MCQ Crimlaw 1 Atty Isagani Calderon Sec.

1A

1. In the case of People v Ricohermoso, Pio Ricohermoso and Severo Padernal, both armed with knives, attacked Germiniano de Leon. Germininos son Marianito, upon seeing the attack, drew his gun but was prevented from shooting the attackers by Jun Padernal, who was grappled with him for the possession of the gun. Geminiano died from knife wounds. In his defense, Juan invoked that he merely prevented Marianito from shooting Pio and Severo thus avoiding a greater evil of injury. Is the contention of Juan tenable? A. No, because the action of Marianito to defend his fathers life is not regarded as an evil inasmuch as in the eyes of the law it is a lawful act. B. Yes because the supposed shooting will make Marianito the unlawful aggressor. C. Yes because the shooting of Pio and Severo is considered an act of greater evil or injury. D. No because instead of preventing Marianito, he should have help him defend Germiniano as provided for in Article 12 paragraph 3 of the RPC. 2. In the case of People v. Oanis, Two policemen were ordered to capture a notorious fugitive believed to be hiding in a house in Manila. The order states that if overpowered, they are authorized to shoot to kill. Upon reaching the alleged area, they saw a man sleeping with his back towards the door. Believing that the man sleeping was the fugitive, they started shooting him that led to his instantaneous death. It turned out that the man was an innocent citizen. The policemen justified their action as a fulfillment of their duty. Will their defense exempt them from criminal liability? A. No because the shooting of an unarmed man is not justified under the law. B. Yes because there was a valid order issued to them authorizing them to use any means necessary to affect the arrest. C. No because there was no overpowering resistance coming from the alleged fugitive that will justify their act of shooting the deceased. D. Yes because the fugitive is a considered notorious criminal who is a threat to the peace and security of the public. 3. Tabuena vs Sandiganbayan

The General Manager of MIAA (a government corporation) was ordered by the President of the Philippines to withdraw an amount to pay the debt of MIAA to PNCC (another government corporation). He was further instructed to deliver the cash withdrawn to the office of the President thru the Presidents secretary. It turned out later that the cash delivered were never remitted to PNCC. The General Manager was later charged with malversation of public funds. The General Manager invoked as a defense that they were just following an order issued by their superior. Is the defense tenable? A. Yes because there was a direct order coming from the president, who has authority over all government corporations, to withdraw the said amounts and that there was a valid existing obligation of MIAA to PNCC that must be paid. B. Yes because the presidents order is considered a superior mandate that everyone should obey. C. No because even if its the presidents order they should have first coordinated with PNCC for the transaction. D. No because the delivery of the cash withdrawn to the presidents secretary and not directly to PNCC was already an act of irregularity and they should have not have continued. 4. In the case of U.S vs Ah Chong, Ah Chong was scared when someone was trying to get in his room. Ah Chong even said that if the intruder entered the room Ah Chong would kill him. Thinking that the intruder was one of the bad elements he was scared so he struck him with a kitchen knife when the intruder entered. As it turns out it was Ah Chongs roommate and his actions caused the death of his roommate. Ah Chong should be exempted from criminally liability because
A. There was illegal aggression on the part of the roommate B. Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of Ah Chong C. Mistake of fact on the identity of the roommate D. Ah Chong acted with criminal intent or malice

5. In the case Padilla vs Dizon, Pasay RTC Judge Baltazar Dizon acquitted Lo chi Fai who was arrested for violating CB circular no. 960 sec. 6 : No ones allowed to take out foreign exchange in any form unless authorized by Central Bank or international agreements. Lo Chi Fai was caught with 380 pieces of different currencies totaling to $355,349.57 and was able to show only two Central Bank declarations. Acquittal based on: (1) no intent, (2) money belonged tom him and associates coming from abroad not local. The acquittal A. Was incorrect because when the law is clear and unambiguous one should just apply it. B. Was correct because it is sufficient that Lo Chi Fai had no intent

C. Was incorrect because of the gross ignorance of the law of the judge D. Was correct because Lo Chi Fai had Central Bank declarations 6. In the case People vs Puno, Mrs. Sarmiento was kidnapped by Puno and and Amurao with the intent of extorting ransom from her for her freedom. Puno is the personal driver of Mrs. Sarmiento's husband. Puno is guilty of
A. B. C. D.

Kidnapping Robbery with extortion Brigandage Robbery

7. De Vera served as a look out while Florendo and Garcia feloniously fired a gun hitting between the eyes of the victim. The policemen caught De Vera while walking in the subdivision where the event happened. In his contention, he claims that he had no part in killing the victim because he only served as a look out and it was Florendo who shot the victim. Does a mere look out constitute conspiracy in the commission of felony? A. Yes, because De Vera together with the others intended to kill the victim making them the authors of the crime. B. No, because his participation as a look out was made after the decision to kill. C. Yes, because as testified by the witness he was inside the car together with the others inflicting wounds with the victim. D. No, because as a lookout he does not perform any acts that leads to the perpetration of the offense. 8. Two couples, Maricar and Edgar and Al and Rosie were at the park when suddenly Winchester, Ritchie and Gregmar arrived. Winchester boxed Edgar and afterwards the three of them wilfully assault and stabbed the victim causing his death. Winchester and Gregmar invoked denial that it was Ritchie alone who killed the victim. What did the Supreme Court ruled? A. There is no conspiracy exist between the appellants because only Ritchie stabbed and killed the victim. B. Winchester was pulled away by Rosie and Gregmar was defecating thus Winchester and Gregmar could not conspire with Ritchie. C. Conspiracy exists because of the presence of intent by Winchester, Gregmar and Ritchie and they agreed upon in committing the crime.

D. Conspiracy exists between Winchester, Gregmar and Ritchie because they performed an act although the acts have been distinct and separate. It does not matters who among the accused inflicted the fatal blow to the victim.

