Roberto's Registration Certificate. The chassis and motor numbers on the Fortuner were found, upon verification with the Land Transportation Office, to correspond to a vehicle previously reported as carnapped. Roberto claimed that he was in good faith; Iñigo sold him a carnapped vehicle and he did not know that he was buying a carnapped vehicle.

If you were the prosecutor, would you or would you not charge Roberto with a crime? (7%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:


I will charge Roberto with violation of Anti-Fencing Law. The elements of “fencing” are: 1) a robbery or theft has been committed; 2) the accused, who took no part in the robbery or theft, “buys, receives, possesses, keeps, acquires, conceals, sells or disposes, or buys and sells, or in any manner deals in any article or object taken” during that robbery or theft; 3) the accused knows or should have known of that the thing was derived form that crime; and 4) by the deal he makes he intends to gain for himself or for another. Here, someone carnapped the vehicle, old it to Roberto who did not take part in the crime. Roberto should have known also that the car was stolen because it was not properly documented as the deed of sale and registration certificate did not reflect the correct numbers of the vehicle's engine and chassis. Apparently, he made no effort to check the papers covering his purchase. Lastly, Roberto's defense of good faith is flawed because Presidential Decree 1612 is a special law and, therefore, its violation in regarded as malum prohibitum, requiring no proof of criminal intent (Dimat v. People, GR No. 181184, January 25, 2012).

ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:


The facts given show that Roberto “bought” the car form Inigo; that a “deed of sale” covering the subject vehicle was executed by Inigo; that there is also a copy of the “Registration Certificate”; that Roberto aver, too, of being a buyer in good faith and lacking of any knowledge that the subject car is a carnapped vehicle.

As against the foregoing, there is only a certificate from the Land Transportation Office showing that the vehicle had been previously reported as carnapped.

Consequently, in light of the satisfactory explanation of Roberto of his possession of the vehicle, the presumption of authorship of the theft upon a person found in possession of the stolen personal property finds no application in the instant case. There is, thus, no probable cause or evidence to warrant the prosecution of Roberto for any wrongdoing.



QUESTION (2010):


No. V. Arlene is engaged in the buy and sell of used garments, more popularly known as "ukay-ukay." Among the items found by the police in a raid of her store in Baguio City were brand-new Louie Feraud blazers.

Arlene was charged with "fencing." Will the charge prosper? Why or why not? (5%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:


No, the charge of “fencing” will not prosper. “Fencing” is committed when a person, with intent to gain foe himself or for another, deals in any manner with an article of value which he knows or should be known to him to have been derived from the proceeds of theft or robbery (Sec. 2, PD 1612). Thus, for a charge of fencing to prosper, it must first be established that a theft or robbery of the article subject of the alleged “fencing” has been committed – fact which I wanting in this case. It should be noted that the suspect is engaged in the buy and sell of used garments, which are in the nature of movable property carries with it a prima facie presumption of ownership. The presumption of “fencing” arises only when the article or item involved is the subject of a robbery or thievery (Sec. 5, PD 1612).



QUESTION (2009):


No. XI. c. In a prosecution for fencing under P.D. 1612, it is a complete defense for the accused to prove that he had no knowledge that the goods or articles found in his possession had been the subject of robbery.

SUGGESTED ANSWER:


False, fencing is committed if the accused “should have known” that the goods or articles had been the subject of theft or robbery (P.D. No. 1612[a]). Mere possession of the stolen goods gives rise to the prima facie presumption of fencing.



Source: 
"A Compilation of the Questions and Suggested Answers in the Philippine Bar Examinations 2007-2013 in Criminal Law", Compiled and Arranged by Rollan, Faith Chareen and Salise, Hector Christopher (University of San Jose-Recoletos School of Law), ANSWERS TO BAR EXAMINATION QUESTIONS by the UP LAW COMPLEX (2007, 2009, 2010) & PHILIPPINE ASSOCIATION OF LAW SCHOOLS (2008)

Accomplice vs. Conspirator (Criminal Law)

2007 Bar Exam Question and Suggested Answer on Accomplice and Conspirator (Criminal Law)


QUESTION:


No. V. a. Distinguish between an accomplice and a conspirator. (10%)


SUGGESTED ANSWER:


The distinction between an accomplice and a conspirator are:

1. An accomplice incurs criminal liability by merely cooperating in the execution of the crime without participating as a principal, by prior or simultaneous acts; whereas a conspirator participates in the commission of a crime as a co-principal.

2. An accomplice incurs criminal liability in an individual capacity by his act alone of cooperating in the execution of the crime; while a conspirator incurs criminal liability not only for his individual acts in the execution of the crime but also for the acts of the other participants in the commission of the crime collectively. The acts of the other participants in the execution of the crime are considered also as acts of a conspirator for purposes of collective criminal responsibility.

3. An accomplice participates in the execution of a crime when the criminal design or plan is already in place; whereas a conspirator participates in the adoption or making of the criminal design.

4. An accomplice is subjected to a penalty one degree lower than that of a principal; whereas a conspirator incurs the penalty of a principal.


Source: 
"A Compilation of the Questions and Suggested Answers in the Philippine Bar Examinations 2007-2013 in Criminal Law", Compiled and Arranged by Rollan, Faith Chareen and Salise, Hector Christopher (University of San Jose-Recoletos School of Law), ANSWERS TO BAR EXAMINATION QUESTIONS by the UP LAW COMPLEX (2007, 2009, 2010) & PHILIPPINE ASSOCIATION OF LAW SCHOOLS (2008)

Aggravating Circumstances; Dwelling; Nocturnity; Use of Picklock (Criminal Law)

2009 Bar Exam Question and Suggested Answer on Aggravating Circumstances (Criminal Law)


QUESTION:


No. XVII. b. Wenceslao and Loretta were staying in the same boarding house, occupying different rooms. One late evening, when everyone in the house was asleep, Wenceslao entered Loretta’s room with the use of a picklock. Then, with force and violence, Wenceslao ravished Loretta. After he had satisfied his lust, Wenceslao stabbed Loretta to death and, before leaving the room, took her jewelry.

