Criminal Law Bar Exam 2018 Suggested Answers

I
Roberto and Ricardo have had a long-standing dispute regarding conflicting claims over the
ownership of a parcel of land. One night, Roberto was so enraged that he decided to kill Ricardo.
Roberto asked his best friend, Rafael, to lend him a gun and drive him to Ricardo's house. Rafael
knew about Roberto's plan to kill Ricardo, but agreed to lend him a gun nevertheless. Rafael also
drove Roberto to the street corner nearest the house of Ricardo. Rafael waited for him there, until
the task had been accomplished, so that he could drive Roberto to the next town to evade arrest.
Roberto also asked another friend, Ruel, to stand guard outside Ricardo's house, for the purpose of
warning him in case there was any danger or possible witnesses, and to keep other persons away
from the vicinity. All three - Roberto, Rafael and Ruel - agreed to the plan and their respective roles.
On the agreed date, Rafael drove Roberto and Ruel to the nearest corner near Ricardo's house.
Roberto and Ruel walked about 50 meters where Ruel took his post as guard, and Roberto walked
about five (5) meters more, aimed the gun at Ricardo's bedroom, and peppered it with bullets. When
he thought that he had accomplished his plan, Roberto ran away, followed by Ruel, and together
they rode in Rafael's car where they drove to the next town to spend the night there. It turned out
that Ricardo was out of town when the incident happened, and no one was in his room at the time it
was peppered with bullets. Thus, no one was killed or injured during the incident.

(a) Was a crime committed? If yes, what is/are the crime/s committed (2.5%); and

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Yes. Impossible crime to commit murder was committed

Under the law, the offender shall be held liable for impossible crime if the following requisites
are present: (1) the offender performed an act which would have been an offense against a
person or property; (2) offender performed an act with evil intent; (4) the offender did not
commit the offense because of the impossibility of its accomplishment or employment of
inadequate or ineffectual means; and (4) the offender in performing an act is not violating
another provision of the law.

In the case at bar, the act of peppering with bullets the room of Ricardo constitutes an
offense against a person or property and the absence of Ricardo in his room at the time it
was peppered with bullets presents a physical impossibility which rendered the intended
crime impossible of accomplishment. And under Article 4, paragraph 2 of the Revised Penal
Code, such is sufficient to make the act an impossible crime.

(b) If a crime was committed, what is the degree of participation of Roberto, Rafael, and Ruel?
(2.5%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
All of them are liable as Principal by Direct Participation

Under the law, a conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement
concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it. Moreover, a conspirator who
performed an act in furtherance of conspiracy is liable as principal by direct participation.

In the case at bar, there was an agreement between Roberto, Rafael and Ruel to their
respective roles in killing Ricardo. Hence, the three entered into conspiracy.

Therefore, Roberto, Rafael and Ruel shall be liable as principal by direct participation in
killing Ricardo.

II
Rico, a hit man, positioned himself at the rooftop of a nearby building of a bank, to serve as a
lookout for Red and Rod while the two were robbing the bank, as the three of them had previously
planned. Ramiro, a policeman, responded to the reported robbery. Rico saw Ramiro and, to
eliminate the danger of Red and Rod being caught, pulled the trigger of his rifle, intending to kill
Ramiro. He missed as Ramiro slipped and fell down to the ground. Instead, a woman depositor who
was coming out of the bank was fatally shot. After their apprehension, Rico, Red, and Rod were
charged with the special complex crime of robbery with homicide. Rico's defense was that he never
intended to shoot and kill the woman, only Ramiro. Red and Rod's defense was that they were not
responsible for the death of the woman as they had no participation therein.

(a) Is Rico's defense meritorious? (2.5%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

No, Rico is still liable.

Under Article 4 of the Revised Penal Code, criminal liability shall be incurred by any
person committing a felony although the wrongful act done be different from that which he
intended. Aberratio ictus or mistake in the blow occurs when the offender delivered the blow
at his intended victim but missed, and instead such blow landed on an unintended victim.
The situation generally brings about complex crimes where from a single act, 2 or more grave
or less grave felonies resulted, namely the attempt against the intended victim and the
consequences on the unintended victim (Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code).

In this case, although there was no intent to kill the depositor, her death was the
natural and logical consequence of the felonious act of Rico.

Hence, Rico’s defense is not meritorious.

(b) Is Red and Rod's defense meritorious? (2.5%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

No.

It is well-entrenched in our jurisprudence that when there is conspiracy, the act of one is the
act of all. Each is responsible for all the acts of the others done in furtherance of the
conspiracy. The degree of actual participation is immaterial. Also, case law establishes that
whenever a homicide has been committed by reason of or on the occasion of the robbery, all
those who took part as principals in the robbery will also be held guilty as principals of
robbery with homicide although they did not take part in the homicide, unless it appears that
they sought to prevent the killing

In this present case, Red, Rod and Rico are liable for crimes committed since the existence of
conspiracy among them in the commission of the crime makes the act of one the act of all.
All those who took part in the robbery are liable as principals even though they did not
actually take part in the killing.