9. What happened to Mrs Lydia in the case of People vs. Liad? A. Mrs Lydia Cuenca was killed and robbed by 3 gunned men while on her way home. B. Mrs Lydia Cuenca while in their store was killed and robbed by 3 gunned men. C. Mrs Lydia Cuenca was cleaning her car when suddenly 3 gunned men killed and robbed her. D. Mrs Lydia Cuenca while leaving the store was shot and robbed by 3 gunned men. 10. In People vs. Gatchalian, the accused Juancho Gatchalian contends that the crime he committed is homicide and not murder because there was no treachery. However, the Court did not give merit in his contention. The Court said that the two requisites of treachery, which are the employment of means, method, or manner of execution which will ensure the safety of the malefactor from defensive or retaliating acts on the part of the victim, no opportunity being given to the latter to defend himself or to retaliate; and deliberate or conscious adoption of such means, method, or manner of execution, are clearly present. Why was the Court correct in holding that the accused is guilty of murder? A. As to the principle of liberality in favor of the accused or that no act should be considered criminal unless it is clearly made so by the law, the Court clearly states the requisites of treachery and thus is correct in holding that the accused is guilty of murder by virtue of the qualifying circumstance of treachery. B. The Court is correct in holding that the accused is guilty of murder because it upholds the doctrine of void-for-vagueness in its decision. C. The Court is correct in holding that the accused is guilty of murder because it finds aggravating circumstance, any abuse of superior strength being absorbed by treachery, or any mitigating circumstance. D. Because the qualifying circumstance of evident premeditation was not sufficiently proven.

11. In Go vs. Dimagiba, the Court noted that the petition for a writ of habeas corpus relied mainly on the alleged retroactivity of SC-AC No. 12-2000 or An Act Penalizing the Making or Drawing and Issuance of a Check Without Sufficient Funds or Credit and for Other Purposes, which supposedly favored BP 22 or Bouncing Checks Law offenders. On this point, Dimagiba contended that his imprisonment was violative of his right to equal protection of the laws, since only a fine would be imposed on others similarly situated. What does the rule on retroactivity state? A. That criminal laws may be applied retroactively if against the accused. B. That criminal laws may be applied retroactively if favorable to the State. C. That criminal laws may be applied retroactively if favorable to the accused. D. That criminal laws may be applied retroactively if favorable to both the accused and the State.

12. In the case of People vs. Sayana, it was mentioned that it is the primordial duty of the prosecution in rape cases to present its case with clarity and persuasion to the end that conviction becomes the only logical and inevitable conclusion. Proof beyond reasonable doubt is required. Although the law does not demand absolute certainty of guilt, it nonetheless requires moral certainty to support a judgment of conviction. In this case, the accused was acquitted because of equipoise doctrine. What is this equipoise doctrine? A. Where the inculpatory facts admit of several interpretations, consistent only with the guilt of the accused, the evidence thus does not fail to meet the test of moral certainty and it becomes the duty of the Court to acquit the accused. D. Where the complainants testimony fails to satisfy the test of credibility so that it becomes the duty of the Court to acquit the accused. C. Where the testimony of the complainant states several interpretations which are not consistent with the accuseds innocence and guilt and it becomes the constitutional duty of the Court to acquit the accused. D. Where the inculpatory facts admit of several interpretations, one consistent with accuseds innocence and another with his guilt, the evidence thus adduced fails to meet the test of moral certainty and it becomes the constitutional duty of the Court to acquit the accused.

13. In People vs. Dela Cruz, the sentence of Pablo Dela Cruz was reduced to six months. This is under what provision? A.Sec.19, Par.(1),Art.III of the 1987 Constitution B. Art. 131(1) of the Revised Penal Code C. Art. 43(1) of the Civil Code D. Art. 12 (4) of the Revised Penal Code 14. In the case of People vs. Ferrer (48 SCRA 382) , the Anti-Subversive Act or RA 1700 was declared by Hon. Simeon Ferrer as a Bill of Attainder. The SC ruled otherwise. Why? A. RA 1700 maintains that any alleged CPP member would still have to be proven as a knowing and willful member, their guilt is still to be judicially established and thus, there is still a judicial trial. B. RA 1700 is not applied retroactively in the case of the CPP but had reached the past conduct of the group. C. Under RA 1700, the CPP is declared as unlawful and thereby membership to CPP and other similar associations will be penalized. D. RA 1700 creates a presumption of organizational guilt of the CPP as a nature of conspiracy that those who knowingly join the criminal covenant are liable. 15. In US vs. Diaz-Conde (42 Phil 766), Diaz-Conde was discharged. What was the rule applied? A. No ex post facto law. B. No bill of attainder. C. No excessive fines nor cruel, degrading or inhumane punishment. 16. Maximo Givera is guilty of the crime of murder on the following grounds except: A. B. C. D. He conspired with Arturo and Epifanio Gayon . He himself dealt the deathblow that sent the victim to his grave. He intrude Gardons house and lured the latter to chase them. He was with the group when they threw stones at Gardons house.

17. In People v. Reyes, the accused appellant Danilo Reyes was convicted of homicide with robbery because the following elements are present except: A. taking the personal property of another with violence or intimidation B. the taking is done with intent to gain C. on the occasion of robbery, the victim is killed

D. He acted with a common criminal design to perpetrate the robbery with Arnel Cergantes 18. For conspiracy to be established as a ground for prosecution in the case of People v Patano, certain elements must be manifested. However, in this case, the accused were acquitted because: A. The suspects were never positively identified and there was insufficient evidence to prove their guilt. B. Patano and the Madriaga brothers never came to an agreement to commit the kidnapping C. They never planned to commit an act that would result to a felony D. There was no commonality in the criminal design in the acts of the perpetrators. 19. Why did the Supreme Court qualify Albuquerques situation as praeter intentionem? A. Because there is lack of intention to cause the death of the deceased and the offender acted under the influence of passion and obfuscation. B. Because of appellant's contention that he acted in legitimate self-defense. C. Because the offender had performed all the acts necessary to consummate such crime. D. Because the act does not incur any criminal liability. 20. Intod v Court of appeals, the accused, with intent to kill, shot at the room where he thought the intended victim was asleep at the time but in fact the latter was out of her house. Whether the accused may be held liable for attempted murder? A. Yes. The offense was Attempted Murder because the absence of Palangpangan was a supervening cause independent of the actor's will. All circumstances which prevented the consummation of the offense will be treated as an accident independent of the actor's will which is an element of attempted and frustrated felonies. B. No. He should only be liable for alarm and scandals punishable under Article 155 of RPC. C. No. The factual situation presents a physical impossibility which rendered the intended crime impossible of accomplishment. The accused shall be adjudge guilty of an impossible crime because of the factual impossibility of producing the crime. D. No. It should be Legal impossibility because The accused has intention to kill and did perform the physical act but the consequence from the act did not amount to a crime. 21. In People vs Saladino, was the evidences sufficient to establish impossible crime?

