CRIMINAL LAW

FINAL EXAMINATION
Dean Gemy Lito L. Festin

PART I. MULTIPLE CHOICE QUESTIONS. 40% (1 point each)

1. What court has jurisdiction when an Indonesian crew murders the Filipino Captain on board a vessel of Russian
registry while the vessel is anchored outside the breakwaters of the Manila Bay?

a. The Indonesian court

b. The Russian court
c. The Philippine court
d. Any court that first asserts jurisdiction over the case

2. It is a matter of judicial knowledge that certain individuals will kill others or commit serious offenses for no reason
at all. For this reason,

a. Lack of motive can result in conviction where the crime and the accused’s part in it are shown.
b. Motive is material only where there is no evidence of criminal intent
c. Lack of motive precludes conviction
d. The motive of an offender is absolutely immaterial

3. X inflicted serious injuries on Y. Because of delay in providing medical treatment to Y, he died. Is X criminally
liable for the death of Y?

a. Yes because the delay did not break the causal in connection between X’s felonious act and the injuries
sustained by Y.
b. Yes because any intervening cause between the infliction of injury and death is immaterial.
c. No because the infliction of injury was not the immediate cause of the death.
d. No because the delay in the administration of the medical treatment was an intervening cause.

4. Three men gave Arnold fist blows and kicks causing him to fall. As they surrounded and continued hitting him, he
grabbed a knife he had in his pocket and stabbed one of the men straight to the heart. What crime did Arnold
commit?

a. Homicide with incomplete self-defense, since he could have run from his aggressors.
b. Homicide, since he knew that stabbing a person in the heart is fatal.
c. Homicide mitigated by incomplete self-defense, since stabbing a person to the heart is excessive.
d. No crime, since he needed to repel the aggression, employing reasonable means for doing so.

5. To save himself from crashing into an unlighted truck abandoned on the road, Jose swerved his car to the right
towards the graveled shoulder, killing two bystanders. Is he entitled to the justifying circumstance of stare of
necessity?

a. No, because the bystanders had nothing to do with the abandoned truck on the road.
b. No, because the injury gone is greater than the evil to be avoided.
c. Yes, since the instinct if self-preservation takes priority in an emergency.
d. Yes, since the bystanders should have kept off the shoulder of the road.

6. Mr. Y, a Filipino, kills a person on board a Philippine Airlines flight en route to Los Angeles while the flight is over
Tokyo. The PAL flight makes an emergency landing in Tokyo and Mr. Y is arrested. What may he be charged with
and why?

a. He may be charged with violating Japanese law under the principle of generality of Japanese penal law.
b. He may be charged with violating Philippine law under the principle of generality of Philippines penal law.
c. He may be charged with violating Philippine law under the principle of territory principle of Philippine penal
law.
d. He may be charged with violating Philippine law under an exception to the territory principle of Philippine
penal law.

1|Page
7. When an act is performed with deliberate intent and that act results in a felony as well as a violation of a special
penal law, what can the person be charged with?

a. A special complex crime

b. A complex crime
c. The graver offense, as between the felony and the crime.
d. A felony as well as the crime punished under the special law

8. Deadpool points a gun which is not loaded, a fact of which he is unaware, at Scott and says, “say your prayers
because you’ll be dead soon.” He pulls the trigger but, because the gun is not loaded, no bullet is discharged. What
felony may Deadpool be charged with, if any at all?

a. An attempted felony because not all the act of execution were carried out but Deadpool did not desist.
b. A frustrated felony because all the acts of execution were carried out but the intended result was not
achieved due to a cause external to Deadpool’s actions.
c. An impossible crime because of the inherent impossibility of its achievement
d. An impossible crime because of the inadequacy of the means employed to carry it out.

9. Sheldon, Raj and Penny, who were classmates in law school, chanced upon each other at a bar and got around to
talking about their other classmate and common “enemy,” Wheaton. Penny said, “I really want to see Wheaton
dead,” to which Sheldon and Raj expressed their agreement. While the three were talking, Wheaton suddenly walked
through the door. Upon seeing Wheaton, Sheldon hurled a beer bottle at Wheaton, hitting him on the head, while Raj
grabbed a steak knife and stabbed Wheaton. Penny then started kicking Wheaton while he is on the floor. Wheaton
succumbed to all the injuries he sustained. What are the respective liabilities of Sheldon, Raj and Penny?

a. They are separately liable for their individual acts because there was no conspiracy on their part.
b. Their acts indicate an implied conspiracy so they can each be held liable for the acts of the others.
c. They can be charged with conspiracy to commit murder
d. They cannot be held liable because there is no such felony as conspiracy to commit murder.

