PRELIMINARY EXAMINATION IN CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW

Name:___________Rating:

There are only ten problems for you to read and answer.Each question is worth 5 points. Answer briefly and concisely. Always explain your answer, providing a legal basis to support it.

Problem No. 1. Jose Bugtas is married to the daughter of Maria Lopez. One night, Jose Bugtas approached Maria Lopez and asked her to sign some documents relative to her estate. When asked what are those papers, Jose Bugtas told her that it refers to the application for exemption of realty taxes in her property in Bulacan. It turned out that the said document is a Special Power of Attorney, authorizing his daughter Marilou Lopez-Bugtas, the wife of Jose, to sell her Bulacan Property. The property was sold for 50 million, and it was not given to Maria Lopez. Upon discovering said anomaly, Maria Lopez filed a case against Jose Bugtas.

Questions: (1) if you were the Fiscal, what criminal charge will you file against Jose Bugtas? (2) Given the charge that you will file, what is the possibility of conviction of Jose Bugtas? (3) The lawyer of Jose Bugtas filed a motion to dismiss the case invoking an absolutory cause? (4) Possibly, what absolutory cause applies to the case,if there be any? (5) What if Jose Bugtas, defrauded Maria Lopez, by simply letting her sign a Deed of Sale to him of the said property? (6) Will your conclusion be still the same? Explain.

Problem No. 2. Richard the husband of Maria, who pretended to be a taxi driver, using a chemical spray, victimized a consul, and had him taken to his house in Paranaque, where the said consul was kept for ten days. A note was sent to the wife of the consul demanding payment of 5 million cash as a condition for his release, otherwise the consul will be killed. Meanwhile, in those ten days, Maria was the one taking care of the consul by giving him his meals and medicine. The wife of the consul reported the matter to the police station, who acted at once, and after 5 days, finally Richard was arrested and the consul was finally freed from his detention in Richard’s house.

Questions: (1) What crime is committed by Richard and his wife? Explain.

Problem No. 3. Jose Reyes and Marina Teves are friends. Marina has a beautiful sixteen year old daughter named Marie. One night, they both forced Marina to drink Tanduay; when she was already drunk, Jose asked Marina if he could have sexual intercourse with her duaghter and Marina gave her consent; and lastly, Marina left her daughter alone with Jose so that he proceeded with his plan to have sex with Marie, who was then intoxicated and unconscious in her bed. Jose succeeded in having sex with Marie, and the following morning Marie woke up with blood in her private organ. She reported it to her mother, but she just ignored it. She then reported what happened to her in the police station.

Questions: What crime did Jose Reyes and Marina Teves commit? Is there a conspiracy of the two? Explain your answer.

Problem No. 4. Petitioner CARLO DY, a businessman engaged in the manufacture and fabrication of hand tractors and other agricultural equipment, had a savings deposit with Banco Filipino, Tacloban Branch. Sometime in April or May 1978, petitioner was befriended by Richard Sy, Jr., an employee of Banco Filipino in the same Tacloban Branch. On several occasions, petitioner CARLO DY and Richard Sy would dine together, go to nightclubs or have drinking sprees. They became close friends. Richard Sy even became the godfather of CARLO DY's daughter. Moreover, Richard Sy offered CARLO DY financial assistance in the latter's welding business, claiming that he was expecting a large sum of money out of the insurance policy of his late father.

On August 3, 1978, Richard Sy went to CARLO DY's welding shop to borrow the latter's passbook. CARLO DY was surprised and thought that it was not possible for Richard Sy to use his passbook. Richard Sy showed CARLO DY some checks purporting to be the proceeds of his father's insurance policy. He wanted to deposit the checks in CARLO DY's account with Banco Filipino. CARLO DY then suggested that Richard Sy open his own account. However, Richard Sy explained that he was prohibited from opening an account with Banco Filipino since he was employed with that bank as a savings bookkeeper. CARLO DY advised Richard Sy to open an account instead with another bank but Richard Sy insisted that he wanted the checks deposited with Banco Filipino so that he could facilitate their immediate encashment as well as avail himself of some privileges. Richard Sy assured CARLO DY that there was nothing wrong in allowing him to use his passbook and even reassured CARLO DY that he would accompany him to the bank to make the deposit.

