Preliminary Title

Art 2; General principles; Criminal law; characteristics

1988 No. 1:

a) What are the limitations upon the power of congress to enact penal laws?

c) State the characteristics of criminal law and explain each.

Art 2; General principles; diplomatic immunity

1975 No. III

The American Consul accredited to the Philippines while driving his car recklessly and imprudently along
Roxas Boulevard bumped a pedestrian who was crossing the street and the latter died as a consequence
of his injuries. Prosecuted in court for the crime of homicide thru reckless imprudence, the Consul
claimed diplomatic immunity, alleging that he is not subject to Philippine laws and regulations. Is his
defense tenable? Why?

Art 2; General principles; laws defining classes of crimes

1978 No. I-b

Penal laws define distinct classes of crimes. Discuss and elucidate on their distinctions.

Art 2; General principles; schools of thought in criminal law

1996 No. 1

1) What are the different schools of thought or theories in Criminal Law and describe each briefly.

2) To what theory does our Revised Penal Code belong?

Art 2; General principles; territoriality; exceptions

1982 No. 1

Article 2 of the Revised Penal Code states that the provisions of the said Code shall be applicable to
crimes committed not only within the territorial jurisdiction of the Philippines, but also outside thereof,
in the five (5) instances mentioned therein. What are the underlying reasons behind, or rationale for,
each of those five (5) instances? Explain fully one by one.

Art 2; General principles; territoriality

1994 No. 12:

Abe, married to Liza, contracted another marriage with Connie in Singapore. Thereafter, Abe and Connie
returned to the Philippines and lived as husband and wife in the hometown of Abe in Calamba, Laguna.

1) Can Abe be prosecuted for bigamy?

Art 2; General principles; territoriality; exception

1986 No. 1:

Aaron is the defendant in a civil case being tried in the Manila Regional Trial Court Together with his
lawyer, Aaron went to Singapore to take the deposition' of a witness who. Aaron hoped, would support
his defense. The deposition was taken in a function room of the Singapore Hotel before Mr. Aguila, the
Philippine Consul General. Neither plaintiff nor his counsel attended the proceeding. After the
deposition taking, Aaron, not satisfied with the results, persuaded Aguila to make substantial changes in
the transcripts of stenographic notes. Aaron offered $5,000.00 in Singaporean currency which Aguila
readily accepted. Leona, vacationing daughter of Aguila, was given $200.00 by Aaron when she made
the alterations in the transcripts. The deponent, with neither notice nor knowledge of the alterations,
signed the deposition. May Aaron, Aguila, and Leona be prosecuted in a Philippine court for offenses
punishable under our Revised Penal Code? What are the offenses, if any? Explain.

Art 2; General principles; territoriality; jurisdiction over vessel

2000 No I

After drinking one (1) case of San Miguel beer and taking two plates of "pulutan", Binoy, a Filipino
seaman, stabbed to death Sio My, a Singaporean seaman, aboard M/V "Princess of the Pacific", an
overseas vessel which was sailing in the South China Sea. The vessel, although Panamanian registered, is

owned by Lucio Sy, a rich Filipino businessman. When M/V "Princess of the Pacific" reached a Philippine
Port at Cebu City, the Captain of the vessel turned over the assailant Binoy to the Philippine authorities.
An Information for homicide was filed against Binoy in the Regional Trial Court of Cebu City. He moved
to quash the Information for lack of jurisdiction. If you were the Judge, will you grant the motion? Why?
(5%)

Art 3; Common law crimes

1988 No. 1:

b) Are there common law crimes in our jurisdiction?

Art 3; Criminal intent

1978 No. I-d

Is malice or criminal intent an essential requisite of all crimes? Explain.

May criminal intent be presumed to exist? Discuss.

Art 3; Dolo vs culpa

1978 No. I-c

Discuss the distinctions between dolo and culpa. Give an example of each.
Art 3; Mala in se vs mala prohibita

1997 No. l:

Distinguish between crimes mala in se and crimes mala prohibita. May an act be malum in se and be, at
the same time, malum prohibitum?

