1988 BAR EXAMINATION

Question No. 1:
a) What are the limitations upon the power of congress to enact penal laws?
b) Are there common law crimes in our jurisdiction?
c) State the characteristics of criminal law and explain each.

Answer:
a) The limitations upon the power of congress to enact penal laws are as follows:

1. Congress cannot enact an ex post facto law.

2. Congress cannot enact a bill of attainder.
3. Congress cannot provide for a cruel punishment.
However, other limitations may be considered like:
1. Congress cannot enact a law which shall punish for a condition. Congress shall
punish an act and not the condition or status. (?) (Robinson vs. California).

2. Congress should consider Article 21 of the Revised Penal Code which provides that
penalties that may be imposed. No felony shall be punishable by any penalty not prescribed
by law prior to its commission.

b) There are none. The rule is, nullum crimen, nulla poena sine lege, there is no crim if
there is no law punishing it.

c) The characteristics of criminal law are as follows:

1. GENERALITY That the law is binding upon all persons who reside to sojourn in
the Philippines, irrespective of age, sex, color, creed, or personal cricumtances.
2. TERRITORIALITY - That the law is applicable to all crimes committed with in the
limits of Philippine territory, which includes its atmosphere interiors waters and
maritime zone (Art. 2).
3. PROSPECTIVITY that the law does not have any retroactive effect, except if it
favors the offender unless he is a habitual delinquent (Art. 22) oT the law otherwise
provides.
Article 2 if the Revised Penal Code however provides for the following exception:
a) Treaty stipulations or by a law of preferential application

Question No. 2:
a) Distinguish crime mala in se from crimes mala prohibita.
b) May a crime be committed without criminal intent? Explain.
c) When are light felonies punishable and who are liable in light felonies?

Answer:
a) There are three distinctions between mala in se and mala prohibita:
1. A crime mala in se is a natural wrong. On the other hand, an offense mala
prohibita is a wrong only because it is prohibited by law;
2. In the commission of a crime mala in se, intent is an element whereas in the
commission of an
offense mala prohibita, criminal intent is immaterial; and
3. Crimes mala in se are punished by the Revised Penal Code although the
Revised Penal Code may cover special laws while offense mala prohibita are punished by
special laws.
b) A crime may be committed without criminal intent in two cases:
1. Offense, punishable as mala prohibita; an
2. Felonies committed by means of culpa.
c) Light felonies, according to Article 7 of the Revised Penal Code are punishable only
when they have been consummated, with the exception of those committed against persons
or property.
Article. 16 of the Revised Penal Code provides that the following are criminally liable
for light felonies:
1. Principals
2. Accomplices.

Question No. 3:
a) State the two classes of penalties under the revised Penal Code. Define each.
b) May censure be included in a sentence of acquittal? Why or why not?
c) What offenses, if any, may be punished with the death penalty in our jurisdiction at
present? Explain.

Answer:
a) The two classes of penalties under Article 25 of the Revise Penal Code are as follows:
1. Principal
2. Accessory

A principal penalty is defined as that provided for a felony and which is imposed by
court expressly upon conviction.
An accessory penalty is defined as that deemed included in the imposition of the
principal penalty.
b) Censure may not be included in a sentence of acquittal, because a censure is a
penalty. Censure is repugnant and is essentially inconsistent and contrary to an acquittal
(People vs. Abellera, 69 Phil. 623.)
c) At present, no offense may be punished with the death penalty in our jurisdiction at
present. The 1987 Constitution has abolished the death penalty and the abolition affects
even those who has already been sentenced to death penalty. Therefore, unless Congress
enacts a law, no offense may be punished with the death penalty at present. But until today,
Congress has not yet passed a law to this effect.

Question No. 4:
a) State the application of the Indeterminate Sentence Law.
b) Who are the offenders disqualified from availing themselves of the benefits of the probation
law (P.D. 968, as amended)?
Answer:
a) The Indeterminate Sentence Law applies in cases where the penalty imposed is more
than one year and the ISL shall apply where there is a minimum penalty which is not lower
than the penalty next lower in degree provided by law and the maximum not higher than the
maximum penalty provided by law in cases of felonies but when it comes to statutory
offenses it must be lower than the minimum penalty provided by law and not higher than the
maximum penalty provided by law except in the following cases as provided by section 2 of
Art. 4103:
1. life imprisonment
2. those convicted of treason, conspiracy or proposal to commit treason
3. to those convicted of misprision of treason, rebellion, sedition or espionage
4. to those convicted of piracy
5. those who are habitual delinquents
6. to those who shall have escaped from confinement or evaded sentence
7. to those who having been granted conditional pardon by the Chief Executive
shall have violated the terms thereof
8. to those whose maximum term of imprisonment does not exceed one year, not
to those already sentenced by final judgment at the time of approval of this Act, except
as provided in Section 5 hereof.