A. Yes. Because of the inconsistencies on the victims testimony which was the ground in acquitting the accused. B. No. The inconsistencies are of minor significance and do not impinge upon her assertion that she was raped. C. Yes. The means employed in such case is ineffectual in accomplishing such crime. D. No. Because the intercourse was consensual, there would be no impossible crime to speak of. 22. In People vs. Buan, the vehicle driven by accused-appellant struck and collided with another vehicle, injuring its passengers. The incident allegedly occurred because of the negligence and recklessness of the accused-appellant. He was charged with slight physical injuries through reckless imprudence in the Justice of the Peace Court and was acquitted. The Supreme Court upheld such decision. In the light of Art. 3 of the RPC, what is being penalized by the Court in cases such as this? A. The law penalizes the negligent or careless act, not the result thereof. The gravity of the consequence is only taken into account to determine the penalty, and it does not qualify the substance of the offense. B. The law penalizes the negligent or careless act, as well as the result. The gravity of the consequence of the act is commensurate to the determination of the penalty, and qualifies the substance of the offense. C. The law only penalizes the negligent or careless act. It is precisely the extent of negligence or imprudence that determines the gravity of the penalty. 23. In People vs. Guillen, the defendant-appellant injured several people and killed a certain Simeon Varela in his quest to kill Pres. Manuel Roxas, in a popular meeting at Plaza Miranda. He was convicted of the crime of murder and multiple frustrated murder and sentenced to suffer death penalty. What was reason of the Supreme Court for such ruling? A. Art. 3, RPC: Defendant-appellant committed a felony by means of fault. In throwing hand grenade at the President with the intention of killing him, there was negligence, imprudence, lack of foresight and lack of skill, as he injured and killed the people who were not his intended target. B. Art. 4, RPC: Defendant-appellant was liable for all the consequences of his wrongful act, as criminal liability is incurred by any person committing felony (delito) although the wrongful act done be different from that which he intended. C. Art. 3, RPC: In criminal negligence, the injury caused to another should be intentional, it being simply the incident of another act performed without malice. There was no malice on the part of the defendant-appellant in mistakenly injuring and killing the victims. It was solely because of his lack of foresight or lack of skill.

24. In People vs. Sabalones, accused-appellants believed that they were suspected of having killed a certain Nabing Velez and that they expected his group to retaliate against them. Hence, accused-appellants ambushed several people in their vehicles, killing two and wounding 3 others. It turned out that they mistook the victims vehicles to be carrying the avenging men of Velez. What characterizes this case best? A. Aberratio ictus. The act of accused-appellants was characterized by aiming at one but hitting another, as they sought to kill the avenging men of Nabing Velez, they mistakenly injured and killed innocent persons. B. Error in personae. The act of accused-appellants was directed towards the wrong person, hence there was an accidental harm to the innocent victims, such that, accused-appellants aimed at X but hit Y instead. C. Error in personae. Accused-appellants were mistaken in the identity of the victims, thinking that they killed the avenging men of Nabing Velez who were actually innocent and unsuspecting persons. 25. "The death penalty shall also be imposed if the crime of rape is committed with any of the following attendant circumstances: 1. When the victim is under eighteen (18) years of age and the offender is a parent, __________________, step-parent, guardian, relative by consanguinity or affinity within the third civil degree, or the common-law spouse of the parent of the victim. A. ascendant B. descendant C. either of the above 26. HARDEN VS. DIRECTOR OF PRISONS "punishments are cruel when they involve __________________ or a lingering death, but the punishment of death is not cruel, within the meaning of that word as used in the constitution. A. pain B. suffering C. torture 27. Battered Woman Syndrome: People vs Genosa, 419 SCRA 537 The following circumstances could satisfy the requisites of self-defense in BWS, except one: A. The battered woman have gone through the phases of the cycle of violence at least twice B. The final battering episode preceding the killing of the batterer must have produced in the battered woman's mind an actual fear of an imminent harm and an honest belief that she needed to use force in order to save her life.

C. Threatening behavior or communication satisfying the required imminence of danger D. At the time of the killing, the batterer must have posed immediate and actual grave harm to the woman 28. Insanity and Imbecility: People vs Estrada, 333 SCRA 699 (2000) In order that insanity can be invoked as an exempting circumstance, it must proved by clear and positive evidence, and the evidence on this point must refer to: A. Insanity while serving sentence B. Accuseds present insanity C. Insanity at the time preceding the criminal act or to the very moment of its execution D. Insanity after judgment of conviction 29. Insanity and Imbecility: People vs. Tabugoca, 285 SCRA 312 (1998) Which of the following can be an exemption from criminal liability on the ground of insanity? A. Loss of memory of the accused prior to the crime B. Having been under the influence of liquor C. Amnesia, in the case that the accused did not know the nature and quality of his action D. Failure to remember of the accused when the crime was performed 30. As part of their merry-making, Pugay poured gasoline on his retarded friend thinking that it was water. His companion set the latter on fire which resulted to her death. Both were drunk and their actions were all in the spirit of fun. They were convicted. What element of criminal liability justifies the conviction? A. Imprudence or Lack of skill. They didnt have the necessary skills to have extinguished the fire when it was set on the victim. B. Negligence or Lack of foresight. They failed to exercise all the diligence necessary to avoid the consequences. C. Imprudence or lack of skill. The smell could not have escaped Pugays notice and the consequence could have been thought of by the other when he set the victim on fire. D. Negligence or lack of foresight. They failed to call the authorities or anyone who could help them when the victim was set on fire. 31. Carmen and her church members, in an attempt to cure a child of his illness, submerged him into a barrel of water, pounded on his chest and stabbed him with a knife. It resulted to his death. They acted in good faith though and they only wanted to cure the child. Its a ritual of their church and they also had the consent of the parents. Should they be criminally liable?

