AdSense

Showing posts with label Criminal Law. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Criminal Law. Show all posts

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)

Exempting Circumstances; Insanity (Criminal Law)

2010 Bar Exam Question and Suggested Answer on Exempting Circumstances  and Insanity (Criminal Law)


QUESTION:


No. XIII. While his wife was on a 2-year scholarship abroad, Romeo was having an affair with his maid Dulcinea. Realizing that the affair was going nowhere, Dulcinea told Romeo that she was going back to the province to marry her childhood sweetheart. Clouded by anger and jealousy, Romeo strangled Dulcinea to death while she was sleeping in the maid’s quarters.

The following day, Romeo was found catatonic inside the maid’s quarters. He
was brought to the National Center for Mental Health (NCMH) where he was diagnosed to be mentally unstable. Charged with murder, Romeo pleaded insanity as a defense.

a. Will Romeo’s defense prosper? Explain. (2%)
b. What is the effect of the diagnosis of the NCMH on the case? (2%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

a. No, Romeo's defense of insanity will not prosper because, even assuming that
Romeo was “insane” when diagnosed after he committed the crime, insanity as a defense to the commission of crime must have existed and proven to be so existing at the precise moment when the crime was being committed. The fact of the case indicate that Romeo committed the crime with discernment.

b. The effect of the diagnosis made by NCMH is possibly a suspension of the proceedings against Romeo and his commitment to appropriate institution for treatment until he could already understand the proceedings.


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)

Exempting Circumstances; Accessories; Ascendants (Criminal Law)

2010 Bar Exam Question and Suggested Answer on Exempting Circumstances, Accessories, and Ascendants (Criminal Law)


QUESTION:


No. XXII. Immediately after murdering Bob,  Jake went to his mother to seek refuge. His mother told him to hide in the maid’s quarters until she finds a better place for him to hide. After two days, Jake transferred to his aunt’s house. A week later, Jake was apprehended by the police.

Can Jake’s mother and aunt be made criminally liable as accessories to the crime of murder? Explain. (3 %)


SUGGESTED ANSWER:


Obviously, Jake's mother was aware of her son's having committed a felony, such that her act of harboring and concealing him renders her liable as an accessory. But being an ascendant to Jake, she is exempt from criminal liability by express provision of Article 20 of the Revised Penal Code.

On the other hand, the criminal liability of Jake's aunt depends on her knowledge
of his commission of the felony, her act of harboring and concealing Jake would render her criminally liable as accessory to the crime of murder; otherwise without knowledge of Jake's commission of the felony, she would not be liable.



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)

Wednesday, 27 January 2016

EXEMPTING CIRCUMSTANCES (Criminal Law)

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


QUESTION (2007)


No. IV. a. Macky, a security guard, arrived home late one night after rendering overtime. He was shocked to see Joy, his wife, and Ken, his best friend, in the act of having sexual intercourse. Macky pulled out his service gun and shot and killed Ken.  The court found that Ken died under exceptional circumstances and exonerated Macky of murder but sentenced him to destierro, conformably with Article 247 of the Revised Penal Code. The court also ordered Macky to pay indemnity to the heirs of the victim in the amount of P50,000. Did the court correctly order Macky to pay indemnity even though he was exonerated of murder? Explain your answer. (10%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:


No, the court did not act correctly in ordering the accused to indemnify the victim. Since the killing of ken was committed under the exceptional circumstances in Article 247, revised Penal Code, it is the consensus that no crime was committed in the light of the pronouncement in People v Cosicor (79 Phil. 672 [1947]) that banishment (destierro) is intended more for the protection of the offender rather than as a penalty. Since the civil liability under the Revised Penal Code is the consequence of criminal liability, there would be no legal basis for the award of indemnity when there is no criminal liability.

ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:


Yes, because the crime punishable by desteirro was committed, which is death under exceptional circumstances under Art. 247 of 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)

IMPOSSIBLE CRIME (Criminal Law)

2009 Bar Exam Question and Suggested Answer on Impossible Crime of Murder (Criminal Law)


QUESTION:


No. IV. a. Charlie hated his classmate, Brad, because the latter was assiduously
courting Lily, Charlie’s girlfriend. Charlie went to a veterinarian and asked for some poison on the pretext that it would be used to kill a very sick, old dog. Actually, Charlie intended to use the poison on Brad.