Therefore, the defense of Red and Rod is without merit.

III
On February 5, 2017, Rho Rio Fraternity held initiation rites. Present were: (i) Redmont, the Lord
Chancellor and head of the fraternity; (ii) ten (10) members, one (1) of whom was Ric, and (iii) five
(5) neophytes, one (1) of whom was Ronald. Absent were: (i) Rollie, the fraternity's Vice Chancellor
and who actually planned the initiation; and (ii) Ronnie, the owner of the house where the initiation
was conducted.

Due to the severe beating suffered by Ronald on that occasion, he lost consciousness and was
brought to the nearest hospital by Redmont and Ric. However, Ronald was declared dead on arrival
at the hospital.

During the investigation of the case, it was found out that, although Ronald really wanted to join the
fraternity because his father is also a member of the same fraternity, it was his best friend Ric who
ultimately convinced him to join the fraternity and, as a prerequisite thereto, undergo initiation. It was
also shown that Redmont and Ric did not actually participate in the beating of the neophytes
(hazing). The two (2) either merely watched the hazing or helped in preparing food. And, lastly, two
(2) days prior thereto, Ronnie texted Rollie that the fraternity may use his house as the venue for the
planned initiation.

Aside from those who actually participated in the hazing, Redmont, Rollie, Ric, and Ronnie were
criminally charged for the hazing of Ronald that resulted in the latter's death.

(a) Are the four criminally liable? (2.5%)

(b)​ R
​ edmont – principal – present
 (c)​ R​ ollie – principal - absent but planned the initiation

(d)​ ​Ric - principal – present

(e)​ ​Ronnie – owner of house – absent

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

No, only 3 of them will be liable as principals

Under R.A 8049 . The presence of any person during the hazing is prima facie
evidence of participation therein as principal unless he prevented the commission of the acts
punishable herein.

Ronnie is only an accomplice. Under RA 8049 The owner of the place where hazing is
conducted shall be liable as an accomplice, when he has actual knowledge of the hazing
conducted therein but failed to take any action to prevent the same from occurring.

(b) Can all those criminally charged be exonerated upon proof that Ronald, knowing the risks,
voluntarily submitted himself to the initiation? Will the absence of proof that the accused intended to
kill the victim affect their liability? (2.5%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER

No. The crime of hazing under R.A. No. 8049 is malum prohibitum.

Criminal law has long divided crimes into acts wrong in themselves called acts mala in se;
and acts which would not be wrong but for the fact that positive law forbids them, called acts
mala prohibita. This distinction is important with reference to the intent with which a wrongful
act is done. The rule on the subject is that in acts mala in se, the intent governs; but in acts
mala prohibita, when an act is illegal, the intent of the offender is immaterial. When the doing
of an act is prohibited by law, it is considered injurious to public welfare, and the doing of the
prohibited act is the crime itself.

In this case, the voluntary submission of Ronald to the initiation and the intention of the
accused are immaterial as the crime of hazing is malum prohibitum. Thus, all those
criminally charged cannot be exonerated and their liability will not be affected.

IV
On the way home from work, Rica lost her necklace to a snatcher. A week later, she saw what
looked like her necklace on display in a jewelry store in Raon. Believing that the necklace on display
was the same necklace snatched from her the week before, she surreptitiously took the necklace
without the knowledge and consent of the store owner. Later, the loss of the necklace was
discovered, and Rica was shown on the CCTV camera of the store as the culprit. Accordingly, Rica
was charged with theft of the necklace. Rica raised the defense that she could not be guilty as
charged because she was the owner of the necklace and that the element of intent to gain was
lacking.

What should be the verdict if:

(a) The necklace is proven to be owned by Rica? (2.5%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Rica shall not be liable for theft.

Under Article 4, paragraph 2 of the Revised Penal Code, criminal liability shall be incurred by
any person performing an act which would be an offense against persons or property, were it
not for the inherent impossibility of its accomplishment or on account of the employment of
inadequate or ineffectual means.

In the case at bar, by taking the necklace from the jewelry store ​without the knowledge and
consent of the store owner​, a crime of theft which is a crime against property would have
been committed by Rica. However, a person cannot be held liable for theft for taking away his
own personal property. Since the necklace is owned by Rica, there was physical and legal
impossibility for her to commit the crime of theft.

Thus, she shall not be liable for theft but only for an impossible crime to commit theft.

(b) It is proven that the store acquired the necklace from another person who was the real owner of
the necklace? (2.5%)

Rica is liable for the crime of theft.

Under Article 308 of the Revised Penal Code provides that the elements of theft are the
following: 1. There is a taking of personal property; 2. Said property belongs to another; 3.
That the taking is done with intent to gain; 4. That the taking is done without the consent of
the owner; 5. That the taking be accomplished without the use of violence against or
intimidation of persons or force upon things.

