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)

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)