The veterinarian mistakenly gave Charlie a non-toxic powder which, when mixed with Brad’s food, did not kill Brad. Did Charlie commit any crime? If so, what and why? If not, why not? (3%)


SUGGESTED ANSWER:


Charlie committed an impossible crime of murder. His act of mixing the non-
toxic powder with Brad‟s food, done with intent to kill, would have constituted murder which is a crime against persons, had it not been for the employment of a means which, unknown to him, is ineffectual (Art. 4, par. 2, 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)

CONSPIRACY (Criminal Law)

Bar Exam Questions and Suggested Answers on Conspiracy (Criminal Law)


QUESTION (2012)

No. IX. a. Define conspiracy. (5%)


SUGGESTED ANSWER: 


When two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it, there is conspiracy.



QUESTION (2008)


No. XI. 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%)


SUGGESTED ANSWER: 


No, there was no conspiracy between Ricky and the Commander of the vigilante. Mere vouching for the honesty of the two (2) policemen in the list cannot make him a co-conspirator for the killing. Ricky enjoys the presumption of innocence.



QUESTION (2012)


No. IX. b. Distinguish by way of illustration conspiracy as a felony from conspiracy as a manner of incurring liability in relation to the crimes of rebellion and murder. (5%)


SUGGESTED ANSWER: 


Conspiracy to commit rebellion – if “A” and “B” conspired to overthrow the
government, conspiracy is punishable. Conspiracy to commit rebellion is a felony. Rebellion – if they committed rebellion, they are equally liable for the crime of rebellion. However, they will not be additionally charged with conspiracy to commit rebellion. Since they committed what they conspired,
conspiracy will not be considered as an independent felony but as a manner of incurring criminal responsibility. Conspiracy to commit homicide, not punishable – if “A” and “B” conspire to kill “X”, conspiracy is not punishable. The law provides no penalty for conspiracy to be commit homicide. Homicide - if pursuant to conspiracy to commit homicide, “A” embraced “X” and then “B” stabbed and killed “X”, the conspirators are equally liable for homicide. Conspirators are equally liable for homicide. Conspiracy in this case will be considered as a manner of incurring liability.


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)

CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION LIMITING THE POWER OF CONGRESS TO ENACT PENAL LAWS

2012 Bar Exam Question and Suggested Answer on the Constitutional Provision Limiting the Power of Congress to Enact Penal Laws (Criminal Law)


QUESTION:


No. III. b. What are the constitutional provisions limiting the power of Congress to enact penal laws? (5%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:


The constitutional provision limiting the power of Congress to enact penal laws are the following:

1. The law must not be an ex post facto law or it should not be given a retroactive effect.

2. The law must not be a bill of attainder, meaning it cannot provide punishment without  judicial proceedings.

3. The law must not impose cruel, unusual or degrading punishment.

No person shall be held to answer for a criminal offense without due process of law.

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)

TERRITORIALITY (Criminal Law)

2008 Bar Exam Question and Suggested Answer on Territoriality (Criminal Law)


QUESTION:


No. VI. Hubert and Eunice were married in the Philippines. Hubert took graduate studies in New York and met his former girlfriend Eula. They renewed their friendship and finally decided to get married. The first wife, Eunice, heard about the marriage and secures 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%)
(b) If Eunice gave her consent to the second marriage, what will your answer be? Explain. (3%)


SUGGESTED ANSWER:


(a) No, because the Philippine Courts have no jurisdiction over a crime committed outside of the Philippine territory. Under the principle of territoriality, penal laws, specifically the RPC, are enforceable only within the bounds of our territory (Art. 2, RPC).


(b) The answer will be the same. The consent of Eunice would not confer  jurisdiction on Philippine Courts.