In the case at bar, Rica is liable for the crime of theft for taking away the necklace from the
store which is owned by the latter and without its consent.

Hence, the elements of the crime of theft are present in this case and Rica can be made liable
for such crime.

V
With a promise of reward, Robert asked Romy to bring him a young girl that he (Robert) can have
carnal knowledge with. Romy agreed, seized an eight-year old girl and brought her to Robert. After
receiving his reward, Romy left while Robert proceeded to have carnal knowledge with the girl.
(a) For what felony may Robert and Romy be charged? (2.5%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Robert should be charged for the crime of rape while Romy should be charged with rape as
principal by indispensable cooperation.

As held in the case of People vs Mejoraday, the crime of rape is committed if the main
objective of the accused is to rape the victim and the crime of forcible abduction, which is
incidental to the commission of rape, is absorbed. Moreover, under Art. 17 (3) To be a
principal by indispensable cooperation, one must participate in the criminal resolution, a
conspiracy or unity in criminal purpose and cooperation in the commission of the offense by
performing another act without which it would not have been accomplished.

In the case at bar, Robert proceeded to have carnal knowledge with the girl and since the
main intention was to rape her, the crime of abduction is absorbed. On the other hand, Romy
cooperated in the consummation of the crime of rape committed by Robert by acts without
which the crime would not have been consummated by delivering the victim to the latter.

Therefore, Robert should be charged with rape while Romy should be charged with rape as
principal by indispensable cooperation.

(b) Will your answer in (a) be the same if the victim is a 15-year old lass who was enticed, through
cunning and deceit of Romy, to voluntarily go to the house of Robert where the latter subsequently
had carnal knowledge with her? (2.5%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, the answer is not the same.

Under Article 266-A paragraph 1 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, when the victim is
under 12 years old or is demented, the circumstances mentioned in the same article are
irrelevant. However, if the victim is 12 years old or over, any of the circumstances must be
present; one of which is the use of fraudulent machination.

In the instant case, the means used by the accused in having carnal knowledge of the victim
is relevant since the victim is 15 years old. Romy, in enticing the victim through cunning and
deceit, has used fraudulent machination.

Thus, Romy should be charged for rape as principal by indispensable cooperation and
Robert should be charged for rape as principal by direct participation both falling under
Article 266-A paragraph 1(c).

VI
A group of homeless and destitute persons invaded and occupied the houses built by the National
Housing Authority (NHA) for certain military personnel. To gain entry to the houses, the group
intimidated the security guards posted at the entrance gate with the firearms they were carrying and
destroyed the padlocks of the doors of the houses with the use of crowbars and hammers. They
claimed that they would occupy the houses and live therein because the houses were idle and they
were entitled to free housing from the government
.
For the reason that the houses were already awarded to military personnel who have been found to
have fully complied with the requirements for the award thereof, NHA demanded the group to vacate
within ten (10) days from notice the houses they occupied and were still occupying. Despite the
lapse of the deadline, the group refused to vacate the houses in question.

What is the criminal liability of the members of the group, if any, for their actions? (5%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

They are liable for the crime of Occupation of Real Property.

Under Article 312 of the Revised Penal Code, the elements Occupation of Real Property are:
a) That the offender takes possession of any real property or usurps any real rights to
property; b) That the real property property or real rights belong to another; c) That violence
against or intimidation of persons is used by the offender in occupying or usurping real
property or usurping real right in property; and d) That there is intent to gain.

In the case at bar, all the elements of occupation of real property are present. The group took
possession of the houses which belonged to military personnel. They used violence and
intimidation when they intimidated the security guards with the firearms they were carrying
and destroyed the padlocks of the doors of the houses with the use of crowbars and
hammers.There was intent to gain the houses.

Hence, they are criminally liable for the crime of Occupation of Real Property.

VII
Robbie and Rannie are both inmates of the National Penitentiary, serving the maximum penalty for
robbery which they committed some years before and for which they have been sentenced by final
judgment. One day, Robbie tried to collect money owed by Rannie. Rannie insisted that he did not
owe Robbie anything, and after a shouting episode, Rannie kicked Robbie in the stomach. Robbie
fell to the ground in pain, and Rannie left him to go to the toilet to relieve himself. As Rannie was
opening the door to the toilet and with his back turned against Robbie, Robbie stabbed him in the
back with a bladed weapon that he had concealed in his waist. Hurt, Rannie ran to the nearest
"kubol" where he fell. Robbie ran after him· and, while Rannie was lying on the ground, Robbie
continued to stab him, inflicting a total of 15 stab wounds. He died on the spot. Robbie immediately
surrendered to the Chief Warden. When prosecuted for the murder of Rannie, Robbie raised
provocation and voluntary surrender as mitigating circumstances. The prosecution, on the other
hand, claimed that there was​ ​treachery in the commission of the crime.

