I.

(10%)

What are the penalties that may be served simultaneously?

ANSWER:

The penalties that may be simultaneously served are: (1) perpetual absolute
disqualification, (2) perpetual special disqualification, (3) temporary absolute
disqualification, (4) temporary special disqualification, (5) suspension, (6)
destierro, (7) public censure, (8) fine and bond to keep the peace, (9) civil
interdiction, and (10) confiscation and payment of costs.

II.
(10%)

Tiburcio asked Anastacio to join their group for a "session". Thinking that it
was for a mahjong session, Anastacio agreed. Upon reaching Tiburcio?s
house, Anastacio discovered that it was actually a shabu session. At that
precise time, the place was raided by the police, and Anastacio was among
those arrested.

What crime can Anastacio be charged with, if any? Explain your answer.

ANSWER:

Anastacio can be charged with no crime for his acts.

In fact, his acts are not even covered by Comprehensive Dangerous Act of
2002, which penalizes any person who shall knowingly visit a place where
dangerous drugs is used in any form and he is aware of the place as such,
because the elements of this crime are not shown in the case at bar. Hence,
in the absence of the aforementioned elements he cannot be charged with
violation of Comprehensive Dangerous Act of 2002. To hold otherwise would
make it unlawful for any person who visits a house not knowing it is being
used as a place for drug activities. That would be unfair, illogical and not
serve the ends of the law.

(I assume that Anastacio underwent an investigation and he posited that he

misapprehended the purpose of the invitation of Tiburcio and the former was
not aware that the latter’s house was being used as a den for shabu session.)
III.
(10%)

Jervis and Marlon asked their friend, Jonathan, to help them rob a bank. Jervis
and Marlon went inside the bank, but were unable to get any money from
the vault because the same was protected by a time-delay mechanism. They
contented themselves with the customer?s cellphones and a total of P5,000
in cash. After they dashed out of the bank and rushed into the car, Jonathan
pulled the car out of the curb, hitting a pedestrian which resulted in the
latter?s death.
What crime or crimes did Jervis, Marlon and Jonathan commit? Explain your
answer.

ANSWER:

Jervis, Marlon and Jonathan committed a special complex crime of robbery

with homicide.

It is robbery with homicide because the original design of the three

malefactors was robbery and the homicide occurred during the robbery.
Settled is the rule that the crime is still robbery with homicide if the person
killed was an innocent bystander and not the person robbed and even if the
death was supervened by mere accident.

Jervis and Marlon cannot claim that it was Jonathan who ran over and killed
the pedestrian and therefore they are not liable for robbery with homicide
because it is well entrenched in our jurisprudence that when a homicide
takes place as a consequence of or on occasion of robbery, all those who
took part in the robbery are guilty as principals in the special complex crime
of robbery with homicide, even if they did not actually participate in the
homicide.

IV.
(10%)

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 circumtances 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.

a. Did the court correctly order Macky to pay indemnity even though he was
exonerated of murder? Explain your answer.

b. While serving his sentenced, Macky entered the prohibited area and had a
pot session with Ivy (Joy?s sister). Is Macky entitled to an indeterminate
sentence in case he is found guilty of the use of prohibited substances?
Explain your answer.

ANWER:

a) Yes, the court is correct. Macky was exonerated of murder because of

the benefit granted to him by law under Art. 247 of the Revised Penal
Code, which is an absolutory cause or exempting circumstances.

As a rule, exemption from criminal liability by reason of an exempting

circumstances does not include exemption from civil liability. There are
only two circumstances which are allowed as exceptions to this rule,
they are : 1) injury caused by mere accident , and 2) failure to perform
an act required by law when prevented by some lawful or insuperable
cause. The case at bar shows that the act committed by Macky is not
one of these circumstances.

Therefore, he is not exempt from payment of indemnity although

exempt from criminal liability.

b) It depends.

The case at bar does not show whether Macky’s drug offense is his first
or second offense. These are important to the determination of
whether Macky is entitled to indeterminate sentence.

In case Macky is found guilty of the use of prohibited substances for

the first time, which carries a penalty of rehabilitation in government
center, he is not entitled to indeterminate sentence because the
lndeterminate Sentence Law requires that the penalty as ultimately
resolved will be imprisonment as to set indeterminate sentence into
operation. In other words, the Inderterminate Sentence Law
 contemplates of imprisonment, and not of rehabilitation, as penalty.

On the other hand, in case Macky is found guilty of the use of

prohibited substances for the second time, for which a penalty of
imprisonment is imposed by Comprehensive Dangerous Drug Act of
2002, he is entitled to indeterminate sentence because drug offenses
are not included in the exceptions to the application of Indeterminate
Sentence Law, provided that following conditions concur :

1) the penalty to be imposed does not involve reclusion perpetua.

2) the penalty as ultimately resolved will exceed one year of
imprisonment

V.
(10%)

a. Distinguish between an accomplice and a conspirator.

b. What are the three (3) classes of offender in the crime of qualified
seduction? Give an example of each.