10. Mr. X is on trial for murder which he committed while already in detention for rape. He is informed that his appeal
to the Supreme Court from the rape conviction has been denied with finality. What circumstances will affect his
criminal liability in relation to the murder charge?

a. Habitual Delinquency and recidivism

b. Recidivism
c. Recidivism and Habituality
d. Habituality and Quasi- recidivism

11. Marshall and Chandler meet in a bar. After finding out that they both have a shared dislike for Barney, they agree
and decide to kill Barney. Before they can decide on the method, Barney enters the bar. Marshall stands up and
punches Barney in the face as Chandler immediately follows up by stabbing Barney in the stomach. Barney dies as a
result of the assault. Marshall and Chandler are charged with killing Barney. Chandler argues in his defense that he
cannot be held criminally liable for killing Barney because he only intended to stab Barney and not kill him. Decide on
Chandler’s contentions.

a. He is correct because the can only be held liable for the consequences he intended
b. He is incorrect because his first act was already unlawful and he must bear the consequences of his
unlawful act.
c. He is correct because it is unclear what killed Barney.
d. He is incorrect because a conspiracy may be implied and the act of one is the act of all.

12. Ruffa found herself alone in the LV shop when the guard leaves for a health break and the attendant is busy with
another customer. Because no one was looking, she tool one of the smaller bags and substitutes her fake LV bag for
it. As she was about to leave the shop, the guard accosted her and noted that her bag still has a price tag on it. They
discover the substitution and she is arrested. What can Ruffa be charged with?

a. Consummated theft because the taking was already complete

b. Frustrated theft because the result was not achieved when the guard accosted her.
c. Attempted theft because she commenced but did not complete the last act of taking
d. Impossible crime because of the ineffectual means employed

2|Page
13. Gene is a frustrated soldier and has long been a gun aficionado. He finds a kindred soul in Tony, who deals in
guns. One day, Tony lends Gene his brand new Sig Sauer automatic with laser scopes; Gene is naturally ecstatic
and brings it everywhere he goes. Gene is apprehended at a checkpoint and, because he cannot produce the proper
authorization for the firearm, is charged with violation of Presidential Decree No. 1866, which punishes unauthorized
possession of firearms and/or ammunition. Gene claims, by way of defense, that he is innocent because he had no
criminal intent. Decide on Gene’s contention.

a. Gene is correct because Tony, as the owner, is the one responsible for having it licensed.
b. Gene is wrong because Presidential Decree No. 1866 is a malum prohibitum and a violation of this law does
not require criminal intent
c. Gene is correct because he did not have intent to possess the firearm illegally
d. Gene is wrong because ignorance of the law excuses no one.

14. For purposes of Article 14, an “uninhabited place” is:

a. Any empty space

b. Any space that is not lived in
c. Any space that does not have people
d. Any space that prevents meaningful help from being given

15. Who are criminally liable for light felonies?

a. Only principals
b. Both principals and accomplices
c. Only accomplices
d. Principals or accomplices, depending on the circumstances

16. It is the law which provides that members of the official household or retinue of a foreign ambassador to the
Philippines enjoy the diplomatic immunity of the foreign ambassador if their names are submitted to the Department
of Foreign Affairs and provided further that the country of the foreign ambassador provides reciprocal immunity to the
members of the official household or retinue of the Philippine Ambassador.

a. RA 54
b. RA 79
c. RA 74
d. RA 75

17. Deborah has a bank deposit of P50,000.00. She was able to withdraw P150,000.00 because of the manipulation
made by Jessie, the manager of the bank, who certified that Deborah has more than the amount to be withdrawn.
Jessie is:

a. Liable as principal by direct participation

b. Liable as principal by indispensable cooperation
c. As accomplice
d. Liable as principal by inducement

18. There are four mitigating circumstance and one aggravating circumstance. Under the rules on offsetting, there
remain three mitigating circumstances. The judge therefore lowered the penalty by one degree and applied the
penalty in the medium period. Is the judge correct?