A. Yes, because even if they acted in good faith, they knew that their acts may cause the death of the victim. B. No, because there was no malice; they had no intention to cause the death of the child and that the ritual of their church must be respected. C. Yes, because the elements of reckless imprudence are apparent in their acts, which because of their lack of medical skill resulted in the victims death. D. No, because their acts were part of the rituals of their church; as such it involves faith that should not be questioned by anyone. 32. In the case People v Delim, the victims family witnessed the Delims entering their house one night, taking their father, hog-tying him and gagging him with a piece of cloth and bringing him outside. After four days, the cadaver of the father was found under thick bushes. During trial, the prosecution failed to prove motive on the part of the respondents, but the latter were still convicted. Which best explains the conviction with regards to motive? A. Motive is not an essential element of a crime; proof of motive for the commission of the offense charged does not show guilt and absence of proof of such motive does not establish the innocence of accused for the crime charged B. Even if motive, which is an essential element of a crime, wasnt proven by the prosecution, the facts that the incident was witnessed by the family and the respondents were positively identified prove their guilt. C. It could be deduced from the actions of the respondents that they conspired to kill the victim; such actions prove their intent and intent is synonymous with motive. D. Motive is important only when there are other suspects in the criminal act. In this case, there are no other probable suspects as was testified by the family members. 33. In People v Dalisay the essential elements for statutory rape are: A. by using force or intimidation B. the offender had carnal knowledge of a woman and the woman is below 12 years of age C. when the woman is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious D. all of the above 24. The penalty of death under Section 11 of R.A: 7659 is imposable: A. for the crime of rape B. when the rape is attempted or frustarated and a homicide is committed by reason on the occasion thereof C. when by reason on the occasion of the rape, a homicide is committed D. whenever the crime of rape is committed with the use of a deadly weapon by two or more persons.

35. In People v Orita a crime is attempted (in a distinction set by Justice Moreland) when: A. The purpose of the offender must not be thwarted by a foreign force or agency which intervenes and compels him to stop prior to the moment when he performed all the acts which should produce the crime as a consequence, which acts it is his intention to perform B. If accused has performed all the acts which should result in the consummation of the crime and voluntarily desists from proceeding C. There is no intervention of a foreign or extraneous cause or agency between the beginning of the commission of the crime and the moment when all the acts have been performed D. There is intervention and the offender does not arrive at the point of performing all the acts which should produce the crime 36. Victor Acuyan and Juan Escote Jr. boarded a bus with the intention of robbery. Armed with hand-guns, they declared a hold-up. During the duration of which, they found out that a police officer, Jose Manio, was aboard the same bus. Manio was then disarmed and killed through his service firearm. Should Acuyan and Escote be liable for homicide? A. No, they should not be liable because there was no intent from the beginning to kill Manio. B. No, because all those guilty of robbery will not automatically be guilty of homicide unless they had taken part in the homicide. C. Yes, because they acted upon the fear that Manio would recognize them and report the incident to his colleagues so there is intent. D. Yes, because all those guilty of robbery will also be guilty of homicide even if they had no part in the homicide. 37. Vicente Binarao, Rudy Canata and Jose Cambis Jr., by means of force and intimidation through the use of a fan knife, raped Emma Clapis. Binarao was the first to rape the victim, while the rest assisted by covering her mouth and holding her legs. This was the arrangement until all the men had their turn. But Binarao raped Clapis for a second time. Should Binarao be the only one charged for multiple charges of rape? A. Yes, because he had raped the victim twice while his companions only touched her once. B. Yes, he was the first to have carnal knowledge on the woman in the first place. C. No, there is a commonality of criminal design on their acts so the act of one is the act of all. D. No, because they had all threatened her to keep quiet after the incident.

38. Pabillare and his companions kidnapped Gurmail Singh and brought him to a car driven by Conrado Caada. For Singhs release, the kidnappers demanded a sum of P100,000.00. Singh was then brought to a bodega by Caada while the latter drove for Pabillare and the rest of the kidnappers to pick up the sum of money. Later on, they were all apprehended by the authorities. Should Caada be held liable for the crime charged? A. Yes, because he was a principal conspirator. B. Yes, because he has shown an overt act that has a common purpose for the accomplishment of the crime. C. No, because he was only used as a driver during the commission of the crime. D. No, because he was not a conspirator to the crime charged.

39. In People v Sultan what was the defense of Fernando Sultan? A. Requisite force or intimidation was not proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. B. Accused appellant employ self defense C. He have no intent of robbing the victim D. Accused appelant was insane

40. How did the supreme court ruled in the case of People v Valdez? A. In the interpretation ofcriminal statutes the court applied the equipoise doctrine. B. The court employ the retroactive application since it favored the accused C. The court employ the prospectivity of criminal law D. Justifying circumstance of self defense 41. In People v Dindo why did the supreme court acquitted the accused appellant? A. No certainty of evidence B. The supreme court favored on him due to lack of merrit C. He is exempted from criminal liability due to immunity D. Outside the Philippine jurisdiction 42. Reynaldo Unidad was found guilty of the crime homicide but the penalty was modified. Why was the penalty modified according to the court? A. Such being the case, we can sustain even a complete self-defense in petitioners favor, there being having clear and convincing showing that the victim