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)

EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE

2013 Bar Exam Question and Suggested Answer on Equal Protection Clause (Criminal Law)


QUESTION:


No. XI. Assume that you are a member of the legal staff of Senator Salcedo who wants to file a bill about imprisonment at the National Penitentiary in Muntinlupa. He wants to make the State prison a revenue earner for the country through a law providing for premium accommodations for prisoners (other than those under maximum security status) whose wives are allowed conjugal weekend visits, and for those who want long-term premium accommodations. For conjugal weekenders, he plans to rent out rooms with hotel-like amenities at rates equivalent to those charged by 4-star hotels; for long-term occupants, he is prepared to offer room and board with special meals in air conditioned single-occupancy rooms, at rates equivalent to those charged by 3-star hotels. What advice will you give the Senator from the point of view of criminal law, taking into account the purpose of imprisonment (7%) and considerations of ethics and morality (3%)? (10% total points)


SUGGESTED ANSWER:


I would advice Senator Salcedo to forgo and permanently abandon his proposed bill as it will result in economic inequality in the field of criminal justice. The bill runs afoul with the equal protection clause of the 1987 Constitution. The equal protection clause in the Constitution does not merely bar the creation of inequalities but commands as well the elimination of existing inequalities. Additionally, the purpose of imposing penalties, which is to secure justice, retribution and reformation, will be defeated and put to naught if the bill's program/scheme should eventually become a law.

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)

Wednesday, 25 November 2015

2015 PHILIPPINE BAR EXAMINATIONS (CRIMINAL LAW)

2015 CRIMINAL LAW Bar Exam Questions

JUSTICE TERESITA J. LEONARDO-DE CASTRO
Chairperson
2015 Bar Examinations


I.


a) How are felonies committed? Explain each. (3%)

b) What is aberratio ictus? (2%)

II.


Distinguish between ex post facto law and bill of attainder. (3%)

III.


The Regional Trial Court {RTC) found Tiburcio guilty of frustrated homicide and sentenced him to an indeterminate penalty of four years and one day of prision correccional as minimum, to eight years of prision mayor as maximum, and ordered him to pay actual damages in the amount of 1125,000.00. Tiburcio appealed to the Court of Appeals which sustained his conviction as well as the penalty imposed by the court a quo. After sixty days, the Court of Appeals issued an Entry of Judgment and remanded the records of the case to the RTC. Three days thereafter, Tiburcio died of heart attack. Atty. Abdul, Tiburcio's counsel, filed before the RTC a Manifestation with Motion to Dismiss, informing the court that Tiburcio died already, and claiming that his criminal liability had been extinguished by his demise.

a) Should the RTC grant the Motion to Dismiss the case? Explain. (2.5%)

b) Assuming that Tiburcio' s death occurred before the Court of Appeals rendered its decision, will you give a different answer? Explain. (2.5%)

IV.


Procopio, a call center agent assigned at a graveyard shift, went home earlier than usual. He proceeded immediately to their bedroom to change his clothes. To his surprise, he found his wife Bionci in bed making love to another woman Magna. Enraged, Procopio grabbed a knife nearby and stabbed Bionci, who died.

a) What crime did Procopio commit, and what circumstance attended the case? Explain. (3%)

b) Assuming that Procopio and Bionci were common-law spouses, will your answer be the same? Explain. (2%)

V.


Dion and Talia were spouses. Dion always came home drunk since he lost his job a couple of months ago. Talia had gotten used to the verbal abuse from Dion. One night, in addition to the usual verbal abuse, Dion beat up Talia. The next morning, Dion saw the injury that he had inflicted upon Talia and promised her that he would stop drinking and never beat her again. However, Dion did not make good on his promise. Just after one week, he started drinking again. Talia once more endured the usual verbal abuse. Afraid that he might beat her up again, Talia stabbed Dion with a kitchen knife while he was passed out from imbibing too much alcohol. Talia was charged with the crime of parricide.

a) May Talia invoke the defense of Battered Woman Syndrome to free herself from criminal liability? Explain. (2.5%)

b) Will your answer be the same, assuming that Talia killed Dion after being beaten up after a second time? Explain. (2.5%)

VI.


Senator Adamos was convicted of plunder. About one year after beginning to serve his sentence, the President of the Philippines granted him absolute pardon. The signed pardon states: "In view hereof, and in pursuance of the authority vested upon me by the Constitution, I hereby grant absolute pardon unto Adamos, who was convicted of plunder in Criminal Case No. XV32 and upon whom the penalty of reclusion perpetua was imposed." He now comes to you for advice. He wants to know if he could run for senator in the next election.

a) What advice will you give Adamos? Explain. (2.5%)

b) Assuming that what Adamos committed was heading a rebellion for which he was imposed the same penalty of reclusion perpetua, and what he received was amnesty from the government, will your answer be the same? Explain. (2.5%)

VII.