Art 3; Mala prohibita or special laws; generally only consummated stage

punished

2000 No XVI

Mr. Carlos Gabisi, a customs guard, and Mr. Rico Yto, a private Individual, went to the office of Mr.
Diether Ocuarto, a customs broker, and represented themselves as agents of Moonglow Commercial
Trading, an Importer of children's clothes and toys. Mr. Gabisi and Mr. Yto engaged Mr. Ocuarto to

prepare and file with the Bureau of Customs the necessary Import Entry and Internal Revenue
Declaration covering Moonglow's shipment. Mr. Gabisi and Mr. Yto submitted to Mr. Ocuarto a packing
list, a commercial invoice, a bill of lading and a Sworn Import Duty Declaration which declared the
shipment as children's toys, the taxes and duties of which were computed at P60,000.00. Mr. Ocuarto

filed the aforementioned documents with the Manila International Container Port. However, before the
shipment was released, a spot check was conducted by Customs Senior Agent James Bandido, who
discovered that the contents of the van (shipment) were not children's toys as declared in the shipping
documents but 1,000 units of video cassette recorders with taxes and duties computed at P600,000.00.
A hold order and warrant of seizure and detention were then issued by the District Collector of Customs.
Further investigation showed that Moonglow is non-existent. Consequently, Mr. Gabisi and Mr. Yto
were charged with and convicted for violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. 3019 which makes it unlawful
among others, for public officers to cause any undue Injury to any party, including the Government. In
the discharge of official functions through manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross inexcusable
negligence. In their motion for reconsideration, the accused alleged that the decision was erroneous
because the crime was not consummated but was only at an attempted stage, and that in fact the
Government did not suffer any undue injury.

a) Is the contention of both accused correct? Explain. (3%)

b) Assuming that the attempted or frustrated stage of the violation charged is not punishable, may the
accused be nevertheless convicted for an offense punished by the Revised Penal Code under the facts of
the case? Explain. (3%)

Art 3; Motive vs intent

1978 No. II-a

Is motive indicative of criminal intent? Is lack of motive proof of innocence? When is it necessary to
prove motive? Explain your answers
Art 4

1996 No. 4:

1) Alexander, an escaped convict, ran amuck on board a Superlines Bus bound for Manila from Bicol and
killed ten (10) persons. Terrified by the incident, Carol and Benjamin who are passengers of the bus,
jumped out of the window and while lying unconscious after hitting the pavement of the road, were ran
over and crushed to death by a fast moving Desert Fox bus tailing the Superlines Bus. Can Alexander be
held liable for the death of Carol and Benjamin although he was completely unaware that the two
jumped out of the bus? Explain.

Art 4

1996 No. 9:

Vicente hacked Anacleto with a bolo but the latter was able to parry it with his hand, causing upon him a
two-inch wound on his right palm. Vicente was not able to hack Anacleto further because three
policemen arrived and threatened to shoot Vicente if he did not drop his bolo. Vicente was accordingly
charged by the police at the prosecutor's office for attempted homicide. Twenty-five days later, while
the preliminary investigation was in progress, Anacleto was rushed to the hospital because of symptoms
of tetanus infection on the two-inch wound inflicted by Vicente. Anacleto died the following day.

Can Vicente be eventually charged with homicide for the death of Anacleto? Explain.

Art 4

1997 No. 2;

While the crew of a steamer prepared to raise anchor at the Pasig River, A, evidently impatient with the
progress of work, began to use abusive language against the men. B, one of the members of the crew,
remonstrated saying that they could work best if they were not insulted. A took B's attitude as a display
of insubordination and, rising in a rage, moved towards B wielding a big knife and threatening to stab B.
At the instant when A was only a few feet from B, the latter, apparently believing himself to be in great
and immediate peril, threw himself into the water, disappeared beneath the surface, and drowned.

May A be held criminally liable for the death of B?