was not attacking him when he shot and killed him. The rule is established that unlawful aggression is a primordial element in self-defense. Its absence precludes a reduction of the penalty. B. Such being the case, we cannot sustain even an incomplete selfdefense in petitioners favor, there being no clear and convincing showing that the victim was attacking him when he shot and killed him. The rule is established that unlawful aggression is a primordial element in selfdefense. Its absence precludes a reduction of the penalty. C. Such being the case, we can sustain even a complete self-defense in petitioners favor, there being clear and convincing showing that the victim was not attacking him when he shot and did not killed him. The rule is established that unlawful aggression is not a primordial element in self-defense. Its presence precludes a reduction of the penalty. 43. Percival Gonza claimed that he only acted in self defense because Virgilio punch him without provocation and he feared for his life that is why he stabbed him. In this case, is treachery justified? a. while the stabbing was sudden and unexpected and gave the victim opportunity to undertake any form of defense or evasion, this necessarily justify a finding of treachery, absent any evidence that this mode of assault was consciously and deliberately adopted to insure the execution of the crime without risk to the appellant. b. while the stabbing was sudden and unexpected and gave the victim opportunity to undertake any form of defense or evasion, this does not necessarily justify a finding of treachery, present any evidence that this mode of assault was consciously and deliberately adopted to insure the execution of the crime without risk to the appellant. c. while the stabbing was sudden and unexpected and gave the victim no opportunity to undertake any form of defense or evasion, this does not necessarily justify a finding of treachery, absent any evidence that this mode of assault was consciously and deliberately adopted to insure the execution of the crime without risk to the appellant. 44. Oscar Areo claimed self defences and stated that it was the victim who handled the bolo while forcing the door of their house to open and when Roberto succeded in opening the door, he handled a bamboo pole and struck Robertos hand that is holding the bolo making the bolo fell down then which he took and used to hack Roberto in fear that Roberto might hack him back. In this case, was the claim of Areos on self-defense was founded by the court? a. Oscar Areos claim that he acted in self-defense is founded. In order that this defense may prosper, it is necessary that such plea be established by a clear

and convincing evidence. He did receive a scratch and bruise in the alleged attack which the deceased Roberto Pilapil, armed with a bolo, made upon him. There is self-defenseand there was unlawful aggression. Such unlawful aggression was found in this case. b. Oscar Areos claim that he acted in self-defense is unfounded. In order that this defense may prosper, it is necessary that such plea be established by a clear and convincing evidence. He did not receive even a scratch or bruise in the alleged attack which the deceased Roberto Pilapil, armed with a bolo, made upon him. There can be no self-defense unless there was unlawful aggression. Such unlawful aggression was not found in this case. c. Oscar Areos claim that he acted in self-defense is founded. In order that this defense may prosper, it is necessary that such plea be established by a clear and convincing evidence. He did not receive even a scratch or bruise in the alleged attack which the deceased Roberto Pilapil, armed with a bolo, made upon him. There can be self-defense and there was unlawful aggression. Such unlawful aggression was found in this case. 45. In the case of People v Doquena when do we say that there was discernment on the part of the minor? a. when he/she was a minor during the crime b. when he /she had the state of mind at the time the crime was committed c. when he/she acted in good faith d. when he/she was not conscious of the nature and consequences of his acts 46. The defense of the accused Tabugoca that he was in the influence of liquor and insanity. Was his contention attainable? a. Yes. Because he did not know what he was doing during the rape incident b. Yes. Because he was drunk and out of his mind c. No. Because accused-appellant had that moral ascendancy and influence over his daughters to submit to his desires. Every person is presumed to be sane. d.) No. Because he acted in bad faith in the commission of the crime 47. Was the crime accidental or intentional on the part of the accused on killing the victim in the case of People v Tanedo?

a. Intentional. Because the intention of the accused was to cause the death of the deceased b. Accidental. Because there was concealment and denial of the accused c. Intentional. Because accused knows that he shot a person instead of chicken d. Accidental. Because absolutely no evidence of negligence upon the part of the accused and he was engaged in the commission of lawful act when the incident occurred.

48. A defendant in a criminal case who interposes the defense of mental incapacity has the burden of establishing that fact, i.e., he was insane at the very moment when the crime was committed (People v. Diaz). That for insanity to be an exempting circumstance, it should have had occurred: a. During trial b. After pronouncement of judgment c. At the time of the commission of the crime d. While serving sentence

49. With respect to accused-appellant Rene Estepano, the records show that he was only thirteen (13) years of age at the time of the commission of the offense. (People v. Estepano). a. The presumption is that the minor was coerced. b. The presumption is that the minor acted without discernment. c. The presumption is that the minor was in obeisance of an order by a superior. d. The presumption is that the minor is an imbecile.

50. In People v Agliday, before the accused may be exempted from criminal liability by reason of Article 12 par. 4, the following elements must concur: a. a person is performing under an impulse so powerful as naturally to have produced passion of obfuscation; b. with due care; c. he causes an injury to another by mere accident; and d. without any fault or intention of causing it.

51. Julian Erina was charged of raping a 3 year old child, after examination of the genitals by the physician slight inflammation was found on the exterior parts of the organ. Childs mother discovered a sticky substance on the genitals. Is the crime committed be considered frustrated? a. b. c. d. No Yes Both None of the above

52. Nequia was sentenced to death because he raped his step child who is under 18 years of age. In the case, is inserting a finger in the victims genitals constitute rape and punishable by the supreme penalty of death? a. Yes, because inserting a finger does not constitute rape under the anti rape law and the victim is his step child and under 18 years of age. b. No, because inserting a finger constitutes rape under the anti rape law and the victim is his step child and under 18 years of age. c. Yes, because inserting a finger constitutes rape under the anti rape law and the victim is his step child and under 18 years of age. d. No, because inserting a finger does not constitute rape under the anti rape law and the victim is his step child and under 18 years of age. 53. In People v De Leon the accused, participated by just holding the arms while the others take turns in stabbing the victim, why is he being punished as that of the primary suspect to the murder? a. It is not sufficient that there is a common purpose and design, concerted action and concurrence of interests and the minds of the parties meet understandingly so as to bring about a deliberate agreement to commit the offense charged. b. It is sufficient that there is a common purpose and design, concerted action and concurrence of interests and the minds of the parties meet understandingly so as to bring about a deliberate agreement to commit the offense charged. c. Both d. None of the above

54.In People v Caballero conspirators are criminally liable as co-principals

a. Based on the degree of ones participation. b. Based on the degree of ones action. c. Regardless of the degree of ones participation. d. Regardless of the degree of ones action.