Accepting Richard Sy's explanations and assurances CARLO DY entrusted his passbook to Richard Sy. On August 8,1978, Richard Sy returned CARLO DY's passbook where a deposit in the amount of P20,000.00 was already reflected. Once again, Richard Sy assured CARLO DY that there was nothing wrong with the deposit, and stated that he just deposited one of his checks. On the same, day Richard Sy requested CARLO DY himself to withdraw, in the former's behalf, money from his account with Banco Filipino. Again with assurances from Richard Sy, CARLO DY reluctantly agreed. He went to Banco Filipino and withdrew the amount of P15,000.00 which he gave to Richard Sy at a restaurant called Felisa's Cafe.

Richard Sy's practice of depositing and withdrawing money using CARLO DY's passbook continued for quite some time. During the month of August 1978, the account of CARLO DY with Banco Filipino reflected a total deposits of P176,145.00 and a total withdrawal of P175,607.96.

In the meantime, CARLO DY borrowed P20,000.00 from Richard Sy, payable within 90 days from August 9, 1978. But feeling apprehensive over Richard Sy's constant use of his passbook, CARLO DY decided to pay his loan on August 31, 1978 by borrowing P10,000.00 from his father and taking the other P10,000.00 from his business profits. CARLO DY also closed his account with Banco Filipino by surrendering his passbook and withdrawing the balance of his deposit.

Thereafter, the bank's accountant and interest bookkeeper discovered a discrepancy between the interest reconciliation balance and the subsidiary ledger balance. The interest bookkeeper could not locate the posting reconciliation and the proof reconciliation. He also notice that Account No. 6701-0160 in the name of Benjamin CARLO DY reflected four (4) large deposits on various dates from August 3, 1978 to August 23, 1978, totaling P176,145.25, but the deposits slips thereof could not be located.

After further examination of the bank records, the manager, accountant and interest bookkeeper were convinced that the irregularities were caused by Richard Sy who was the savings bookkeeper at that time and who had access to CARLO DY savings account ledger. They concluded that Richard Sy was able to manipulate the ledger, by posting the fictitious deposits after banking hours when the posting machine was already closed and cleared by the bank accountant.

The bank officials confronted Richard Sy, who feigned ignorance and initially denied the accusations, but later admitted having posted the false deposits. Petitioner CARLO DY was also implicated because he was the owner of the passbook used by Richard Sy in accomplishing his fraudulent scheme.

QUESTION: (1) What crime is committed by CARLO DY and Richard Sy? Is there a conspiracy existing in the case at bar? Explain.

PROBLEM No. 5. A group of five persons ambushed the mayor of San Agustin. They sprayed bullets in his car, hitting his two bodyguards. The mayor died on the spot, while the two bodyguards who were hit on their abdomen survived the ambush as they were treated immediately in the nearby hospital. In the course of the ambush, a fish vendor on the side walk was also hit and died.

Question: (1) If you were the Prosecutor, what crime will you charge against the five accused? Explain your answer.

PROBLEM No. 6. It is a principle of criminal law that positive identification prevails over alibi. In the case of Hubert Webb the Supreme Court acquitted him. One of his defenses is alibi, i.e. when the crime was allegedly committed he was in the U.S. as can be shown by his passport and certification from the U.S. Immigration. Hence in this case, the positive identification of him as the perpetrator of the crime did not prevail over his alib. Explain how the Supreme court acquitted the accused. What are the other grounds or rationalization used by the Supreme Court in the acquittal of the accused if there be any.

PROBLEM NO. 7. In the karaoke bar, three brothers, Jose, Pedro and Juan were having fun, drinking Tanduay and singing songs. Later Romeo and Jun arrived and also ordered three bottles of Red Horse and drank. Jose was then singing My Way, and Romeo who was drunk, mocked him saying that he is out of tune. This angered Jose, who went to the table of Romeo and hit him with the microphone. A free fight ensued. Feeling that they were outnumbered, Romeo and Jun ran outside and chased by Jose and Pedro. Romeo and Jun went to their car which was parked nearby and got their guns. Romeo fired a warning shot in the air, trying to instill fear to Jose and Pedro, who stopped for a while, and went back to near the karaoke house. Drunk, they all (Jose, Pedro and Juan) picked big stones and hurled them at Romeo and Jun. Jun fired another warning shot, but the three brothers still kept on throwing stones at them, hitting their car and Jun’s left arm. Unable to stop them (Jose, Pedro and Juan) , they finally fired their guns at them, killing Jose instantly. Pedro wa shit on his leg and was brought to the hospital. Juan was hit on his chest, got operated and after 20 days recovered from his injuries. It was also established that the firearms used in shooting the victims were without “license”. It was proved that the two accused voluntarily surrendered to the police station, immediately after the incident afraid that the relatives of the victims would retaliate, as they belong to the rich families in said place, who could do harm to them.