Discuss the applicability of the relevant aggravating circumstances of dwelling, nocturnity and the use of the picklock to enter the room of the victim. (3%)


SUGGESTED ANSWER:


Dwelling is aggravating because the crimes were committed in the property of Loretta's room which in law is considered as her dwelling. It is well settled that “dwelling” includes a room in a boarding house being occupied by the offended party where she enjoys privacy, peace of mind and sanctity of an abode. Nocturnity or nighttime is also aggravating because although it was not purposely or especially sought for by Wenceslao, nighttime was obviously taken advantaged of by him in committing the other crimes. Under the objective test, noctunity is aggravating when taken advantage of by the offender during the commission of the crime thus facilitating the same. The use of a picklock to enter the room of the victim is not an aggravating circumstance under Art. 14 of the Code but punished as a crime by itself where the offender has no lawful cause for possessing it. The use of picklocks is equivalent to force upon things in robbery with force upon things.


Source: 
"A Compilation of the Questions and Suggested Answers in the Philippine Bar Examinations 2007-2013 in Criminal Law", Compiled and Arranged by Rollan, Faith Chareen and Salise, Hector Christopher (University of San Jose-Recoletos School of Law), ANSWERS TO BAR EXAMINATION QUESTIONS by the UP LAW COMPLEX (2007, 2009, 2010) & PHILIPPINE ASSOCIATION OF LAW SCHOOLS (2008)

Mitigating Circumstances (Criminal Law)

Bar Exam Questions and Suggested Answers on Mitigating Circumstances (Criminal Law)


QUESTION (2009):


No. XI. b. Voluntary surrender is a mitigating circumstance in all acts and omissions punishable under the Revised Penal Code.


SUGGESTED ANSWER:


False, Voluntary surrender may be appreciated in cases of criminal negligence under Art. 365 since in such cases, the courts are authorized to imposed a penalty without considering Art. 62 regarding mitigating and aggravating circumstances.


QUESTION (2012):


No. II. a. What is a privileged mitigating circumstance? (5%)


SUGGESTED ANSWER:


Privileged mitigating circumstances are those that mitigate criminal liability of the crime being modified to one or two degrees lower. These circumstances cannot be off-set by aggravating circumstance. The circumstance of incomplete justification or exemption (when majority of the conditions are present), and the circumstance of minority (if the child above 15 years of age acted with discernment) are privileged mitigating circumstances.


QUESTION (2012):


No. II. b. Distinguish a privileged mitigating circumstance from an ordinary mitigating circumstance as to reduction of penalty and offsetting against aggravating circumstance/s. (5%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:


The distinction between ordinary and privilege mitigating circumstances are: (a) Under the rules for application of divisible penalties (Article 64 of the Revised Penal Code), the presence of a mitigating circumstance, has the effect of applying the divisible penalty in its minimum period. Under the rules on graduation of penalty (Articles 68 and 69), the presence of privileged mitigating circumstance has the effect of reducing the penalty one or two degrees lower. (b) Ordinary mitigating circumstances can be off-set by the aggravating circumstances. Privileged mitigating circumstances are not subject to the off-set rule.


Source: 
"A Compilation of the Questions and Suggested Answers in the Philippine Bar Examinations 2007-2013 in Criminal Law", Compiled and Arranged by Rollan, Faith Chareen and Salise, Hector Christopher (University of San Jose-Recoletos School of Law), ANSWERS TO BAR EXAMINATION QUESTIONS by the UP LAW COMPLEX (2007, 2009, 2010) & PHILIPPINE ASSOCIATION OF LAW SCHOOLS (2008)

Justifying Circumstances; Battered Woman Syndrome (Criminal Law)

2010 Bar Exam Question and Suggested Answer on Justifying Circumstances, Battered Woman Syndrome (Criminal Law)



QUESTION:


No. XIX. c. Jack and Jill have been married for seven years. One night, Jack came home drunk. Finding no food on the table,  Jack started hitting Jill only to apologize the following day. A week later, the same episode occurred – Jack came home drunk and started hitting  Jill.

Fearing for her life, Jill left and stayed with her sister. To woo Jill back, Jack sent her floral arrangements of spotted lilies and confectioneries. Two days later, Jill returned home and decided to give Jack another chance. After several days, however, Jack again came home drunk.  The following day, he was found dead.

Jill was charged with parricide but raised the defense of "battered woman syndrome."

Would the defense prosper despite the absence of any of the elements for justifying circumstances of self-defense under the Revised Penal Code? Explain. (2%)


SUGGESTED ANSWER:


Yes, Section 26 of Rep. Act No. 9262 provides that victim-survivors who are found by the courts to be suffering from battered woman syndrome do not incur any criminal and civil liability notwithstanding the absence of any of the elements for justifying circumstances of self-defense under the Revised Penal Code.

Source: 
"A Compilation of the Questions and Suggested Answers in the Philippine Bar Examinations 2007-2013 in Criminal Law", Compiled and Arranged by Rollan, Faith Chareen and Salise, Hector Christopher (University of San Jose-Recoletos School of Law), ANSWERS TO BAR EXAMINATION QUESTIONS by the UP LAW COMPLEX (2007, 2009, 2010) & PHILIPPINE ASSOCIATION OF LAW SCHOOLS (2008)