(a) Is Robbie a recidivist, or a quasi-recidivist? (2.5%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Robbie is a quasi-recidivist.

Under Art. 160 of the Revised Penal Code, any person who shall commit a felony after
having been convicted by final judgment, before beginning to serve such sentence, or while
serving the same, is a quasi-recidivist. He cannot be a recidivist because the same requires
that the two crimes must be embraced in the same title.

In this case, Robbie is currently serving his sentence for a crime of robbery when he
committed another crime of murder qualified by treachery. Robbery and murder do not
belong to the same title.

(b) Can the mitigating circumstances raised by Robbie, if proven, lower the penalty for the crime
committed? (2.5%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

NO.
Quasi-Recidivism under Article 160 of the Revised Penal Code is a Special Aggravating
Circumstance which cannot be offset by any mitigating circumstance.
Hence, the mitigating circumstances, if proven cannot lower the penalty for the crime
committed, the second crime should be penalized in the maximum (Art. 160 of the RPC).

VIII
Randy was prosecuted for forcible abduction attended by the aggravating circumstance of
recidivism. After trial, the court held that the prosecutor was able to prove the charge. Nonetheless, it
appreciated in favor of Randy, on the basis of the defense's evidence, the mitigating circumstances
of voluntary surrender, uncontrollable fear, and provocation. Under Art. 342 of the Revised Penal
Code (RPC), the penalty for forcible abduction is ​reclusion temporal.

Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, what penalty should be imposed on Randy? (5%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

The penalty should be Prision Mayor as the minimum term to Reclusion Temporal in
its minimum period as the maximum term.

The Indeterminate Sentence Law directs the court to sentence the accused to an
indeterminate sentence the maximum term of which shall be that which, in view of the
attending circumstances, could be properly imposed under the rules of the said Code, and
the minimum which shall be within the range of the penalty next lower to that prescribed by
the Code for the offense.
 In this case, there is one generic aggravating circumstance of recidivism which may
be offset by one of the three mitigating circumstances of voluntary surrender, uncontrollable
fear and provocation. Considering the presence of two mitigating circumstances, and in
accordance with the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the maximum term shall be Reclusion
Temporal in its minimum period and the minimum term shall be the penalty next lower in
degree which is Prision Mayor.

IX
Rashid asked Rene to lend him PhP50,000, payable in six (6) months and, as payment for the loan,
Rashid issued a postdated check for the said amount plus the agreed interest. Rashid assured Rene
that the account would have sufficient funds on maturity date. On that date, Rene presented the
check to the drawee bank for payment but it was dishonored for the reason that it was drawn against
insufficient funds (DAIF).

Rene sent Rashid a timely notice of dishonor of the check and demanded the latter to make good
the same within five (5) days from notice. After the lapse of the five (5)-day notice, Rene redeposited
the check with the drawee bank but it was again dishonored for the same reason, ​i.e., ​DAIF. Rene
thereafter filed two (2) separate criminal actions against Rashid: (1) Estafa under Art. 315(2)(d) of
the RPC, as amended by R.A. No. 4885, ​i.e, e ​ stafa committed by postdating a check, or issuing a
check in payment of an obligation without sufficient funds in the bank; and (2) Violation of B.P. 22 or
the Bouncing Checks Law.

(a) Can he be held liable under both actions? (2.5%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

YES.

The constitutional provision on double jeopardy shall not be offended by dual prosecution of
Estafa and B.P. 22 since these crimes are of different character. Estafa is malum in se while
violation of B.P. 22 is malum prohibitum. Unlike in violation of B.P. 22, deceit employed by
the offender and the damage suffered by the offended party and their causal connection are
elements of estafa. Further, Section 5 of B.P 22 provides that prosecution under such law
shall be without prejudice to any liability for violation of any provision of the RPC.

In this case, Rene’s act of issuing ​a check in payment of an obligation without sufficient
funds in the bank constitutes separate crimes of estafa under the RPC and violation of B.P 22
which is a special law.

Hence, he can be held liable under both actions.

(b) If the check is presented for payment after four (4) months, but before it becomes stale, can the
two actions still proceed? (2.5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:

YES. By current banking practice, a check becomes stale after six months. If the check is
presented for payment after six months from issuance thereof, it will be dishonored for being
stale dated. Hence, an accused is not liable for estafa through issuance of bouncing check
and violation of BP 22 because the check is not dishonored by reason of insufficiency of
funds, which is an indispensable element of these crimes. Thus, if the check is presented
after four months but before it becomes stale or within 6 months, the two actions can still
proceed.

X
Rafa caught his wife, Rachel, in the act of having sexual intercourse with Rocco in the maid's room
of their own house. Rafa shot both lovers in the chest, but they survived. Rafa charged Rachel and
Rocco with adultery, while Rachel and Rocco charged Rafa with frustrated parricide and frustrated
homicide.