a. Yes, because there are three mitigating circumstance left.

b. Yes, because the aggravating circumstance was offset by one mitigating circumstance.
c. No, because the penalty should not be lowered by one degree considering that there is an aggravating
circumstance present.
d. No, because the penalty can be lowered only if the penalty is divisible

19. Which rule on jurisdiction over crimes committed on foreign vessels on Philippine waters is not followed in the
Philippines?

a. The French Rule – The crimes are not triable in the Philippines unless the crimes affect the peace and
security or safety of the Philippines is endangered.
b. The Anglo-American Rule or the English Rule – the crimes are triable in the Philippines unless the crimes
affect merely the internal management of the vessel.

3|Page
 c. If the foreign vessel is a warship, Philippines Courts have no jurisdiction because a warship is an extension
of the country to which it belongs and it is not subject to the laws of another state.
d. The Philippines Courts have jurisdiction to try continuing crimes committed in a vessel sailing from a foreign
port into Philippines waters, even if the crimes are punishable under Philippine laws.

20. An escaped prisoner, then armed with a bamboo lance, was asked by a policeman to surrender, refused to do so
and instead answered the latter with a stroke of his lance, the policeman in pursuing the prisoner fired his revolver
and caused the death of the prisoner. Is the act of the policeman on resorting to extreme means will always be
justified?

a. Yes, since an arresting officer is required to act within the performance of his duty, he must stand his ground
and cannot, like a private individual, take refuge in fight, his duty requires to overcome his opponent.
b. No, it was provided under the Rules of Court that no violence or unnecessary force shall be used in making
an arrest. Such provision accepts no exception.
c. It depends, the reasonableness of the force employed by the arresting officer must be adjudged in the light
of the circumstances as they appeared to the officer at the time he acted, and the means is generally
considered to that which an ordinary prudent and intelligent person with knowledge would have deemed
necessary under the circumstances.

21. Which if the following is not a source of criminal law?

a. The Constitution
b. Acts of legislature
c. Presidential Decrees and Executive Orders issued by Marcos during Martial Law and by Cory Aquino during
her Revolutionary Government
d. Implementing rules and regulations providing a penalty as authorized by the basic law.

22. Which of the following is an absolutory cause?

a. Aberratio ictus
b. Prater intentionem
c. Mistake of fact
d. Proximate cause
e. Error in persona
f. Impossible crime

23. The Revised Penal Code (RPC) belongs to the Classical Theory, the main purpose is retribution under a system
where gravity of the penalty is proportionate to the gravity of the crime committed. However, there are some articles
in the RPC that are positivistic in orientation intended to curb the dreadful and dangerous tendencies of the
individual. Which of the following articles in the RPC does not pertain to the Positivist School?

a. Article 4, RPC – impossible crimes

b. Article 13, paragraph 7, RPC – on the mitigating circumstances of voluntary surrender and plea of guilty
c. Article 11, paragraph 1, RPC – on self-defense
d. Three fold rule
e. Extenuating and absolutory causes

24. Which of the following is not a punishable conspiracy?

a. Conspiracy to commit treason

b. Conspiracy to commit rebellion
c. Conspiracy to commit coup d’etat
d. Conspiracy to commit murdered
e. Conspiracy to commit sedition
f. Monopolies and combination in restraint of trade

25. Which of the following is not a justifying circumstances?

4|Page
 a. Self-defense
b. Defense of property
c. Defense of honor
d. Defense of relatives
e. Accident
f. Avoidance of greater evil or injury
g. Battered woman syndrome
h. Defense of strangers

26. Which of the following is not an exempting circumstances?

a. Imbecility
b. Insanity
c. Insuperable cause
d. Minor exactly 9 years old at the time of the commission of the offense
e. Entrapment
f. Irresistible force
g. Impulse of uncontrollable fear
h. Instigation
i. Accident

27. Which of the following is not ordinary mitigating circumstances?

a. Incomplete self-defense, incomplete defense of relatives and strangers

b. Illness that diminishes the exercise of will power
c. Lack of intent to commit so grave a wrong
d. Sufficient provocation
e. Immediate (proximate) vindication of a grave offense
f. Passion or obfuscation
g. Voluntary plea of guilty
h. Confession of guilt
i. Being deaf and dump or blind