Taylor was convicted of a violation of the Election Code, and was sentenced to suffer imprisonment of one year as minimum, to three years as maximum. The decision of the trial court was affirmed on appeal and became final and executory. Taylor failed to appear when summoned for execution of judgment, prompting the judge to issue an order for his arrest. Taylor was able to use the backdoor and left for the United States. Fifteen years later, Taylor returned to the Philippines and filed a Motion to Quash the warrant of arrest against him, on the ground that the penalty imposed against him had already prescribed.

a) If you were the judge, would you grant Taylor's Motion to Quash? Explain. (2.5%)

b) Assuming that instead of the United States, Taylor was able to go to another country with which the Philippines had no extradition treaty, will your answer be the same? Explain. (2.5%)

VIII.


A typhoon destroyed the houses of many of the inhabitants of X Municipality. Thereafter, X Municipality operated a shelter assistance program whereby construction materials were provided to the calamity victims, and the beneficiaries provided the labor. The construction was partially done when the beneficiaries stopped helping with the construction for the reason that they needed to earn income to provide food for their families. When informed of the situation, Mayor Maawain approved the withdrawal of ten boxes of food from X Municipality's feeding program, which were given to the families of the beneficiaries of the shelter assistance program. The appropriations for the funds pertaining to the shelter assistance program and those for the feeding program were separate items on X Municipality's annual budget.

a) What crime did Mayor Maawain commit? Explain. (2.5%)

b) May Mayor Maawain invoke the defense of good faith and that he had no evil intent when he approved the transfer of the boxes of food from the feeding program to the shelter assistance program? Explain. (2.5%)

IX.


The Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) had intelligence reports about the drug pushing activities of Rado, but could not arrest him for lack of concrete evidence. SP03 Relio, a PDEA team leader, approached Emilo and requested him to act as poseur-buyer of shabu and transact with Rado. Emilo refused, saying that he had completely been rehabilitated and did not want to have anything to do with drugs anymore. But he was prevailed upon to help when SP03 Relio explained that only he could help capture Rado because he used to be his customer. SP03 Relio then gave Emilo the marked money to be used in buying shabu from Rado. The operation proceeded. After Emilo handed the marked money to Rado in exchange for the sachets of shabu weighing 50 grams, and upon receiving the pre-arranged signal from Ernilo, SP03 Relio and his team members barged in and arrested Rado and Ernilo, who were both charged with violation of R.A. 9165, otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.

a) What defense, if any, may Ernilo invoke to free himself from criminal liability? Explain. (2.5%)

b) May Rado adopt as his own Ernilo's defense? Explain. (2.5%)

X.


Honesto and Wilma were married but had been living separately due to irreconcilable differences. Honesto later met Celia and fell in love with her. Thinking that he could marry Celia if Wilma were to die, Honesto decided to kill Wilma. He secretly followed Wilma for weeks to learn her daily routine. He decided to kill her at night on her way home. On the night he was to kill Wilma, Honesto wore dark clothes so that he would not be easily seen. He waited in the dark alley for Wilma to pass by. He saw someone whom he thought looked like Wilma and shot her with a revolver. The bullet passed through the person's head and grazed another passerby's arm. Some bystanders who heard the shot were able to stop Honesto.

It turned out that Wilma did not report for work on that day, and the one who was shot in the head was Melba, who died. The passerby whose arm was grazed by the bullet required medical attendance for two days.

a) What crime(s) did Honesto commit? Explain. (2.5%)

b) Will your answer be the same, assuming that the other passerby was hit in the left eye which caused his/her blindness? Explain. (2.5%)

XI.


Nel learned that Elgar, the owner of the biggest house in the place, would be out of town for three days with no one left to watch the house. He called his friends Ben, Ardo and Gorio and they planned to take the valuables in the house while Elgar was away. Nel and Ben would go inside the house, Ardo would serve as the lookout, while Gorio would stay in the getaway car. When Elgar left, they carried out their plan to the letter. Nel and Ben went inside the house through the backdoor which was left unlocked. None of the rooms and drawers inside were locked. They took the money, jewelry and other valuables therefrom and immediately left using the getaway car.