Questions: What crime did Romeo and Jun commit? They claimed that what they did was an act of self-defense, are they correct? What are the requisites to successfully invoke self-defense? What is the effect if any, on their use of unlicensed firearms with respect to their criminal liability? In the case at bar, in appreciating voluntary surrender as a mitigating circumstance, would you lower the imposable penalty by degree or by period? Explain your answer.

PROBLEM NO. 8. On 8 May 2006 at around 12:30 o'clock midnight, ROBERT TAN voluntarily surrendered to police officers SPO2 Vivencio Aliazas, PO3 Ricardo Cruz and PO1 William Cortez at the Police Station of Luisiana, Laguna. ROBERT TAN informed them that he happened to have killed Romeo LUCIO CHENG (LUCIO CHENG) in Sitio Pananim, Luisiana, Laguna. Forthwith, ROBERT TAN was booked, arrested and detained at the police station. Thereafter, the police officers proceeded to the crime scene and found the lifeless body of LUCIO CHENG with several wounds and the bolo used by ROBERT TAN in killing him. The Death Certificate revealed that Area's antecedent cause of death was gunshot wounds and his immediate cause of death was hacked wounds. For his part, ROBERT TAN invoked self-defense and avowed –

For his part, ROBERT TAN invoked self-defense and avowed – On the fateful incident, he and his wife Juliet were sleeping in their house in Barangay San Antonio, Sitio Pananim, Luisiana, Laguna. Suddenly they were awakened by the sound of a gunshot and shouting from LUCIO CHENG who appeared to be drunk. LUCIO CHENG was holding a rifle (an airgun converted to a calibre .22) and shouted "mga putang ina ninyo, pagpapatayin ko kayo." Then, LUCIO CHENG forcibly entered their house and aimed the gun at them. ROBERT TAN immediately grabbed the gun from him and they grappled for its possession. ROBERT TAN managed to wrest the gun away from LUCIO CHENG. In a jiff, ROBERT TAN shot LUCIO CHENG causing the latter to lean sideward ("napahilig"). Nevertheless, LUCIO CHENG managed to get his bolo from his waist and continued to attack them. ROBERT TAN grabbed the bolo and in their struggle for its possession, they reached the outer portion of the house. ROBERT TAN was able to wrestle the bolo and instantly, he hacked LUCIO CHENG. After the killing incident, ROBERT TAN voluntarily surrendered to the police authorities.⁴

Rejecting Robert tan's pleas of self-defense and defense of stranger, the RTC pronounced him guilty of murder as charged. It observed that the initial unlawful aggression by LUCIO CHENG had ceased when Robert tan shot him in the head and caused him to "lean sideward." It disbelieved Robert tan's insistence that LUCIO CHENG had still been able to grab his bolo and assault Robert tan's common-law spouse therewith for being implausible considering that LUCIO CHENG had by then been hit in the head. It held that Robert tan's testimony that he had wrested the bolo from LUCIO CHENG after grappling for its control, and had then hacked him with it was improbable .and. pot in accord with the natural order of things because the injury in the head had already weakened and subdued LUCIO CHENG; and that the killing was treacherous because Robert tan had hacked the then unarmed and weakened victim.

Question: Is the ruling of the RTC correct? Explain your answer.

PROBLEM NO. 9. In the case of People v. AAA, it was proved that a father raped her 15 year old daughter twice. What kind of rape is committed by the said accused? And what is the penalty imposable? In accordance with Jugueta, what damages should be awarded to the victim? Why is it that the real name or identity of the victim should not be stated in the decision? Explain.

PROBLEM No. 10. In a drug case against Bert Pascua, he was arrested for illegal selling of shabu, Sec. 5 of RA. 9165 (i.e. 0.256 g) and illegal possession of shabu, Sec. 11 of the same R.A. (i.e. 0.052g). After arraignment, he manifested to plea bargain to a lesser offense under Section 12 of R.A. 9165.

Questions: (1)As a judge will you approve his manifestation to plea bargain to both charges (Sec. 5 and Sec. 11) to the lesser offense in Sec. 12? (2) Granting that you allow the plea bargaining, would you also grant his application for probation? Explain your answer.