In the adultery case, Rachel and Rocco raised the defense that Rafa and Rachel, prior to the
incident in question, executed a notarized document whereby they agreed to live separately and
allowed each of them to get a new partner and live with anyone of their choice as husband and wife.
This document was executed after Rachel discovered that Rafa was cohabiting with another woman.
Thus, they also raised the defense of ​in pari delicto. I​ n the frustrated parricide and frustrated
homicide cases, Rafa raised the defense that, having caught them ​in flagrante delicto, ​he has no
criminal liability.

Assuming that all defenses have been proven:

(a) Will the action for adultery prosper? (2.5%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER

YES, the case of adultery will prosper.

Under Article 333 of the RPC, Adultery is committed by any married woman who shall have
sexual intercourse with a man not her husband and by the man, who has carnal knowledge of
her knowing her to be married, even if the marriage be subsequently declared void.

The elements of Adultery are: 1. The woman is married; 2. The woman had sexual intercourse
with a man not her husband; and 3. The man she had sexual intercourse is aware that she is
married. These elements must be proved.

In the case at bar, ​Rachel and Rocco cannot raised the defense that Rafa executed a
notarized document, agreed to live separately and allowed each of them to get a new partner
and live with anyone of their choice as husband and wife, neither can they use the defense of
In Pari delicto. Rafa had caught Rachel and Rocco in the act of sexual intercourse. Thus he
has a cause of action.

In adultery, proof of sexual intercourse is enough to file a case against the wife and her lover.

(b) Will the actions for frustrated parricide and frustrated homicide prosper? (2.5%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Yes, the actions for frustrated parricide and frustrated homicide will prosper.

In order for the accused to avail of the benefits extended under article 247 Death or Physical
Injuries inflicted under exceptional circumstances, the following elements must concur:

1. That a legally married person surprises his spouse in the act of committing sexual
intercourse with another person;
2. That he or she kills any or both of them or inflicts upon any or both of them any
serious physical injury in the act or immediately thereafter; and
3. That he has not consented to the infidelity of the other spouse.

Jurisprudence likewise provides that a husband who, after he had learned from the very lips
of his wife that she was in love with another man, signed a document wherein he ordered his
wife to look for and live with another man, cannot claim the benefits of Article 247 (People v.
Dumon, 72 Phil. 41).

In the case at bar, Rafa can be held criminally liable because he consented to the infidelity of
Rachel. His defense that he caught them in flagrante delicto has no bearing and he cannot
avail of the benefits extended under Article 247. Thus, the actions will prosper.

XI
Wielding loose firearms, Rene and Roan held up a bank. After taking the bank's money, the robbers
ran towards their getaway car, pursued by the bank security guards. As the security guards were
closing in on the robbers, the two fired their firearms at the pursuing security guards. As a result, one
of the security guards was hit on the head causing his immediate death.

For the taking of the bank's money and killing of the security guard with the use of loose firearms,
the robbers were charged in court in two separate informations, one for robbery with homicide
attended by the aggravating circumstance of use of loose firearms, and the other for illegal
possession of firearms.

Are the indictments correct? (5%)

XII
Orphaned when still an infant, Rocky lived under the care of his grandmother Rosario. Now 18,
Rocky entered Rosario's bedroom who was then outside doing her daily marketing. He ransacked
the bedroom and took Rosario's money and valuables amounting to PhP100,000.
When Rosario came home, she found her room in disarray, and her money and valuables gone. She
confronted Rocky, who confessed to taking the money and valuables in order to pay his debts.

(a) What crime, if any, did Rocky commit? (2.5%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Rocky committed the crime of qualified theft.

Under the Revised Penal Code, qualified theft is committed by any person who takes
personal property of another without the latter’s consent with intent to gain and with any of
the following circumstances: 1) domestic servant; 2) grave abuse of confidence; 3) on the
occasion of any other calamity or civil disturbance.

Here, Rocky’s intent to gain was shown when he took Rosario’s money and valuables without
the latter’s consent. The unlawful taking was qualified as there is grave abuse of confidence,
him living under the care of his offender. Thus, he committed qualified theft.

(b) Does he incur criminal and/or civil liability? (2.5%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Civil liability only. ​He is exempt from criminal liability for he is a descendant of the victim.

Article 332 of the Revised Penal Code provides that, no criminal, but only civil liability shall
result in the commission of a crime of theft by a descendant towards his ascendant.

XIII

The brothers Roberto and Ricardo Ratute, both Filipino citizens, led a group of armed men in seizing
a southern island in the Philippines, and declaring war against the duly constituted government of
the country. The Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP), led by its Chief of Staff, General Riturban,
responded and a full scale war ensued between the AFP and the armed men led by the brothers.
The armed conflict raged for months.