28. Which of the following is not a privileged mitigating circumstances?

a. Incomplete self-defense, incomplete defense of relatives and strangers

b. The offender is 13 years old
c. Schizophrenia
d. Article 255, RPC – concealment of honor of the mother in infanticide
e. Article 268, RPC – voluntary release of a person detained within 3 days without the accused attaining his
purpose and before institution of criminal action
f. Article 333, RPC – unjustified abandonment of the spouse in the crime of adultery

29. Which of the following is not an alternative circumstance?

a. Relationship
b. Age
c. Intoxication
d. Degree of Instruction and Education of the offender
e. All of the above

30. What is meant by the term “mens rea”?

a. No intent to commit so grave a wrong

b. Good faith in the commission of the crime
c. No malice in committing the crime
d. Unlawful intent

5|Page
31. Proximate cause means:

a. The motive in committing the crime

b. The unlawful intent in committing the crime
c. The efficient cause uninterrupted by any supervening event without which the result would not have
occurred
d. The reason of the offender in committing the crime
e. Direct cause

32. In mala prohibita, the criminal liability of the offender is determined by his:

a. Criminal intent
b. Intent to penetrate the act
c. Negligence, lack of foresight, lack of skill
d. Ignorance of the law
e. Mistake of fact

33. To overcome intelligence as an element of criminal liability one has to prove:

a. Deprivation of cognition
b. Under the compulsion of an irresistible force
c. Mistake of fact
d. Mistake of identity

34. When the aggravating circumstance of recidivism is present in the commission of a crime, the offender is called a
____________.

a. Quasi-recidivist
b. Recidivist
c. Habitual criminal
d. Habitual delinquent

35. The phrase, “Stand ground when in the right” means:

a. A person need not retreat against an unlawful aggressor but he is not expected to fight back
b. A person need not retreat against an unlawful aggressor but he must defend himself by fighting back
c. A person attacked must retreat but must fight back when caught by his aggressor
d. None of the above

36. A penal law is always prospective in its application

a. True
b. False, it is retroactive
c. False, it may be given retroactive effect if favorable to the accused who is not a habitual delinquent
d. False, it is retroactive if the new law imposes a heavier penalty

37. A crime may be committed even without criminal intent.

a. True
b. False, intent in an element of a felony
c. False, motive is an element of the crime
d. None of the above

38. Conspiracy to commit murder is punishable.

a. True
b. False, conspiracy to commit murder is not punishable under the Revised Penal Code
c. False, mere conspiracy is not punishable
d. None of the above

6|Page
39. Crimes mala prohibita are:

a. Generally embodied in the Revised Penal Code

b. Punishable with life imprisonment and never with reclusion perpetua
c. Always wrong acts hence should be penalized
d. Generally not required to be attended by malice and evil intent
e. Heinous crimes

40. Justifying and exempting circumstances allow the actor to escape criminal liabilities. Aside from these
circumstances, other factors likewise prevent the incarceration of a wrongdoer except for:

a. Probation
b. Absolutory cause
c. Mistake of fact
d. Absolute pardon
e. Amnesty
f. Indeterminate Sentence Law

PART II. ESSAY. 60% (10 points each)

Read each question carefully. A mere “Yes” or “No” answer is not sufficient. Be able to give legal basis to
your answer.

1. Wenceslao and Loretta were staying in the same boarding house, occupying different
rooms. One late evening, when everyone in the house was asleep, Wenceslao entered
Loretta’s room with the use of a picklock. Then, with force and violence, Wenceslao
ravished Loretta. After he had satisfied his lust, Wenceslao stabbed Loretta to death and,
before leaving the room, took her jewelry. What crime or crimes, if any, did Wenceslao
commit? Explain. (10%)

2. Virgilio, armed with a gun, stopped a van along a major thoroughfare in Manila, pointed the
gun at the driver and shouted: "Tigil! Kidnap ito!" Terrified, the driver, Juanito, stopped the
van and allowed Virgilio to board. Inside the van were Jeremias, a 6-year-old child, son of a
multi-millionaire, and Daday, the child’s nanny. Virgilio told Juanito to drive to a deserted
place, and there, ordered the driver to alight. Before Juanito was allowed to go, Virgilio
instructed him to tell Jeremias’ parents that unless they give a ransom of P10-million within
two (2) days, Jeremias would be beheaded. Daday was told to remain in the van and take
care of Jeremias until the ransom is paid. Virgilio then drove the van to his safehouse. What
crime or crimes, if any, did Virgilio commit? Explain. (10%)