55. Criminal conspiracy must always be founded on a. Inferences b. Conjectures c. Facts d. Presumptions 56. In the Case People v Bisda a victim of kidnapping shall be entitled to exemplary damages if a. The victim sustained physical injuries. b. The victim suffered mental anguish. c. There was a demand for ransom. d. The detention lasted more than three (3) days. 57. When various victims expire from separate shots, such acts constitute a. Complex crime b. Compound crime c. Multiple crime (separate and distinct) d. Continuing crime

58. Josefina went to the thickets to answer to the call of nature. Afterwards, she emerged from the thickets bloodstain on her clothes. The baby of appellant was seen near the thicket where Josefina has been; it was apparently exposed to harsh weather conditions and bitten by some animals. She was sued for abandonment of a minor and infanticide. In line with the seventh circumstance of Article 12, why cant such exempting

circumstance of Article 12 be applied in favour of the accused according to Justice VillaReals concurring opinion? a. As answering to the call of nature is not an act that is governed by law, nor is it an act that is insuperable such that it can be subject to human control or volition, hence, this exempting circumstance is not applicable b. As the act of delivery is in itself not an act required by law, hence it is not to be considered as a lawful or unlawful act, hence, this exempting circumstance is not applicable c. As the act of delivery itself was not an injury, but the exposure of the child to harsh weather elements and of the animals caused its death, hence, this exempting circumstance is not applicable d. As in this act of having been ignorant of her delivery and of the existence of the child there was subjectively no cause for the law to impose a duty for appellant to comply with, hence, this exempting circumstance is not applicable

59. Lua Chu is sued for owning shipment of opium, corroborating with Juan Samson and Natividad of the Customs for safe passage. Upon instigation of the said delivery, Lua Chu was caught and invoked certain alibis, one of which was that Samson should be involved in the crime. The Court held that Samson is not guilty of the crime. What did the court say about Juan Samsons exemption from liability for Lua Chus crime? A. Juan Samson did not take the necessary steps to seize the instrument of the crime and to arrest the offenders before he obtained the profits in mind hence he is not guilty of the crime B. Because the accused have already planned and actually ordered the opium without the consent or participation of Juan Samson and Samson did not help Lua Chu but assured the seizure of the imported drug and the arrest of the smugglers. C. Juan Samson became a witness, and dismissal from Customs, implied his resentment for such act, proving his freedom of conscience from any guilty act D. That Juan Samson corroborated with the proper authorities, thus even if he was provoked to conspire with the same crime, he preferred for right and justice to prevail. 60. Tita Oyanib was legally married with Manolito Oyanib, but Tita had several affairs with other men. Manolito reminded her of their legal marriage even if they are separated. One day, Manolito caught Tita having sex with Jesus Esquierdo, he got angry and Jesus fought, causing Manolito to stab Esquierdo. Tita hit Manolito with an alcohol bottle on the head, thus Manolito also stabbed her.

On what grounds can Manolito Oyanib have less sentence from his act of homicide and parricide? A. Manolito was, in the first place was threatened to die by the two lovers, even if Manolito did not seek resort to violence in any occasion B. Manolito was patient and tried to reconcile with Tita, even if she was overt in showing her affairs and relationships to Manolito (which furthered his anger) C. Manolitos criminal action of killing were proximate results of the outrage overwhelming the accused after chancing upon his spouse in the act of having intercourse with Esquierdo D. Manolitos resenting to force was only due to the fact that the guilty Esquierdo attacked him first, thereby the threat of injury prompted him to initiate an act which is legally defensive and justifiable 61. In People v Narvaez the victims Fleischer and Rubia were constructing a fence besides the accused Narvaez house, the latter asked the victims group to stop constructing the fence because it has already encroached and damage his house, but was ignored. Accused lost his temper and got his shotgun and shot the victims, causing their deaths. Accused claimed self-defence, and avers that he was merely defending his person and rights. Is the act of the accused justified? A. Yes, because the victims were the unlawful aggressors, hence accused only defended his property. B. Yes, because the victims have trespass into accused property, thus he is justified to repel the trespassers. C. No, because accused acted out of anger in killing hence his act is not justified. D. No, because not all the elements of a justifying circumstance are present. 62. Conrado Cano and his brother Orlando Cano are rivals in the photo i.d. business, their rivalry tragically ended when Orlando armed with a knife went to his brothers shop and confronted him, Conrado tried to evade and avoid confrontation. Orlando persisted and fight soon ensued with both men grappling for possession of the knife, when the dust settled Orlando lay dead. Is Conrado entitled to the justifying circumstance of self-defence? A. Yes, since Conrados act was to protect his life, and all the elements of a justifying circumstance are attendant, Orlando was the aggressor. B. No, because the means employed by Conrado to repel Orlandos attack was disproportionate for he could have disabled him and not kill the latter.

C. No, since Conrados act was that one of a murderous urge and that he only wanted to eliminate his business rival. D. No, since Conrado was the aggressor when he could have evaded Orlando and avoided confrontation and let things cool down. 63. In People v Retubado Emanuel the victim was walking home when Jesus the accused followed him and confronted him why his son was making fun of the accuseds brother who was mentally ill. Thereafter gunshots were heard and Emanuel was dead. The evidence showed that Emanuel was shot at close range and the victims wife allegedly saw Jesus shot his husband. Jesus contends he was only doing a lawful act with due care when victim appeared with a gun, hence he disarmed victim and due to the commotion he accidentally shot the victim. Is Jesus contention tenable hence he is exempt from criminal liability? A. Yes, he should be exempted since it was Emanuel who had the gun hence he is the aggressor. B. Yes, he should be exempted for he merely confronted Emanuel and such act is a lawful act. C. No, because mere denial of the accused is not at par with positive witness identification and physical evidence is given more weight. D. Yes, because treachery was not sufficiently proven by the prosecution thus hes guilt is not proven beyond reasonable doubt. 64. In people vs Carlos (78 phil 535), Carlos (a Japanese spy during the Japanese occupation) was convicted of the crime of treason and was sentenced to reclusion perpetua by the Peoples Court. The constitutionality of the Peoples court was assailed by Carlos alleging that it infringes on his right on equal protection of laws and due process. One of the contentions of Carlos is that it is a bill of attainder in that it virtually imposes upon specific, known and identified individuals or group of individuals, the penalty of detention and imprisonment for a period not exceeding six months without any form of judicial trial or procedure."

