Criminal Law 1

MCQ Review
*Please just change the answer if you see anything wrong. Thank you!
Answer Explanation

Quizzler # 7, Page 30. the subjective phase is that portion of the act
constituting the crime included between the act which begins the
1 B commission of the crime and the last act performed by the offender,
which with the prior acts, should result in the consummated crime.
From that time forward, however, the phase is objective.

According to the case of People vs. Chong Hong, which can be seen in
2 C
page 19 of quizzler number 1, the same act may constitute an offense
against both the State and a Political subdivision thereof and both jurisdictions
may punish the act, without infringing any constitutional principle.

Article 22 of the Revised Penal Code is not applicable to Lorenzo vs.

3 B Posadas as there is an absence of a clear legislative intent. (Page 1 and 2
of quizzler number 1)
According to the case of Guevarra vs. Almodovar, page 17 of quizzler
4 B
number 4, the word "intent" has been defined as a design; a determination to
do a certain thing; an aim; the purpose of the mind, including such knowledge as
is essential to such intent.

Under Act No. 277, which was stated in the case of US vs. Taylor,
which can be seen on page 13 of quizzler number 1, "every author,
editor, or proprietor of any book, newspaper, or serial publication is chargable
5 A with the publication of any words contained in any part of said book or number of
each newspaper or serial as fully as if he were the author of the same" and even
if the accused was the manager of the publication, he was directly responsible
for writing, editing, or publishing the alleged libelous article.

6 B Pages 9 to 11 of quizzler number 3 hehe

According to the case of United States vs. Bull, which can be seen in
page 18 of quizzler number 2, the Philippines is under the 'English
Rule when it comes to the Rules of Jurisdiction over crimes committed
7 A
while in the territoriesof other countries'. Hence, the Philippines has
jurisdiction as long as "the merchant vessel comes within the
Philippine Territorial Waters."

According to the case of People vs. Lamahang, which can be seen on

page 27 of quizzler number 7, "The fact under consideration does not
8 B
constitute attempted robbery but attempted tresspass to dwelling." The breaking
of the wall should not be taken into consideration as an aggravating
circumstance inasmuch as this is the very fact which in this case constitutes the
offense of attempted trespass to dwelling.
9 C
 Imprudence
- indicates a deficiency of action.
- if a person fails to take the necessary precaution to avoid injury to
person or damage to property, there is imprudence.
- usually involves lack of skill.
10 A
Negligence - indicates a deficiency of perception.
- If a person fails to pay proper attention and to use due diligence in
foreseeing the injury or damage impending to be caused, there is
negligence.
- usually involves lack of foresight.

Quizzler # 7 Page 29: It is clear from the fact that the accused
performed all of the acts which should have resulted in the
consummated crime. The crime cannot be attempted murder because
11 B to be an attempted crime the purpose of the offender must be
thwarted by a foreign force or agency which intervenes and compels
him to stop prior to the moment when he has performed all of the acts
which should result to the consummation of the crime.

According to the case of US vs. Adiao, page 38 of quizzler number 7,

12 C "...the offender performed all of the acts of execution necessary for the
accomplishment of the crime of theft."
The argument here is whether or not Special Penal Laws are
13 C automatically mala prohibita. They're not, so the answer is "It
depends on the language of the statute.
14 B
Page 45 of quizzler number 7. "X is guilty only of the frustrated offense of
estafa."

According to the case of People vs. Doquena, which was the case
stated in the case of Guevarra vs. Almodovar (page 18 of quizzler
number 4, footnote number 15), "The preceding discussion shows that
"intelligence" as an element of dolo actually embraces the "concept of
15 B discernment" as used in Article 12 of the RPC and as defined in the aforecited
case of People vs. Doquena, supra. It could not therefore be argued that
discernment is equivalent or connotes 'intent' for they refer to two different
concepts. Intelligence, which includes discernment, is a distinct element of dolo
as a means of committing an offense."