End of the Examination

Agapito Balili

2020-10-20

criminal law review preliminary examination

Word count: 954

Name: Agapito O. Balili

1. (1) I will file a case of estafa thru falsification of public document. (2) the possibility of convicting Jose Bugtas is certain. This is because Jose Bugtas cannot avail of the absolutory cause provision under Art.332 par. 1 of the Revise Penal Code. Said provision of law provides: "No criminal, but only civil liability shall result from the commission of he crime of theft, swindling malicious mischief committed by a spouse, ascendant or decendants or relalative by affinity in the same line. In this case of Jose Bugtas, he has not simply committed the crime swindling but alsso falsification as a means to commiting estafa or swindling. (3) Even if the lawyer of Jose Bugtas would file a motion to dismiss, the same should be denied, because as i said in the preceding answer, he can not avail of exemption or absolutory benefit allowed under Art, 332 (1) of the RPC. (4) The possible absolutory cause is the fact that Jose Bugtas, being the husband of Marilou, the daugther of Maria Lopezcommitted is covered by the absolutory benefit provided under the afore- said Art. 332 of the RPC. But since the crime he committed is a complex crime of falsification of public document leading to estafa, he is disqualifie . (5) Since, in this case Jose Bugtas defrauded

Maaria Lopez, by letting her sign the deed of sale, he is should be made liable to the crime estafa thru falsificatuon of public doucument. My conclusion would be the same, i.e., he is not entitled to absolutory cause granted by law. (This is identical to the cSE OF cARUNGCONG VS. pEOPLE AND sATO).

2. Richard committed the crime Kidnapping thru the use of chemical spray, while his wife,Maria committed the crime of accessory to Kidnapping. This is so, because, under the law, a person who deprive another of his freedom by taking him away from is family, for whatever reason may commit the crime of kidnapping, and since her wife Maria merely assisted him by cooking the food of his victim, she should be liable only of accessry to the rime.

3. Jose Reyes committed the crime of Rape. There is no conspiracy here, instead Marina Teves committed the crime as accomplice to that crime of rape committed by Jose Reyes. It is clear that Jose committed the crime of rape for having carnal knwledge with the daughtr of Maria without her consent. His having intoxicated the mother of the victim is a badge enough to show ill motive of raping the daughter.

4. By allowing Richard SY the use of his passbook, although reluctantly, he, Carlo Dy facilitaed the commission of the offense, and therefore he is an Accomplish to the crime of swidlinng committed by Richard Sy. There is no conspiracy in the case at bar. there is no showing in the problem that Carlo Dy colluded with Richard on his plan and of executing his plan to commit such crime.

5. I will charge the crime of Murder against the five accused. This is because the crime was consumated in conspiracy, and atteded by circumstances that would qualify the crime to murder as provided under ART. 249 of the Revised Penal Code. Such qualifying circumstances are: By the the use highpowered firearms, by ghe group of armed men and teachery.

6. Although alibi is recognized as the weakest defense, the same can be given weight when supported by clear and convincing evidence, as in the case of Hubert Webb, who was able to show proof thru his passport & certification from the US Immigration that he was in US when the incident happened. ( I haven't completed reading the case, sorry.)

7. Romeo and Jun committed the crime of murder. Their claim of self defence is not correct. The following are requisites to successfully invoke self-defense: 1. There is unlawful aggression; 2. there is reasonable means employed to prevent or repel the the act; and 3. Lack of provocation on the part of the person dedending himself. The use of unlicensed firearms in the commission of the crime is, simply the unlicensed firearms as special aggravating circumstance. The penalty should only be lowered by period, as provided by jurisprudence.

8. The ruling of the RTC is not correct. Clearly this a case of self-defense. There was unlawful agression made by Lusio Cheng that made the lives of Tan and his wife at immenent danger. Tan labored very hard to grab the bolo of Cheng when the latted tried to atteck the former.The was a reasonable means emp,oyed by Tan in repeling the attact of Ching. Also, Tan did notprovoked Ching.

9. Qualified Rape was committed by the accused. The penalty impossable is Reclusion perpetua to death. But since there is no more death penalty now, the penalty would only be Reclusion Perpetua, The victim may be awarded life indemnity, moral damages, exemplary, temperate and even attorney's fees. The real name of the victim should not be stated in the decision, for reasons of respect and secrecy.