b) The following offenders are disqualified from availing of the benefits of the
Probation Law:
1. those sentenced to serve maximum term of imprisonment of more than six
years;
2. those convicted of subversion or any crime against the national security of the
public order;
3. those who have previously been convicted by final judgment of an offense
punished by imprisonment of not less than one month and one day and or a fine of not
less than two hundred pesos;
4. those who have been once on probation under the provisions of this decree; and
5. those who are already serving sentence at the time the substantive provisions
of this decree applicable pursuant to Section 33 of P.D. 968.

Question No. 5:
a) How is criminal liability totally extinguished?
b) How is criminal liability extinguished partially?
c) If an accused is acquitted, does it necessarily follows that no civil liability arising from the
acts complained of may be awarded in the same judgment?

Explain briefly.

Answer:
a) Article 89 of the Revised Penal Code provides for the following causes of total
extinction of criminal liability:

1. Death of the convict as to personal penalties, as to the pecuniary liabilities,

liability therefore is extinguished only when death occurs before final judgment.
2. Service of Sentence
3. Amnesty
4. Absolute pardon
5. Prescription of the crime
6. Prescription of the penalty
7. Marriage of the offended woman as provided in Article 344.

b) Article 94 of the Revised Penal Code provides for the following causes of partial
extinction of criminal liability:
1. Condition pardon
2. Communication of sentence
3. Good conduct allowances during confinement
4. Parole
5. Probation
If an accused acquitted, it does not necessarily follow that no civil liability arising from the acts
complained of may be awarded in the same judgment except: If there is an express waiver of the
liability; and if there is a reservation of file a separate civil action (Rule 107; Padilla vs. CA People vs.
Jalandoni).

Question No. 6:
Juan Cruz, driver of a cargo truck owned and operated by VICMICO a sugar central, while
driving recklessly caused Jorge Abad to fall from the truck resulting in injuries which caused his
death. Juan Cruz was convicted of homicide thru reckless imprudence and was ordered to pay the
heirs of the deceased Ahad P12,000.00. The respondent judge issued an order granting a motion for
execution of the civil service liability of the accused Juan Cruz, but the return of the Sheriff showed
that the accused was insolvent. Petitioners, heirs of the deceased Abad, now filed a motion for
execution of the employers subsidiary liability under Art. 103 of the Revised Penal Code.
Respondent judge denied the motion, stating that the employer VICMICO, not having been notified
that his driver was facmg a criminal charge, a separate action had to be filed. Hence, a petition for
mandamus was filed.
Decide the case.
Answer:
Mandamus will lie. There is no need for a separate civil action because the driver was
convicted (Martinez vs. Barredo). All you need is a motion for execution with a notice to the
employer that states compliance with the requisites imposed by Article 103 of the Revised
Penal Code (that there is employer-employee relationship, that the employer is engaged in an
industry and that the driver is insolvent).

Question No. 7:
Pedro Orsal and the wife of accused Juan Santos started having illicit relations while the
accused was in Manilareviewing for the 1983 Bar Examinations and his wife was left behind in
Davao City. In the morning of July 15, 1984, the accused went to the bus station in Davao City to
go to Cagayan de Oro City to fetch his daughter, but after he failed to catch the first trip in the
morning, and because the 2:00 oclock bus had engine trouble and could not leave, the accused,
afer passing the residence of his father, went home and arrive at his residence at around six oclock
in the afternoon. Upon reaching his home, the accused found his wife Laura, and Pedro Orsal in
the act of sexual intercourse. When the wife and Pedro Orsal noticed the accused, the wife pushed
her paramour who got his revolver. The accused, who has then peeping above the built in cabinet
in their room, jumped down and ran away. He went to the house of his PC soldier-friend, and
neighbor, got his (soldiers) M-16 rifle and immediately, it was almost 6:30 p.m. then, went back to
his house. Not finding his wife there, he went to the hangout of Pedro Orsal and found the latter
playing mahjong there. The accused fired at Pedro three times with his rifle, hit him and two
bystanders. Pedro died instantaneously of wounds in the head, trunk, and abdomen. The two
bystanders were seriously injured but survived.
a) Can Juan Santos be held guilty for homicide for the death of Pedro Orsal? Explain.
b) What offense did Juan Santos commit with regard to the two bystanders? Explain.
c) What offense, did the wife of Juan Santos commit, if any why?