When the brothers-led armed men were running out of supplies, Ricalde, also a Filipino, and a good
friend and supporter of the Ratute brothers, was tasked to leave for abroad in order to solicit arms
and funding for the cash-strapped brothers. He was able to travel to Rwanda, and there he met with
Riboli, a citizen and resident of Rwanda, who agreed to help the brothers by raising funds
internationally, and to send them to the Ratute brothers in order to aid them in their armed struggle
against the Philippine government. Before Ricalde and Riboli could complete their fund-raising
activities for the brothers, the AFP was able to reclaim- the island and defeat the Ratute-led uprising.
Ricalde and Riboli were charged with conspiracy to commit treason. During the hearing of the two
cases, the government only presented as witness, General Riturban, who testified on the activities of
the Ratute brothers, Ricalde, and Riboli.

(a) Can Ricalde and Riboli be convicted of the crime of conspiracy to commit treason? (2.5%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

No.

Under Article 115 of the Revised Penal Code, conspiracy to commit treason is committed
when in time of war, two or more persons come to an agreement to levy war against the
Government and to adhere to the enemies and to give them aid or comfort, and decide to
commit it. Treason is a war crime. It can only be committed in times of war with a foreign
enemy or another state. There must be actual hostilities. Conspiracy to commit treason
cannot be and will never be committed in time of peace.

In the case at bar, when the Ricalde and Riboli aided the brothers, there was no war in which
the Philippines is involved with a foreign enemy or another state. Thus, they cannot be
convicted for the crime of conspiracy to commit treason.

(b) Will the testimony of General Riturban, assuming he can testify on acts within his personal
knowledge, be sufficient to convict the Ratute brothers, Ricalde, and Riboli? (2.5%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER

No.

Under Article 114, paragraph 2 of the Revised Penal Code, no person shall be convicted of
treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses at least to the same overt act or on
confession of the accused in open court. However, the two - witness rule does not apply to
the crime of conspiracy and proposal to commit treason because this is a separate and
distinct offense from that of treason.

In the case at bar, the testimony of General Riturban alone will not be sufficient to convict the
Ratute brothers, Ricalde and Riboli for the crime of treason because of the two-witness rule.
However, his testimony alone will be sufficient to convict them for the crime of conspiracy to
commit treason since the two-witness rule will not apply in the said crime.

XIV
Robin and Rowell are best friends and have been classmates since grade school. When the boys
graduated from high school, their parents gifted them with a trip to Amsterdam, all expenses paid. At
age 16, this was their first European trip. Thrilled with a sense of freedom, they decided to try what
Amsterdam was known for. One night, they scampered out of their hotel room, went to the De
Wallen, better known as the Red-light District of Amsterdam. There, they went to a "coffee shop"
which sells only drinks and various items made from opium poppy, cannabis, and marijuana, all of
which are legal in Amsterdam. They represented themselves to be of age, and were served, and
took shots of, cannabis and marijuana products. They indulged in these products the whole night,
even if it was their first time to try them.

Before returning to Manila, they bought a dozen lollipops laced with cannabis, as souvenir and
"pasalubong" for their friends. They were accosted at the Manila International Airport and were
charged with importation of dangerous drugs under the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of
2002. They were also charged with use of dangerous drugs after pictures of them in the "coffee
shop" in Amsterdam were posted on Facebook, showing them smoking and taking shots of a whole
menu of cannabis and marijuana products. Their own captions on their Facebook posts clearly
admitted that they were using the dangerous products. The pictures were posted by them through
Private Messenger (PM) only for their close friends, but Roccino, the older brother of one of their
best friends, was able to get hold of his younger brother's password, and without authority from his
brother, accessed his PM and shared Robin and Rowell's Amsterdam photos on Facebook.

(a) Can Robin and Rowell be prosecuted for use of dangerous drugs for their one-night use of these
products in Amsterdam? (2.5%)
(b) Can they be prosecuted for importation of dangerous drugs? (2.5%)
(c) If found liable under either (a) or (b) above, what is the penalty that may be imposed on them?
(2.5%)
(d) Can Roccino be prosecuted for the act of accessing and sharing on Facebook the private
pictures sent by PM to his brother? If yes, for what crime? (2.5%)

XV
During the presentation of the prosecution's evidence, Reichter was called to the witness stand with
the stated purpose that he would testify that his wife Rima had shot him in the stomach with a .38
caliber pistol, resulting in near fatal injuries. Upon objection of the defense on the ground of the
marital disqualification rule, the presiding judge (Judge Rossano) disallowed Reichter from testifying
in the case. Its motion for reconsideration having been denied, the People of the Philippines went up
on ​certiorari ​to the Court of Appeals (CA) questioning Judge Rossano's ruling.

After due proceedings, the CA rendered judgment declaring Judge Rossano's ruling void ​ab initio ​for
having been made with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, and
directing Judge Rossano to allow Reichter to testify in the criminal case for the stated purpose. This
is based on the fact that the marital privilege rule does not apply where a spouse committed the
crime against the other.