Is this a valid contention thus denying him of his right for equal protection of the laws? a. Yes. As defined in the leading case of Cummings vs. Missouri, 4 Wall., 232, etc., The Bill of Attainder is a legislative act which inflicts punishment without judicial trial. The fact that he is being detained without any form of trial constitutes an infringement on his right to due to process. b. No. The detention of a prisoner for a period not exceeding six months pending the investigation or trial is not a punishment but a necessary

extension of the well recognized power to hold the criminal suspected for investigation as explained in Laurel vs Misa 76 Phil 372. c. Yes. Carlos should not even be charged for the crime of treason due to the well settled principle in international law that all laws of political complexion are deemed suspended during belligerent occupation d. No. The fact that he sided with the Japanese constitutes a crime of treason and is therefore should be held liable for it. Freedom of Expression (Barnes vs Glen Theatre Inc. 501 US 560) 65. Glen Theatre and the Kitty Kat Lounge in South Bend, Indiana, operated entertainment establishments with totally nude dancers. An Indiana law regulating public nudity required dancers to wear "pasties" and a "G-string" when they perform. The Theatre and Lounge sued to stop enforcement of the statute. Does a state prohibition against complete nudity in public places violate the First Amendment's freedom of expression guarantee? a. Yes. Nude dancing is a form of expressive activity; In this case, the erotic message that the dancers wished to express is suppressed because of the said prohibition therefore it runs counter with the First Amendment. b. No. The erotic message that the dancers wished to express is not suppressed by the law since they will still be able to express such message by wearing scant amount of clothing. Public nudity is the evil that the state seeks to prevent. c. Yes. It would be hard to express the erotic message the dancers wish to convey if they will not be allowed to perform in complete nudity; therefore there is a suppression of the freedom of expression mandated under the First Amendment d. No. Nude dancing in this case is not to be considered as a form of expression. It is merely an act used by the two establishments to attract more customers. 66. In Estrada v Escritor, the accused, a court interpreter and a member of a religious sect Jehovas Witness, was charged for immoral conduct for co-habiting with a man without the benefit of a marriage. Should Escritor be penalized for having such affair? a. Yes. Her conjugal arrangement violates public policy. b. No. The constitution adheres to the benevolent neutrality approach that gives room for accommodation of religious exercises as required by the free exercise clause. Estrada is exercising her right for freedom of religion and therefore must not be penalized c. Yes. Constitution adheres to the strict neutrality approach which means, according to Jefferson, there is a wall of separation between the church and the state. d. No. There is no law that punishes such relationship.

67. Ah sing bought opium in Saigon then brought it on board in a vessel on its way to Cebu. He contends that he had no intention of selling it in the Philippines, and that he did not violate Phil. Law. Is his contention correct? a. yes because he did not bring the opium out of the vessel b. yes because he bought them for personal use c. no because the law presumes that they were intended to be sold in the Phil d. no because the law does not cover vessels from outside the Phil 68. Powell was arrested for being intoxicated in a public place in violation of Texas Penal Code. He contends that he is suffering a disease of alcoholism and that he can not control it. He should not be arrested. Is his contention correct? a. no because he is being arrested not for being drunk but for being drunk in public b. no because alcoholism is not a disease which is exempt from liability c. yes because he can not control his disease d. yes because arresting him is a viloation of his constituitonal right 69. Bernardo Bagabag was allegedly murderd by his wife Teresa, Talingdan and 3 others. He was shot several times by Talingdan. Prior to his killing, Corazon, his daughter overheard the accused the plotting of the killing of Bernardo and testified against them. Teresa denies having part in the killing and that she had no suspect in mind. Is she liable for murder? a. Yes because she is a principal to the murder b. Yes because she is an accessory to the murder c. Yes because she saw the crime but said she had no suspect d. No because it was Talingdan who shot Bernardo 70. In People v Campuhan the accused appellant was found guilty by RTC of statutory rape of 4-year-old. Mother found Campuhan kneeling in front of girl, short pants down to his knees 1.What was the ruling in Campuhans act, is he guilty of consummated rape?

a. Yes. Because the entry of the labia of the female organ. Even without rupture of the hymen or laceration of the vagina, was sufficient to warrant conviction for consummated rape. b. Yes. Campuhan repeatedly tried to insert his penis into her vagina and in all likelihood reached the labia of her pudendum as the victim felt his organ on the lips of her vulva. c. No. It should be attempted rape because the act committed is mere grazing of the surface of the female organ or touching the mons pubis of the pudendum and no penetration had taken place.

d. No. Because the evil intent of the offender was not accomplished because the means employed by Campuhan is inadequate. 71. Rodolfo Villa was a former member of the CAFGU. One day, Villa suddenly came out of his house with his M-1 Garand rifle and shot his neighbor and his two children. When another neighbor attempted to wrestle the rifle from Villa, he too was gunned down. During the trial, he invoked the defense of insanity being diagnosed with schizophrenia. While in court, he was able to give his sworn statement. He claims to be exempt from criminal liability under Article 12 paragraph 1 of the Revised Penal Code. What should be the ruling of the court? a. Villa is not exempt from criminal liability if there is no evidence that he is insane at the time of the killing because under Article 12 paragraph 1, an insane person is exempt unless he acted during a lucid interval. b. Villa is exempt from criminal liability because he is in a state of war shock during the commission of the crime being a member of the CAFGU. c. Villa is still exempt from criminal liability even if he was diagnosed with schizophrenia after the commission of the crime since the psychiatric assessment proves his insanity. d. Villa is not exempt from criminal liability because he killed four people. Article 12 paragraph 1 only applies to a single crime. 72. Madarang had been working as a seaman for 16 years and eventually went back to the Philippines where he established a hardware business. He had seven children and his wife Lilia is pregnant with their eight. After sometime, he lost all his fortune due to cockfighting. One night, the couple had an argument because of jealousy. Suddenly, he hacked his wife with a bolo which caused her death. While confined at NCMH, the doctor said that it was highly probable that he is suffering from schizophrenia prior to the commission of the crime but evidence failed to refute the presumption of sanity. What should be the ruling of the court? a. With the statement of the doctor regarding his mental condition, he should be exempt from criminal liability. Schizophrenia deprives him of intelligence making his act voluntary. b. As an insane person, he is not morally blameworthy and should not be legally punished. c. He is guilty because no evidence shows that he exhibited symptoms of schizophrenia before or during the incident. Therefore, his claim of insanity is not established. d. He is guilty because under Article 12 paragraph 1, an insane person committing parricide is criminally liable unlike other crimes. 73. While Guillermo Florendo and his wife Erlinda were having an argument, Guillermo suddenly hacked his wife to death. While in prison, he refused to eat and sleep. Also, he keeps staring blankly at walls which prompted the Court to send him for psychiatric assessment. He was diagnosed with schizophrenia. On appeal, he admitted killing his