10. Yes, as a Judge, i will approve his manifesfestation to plea bargain to both charges to the lesser offence in Section 12. Yes, i will also allow and grant his application for probation. Under the law now, plea bargaining to a lesser offense is already allowed. Sec. 23 of RA 9165 which prohibits plea bargaining is declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. It is now the case being decided after entering plea to a lesser offense is to be considered for probation, and not the case as originally filed. In this case, since the plea bargained offense (sec. 12) is probationable, the convict can avail of probation.

Agapito Balili

Aisha FERNANDEZ

2020-10-20

criminal law review preliminary examination

Word count: 2039

1.) If I were the Fiscal, I would file a complex crime of Estafa through Falsification of Public Documents against Jose Bugtas.

2.) The action will prosper, since through the falsification of Jose Bugtas of the documents he was able to induce Maria Lopez to sign it and utilized such for the sale of property of the latter.

3-4) Absolutory cause would not apply in this case.

Under the law, no criminal liability but only civil liability shall result from the commission of the crime of theft, swindling or malicious mischief committed or casued mutually by the following persons: (a)spouses, ascendamts and descendants, or relative by affinity in the same degree;(b) the widowed spouse with respect to the property which belonged to the deceased spouse; and (3)brothers and sisters and brothers-in-law ans sister-in-law.

In the given case, what Jose Bugtas committed against his mother-in-law is a crime of estafa through falsification of documents, since he induced the latter making her believe that the same was for the estate but in truth it was a Special Power of Attorney.The crimes of theft, swindling or malicious mischief if complex with other crimes would not constitute the absolutory cause provided by law.

5-6) Had Jose Bugtas defrauded Maria Lopez by letting her sign a Deed of Sale for the said property, the former would be liable for the crime of estafa. Hence, absolutory cause will apply.

The crime committed is Kidnapping for ransom and serious illegal detention, with Richard as the principal, and Maria as the accomplice thereof.

The elements of Kidnapping for ransom are as follows; (a) intent of the accused to deprived the victim of his liberty; (b)actual deprivation of the victim of his liberty; (c) extrotion of the accused for ransom for the release of the victim.

In the case at bar, all the elements for Kidnapping for Ransom is present. First, Richard intended to deprive the victim of his liberty by using chemicals so that he can bring easily to his house in Paranaque. Second, he kept the victim in his house for ten days. Third, a note was sent to the wife of the victim demanding a sum of money for the release of the victim.

As to the liability of the perpetrators, Richard shall be liable as principal since he took part on the commission of the offense, by taking the victim in his house, detained him for days, and sending a note to wife of the victim for extortion of money as a condition of the release of the victim, without such acts the offense cannot be commited.

Maria on the other hand, is liable only as an accomplice. Accomplice is one who is not a principal, cooperate in the commission of the crime by previous and simultaneous acts and by supplying moral and material aid to the principal. Maria, with the knowledge of the crime committed, aided Richard by giving meals and medicine to the victim.

III

The crime committed is Rape, Jose being the principal and Marina Teves as the accomplice. Conspiracy is not present in the case.

There is conspiracy if two or more person agree and decide to commit a crime. Conspirators are to be held liable on the basis of collective responsibility, the act of one is the act of all. In conspiracy, the accused who cooperated in the commission of the offense perform another act without which the offense would have not been accomplished, and is liable either as principal by direct participation or as a principal by dispensable cooperation. Accomplice on the other hand, is one who is not a principal, but cooperates in the commission of the crime by previous or simultaneous acts supplying material and moral aid to the principal. The acts of the accomplice is not material or indispensable to the commission of the offense.

In the case at bar, Jose is liable of the crime of rape by having carnal knowledge with the victim against her will by intoxicating her. Marina on the other hand, shall be liable only as an accomplice, since although she consented to the commission of the offense such is not indispensable to the commission of the crime. Jose would still be able to rape Marie absence of any aid from Marina.

The crime committed is complex crime of estafa through falsification of commercial documents. No conspiracy has existed between Carlo and Richard.

Conspiracy requires that both accused agreed and decided to commit a crime. Both must perform an act in furtherance of the conspiracy. The overt act in furtherance of conspiracy may consist of active participation in the commission of the crime, moral assistance by being present at the time of the commission of the offense or by exerting moral ascendancy over the other co-conspirators.