Answer:

a) Juan Santos cannot be held guilty' of homicide for the death of Pedro Orsal. Instead,
Juan is liable for violation of Article 247 Death inflicted under exceptional circumstances
because there was one continuous act. (People vs. Abarca).
b) With regards to the two bystanders, Juan Santos committed the crime of serious
physical injuries inflicted under exceptional circumstances. (Art. 247 Revised Penal Code;
People vs. Abarca).
c) The wife of Juan Santos committed the crime of adultery. Article 333 of the Revised
Penal Code provides that Who are guilty of adultery. Adultery is committed by any married
woman who shall have sexual intercourse with a man not her husband ".

Question No. 8:

a) An armed band tried to stop a passenger bus, and the driver who sensed that the band
might commit robbery, did not stop the bus but drove it faster. The members of the band then fired
at the bus, killing one passenger who was hit in the head.
b) As the malefactor were about to enter the house of A, the latter hid himself inside the
ceiling. Once inside the house, the malefactor took from As wife cash and pieces of jewelry. One of
the malefactors stood on a table and fired his gun at the ceiling. After they had left As wife called
for him and receiving no answer, she went up the ceiling and found him already dead.
What crime was committed? Explain.
c) In the course of robbery there was confusion and in the exchange of shots between the
robbers and the victims, one of the robbers happened to shoot one of his own companions.
What crime was committed? Explain.

Answer:

a) They committed the crime of attempted robbery with homicide with band as a
generic aggravating circumstance. Article 297 of the Revised Penal Code provides that

Attempted... robbery committed under certain circumstances.When. ..on the occasion of

an attempted robbery a homicide is committed the person guilty of such offenses shall be
punished by reclusion temporal

b) Robbery with homicide was committed by the malefactors. Article 297 of the Revised
Penal Code provides that Attempted and frustrated robbery committed under certain
circumstances. When by reason...of an attempted or frustrated robbery a homicide is
committed the person guilty of such offenses shall be punished by reclusion temporal. .
c) The robber committed the crime of robbery with homicide in violation of Article 297
of the Revised Penal Code which provides that . . . w h e n . . . on the occasion of an
attempted robbery a homicide is committed the person guilty of such offenses shall be
punishedby reclusion temporal. .

Question No. 9:

a) An armed group, avowed to overthrow the duly constituted authorities, captured five
officers and five members of the armed forces and held them in their mountain lair for seventy-five
days and then voluntarily released them in consideration of the promise of medical treatment to be
given to some of their comrades who were under detention by the authorities.
What crime or crimes had been committed? Reasons.
b) In the course of proceeding during a so-called public hearing held before a crowd in a
place open to the public, the leaders of the meeting tried certain public officials and thereafter
sentenced them to death by assassination or ambuscades.
Are the leaders criminally liable? Decide the case.

c) Two Japanese were passing through immigration and customs preparatory to their
departure for Japan at the Ninoy Aquino International Airport. A bundle of P2,000 peso bills was
discovered in one of them, and to prevent their being delayed, his companion took the bundle of
bills and then and there tore up the bills.

As City Fiscal of Pasay, what crimes, if any, would you charge the two Japanese? Explain.

Answer:
(a.l) Rebellion was committed because their purpose was to overthrow the government
and all other acts committed in the further of this purpose are absorbed by rebellion.
(a.2) The armed group committed the crime of kidnapping and serious illegal detention
in violation of Aticle 267 of the Revised Penal Code which provides that kidnapping and
serious illegal detention. Any private individual who shall kidnap another, or in any other
manner deprive him of his liberty, shall suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death....

b) The leaders are criminally liable for the crime of libel by theatrical exhibition. Article
355 of the Revised Penal Code provides: libel by means of writing or similar means. A libel
committed by means of writing, printing lithography, engraving, radio, phornographs,
painting, theatrical exhibition, cinematographic exhibition, or any similar means, shall be
punished by prision correctional

c) The two Japanese cannot be charged of any crime. They committed no crime. Article
164 of the Revised Penal Code on mutilation of coins cannot be applied to the Japanese
because said article refers to coins and not to bills.

Question No. 10:

a) Jorge is the owner of 10 hectares of land in the foothills which he planted to lanzones. On
his last visit there he was shocked to discover that his land had been taken over by a group of 15
families whose members had forcibly driven away his caretaker, had appropriated the fruits for
themselves, and were now threatening to kill him should he try to eject them.
 What crime should Jorge charge these 15 families? Explain.