wife but with the defense of insanity. Should he be exempt from criminal liability under Article 12 paragraph 1 of the RPC? a. Yes, because he has no clear understanding of the nature of his act being schizophrenic. b. No, because even if he behaves crazily in prison, it is not conclusive that he is insane. Insanity exists when a person is deprived of intelligence and freedom of the will. c. Yes, because he admitted that he killed his wife where admission of a criminal act exempts a person from criminal liability under Article 12 paragraph 1 of the RPC. d. No, because parricide is the only crime not covered by Article 12, paragraph 1 of the RPC. 74. In the case of Pesigan vs. Angeles, Pesigan and Marcelo are carabao dealers; they transported carabaos from Camarines, Batangas and Sipocot as a destination. The carabaos were confiscated. The confiscation was based on E.O. No. 626 which prohibited the transport of carabaos from one province to another. In this case, does E.O No.626 comply with the publication requirement under Article 2 of RPC, so as to validly impose its sanctions and penalties? A.) Yes, E.O. 626 comply with Article 2 of RPC because it involves confiscation and forfeiture provisions or sanctions, to which justice with fairness dictate that the public must be informed of the said law by means of publication in the official gazette. B.) No, E.O 626 did not comply with Article 2 of RPC because it had not yet been published on the date that they transported the carabaos. It was only published on June 14, 1992, hence there being no valid publication on the provision of EO 626. C.)No, E.O 626 did not comply with Article 2 of RPC because it is already published the time they transported the carabaos. Therefore the publication of EO 626 is valid. D.) Yes, EO 626 complies with Article 2 of RPC because the publication of EO 626 is already published the time that Pesigan and Marcelo transported the carabaos to other places. 75. In Tanada vs Tubera, here due process is invoked demanding the disclosure of a presidential decree, which they claimed had not been published as required by law. The government argued that while publication was necessary as a rule, the decrees themselves declared that they were to become effective immediately upon their approval. The question is won such publication in the Official Gazette is an indispensable requirement for the affectivity of the presidential decree, where laws themselves provide for their own effective date?

A.) Yes, because it is the peoples right to be informed on matters of public concern and corollary access to official records and to documents and papers pertaining to official acts, transaction or decisions, subject to such limitation as provided by law. Laws to be valid and enforceable must be published in the Official Gazette or otherwise effectively promulgated. B.) No, The clause unless otherwise provided in Article II of the Civil Code refers to the effective of laws and not to the requirement of the publication itself, which cannot be omitted. The prior publication of Laws be disregarded. Such omission would contradict due process as if would deny the public knowledge of the Laws that are supposed to govern it. C.) Yes, because this does not mean that the legislature may provide that the usual 15 days day period be shortened or extended. D.) No, because the publication in the Official Gazette is not a requirement for the effective of laws where the laws where the laws themselves provide for their own effective date. 76. In the case of State vs. Metzger, the Supreme Court held all of the following regarding the vagueness of a statute except: a. That the crime and the elements constituting it must be so clearly expressed that the ordinary person can intelligently choose in advance what course it is lawful for him to pursue. b. That 9.52.100 of the Lincoln Municipal Code is so vague as to be constitutional, therefore is declared invalid. c. It is permissible to enact a law which, as a result, spreads a wide-ranging net for everybody upon the chance that, while the innocent will surely be entangled in its meshes, some wrongdoers may also be caught. d. That it is a fundamental requirement of due process of law that such criminal ordinance be reasonably clear and definite. 77. In the case of Liang vs. People, in which way was generality of the law applied? a. The Supreme Court ruled that slandering a person could not possibly be covered by the immunity agreement between the Asia Development Bank and the Philippine Government because Philippine laws do not allow the commission of a crime such as defamation in the name of official duty. b. The Supreme Court ruled that the courts cannot blindly adhere and take on its face the communication from the DFA that petitioner is covered by any immunity. c. The Supreme Court held that it is a well-settled principle of law that a public official may be liable in his personal private capacity for whatever

damage he may have caused by his act done with malice or in bad faith or beyond the scope of his authority or jurisdiction. d. The Supreme Court ruled that due process is a right of the accused as much as it is of the prosecution. 78. Article 22 of the Revised Penal Code (Retroactive Effect of Penal Laws), used in the case of Gumabon vs Director of Prsions, states that: a. Penal laws shall have a retroactive effect insofar as they favor the persons guilty of a felony, who is not a habitual criminal, as this term is defined in Rule 5 of Article 62 of this Code, although at the time of publication of such laws a final sentence has been pronounced and the convict is serving the same. b. Penal laws shall have a retroactive effect insofar as they favor the persons guilty of a felony, who is a habitual criminal, as this term is defined in Rule 5 of Article 62 of this Code, unless at the time of publication of such laws a final sentence has been pronounced and the convict is serving the same. c. Penal laws shall have a retroactive effect insofar as they favor the persons guilty of a felony, who is a habitual criminal, as this term is defined in Rule 5 of Article 62 of this Code, although at the time of publication of such laws a final sentence has been pronounced and the convict is serving the same. d. Penal laws shall have a retroactive effect insofar as they favor the persons guilty of a felony, who is not a habitual criminal, as this term is defined in Rule 5 of Article 62 of this Code, unless at the time of publication of such laws a final sentence has been pronounced and the convict is serving the same.