As the CA decision became final and executory, the criminal case before the RTC was calendared
for trial. At the scheduled trial, the prosecution called Reichter to the witness stand in order to testify
on the same matter it earlier announced. The defense objected on the ground that the CA erred in its
disposition of the ​certiorari ​case. Judge Rossano sustained the objection and again disallowed
Reichter from testifying in the criminal case. Repeated pleas from the prosecution for Judge
Rossano to reconsider his ruling and to allow Reichter to testify fell on deaf ears.

May Judge Rossano be convicted of a crime? If yes, what crime did he commit? (5%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Yes. Judge Rossano violated Section 3 (e) of RA No. 3019.

Violation of Section 3e of RA 3019 is committed by a public officer, who causes any undue
injury to any party, including the Government, or gives any private party any unwarranted
benefits, advantage or preference in the discharge of his official administrative or judicial
functions through manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence.

In this case, Judge Rossano displayed evident bad faith and manifest partiality by his
arrogant refusal to recognize and obey the CA decision causing undue injury to the
complainant and giving unwarranted benefits to private individuals in violation of Section 3e
of RA No. 3019.

XVI
For the past five years, Ruben and Rorie had been living together as husband and wife without the
benefit of marriage. Initially, they had a happy relationship which was blessed with a daughter, Rona,
who was born on March 1, 2014. However, the partners' relationship became sour when Ruben
began indulging in vices, such as women and alcohol, causing frequent arguments between them.
Their relationship got worse when, even for slight mistakes, Ruben would lay his hands on Rorie.
One day, a tipsy Ruben barged into their house and, for no reason, repeatedly punched Rorie in the
stomach. To avoid further harm, Rorie ran out of the house. But Ruben pursued her and stripped her
naked in full view of their neighbors; and then he vanished.

Ten days later, Ruben came back to Rorie and pleaded for forgiveness. However, Rorie expressed
her wish to live separately from Ruben and asked him to continue providing financial support for their
daughter Rona. At that time, Ruben was earning enough to support a family. He threatened to
withdraw the support he was giving to Rona unless Rorie would agree to live with him again. But
Rorie was steadfast in refusing to live with Ruben again, and insisted on her demand for support for
Rona. As the ex-lovers could not reach an agreement, no further support was given by Ruben.

What crimes did Ruben commit:

(a) For beating and humiliating Rorie? (2.5%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
 Ruben violated Section 5(i) of Republic Act No. 9262 or the Anti-Violence against
Women and their Children.

The law provides that violence refers to any act or a series of acts committed by any
person against a woman with whom the person has or had a sexual or dating relationship, or
with whom he has a common child, or against her child which result in or is likely to result in
physical, sexual, psychological harm or suffering, or economic abuse.

Here, Ruben did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously inflict
psychological violence upon Rorie, a woman with whom has a child, resulting to mental and
emotional anguish and public ridicule or humiliation by boxing the victim on the head,
kicking her at the back and stripping her naked in full view of their neighbors.

(b) For withdrawing support for Rona? (2.5%)

XVII
Robina bought from Ramsey a seaside property located in Romblon. At that time, she was in the
process of returning to the Philippines as a returning resident, after retiring from her work in Russia,
and was planning to set up a diving school in the area. In a non-notarized "Kasunduan ng Pagbibili,"
Ramsey represented the property as alienable and disposable, and that he had a valid title to the
property. When the sale was completed, and as she was applying for permits and licenses for her
school, she found out that the property was a public non-alienable and non-disposable land which
Ramsey had bought from someone who only had a foreshore lease over the same. As she was bent
on setting up the diving school in the area, having made all the preparations and having already
bought all the equipment, she filed a Miscellaneous Lease Application (MLA) with the Department of
Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) at the Community Environment and Natural Resources
Office in Romblon. In her application, she stated that she was a Filipino citizen, although she was
still a naturalized Russian citizen at that time. It was only six months after she filed the MLA that she
filed her petition for dual citizenship under R.A. No. 9225. When DENR discovered that, at the time
of filing the MLA, she was still a Russian citizen, her application was denied and she was charged
with falsification of a public document for misrepresenting herself as a Filipino citizen. Infuriated,
Robina also filed charges against Ramsey for falsification of a private document for stating in their
"Kasunduan" that the property was alienable and disposable.

In the case for falsification of a public document, Robina's defense was that, at the time she filed the
MLA, she had every intention to reacquire Philippine citizenship, as in fact she filed for dual
citizenship six months thereafter, and that she had no intent to gain or to injure the Philippine
government since she expected that her application for dual citizenship would be approved before
the MLA could be approved. On the other hand, she claimed in the action against Ramsey that intent
to gain was present since he received the purchase price as a result of his misrepresentation.
Ramsey's defense was that he had a valid Transfer Certificate of Title in his name, and he had a
right to rely on his title.
(a) Will the case for falsification of public document filed against Robina prosper? (2.5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Yes, the case for falsification of public document against Robina will prosper.