(b) Five laborers were hired by Manuel Diong to harvest coconuts from a plantation which he
told them belonged to him. Unknown to them, the ownership of the land was in dispute, and the
registered owner subsequently filed a case of qualified theft against them.

How would you defend them? Explain briefly.

Answer:

a) Jorge can charge the 15 families of 2 separate crimes namely:

1) Violation of Article 282 which provides that Grave threats. Any person who
shall threaten another with the infliction upon the person, honor or property of the latter
or of his family of any wrong amounting to a crime shall suffer... and
2) Violation of Article 312 which provides that: Occupation of real property or
usurpation of real rights in property. Any person who, by means of violence against or
intimidation of persons, shall take possession of any real property or shall usurp any real
rights in property belonging to another, in addition to the penalty incurred for violence
executed by him, shall be punished by a fine from P50.00...
b) I would defend them by citing U.S. vs. Ah Chong (15 Phil. 488) on mistake of facts
and charge the owner with violation of Article 282 on grave threats. In U.S. vs. Ah Chong,
the accused was exempted frdm criminal liability because he performed an act which would
be lawful had it been true as he believed that Grave threats. Any person who shall
threaten another with the infliction upon the person, honor or property of the latter or of his
family of any wrong amounting to a crime, shall suffer..

Question No. 11
a) In the course of funeral procession, a young mourner who was marching in front of the
funeral hearse, momentarily stooped down to tie her shoelaces which had become untied. The
driver of the hearse, who was driving at 5 miles an hour, was then looking at the stores by the
roadside and did not see her. He continued to drive on and ran over the girl. When the people
around shouted and gestured, he backed up and ran over the girl a second time, killing her.

If you were the-parent of the girl-victim, what crime would you charge, if you think a crime
had been committed, and against whom? Explain your answer briefly.

At a pre-wedding celebration where plenty of people were milling and walking about or standing
close together, a mad killer shot up the wedding party. The three appellants were convicted by the
owner court as co-conspirators of the killer because they were allegedly with him before, during,
and after the shooting. It was proven conclusively that the appellant were friends of the killer; that
they went together with the killer to the celebration; and that they left at the same time with the
killer, after the shooting. However, the appellants had no guns and passively witnessed the without
intervening in the killing in any way nor shielding killer.
Is there conspiracy among them? Why?

Answer:
(a) Only the driver could be charged of homicide thru reckless imprudence or homicide
thru simple negligence which preclude conspiracy against those who shouted and gestured.
(b) There is no conspiracy among them because as the problem has stated, they
passively witnessed the shooting. No overt act was committed therefore the element that the
conspiracy must be proved as the essence of the crime itself is not present.

Question No. 12:

(a) A public official charged with purchasing rice stocks under government subsidy falsely
reported that his stocks of rice worth PI 7 million on board two barges sank off a neighboring island
on their way to their destination and were completely lost. Menwhile, the rice was surreptitiously
sold to rice warehouses in the provinces.
What is the criminal liability of this government official? Explain.

(b) A city official ordered one million pesos (P1M) worth of T-shirts at public expense for the
underprivileged residents of his city. After full payment with city funds was made, it was discovered
that only a fourth of the T-shirts had been delivered and that the rest of the deliveries were so-
called ghost deliveries.

Answer:
(a) The government official being an accountable officer can be charged with
malversation thru falsification of official documents.

(b) (1) The city official is liable for violation of Article 213 of the Revised Penal Code
which provides that:
Article 213. Frauds against the public treasury and similar offenses.The penalty of
prision correccional in its medium period to prision mayor in its minimum period, or a fine
ranging from P200 to P10,000 shall be imposed upon any public officer who:
1. In his official capacity, in dealing with any person with regard to furnishing supplies,
the making of contracts, or the adjustment or settlement of accounts relating to public
property of funds, shall enter into an agreement with any interested party or speculator or
make use of any other scheme, to defraud the government;

2. Being entrusted with the collection of taxes, licenses, fees and other impost, shall be
guilty of any of the following acts or omissions:

(a) Demanding, directly or indirectly, the payment of sums different from or larger
than those authorized by law.
(b) Failing voluntarily to issue a receipt, as provided by law, for any sum of money
collected by him officially.
(c) Collecting or receiving, directly or indirectly, by way of payment or otherwise,
things or objects of a different nature from that provided by law.
When the culprit is an officer or employee of the Bureau of Internal Revenue or the
Bureau of Customs, the provisions of the Administrative Code shall be applied; and violation
of:
(b) (2) Act 3019 sec. 3 (g) which provides that:
Corrupt practices of public officers IN ADDITION to acts or omissions of public
officers already penalized by existing law, the following shall constitute corrupt practices of
any public officer and are hereby declared to be unlawful.
Question No. 13:
(a) The victim Dario went to the Civil Service Commission at about 11:00 a . m . to have some
documents signed, and because his efforts were frustrated, he angrily remarked in the presence of
the accused Benito that the Civil Service Commission is a hang-out of thieves. The accused felt
alluded to because he was then facing criminal and administrative charges on several counts
involving his honesty and integrity, and pulling out a gun from his desk, he shot Dario, inflicting a
fatal wound. Benito is now invoking the mitigating circumstances of immediate vindication of grave
offense.
Decide the case.
(b) The robbers killed a mother and her baby, then threw the body of the baby outside the
window.
Can the aggravating circumstances of cruelty be considered in this case? Reasons.

Answer:
(a) The mitigating circumstances of immediate vindication of grave offense cannot be
considered because to be applicable, Article 13 par. 5 requires that: Mitigating cir-
cumstances. xxxx 5. That the act was committed in the immediate vindication of a grave
offense to the one committing the felony (delito) his spouse, ascendants, descendants,
legitimate, natural or adopted brothers or sisters or relatives by affinity within the same
degrees.
Instead, the circumstances of passion or obfuscation should be considered. Benito
should be charged with frustrated homicide with the mitigating circumstances of passion.

(b) Cruelty cannot be considered in this case because the aggravating circumstance of
cruelty requires deliberates prolongation of the suffering of the victim. In this case, the baby
was dead already so that there is no more prolongation to speak of.

Question No. 14:

(a) Andrea signed her deceased husbands name in endorsing his three treasury warrants
which were delivered to her directly by the district supervisor who knew that her husband had
already died, and she used the proceeds to pay for the expenses of her husbands last illness and
his burial. She knew that her husband had accumulated vacation and sick leaves the money value
of which exceeded that value of the three treasury warrants, so that the government suffered no
damage. Andreas appeal is based on her claim of absence of criminal intent and of good faith.

Should she be found guilty of falsification? Discuss briefly.

(b) Raul Doria gave in trust two acrylic paintings to Amar Solo to be sold on commission basis
for P20,000.00. Failing to sell them to George Ty, Amar consigned the paintings to Alcanto Gallery.
In the same month, Amar retrieved one painting and tried to return in to Raul who refused to
receive it without the other painting. The other painting was bought by Mr. Lomot whose check,
which Amar gave to Raul, bounced, so that Amar paid Raul his own check of P6,500.00 promising
in writing to pay the P3,500.00 balanceless his commission.

Is Amar liable for estafa? Why?

 How about Mr. Lomot, what crime, if any did he commit?

ANSWER:

(a) Andrea should be held guilty of falsification of public documents. Her claim of absence
of criminal intent and of good faith cannot be considered because she is presumed to know
that her husband is dead. The element of damage required in falsification does not refer to
pecuniary damage but damage to public interest.

Executive clemency can however be sought for by Andrea.

(b) Amar is not liable for estafa but is liable for violation of BP 22. There is only civil
liability because as long as no case has been filed in court, an obligation can still be novated.
In this case there was novation.
Mr. Lomot is liable for violation of BP 22.

Question No. 15:

(a) Romeo Cunanan, publisher of the Baguio Daily, was sued by Pedro Aguas for libel for the
public publication of his picture with the notice that: This is to inform the public that Mr. Pedro
Aguas whose picture appears above has ceased to be connected with the Sincere Insurance
Company as underwriter as of December 31, 1987. Any transaction entered into by him after said
date will not be honored.

Is the publication defamatory? Explain briefly.

For some time, bad blood had existed beween the two families of Maria Razon and Judge Gadioma who
were neighbors. First, there w&s a boundary dispute between them which was still pending in court. Marias
mother also filed an administrative complaint against the judge which was however dismissed. The Razons also
felt intimidated by the position and alleged influence of their neighbor. Fanning fire to the situation was the
practice of the Gadiomas of throwing garbage and animal excrement into the Razons premises. In an explosion
of anger, Maria called Judge Gadioma land grabber'*, shameless, and hypocrite."

What crime was committed by Maria, if any? Explain briefly.

Answer:
(a) The publication is not defamatory because the element of intent to defame is absent.
This is a mere announcement and does not carry any implication.
(b) Maria committed the crime of slander or slight defamation only because she
was under the influence of anger. When Maria called Judge Gadioma a hypocrite and land
grabber she imputed to him the commission of crimes.