After driving for about one kilometer, Nel realized he left his bag and wallet with IDs in the house and so he instructed Gorio to drive back to the house. Nel just went in thinking that the house was still empty. But to his surprise, Nel found Fermin seated on a bench with Nel's bag and wallet beside him and appeared to be texting using his smart phone. Nel took a golf club near him and hit Fermin with it. Fermin shouted for help, but Nel kept hitting him until he stopped making noise. The noise alerted the neighbor who called the police. Nel, Ben, Ardo and Gorio were caught. Fermin died. What is the criminal liability of Nel, Ben, Ardo and Gorio? Explain. (5%)

XII.


Ando, an Indonesian national who just visited the Philippines, purchased a ticket for a passenger vessel bound for Hong Kong. While on board the vessel, he saw his mortal enemy Iason, also an Indonesian national, seated at the back portion of the cabin and who was busy reading a newspaper. Ando stealthily approached Iason and when he was near him, Ando stabbed and killed Iason. The vessel is registered in Malaysia. The killing happened just a few moments after the vessel left the port of Manila. Operatives from the PNP Maritime Command arrested Ando. Presented for the killing of Iason, Ando contended that he did not incur criminal liability because both he and the victim were Indonesians. He likewise argued that he could not be prosecuted in Manila because the vessel is a Malaysian-registered ship. Discuss the merits of Ando's contentions. (4%)

XIII.


Dora gave Elen several pieces of jewelry for sale on commission basis. They agreed that Elen would remit the proceeds of the sale and return the unsold items to Dora within sixty days. The period expired without Elen remitting the proceeds of the sale or returning the pieces of jewelry. Dora demanded by phone that Elen turn over the proceeds of the sale and return the unsold pieces of jewelry. Elen promised to do so the following day. El en still failed to make good on her promise but instead issued post-dated checks. Thereafter, Dora made several more demands, the last of which was in writing, but they were all unheeded. When the checks were deposited in Dora's bank account, the checks were returned unpaid for insufficient funds. Elen was charged with estafa and violation of Batas Pambansa Big. 22. Will the charges against Elen prosper? Explain. (4%)

XIV.


Dela convinced Nita to work in Taiwan, promising Nita that she would take care of the processing of the necessary documents. Dela collected P120,000.00 from Nita purportedly for the processing of her papers. Upon receipt of the money, Nita was made to accomplish certain forms and was told that she would be deployed to Taiwan within one month. After one month, Nita followed up on her application. Dela made some excuses and told Nita that the deployment would be delayed. Another month passed and Dela made other excuses which made Nita suspicious. Nita later discovered that Dela was not licensed to recruit. Nita confronted Dela and demanded the return of her money. Dela promised to return the same in a week's time.

a) A week later, Dela was nowhere to be found. What crime(s) did Dela commit? Explain. (2.5%)

b) Will your answer still be the same, assuming that the promise to deploy for employment abroad was made by Dela to Celia, Digna and Emma, in addition to Nita, and from whom Dela also collected the same amount of processing fee? Explain. (2.5%)

XV.


Dancio, a member of a drug syndicate, was a detention prisoner in the provincial jail of X Province. Brusco, another member of the syndicate, regularly visited Dancio. Edri, the guard in charge who had been receiving gifts from Brusco everytime he visited Dancio, became friendly with him and became relaxed in the inspection of his belongings during his jail visits. In one of Brusco's visits, he was able to smuggle in a pistol which Dancio used to disarm the guards and destroy the padlock of the main gate of the jail, enabling Dancio to escape. What crime(s) did Dancio, Brusco and Edri commit? Explain. (5%)

XVI.


Erwin and Bea approached Mayor Abral and requested him to solemnize their marriage. Mayor Abral agreed. Erwin and Bea went to Mayor Abral's office on the day of the ceremony, but Mayor Abral was not there. When Erwin and Bea inquired where Mayor Abral was, his chief of staff Donato informed them that the Mayor was campaigning for the coming elections. Donato told them that the Mayor authorized him to solemnize the marriage and that Mayor Abral would just sign the documents when he arrived. Donato thereafter solemnized the marriage and later turned over the documents to Mayor Abral for his signature. In the marriage contract, it was stated that the marriage was solemnized by Mayor Abral. What crime(s) did Mayor Abral and Donato commit? Explain. (4%)

XVII.


