2007 bar questions and suggested answers (CRIMINAL

LAW)
Criminal Law
I.
(10%)
What are the penalties that may be served simultaneously?
a. Perpetual absolute disqualification;
b. Perpetual special disqualification;
c. Temporary absolute disqualification;
d. Temporary special disqualification;
e. Suspension;
f. Public censure;
g. Destierro;
h. Fine and bond to keep peace;
i. Civil Interdiction;
j. Confiscation and payment of cost.
The above penalties, except destierro, may be served simultaneously with
imprisonment. (Article 70, Revised Penal Code)
Prison terms may also be served simultaneously whenever there are more than
three (3) convictions imposing imprisonment as penalties and the Three-Fold Rule
under Article 70 of the Revised Penal Code is made to apply.
II.
(10%)
Tiburcio asked Anastacio to join their group for a "session". Thinking that it was
for a mahjong session, Anastacio agreed. Upon reaching Tiburcios 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.
Alternative
Answer:
Anastacio can be charged with violation of Section 7, Article 2, RA 9165, otherwise
known as the Comprehensive Drug Act of 2002, which punishes any person who
visits a den, dive or resort, knowing the nature of the place as such.
A den, dive, resort is a place where any dangerous drugs and essential chemicals is
administered, delivered, stored, sold or used in any form. (Section 3[1], Article 1,
RA
9165).
However, Anastacio could interpose as a defense for his exculpation that he is now
aware
that
the
house
of
Tiburcio
is
a
den
or
dive.

Alternative
Answer:
Anastacio can not be charged with any crime. The facts spelled out in the problem
clearly shows he was unaware that he is being led to a shabu session. It was his
thinking
it
was
a
mahjong
session.
The problem does not state he was in possession of any dangerous drugs. Thus,
when he was arrested, he has just arrived in the session and that was the only time
he discovered it was a pot 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 customers 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
latters death. What crime or crimes did Jervis, Marlon and Jonathan commit?
Explain
your
answer.
Alternative
Answer:
Assuming the acts were attended by the use of force and intimidation in robbing
the bank, Jonathan, Marlon and Jervis committed the special complex crime of
attempted robbery with homicide. The subsequent running over of the pedestrian
in the course of their escape was by reason or on occasion of the robbery, thereby
qualifying the crime as attempted robbery with homicide. Having acted in
conspiracy with Jervis and Marlon, Jonathan should also be charged with
attempted
robbery
with
homicide.
On the other hand, he asking of the cellphones and P5,000.00 from the customers
are the separate acts of Jervis and Marlon, and do not involve Jonathan as it was
not part of their original agreement. Jervis and Marlon should be charged for the
crime
of
robbery.
Alternative
Answer:
As the facts do not indicate any weapons or use of force or intimidation, Jervis and
Marlon can only be charged with theft for the taking of the cellphones and
P5,000.00 from the customers. Jonathan is solely liable for reckless imprudence
resulting
in
homicide
for
the
killing
of
the
pedestrian.
Jervis, Marlon and Jonathan can be charged as co-principals for attempted theft in
their failed effort to take money from the vault pursuant to their conspiracy. It is
possible that the vault could have been left open during the business hours of the
bank. However, at the time of the commencement of the crime delay mechanism
prevented them from performing all the acts of execution, a cause or reason other
than their spontaneous desistance.
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
Macky of murder but
of the Revised Penal
the
heirs
of

Ken died under exceptional circumtances and exonerated

sentenced him to destierro, conformably with Article 247
Code. The court also ordered Macky to pay indemnity to
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.
Alternative
Answer:
The court correctly ordered Macky to pay indemnity. Death under exceptional
circumstances as defined under Article 247 is an absolutory cause that exempts the
offender from criminal liability. In exempting circumstances, there is a crime but
there is no offender because the latter is exempt. There being a crime committed,
civil liability may be properly awarded. (People v. Coricor, G.R. No. 48768,
December
4,
1947).
Alternative
Answer:
The court committed an error when it also ordered Macky to pay indemnity to the
heirs of the victim. In People v. Abarca, G.R. No. L-74433, September 14, 1987, the
Supreme Court did not impose civil liability to be paid to the accused appellant to
the heirs of the person whom he killed pursuant to the provision of Article 247 of
the Revised Penal Code since xxx inflicting death under exceptional circumstances
is
not
murder
xxx
Moreover, as held in People v. Coricor, G.R. No. 48768, December 4, 1947
reiterated in People v. Araquel, G.R. No. L-12629, December 9, 1959, this penalty
(referring to Destierro) is mere banishment and is intended more for the
protection of the accused than a punishment. We therefore can not apply the
provision of Article 100 of the Revised Penal Code that a person criminally liable is
also
civilly
liable.
b. While serving his sentenced, Macky entered the prohibited area and had a
pot session with Ivy (Joys sister). Is Macky entitled to an indeterminate
sentence in case he is found guilty of the use of prohibited substances? Explain
your
answer.
The Indeterminate Sentence Law provides that its provisions shall not apply to
persons who have evaded sentence, among others (Section 2, Indeterminate
Sentence Law). Macky is not entitled to an indeterminate sentence because he had
evaded his sentence by entering the prohibited area. Evasion of service is not only
committed when the penalty of confinement or imprisonment is imposed but also
when the penalty is destierro because it involves deprivation of liberty.
V.
(10%)

a.

Distinguish

between

an

accomplice

and

conspirator.

