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)

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)