ANSWER:

a) An accomplice is one who knew the criminal design of the principal and
knowingly or intentionally participated therewith by an act which even if not
rendered, the crime would be committed just the same; a conspirator is one
who enters into an agreement with one or more person to commit a crime
and decide to commit it.

b) The three classes of offender in the crime of qualified seduction are :

1. Those of abuse their authority (ex. teacher)

2. Those who abuse the confidence reposed in them (ex. priest)
3. Those who abuse their relationship (ex. brother who seduced his sister)

VI.
(10%)

What are the different acts of inciting to sedition?

ANSWER:
 1. Inciting others to the accomplishment of any of the acts which
constitute sedition by means of speeches, proclamations, writings,
emblems etc;

2. Uttering seditious words or speeches which tend to disturb the

public peace;

3. Writing, publishing, or circulating scurrilous libels against the

government or any of the duly constituted authorities thereof, which
tend to disturb the public peace, or

4. Knowingly concealing such evil practice

VII.
(10%)

Eddie brought his son Randy to a local faithhealer known as "Mother Himala."
He was diagnosed by the faithhealer as being possessed by an evil spirit.
Eddie thereupon authorized the conduct of a "treatment" calculated to drive
the spirit from the boy?s body. Unfortunately, the procedure conducted
resulted in the boy?s death.

The faithhealer and tree others who were part of the healing ritual were
charged with murder and convicted by the lower court. If you are appellate
court Justice, would you sustain the conviction upon appeal? Explain your
answer.

ANSWER:

No, I would not sustain the conviction of the lower court.

In the case at bar, it must be observed that the “treatment” performed over
the victim was consented to by Eddie, the boy’s father. With the permission
of Eddie, the faithhealer and three others proceeded to subject the boy to a
“treatment” calculated to drive the bad spirit from the boy’s body.
Unfortunately, the “treatment” resulted in the death of the boy. Thus, the
accused-appellants had no criminal intent to kill the boy. Their liability arises
from reckless imprudence because they ought that to know their actions
would not bring about the cure.

Moreover, the elements of reckless imprudence are evident in the acts done
by accused-appellants which consists in voluntarily, but without malice,
doing or failing to do an act from which material damage results by reason of
inexcusable lack of precaution on the part of the person performing such act.
The facts show the accused-appellants lack medical skill in treating the boy’s
alleged ailment and none of whom is a medical practitioner.

They are, therefore, guilty of reckless imprudence resulting in homicide and

NOT of murder.

VIII
(10%)

Fe is the manager of a rice mill in Bulacan. In order to support a gambling

debt, Fe made it appear that the rice mill was earning less than it actually
was by writing in a "talaan" or ledger a figure lower than what was collected
and paid by their customers. Fe then pocketed the difference. What crime/s
did Fe commit, If any? Explain your answer.

ANSWER:

Fe committed a complex crime of qualified theft through falsification of

commercial document.

It is qualified theft because the facts of the case show that Fe took a
personal property belonging to the rice mill owner without the latter’s
consent; she did it with intent to gain (she pocketed the money and used it
to support her gambling debt); she accomplished the crime without the use
of violence against or intimidation of persons or force upon things; and she
committed the theft with grave abuse of confidence, which qualified the
crime of theft. The fact that she as manager had custody of the ledger and
had access in the preparation of financial report suffices to designate the
crime as qualified theft as she gravely abused the confidence reposed in her
by the rice mill owner.

The crime of qualified theft was complexed with the falsification of

commercial document because the latter crime was a necessary means to
commit the crime of qualified theft. There was an evident falsification of
commercial document since Fe, a private individual, made an untruthful
financial statement in the ledger (a private document)

IX.
(10%)
During a concert of Gary V. and in order to prevent the crowd from rushing
to the stage, Rafael Padilla {a security guard} pointed his gun at the onrush
of people. When the crowd still pushed forward, Rafael fired his gun into air
to scare them off. However, the bullet hit one of the metal roof supports,
ricocheted and then hit one of the stage crew members, causing injuries
which resulted in the latter?s confinement in a hospital for twelve days.

What crime/s did Rafael commit? Explain your answer.

ANSWER:

reckless imprudence resulting to less serious physical injuries. I was tempted

to answer illegal discharge of firearm and have it complexed but I refrained
since his discharge of firearm was lawful and that is to warn the crowd and
prevent them from rushing to the stage but he lacked the necessary care in
disregarding that the bullet might ricochet and hit the people.

X.
(10%)

Pinky was a lessee of a market stall owned by Giovanni. When Pinky refused
to pay her rental, Giovanni nailed some wooden barricades on one of the
sides of the market stall and posted this warning: "We have closed this
portion of the door. Do not open it or else something may happen to you."

What crime/s did Giovanni commit, if any? Explain your answer.

ANSWER:

this is an old CA case, p vs. banzon 66 OG 10533, quoted in the reyes text
book under light coercion.

the act of the accused is not such a serious threat amounting to coercion but
merely the crime of unjust vexation.