In the given case, it can be established that Carlo Dy has no knowledge of the falsification made by Richard. He trusted Richard given that they are friends. Furthermore, it was admitted by Richard that he caused the posting of fictitious deposits by manipulating the ledger of which he has an access. Absence of the knowledge of the criminal design , Carlo cannot be held liable for the complex crime of estafa through falsification of commercial documents. However, Carlo cannot be exempted at all from liability since by negligently lending his passbook to Richard, he is likewise liable but only to that extent.

If I were the prosecutor I would charge the five accused of the crimes of multiple murder and two counts of frustrated murder.

One who commits an intentional felony is liable for all the consequences which may naturally or logically result therefrom, whether intended or not. Moreover, when various victims expire from separate shots, such acts constitute separate and distinct crimes and not a complex crime.

Frustrated felony on the other hand is committed, when the offender has performed all the acts of execution which would produce the felony as a consequence, but the same is not produced due to some causes independent of the will of the perpetrator.

In the case at bar, although the accused intended only to kill the mayor by way of ambush they cannot escape the liability caused to the fish vendor and the bodyguards. since they are liable for all the consequences that may arise for the commission of the offense. And since the spraying of bullets constitutes separates shots causing the death of the mayor and fish vendor such would be treated as separate crimes, hence there will be two counts of murder. Furthermore, the accused shall be liable also for frustrated murder as to the bodyguards.

Positive identification is controlling only if this two criteria are met: (1) the positive identification of the offender must come from a credible witness; and (2) the witness' story of what she personally saw must be believable, and not inherently contrived.

On the other hand, to establish alibi, the accused must prove by positive, clear and convincing evidence that: (a) he was at another place at the time of the commission of the crime; and (2) that it was physically impossible for him to be at the scene of the crime.

In the case of Hubert Webb, the positive identification made by Jessica Alfaro of the offender does not satisfy the criteria and was overcome by the alibi documented by the accused. First, it was learned that Alfaro was an asset of the NBI, hence she has access to all information pertaining to the case and therefore not a credible witness, second her statement was not corroborative of the facts of the case since it was obviously created by her based on the facts constituting the case, and not based on her personal knowledge of the crime committed. Furthermore, Webb was able to document his alibi through the certifications issued by the immigrations relating to his entry to the US and his travel back in the Philippines and by various circumstances that would prove that he was indeed outside the country during the commission of the crime and it was impossible for him to be at the scene of the crime.

VII

The crime committed is Homicide as to Jose, and frustrated homicide as to Pedro and Juan.

The claim of self defense is not valid, since the requisites are not complied with.

For claim of self defense to be valid: (a) there must be unlawful aggression of the part of the victim; (b) there must be reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or to repel the act; and (c) there is lack provocation on the part of the person defending himself.

The requisites for self defense are not present in case. There was no unlawful aggression on the part the victim that would justify the acts of the accused. In order to cnstitute aggression the person attacked must be confronted by a real threat on his life and limb and that the peril sought to be avoided is immenent and actual not merely imaginary. Furthermore , there must be rational equivalence between the means of attack and defense.

In the case at bar, the throwing of stones by the victim does not constitute unlawful aggression given the distance between them, such does not constitute real threat to the life of the accused since they can easily ran away and report such to the authorities. Moreover, the means employed by the accused is not reasonably necessary or there is no rational equivalence between throwing of stones and shooting with firearm.

Used of unlicensed firearm is considered as a special aggravating circumstance in the crime of homicide and murder and hence, the voluntary surrender of the accused which is considered as ordinary mitigating circumstance cannot be offset.

VIII

The ruling of the RTC is incorrect.

For self defense to be valid, there must be unlawful aggression which is actual, physical and imminent on the part of the victim, the means employed to prevent it must be reasonable, and that there is no sufficient provocation on the part of the accused. As to defense of a stranger, unlawful aggression, means employed is reasonable to prevent the act and that the person defending be not induced by revenge, resentment or other evil motive.

In the given case the contention of the RTC, that unlawful aggression ceased when Robert shot the victim in the head which caused him to lean sideward is without merit, since there is no indication that such resulted for the accused to stop but instead he grab a bolo and assaulted the common law spouse of the accused. Such act constitutes a continuous unlawful aggression on the part of the victim, which is material and imminent. Furthermore, it was not also established that the injury in the head of the victim had weakened and subdued him therefore the killing was treacherous given his condition. During the altercation the accused cannot be expected to act with sufficient tranquility of mind to think, calculate and make comparisons as to the reasonable necessity to be employed to repel the unlawful aggression.