According to People vs. Delos Reyes, page 36-37 of quizzler 7, "The

16 D slightest penetration even without emission being sufficient to constitute the
offense..." (header page 36: consummated rape)
According to Vda De Bataclan vs. Medina, page 12 of quizzler number
17 C
6, "Proximate cause is that cause, which, in natural and continuous sequence,
unbroken by any efficient intervening cause, produces the injury, and without
which the result would not have occured."
 In People vs. Oanis, in contrast with US vs. Ah Chong, "they found no
18 D circumstances, whatsoever, which should press them from immediate action."
Page 28, of quizzler 5.
See De Guzman v Subido (Quizzler #1 Page 10), Reasoning is
19 B
identical to B.
20 B
21 A According to Article 3 of the Revised Penal Code, dolo means deceit

REMEMBER: NANQUIL (NANG KILL) siya ng person. Hehe :(( In the

case of people vs nanquil the court said that "But whether he had that
22 B intention or not, the fact is that he willfully maltreated the deceased, and such an
act of willfully causing an evil is, as the Attorney-General very properly observes,
incompatible with reckless imprudence."
According to the case of People vs. Moran, page 4 of quizzler number
23 A
1, "The prescription of the crim is intimately connected with that of the penalty,
for the length of time fixed by the law for the prescription depends upon the
gravity of the offense."

According to the case of US vs. Catolico, "It is true that a presumption

of criminal intention may arise from proof of the commission of a
criminal act; and the general rule is that, if it is proved that the
24 B accused committed the criminal act charged, it will be presumed that
the act was done with criminal intention, and that it is for the accused
to rebut this presumption." This can also be seen on page 13 of
quizzler number 5.

According to page 4 of quizzler number 1, in the case of People vs.

Moran, the provisions of Article 22 is "applicable to crimes penalized by
25 C special laws, considering in particular that, under Article 10 of the Revised Penal
Code, offenses punishable under special laws are not subject to the provisions
of the said Code."
26 B
27 C
According to People vs. Castillo, page 21 of quizzler number 4, "Intent
28 A to kill and not motive is the essential element of the offense on which his
conviction must rest."
According to the case of De Guzman vs. People, page 16 of quizzler
number 4, "His acts were consistent with his assertion that he was merely
29 A helping AR, whom he honestly believed to be the owner, take out the properties
from VL's home. To stress, DG should not be held answerable for the act
charged absent a felonious intent."

In the case of People vs. Castro The Court said that "The mere
30 C touching by the male organ of the labia of the pudendum of the
woman's private part is sufficient to consummate rape"
In the case of Garcia vs CA and People the Court Said that "Clearly,
the acts prohibited in Section 27(b) are mala in se. For otherwise,
31 B
even errors and mistakes committed due to overwork and fatigue
would be punishable. "
 In the case of Jacinto vs People the Court said that "In this case,
petitioner performed all the acts to consummate the crime of qualified
theft. it was only due to the extraneous circumstance of the check
32 C being unfunded, a fact unknown to petitioner at the time, that
prevented the crime from being produced. Unlawful taking, which is
the deprivation of one's personal property, is the element which
produces the felony in its consummated stage."
33 B
34 C

Page 28 of Quizzler # 7: A crime is frustrated when the guilty

performs ALL the acts of execution which should produce the crime as
their consequence, but nevertheless do not constitute it by reason of
causes independent of the will of the perpetrator, Even with the
35 D
raising of the bolo, there is no proof whatever from which it may even
be inferred that the accused intended to kill the person, much less to
show that he intended to do so with deliberate premeditation. The
crime committed by the accused is threatening another with weapons.

36 D
37 D
38 D
39 B
40 D
41 C

According to the third paragraph of Article 9 of the RPC, "Light felonies

are those infractions of the law for the commission of which the penalty of
42 B arresto mayor or a fine not exceeding 200 pesos, or both, is provided." It is also
stated in the last sentence of Article 26 of the RPC that, "...and a light penalty, if
it be less than 200 pesos."
43 B
According to the case of de Jesus vs. Sandiganbayan and Obudsman,
44 A page 15 of quizzler number 4, "Criminal intent must be shown in felonies
committed by means of dolo."
45 B
46 C
47 A
48 C :)
49 B
50 C