After a heated argument over his philandering, Higino punched on the head his wife Aika, who was six and a half months pregnant. Because of the impact, Aika lost her balance, fell on the floor with her head hitting a hard object. Aika died and the child was expelled prematurely. After thirty-six hours, the child died.

a) What crime(s) did Higino commit? Explain. (2.5%)

b) Assuming that when the incident occurred, Aika was only six months pregnant, and when she died, the fetus inside her womb also died, will your answer be different? Explain. (2.5%)

XVIII.


Lito, a minor, was bullied by Brutus, his classmate. Having had enough, Lito got the key to the safe where his father kept his licensed pistol and took the weapon. Knowing that Brutus usually hung out at a nearby abandoned building after class, Lito went ahead and hid while waiting for Brutus. When Lito was convinced that Brutus was alone, he shot Brutus, who died on the spot. Lito then hid the gun in one of the empty containers. At the time of the shooting, Lito was fifteen years and one month old. What is Lito's criminal liability? Explain. (4%)

XIX.


Bruno, a taxi driver, had an indebtedness in the sum of P10,000.00 which would become due in one week. He was starting to worry because he still had not raised the amount to pay for his debt. Every day, he had prayed for divine intervention. One night, while returning the taxi to the garage, he found a wallet on the back seat. Inspecting it, he learned that it contained exactly Pl 0,000.00 cash, the amount of his obligation, and IDs. Thinking it was divine intervention, and that his prayers were answered, he took the money and used it to pay his debt.

a) What crime, if any, did Bruno commit? Explain. (2.5%)

b) Assuming that instead of using the money, Bruno turned over the wallet and its contents to the nearby police station, and it was the chief of police of that station who appropriated the money for his own benefit, what crime was committed by the chief of police? Explain. (2.5%)

XX.


Senio planned to burn Bal' s house. One evening, during a drinking spree at his house, Senio told his friends what he intended to do and even showed them the gasoline in cans that he would use for the purpose. Carlo, a common friend of Senio and Bal, was present at the drinking spree. He was still sober when Senio told them his plans. Before going home, Carlo warned Bal that Senio would burn his house and had already bought gasoline that would be used for the purpose. Bal reported the matter to the police authorities. Meanwhile, Senio went to Bal' s house and proceeded to pour gasoline around the walls of the house and it was at that point when he was caught by the police. What crime did Senio commit, if any? Explain. (3%)

XXI.


Filipino citizens Hector and Wendy were married in New York, and have been living happily in Manila for the last three years. Hector was removing junk from his basement when he came across an unlabeled recordable cd. He put it in his computer's DVD drive to check its contents. To his surprise, he saw a video of Wendy and another man Ariel, in the act of sexual intercourse in the master's bedroom of his house. Angered by what he saw, he filed a complaint for adultery against Wendy and Ariel. During the course of the trial, and again to the surprise of Hector, it was proved that Wendy was born male and underwent sex reassignment later in life.

a) May Hector's charge of adultery against Wendy and Ariel prosper? Explain. (3%)

b) What is an impossible crime? Can there be an impossible crime of adultery? (2%)

XXII.


Charlie was charged for the qualified rape of AAA. The Information alleged that AAA was 14 years old at the time the crime was committed and that Charlie was AAA's stepfather. The presentation of AAA's birth certificate during the trial duly established the following: (1) that AAA was indeed 14 years old at the time of the rape; and (2) that AAA's mother is BBB and her father was the late CCC. BBB and Charlie only became live-in partners after CCC's death. The RTC found Charlie guilty of qualified rape. On appeal, the Court of Appeals convicted Charlie of simple rape. Charlie appealed before the Supreme Court. How will you rule and why? (3%)

For the bar exam questions on the other subjects, click on the following links:

Monday, 3 August 2015

CASE DIGEST: US vs Look Chow, 18 Phil 573

Case Title: US vs Look Chow, 18 Phil 573

Subject Matter: Applicability of the provisions of Art 2 of the Revised Penal Code


Facts:


Between 11 and 12 o'clock a.m. in August 19, 1909, the Port of Cebu and internal revenue agent of Cebu, respectively, went aboard the steamship Erroll to inspect and search its cargo, and found two sacks containing opium. The defendant stated freely and voluntarily that he had bought these sacks of opium in Hong Kong with the intention of selling them as contraband in Mexico or Vera Cruz, and that as his hold had already been searched several times for opium he ordered two other chinamen to keep the sack. All the evidence found properly constitutes corpus delicti.