In the case of People vs AAA the crime committed is qualified rape since the victim is a minor at the time of the offense and it was committed by the father against his daughter.

The imposable penalty of qualified rape is death, however since death is now prohibited, the proper penalty woul be reclusion perpetua without the benefit of parole.

In accordance with the Jugueta case, the damages that should be awarded to the victim are moral, exemplary, and actual damages.

The real name or identity of the victim is not stated in the decision to protect the confidentiality of its identity given that she is the victime of abuse.

(1)If I were the judge, I will allow the accused to plea bargain to both charges. Plea bragaining is an act whereby the the accused pleads guilty to a lesser charge in the expectation of leniency.

(2) The grant of the application for probation is dependent upon the circumstances of the case. If the conditions set for the grant of probation is met then it is proper for the Judge to grant the application for probation.

Aisha FERNANDEZ

Aisha Mie Faith Fernandez

2020-10-20

criminal law review preliminary examination

Word count: 0

Aisha Mie Faith Fernandez

Ameliano Himang

2020-10-20

criminal law review preliminary examination

Word count: 1138

Ameliano G. Himang

Criminal Law Review (refresher)

1. If I were the Fiscal, I will file the case of Estafa through falsification of documents, because by means of falsified documents the accused succesfully committed the crime of Estafa by means of abuse of confidence.

2. I believe that Jose Bugtas can be convicted beyond reasonable doubt based on the evidence that by using falsified documents, he let Maria Lopez signed the purported documents by means of deciet and fraud.

3. I will oppose his motion to dismiss beacuse son-in-law is not applicable to the exempting circumstance of Absolutory Cause.

4. Supposedly the absolutory cause of relationship, however the same will not apply in the case at bar, considering that son-in-law is not covered under said provision.

5. Jose Bugtas can be charged only in the crime of Estafa under Article 315 by means of deceit.

6. My conclusion is the same Mario Bugas is liable for complex crime of estafa thru falsification of documents.

11.

1. Richard committed the crime of Kidnapping and serious illegal detention and his wife is his accomplice, because by means of violence through using of chemical spray the consul was deprived of his liberty and he was kept for ten days. The moment there was deprivation of liberty , and that Richard demanded a ransom as payment for his release in the amount of Php 5M, the crime committed is Kidnapping and serious illegal detention. Richard's wife is considered as accomplice to the crime of kidnapping and serious illegal detention because, she is not the principal, however, she has knowledge of the crime and cooperated by lending his material and moral support as she was the one who took care of the consul by providing his meals and medicine.

111.

1. Jose Reyes committed the crime of rape and Marina Teves as accomplice in the crime of rape. Under the law, rape is committed even though there is no force and intimidation but the woman is unconscious, and that she cannot freely give her consent. On the other hand, her mother is considered as accomplice to the crime of rape because, she has previous knowledge by giving her consent and cooperated to the consummation of the rape by lending her moral and material support as she help Jose Reyes to force Marina to drink Tanduay to hasten the commission of the crime of rape. However, there is no conspiracy in the case at bar, because conspiracy exist when the accused come to an agreement to commit the crime, and there was a unity of designed, purpose, and concerted efforts of the offenders before, during and after the commission of the crime.

In this case, Marina Teves has agreed with Jose Reyes to have sexual intercourse with her daughter, in fact she cooperated by forcing Marina to drink an intoxicating liquor, however, she left and did not cooperated with Jose Reyes during the actual commission of rape, hence, she cannot be considered as conspirator but a mere accomplice in this case.

IV.

1. Richard Sy is liable for qualified theft. Under the law qualified theft is committed any person who take property of another without their consent, without the knowledge of the owner, and for personal gains and advantages, and with abused of confidence. In this case, Richard Sy committed the crime of qualified theft because, without the consent of the bank owner, he successfully credited the amount of Php 20,000 to the account of Carlo Dy in which he subsequently withdrawn from the account of the latter. This is qualified theft because there was an abused of confidence being an empoyee of the bank who is entrusted with the funds, by means of fraud he transferred certain amount for his personal gains and advantages.

As regard, to Carlo Dy he is not criminally liable at all. Firstly, he didn't cooperated to the commision of the crime, he is innocent and in good faith, and by mere lending his passbook to Richard Sy there is no crime he has committed, either in Revised Penal Code or special law. However, he could be equally liable civilly with Richarg Sy, because, he has committed negligence in by lending his Passbook in this case. No conspiracy existing in the case at bar, because conspiracy is committed by agreement of the parties to commit a crime. And the act of one is considered the act of all.