Under the law, falsification of public document is committed by a private individual

who falsifies public or official document wherein the latter made an untruthful statement
therewith.

Here, Robina filed a Miscellaneous Lease Application (MLA) with the Department of
Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) at the Community Environment and Natural
Resources Office in Romblon. In her application, she stated that she was a Filipino citizen,
although she was still a naturalized Russian citizen at that time. As such, Robina made an
untruthful statement in her citizenship .

Thus, a case for falsification of public document against Robina will prosper

(b) Will the case for falsification of private document filed against Ramsey prosper? (2.5%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

No, because intent to cause damage is an element of falsification of Private

Document.

Under Article 172(2) of the Revised Penal Code, the following are the requisites for the
crime of Falsification of Private Document by any person, to wit:
(a) That the offender committed any of the acts of falsification, except those in par. 7 of
Article 171;
(b) That the falsification was committed in any Private Document; and
(c) That the falsification caused damage to a third party or at least the falsification was
committed with the intent to cause such damage.

In this case, there is no showing that Ramsey had the intent to cause damage to
Robina through his act of executing the “Kasunduan ng Pagbibili” and representing therein
that the property is alienable and disposable since he relied on his valid Transfer Certificate
of Title. Robina, on the other hand, after applying for permits and licenses for her school,
found out that the property was a public non-alienable and non-disposable land but still
continued on setting up the diving school in the area.

XVIII
Mrs. Robinson is a teacher at an elementary school. In one of her classes, she found, to her
consternation, that an 8-year old Richard was always the cause of distraction, as he was fond of
bullying classmates smaller in size than him.
One morning, Reymart, a 7-year old pupil, cried loudly and complained to Mrs. Robinson that
Richard had boxed him on the ear. Confronted by Mrs. Robinson about Reymart's accusation,
Richard sheepishly admitted the same. Because of this, Mrs. Robinson ordered Richard to lie face
down on a desk during class. After Richard obliged, Mrs. Robinson hit him ten (10) times on the legs
with a ruler and pinched his ears. Richard ran home and reported to his mother what he had suffered
at the hands of Mrs. Robinson. When Richard's parents went to Mrs. Robinson to complain, she
interposed the defense that she merely performed her duty as a teacher to discipline erring pupils.
Richard's parents ask your advice on what actions can be instituted against Mrs. Robinson for acts
committed on their minor child.

(a) May Mrs. Robinson be charged with child abuse OR slight physical injuries? (2.5%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Mrs. Robinsons may be charged with child abuse.

In child abuse, the maltreatment may consist of an act by deeds or by words that debases,
degrades or demeans the intrinsic worth and dignity of a child as a human being. The act
need not be habitual.

In the present case, although Mrs. Robinsons, as a school teacher, could duly discipline
Richard as her pupil, her infliction of physical injuries on him was unnecessary, violent and
excessive. Mrs. Robinsons could not justifiably claim that she acted only for the sake of
disciplining him. Her physical maltreatment of Richard was precisely prohibited by no less
than the Family Code, which has expressly banned the infliction of corporal punishment by a
school administrator, teacher or individual engaged in child care exercising special parental
authority (i.e., in loco parentis), viz:

Article 233. The person exercising substitute parental authority shall have the same authority
over the person of the child as the parents.

In no case shall the school administrator, teacher or individual engaged in child care
exercising special parental authority inflict corporal punishment upon the child. (n)

(b) May Mrs. Robinson be charged with child abuse AND slight physical
injuries? (2.5%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

No, she cannot be charged with child abuse and slight physical injuries.

There can be no complex crime proper if the other crime is punishable by a special law. To
be a complex crime proper both crimes must be punished under the RPC.
 XIX
Ricky was driving his car when he was flagged down by a traffic enforcer for overspeeding. Realizing
his undoing, but in a hurry for a meeting, Ricky shoved a PhP500 bill in the traffic enforcer's pocket
and whispered to the latter to refrain from issuing him a traffic violation receipt. The traffic enforcer
still issued him a​ t​ icket, and returned his money.

What crime, if any, was committed by Ricky? (5%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER

The crime committed was attempted corruption of public officials.

Article 212 punishes the person who shall have made the offers or promises or given the gifts
or presents to a public officer.

In this case, Ricky shoved PhP500 bill in the enforcer’s pocket to refrain the latter from
issuing him a traffic violation ticket, however Ricky did not perform all the acts of execution
which should have produced the crime as a consequence by reason of a cause other than his
own voluntary desistance, that is, because the traffic enforcer did not allow himself to be
corrupted by still issuing Ricky a ticket and returned the money to him.

Therefore, Ricky committed attempted corruption of public official.