It was established that the steamship Erroll was of English nationality, that it came from Hong Kong, and that it was bound for Mexico, via the call ports in Manila and Cebu.

Issue:


Whether or not courts of local state can exercise its jurisdiction over foreign vessels stationed in its port.

Held:


Yes. The Philippine courts have jurisdiction over the matter. The mere possession of a thing of prohibited use in these Islands, aboard a foreign vessel in transit, in any of their ports, does not, as a general rule, constitute a crime triable by the courts of this country, on account of such vessel being considered as an extension of its own nationality. However, the same rule does not apply when the article, whose use is prohibited within the Philippines, in the present case, a can of opium, is landed from the vessel upon the Philippine soil, thus committing an open violation of the penal law in force at the place of the commission of the crime. Only the court established in the said place itself has competent jurisdiction, in the absence of an agreement under an international treaty.

Sunday, 2 August 2015

CASE DIGEST: People vs Wong Cheng, 46 Phil 729

Case Title: People vs Wong Cheng, 46 Phil 729

Subject Matter: Applicability of Art. 2 of the Revised Penal Code

Facts:


The appellant, in representation of the Attorney General, filed an appeal that urges the revocation of a demurrer sustained by the Court of First Instance of Manila presented by the defendant. The defendant, accused of having illegally smoked opium aboard the merchant vessel Changsa of English nationality while the said vessel was anchored in Manila Bay, two and a half miles from the shores of the city. In the said demurrer, the defendant contended the lack of jurisdiction of the lower court of the said crime, which resulted to the dismissal of the case.

Issue:


Whether or not the Philippine courts have jurisdiction over the crime committed aboard merchant vessels anchored in our jurisdictional waters.

Held:


Yes. The crime in the case at bar was committed in our internal waters thus the Philippine courts have a right of jurisdiction over the said offense. The Court said that having the opium smoked within our territorial waters even though aboard a foreign merchant ship is a breach of the public order because it causes such drugs to produce pernicious effects within our territory. Therefore, the demurrer is revoked and the Court ordered further proceedings.

CASE DIGEST: US vs Bull, 15 Phil 7

Case Title: US vs Bull, 15 Phil 7

Subject Matter: Applicability of Art. 2 of the Revised Penal Code

Facts:


On December 2, 1908, a steamship vessel engaged in the transport of animals named Stanford commanded by H.N. Bull docked in the port of Manila, Philippines. It was found that said vessel from Ampieng, Formosa carried 674 heads of cattle without providing appropriate shelter and proper suitable means for securing the animals which resulted for most of the animals to get hurt and others to have died while in transit.

This cruelty to animals is said to be contrary to Acts No. 55 and No. 275 of the Philippine Constitution. It is however contended that cases cannot be filed because neither was it said that the court sitting where the animals were disembarked would take jurisdiction, nor did it say about ships not licensed under Philippine laws, like the ships involved.

Issue:


Whether or not the court had jurisdiction over an offense committed on board a foreign ship while inside the territorial waters of the Philippines.

Held:


Yes. When the vessel comes within 3 miles from the headlines which embrace the entrance of Manila Bay, the vessel is within territorial waters and thus, the laws of the Philippines shall apply. A crime committed on board a Norwegian merchant vessel sailing to the Philippines is within the jurisdiction of the courts of the Philippines if the illegal conditions existed during the time the ship was within the territorial waters - regardless of the fact that the same conditions existed when the ship settled from the foreign port and while it was on the high seas,

In light of the above restriction, the defendant was found guilty and sentenced to pay a fine of two hundred and fifty pesos with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, and to pay the costs.