Distinction
between
an
accomplice
and
a
conspirator:
1. As to the criminal intent, conspirators know the criminal intention because they
themselves have decided upon such course of action. Accomplices come to know
about it after the principals have reached the decision, and only then do they
agree
to
cooperate
in
its
execution.
2. As to the decision to commit the crime, conspirators decide that a crime should
be committed; accomplices do not decide whether the crime should be
committed, they merely assent to the plan and cooperate in its accomplishment.
3. As to their participation, conspirators are the authors of a crime, accomplices
are merely their instruments who perform acts not essential to the perpetration of
the offense. (People v. Garcia, G.R. No. 133489, January 15, 2002).
b. What are the three (3) classes of offender in the crime of qualified
seduction?
Give
an
example
of
each.
Classes
of
offenders
in
the
1.
Those
who
Example:
Guardian,
teacher

crime
abuse
and

2.
Those
Example:

confidence
servant

who
abused
the
Priest,
house

of

qualified
their
persons
in
reposed
or
a

seduction:
authority,
authority
in

them,
domestic

3.
Those
who
abuse
their
relationship.
Example: Brother or ascendant, whether legitimate or illegitimate (Article 337,
Revised Penal Code)
VI.
(10%)
What
are
the
different
acts
of
inciting
to
sedition?
The
different
acts
of
inciting
to
sedition
are:
1. Inciting others to be 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 public peace
or who knowingly concealing such evil practices. (Article 142, Revised Penal Code)
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 boys body. Unfortunately, the procedure conducted resulted in

the

boys

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.
No, the conviction of murder will not sustained. The faith-healer and the three
others must only be convicted of homicide through reckless imprudence because
they did not have any intent to kill when they treated the victim. There was
reckless imprudence because the faith-healer and the three others treated the
victim knowing that they do not have the necessary knowledge and skill to do so
and they failed to exercise the necessary precaution in healing the victim. (People
v. Carmen, G.R. No. 137268, March 26, 2001)
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.
Alternative
Answer:
Fe is liable for the crime of qualified theft. Fe did not acquire juridical possession
of the money. Fes possession is still possession of her employer. The falsification of
the talaan or ledger was but a means to facilitate or conceal the crime. The
falsification of the talaan or ledger to a figure lower than what was paid by their
customers is merely intended to conceal the misappropriation of the money
derived
from
the
rice
mill
operation.
Considering that a special confidential or fiduciary relationship exists between her
and her employer, the crime committed by Fe is qualified theft under Article 310
of
the
Revised
Penal
Code
by
taking
the
employers
money.
Alternative
Answer:
Fe committed the crime of estafa by misappropriating or converting money, goods
or any other personal properties received in trust, to the prejudice of another. As
general manager, Fe performs acts of administration, including the receipt and
custody of money paid by customers. (Article 315, par. 1[b], Revised Penal Code).
The falsification of the talaan or ledger to a figure lower than what was paid by
their customers is merely intended to conceal the misappropriation of the money
derived from the rice mill operation, and does not constitute a separate crime of
falsification.
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 latters confinement in a hospital for twelve days. What crime/s
did
Rafael
commit?
Explain
your
answer.
Alternative
Answer:
Rafael Padilla committed the complex crime of Illegal Discharge of Firearm with
Less
Serious
Physical
Injuries.
Before he fired his gun, it was pointed at the onrushing people. When the crowd
pushed forward, he fired his gun upward to scare them off. At this point, the crime
is illegal discharge of firearm, even if the gun was not pointed at the offended
party, as long as it was initially aimed at or against the offended party. (Reyes,
Revised
Penal
Code,
Book
II,
2006
ed.,
p.
490.)
However, Rafael Padilla is also liable for the injury of the crew member since it is
the natural and logical consequence of firing the gun. (Article 4, par. 1, RPC) Since
a single act resulted in two crimes, one illegal discharge of firearm and the other,
less serious physical injuries, he is liable for the complex crime of illegal discharge
of firearm with less serious physical injuries. (Article 48, Revised Penal Code;
People
v.
Arquiza,
G.R.
Nos.
42128-29,
December
19,
1935).
Alternative
Answer:
Rafael Padilla has not committed any crime. His purpose in firing his gun into the
air is to prevent the onrush of people which could result in death or injuries. He
was therefore in the performance of a lawful act with due care because he did not
fire indiscriminately. He has no fault or intention of causing the resultant damage
to property and the injury to the stage crew member. What happened was an
accident.
(Article
12,
par.
4,
Revised
Penal
Code).
The rule that a person can be held liable for illegal discharge of firearm when he
initially aimed at the offended party even if the firearm was fired or discharged
when no longer pointed at the offended party is anchored on the fact that he was
about to shoot the offended party. (People v. Ramirez, G.R. No. 240084,
November 3, 1925). Here, the security guard (Rafael Padilla) did not point the
firearm to the people who continued the onrushing; he did not fire at them; he
pointed the gun into the air and fired to prevent graver consequences.
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.
Giovanni committed the crime of Unjust Vexation. Unjust vexation includes any
human conduct which, although not productive of physical or material harm would,
however, unjustly annoy or vex an innocent person. The act of the accused in
nailing the barricades with a warning not to open the door or else something will

happen to you does not constitute such a serious threat or intimidation amounting
to grave coercion but merely the crime of unjust vexation penalized under
paragraph 2, Article 287 of the Revised Penal Code. (People v. Banzon, et.al., G.R.
No. 05388, October 21, 1969, cited in Reyes Book II, 2006 Ed., p. 605).
NOTHING FOLLOWS.