3. Frank borrowed P1,000,000 from his brother Eric. To pay the loan, Frank issued a post-
dated check to be presented for payment a month after the transaction. Two days before
maturity, Frank called Eric telling him he had insufficient funds and requested that the
deposit of the check be deferred. Nevertheless, Eric deposited the check and it was
dishonored. When Frank failed to pay despite demand, Eric filed a complaint against him for
violation of Batas Pambansa Big. 22 (The Bouncing Checks Law). Was the charge brought
against Frank correct? (10%)

4. Ponciano borrowed Ruben’s gun, saying that he would use it to kill Freddie. Because Ruben
also resented Freddie, he readily lent his gun, but told Ponciano: "O, pagkabaril mo kay
Freddie, isauli mo kaagad, ha." Later, Ponciano killed Freddie, but used a knife because he
did not want Freddie’s neighbors to hear the gunshot. What, if any, is the liability of Ruben?
Explain (10%)

7|Page
ANSWERS KEY:

PART I. MCQ (1 point each)

1. C 11. B 21. A 31. C

2. A 12. A 22. C 32. B
3. A 13. B 23. A 33. A
4. D 14. D 24. D 34. C
5. C 15. B 25. E 35. B
6. D 16. D 26. E 36. C
7. D 17. B 27. A 37. B
8. C 18. C 28. A 38. B
9. B 19. A 29. B 39. D
10. B 20. C 30. D 40. F

PART II. ESSAY (10 points each)

I. Wenceslao committed the following crimes: (1) the special complex crime of rape
with homicide (2) theft and (3) unlawful possession of picklocks and similar tools
under Art. 304, RPC. His act of having carnal knowledge of Loretta against her
will and with the use of force and violence constituted rape, plus the killing of
Loretta by reason or on the occasion of the rape, gave rise to the special
complex crime of rape with homicide. Since the taking of the jewelry was an
afterthought as it was dome only when he was about to leave the room and when
Loretta was already dead, the same constitutes theft. His possession and use of
the picklock “without lawful cause” is by itself punishable under Art. 304, RPC

II. (4%) The crime committed against Jeremias, the 6 year-old child, is Kidnapping
with Serious Illegal Dtention under Art. 267(4), RPC. The evident criminal intent
of the offender, Virgilio, is to lock up the child to demand ransom. Whether or not
the ransom was eventually obtained will not affect the crime committed because
the demand for ransom is not an element of the crime; it only qualifies the
penalty to death but the imposition of the penalty is now prohibited by Rep. Act.
No. 9346.
(3%) As to Daday, the nanny of the child who was told to remain in the van and
take care of the child until the ransom is paid, the crime committed is Serious
Illegal Detention because the offended party deprived of liberty is a female (Art.
267, par.4, RPC).
(3%) As to Juanito, the driver of the van who was seriously intimidated with a gun
pointed at him and directed to stop the van and allow the gun-man to board the
same, and thereafter to drive to a deserted place, the crime committed by Virgilio
I Grave Coercion (Art. 286, RPC) and Slight Illegal Detention (Art. 268, RPC) for
holding the driver before he was allowed to go.

III. Yes, the charges brought against Frank is correct. Violation of BP 22 is malum
prohibitum which is committed by mere issuance of a check. Good faith is not a
defense. As long as the check was issued on account or for value, the purpose
for which the check was issued, the terms and conditions relating to the issuance
are irrelevant to the prosecution of the offender. For this reason, the request of
Frankto defer the deposit of the check as it ahs insufficient funds will not militate

8|Page
 against his prosecution for BP 22. Despite notice, Frank can still be charged.
Moreover, if what is charged is Estafa, Frank, being a brother of the offended
party, cannot be held criminally liable under Article 332, RPC.

IV. Ruben‟s liability is that of an accomplice only because he merely cooperated in

Ponciano‟s determination to kill Freddie. Such cooperation is not indispensable
to the killing, as in fact the killing was carried out without the use of Ruben‟s gun.
Neither way Ruben may be regarded as a co-conspirator since he was not a
participant in the decision-making of Ponciono to kill Freddie; he merely
cooperated in carrying out the plan which was already in place (Art. 18, RPC).

9|Page