1. If I were the prosecutor, I will charge the 5 accused for the complex crime of murder for the death of the Mayor and Fish Vendor, and Frustrated Murder for the 2 bodyguards. Under the law, complex crime is committed by a single act which produce two or more grave of less grave felonies.

V1.

The other ground as rationalized by the Supreme Court is the inconsistincies of the Star Witness in the name of Jessica Alfaro. That is why the case was dismissed, alhtough the defense of Alibi is considered as the weakest defense under our criminal justice system. However, it was established by the counsel of Webb that his defense of alibi was supported with credible evidence. And under the law, in case there is doubt the judgement should be in favor for the acquital of the accused.

V11.

1. Romeo and Jun is liable for crime of murder for Jose, and for frustrated murder for Pedro and Juan. No, there is no self-defense in the case at bar. In order for self-defense to prosper, the following elements are present: 1. Unlawful aggression, 2. reasonable means is employed to prevent or repel the aggression. 3. Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself. The effect of using an unlicense firearm is to be appreciated as aggravating circumstances. In voluntary surrender since this is mitigating circumstance lowering of degree is proper.

V111.

The ruling of RTC is incorrect because. There is self-defense and defense of relative in the case at bar. (1) there is unlawful aggression (2) reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent and repel the aggression (3) lack of suffient provocation on the part of the person defending himself. And in the defense of relative, the person must not be induced by revenge, resentment or evil motives.

X1.

1. The kind of rape is incestuous rape. Damages are moral in the amount of Php 100,000, Exemplary damages the same amount Php 100,000.00. The identity of victim is conceal in the to avoid futher redicule and protect the minor from harassment in the future.

X. Yes plea bargainin is allowed in criminal cases. it is the power of the supreme court to promolgate rules of procedure. and plea bargaining is allowed in pre-trial. Yes probation is allowed because the penalty is not more than six years. hence it is probationable.

Ameliano Himang

Anilyn Evangelista

2020-10-20

criminal law review preliminary examination

Word count: 861

Problem No. 1.

1. I am the Fiscal, I will charge Jose Bugtos of the complex crime of Estafa through Falsification of Public Document.

2. There is a greater possibility that Jose Bugtos will be convicted of the complex crime of Estafa throughFalsification of Public Document.

3. The lawyer of Jose cannot validly invoke absolutory

cause. Absolutory cause apples only to simple crime of theft, swindling, and malicious mischief. In the case at bar, what is committed is a complex crime hence absolutory cause cannot be invoked by Jose Bugtos.

4. The absolutory cause is the relationship by affinity between the offender and the offended party.

5. Still the crime committed is the same the complex crime of Estafe through Falsification of Public Document.

6. Yes, my conclusion will still be the same.

Problem No. 2.

The crime committed by Richard is Kidnapping and Serious Illegal Detention. Maria cannot be considered as co-principal.

Problem No. 3.

The crime committed by Jose Reyes and Marina is rape. Jose is the principal while Marina Teves is an accomplice.

In the case at bar there is no conspiracy. The participation of Maria Teves is not indispensable in the commission of the crime. That the principal can consummate the crime even without the participation of Maria, hence Maria cannot be considered as conspirator instead an accomplice to the crime of rape.

Problem No. 4.

1. The crime committed is Estafe Through falsification of Commercial Document.

There is no conspiracy in the case at bar. A conspiracy exists when there is a community of design and the participation of each conspirators is indispensable in the commission of the crime. In the case at bar, there is no showing that Carlo Dy, the owner of the passbook conspired with Richard Sy in the commission of the crime, in fact he did not know what was going on not until when he closed his account with the bank.

Problem No. 5.

The crime committed is murder and 2 counts of frustrated murder with homicide.

Problem No. 6.

The Supreme Court acquitted the accused on the grounds of alibi. That accused Webb proved the strongest alibi according to the Supreme Court which was proven by positive, clear and satisfactory evidence that he was present at another place at the time of the perpetration of the crime, that he was in the US and that it was impossible for him to be at the scene of the crime.

Another grounds used by the Supreme Court aside from alibi was that the production of the DNA result. When the DNA result of the victim cannot be located which must proved that such is the same with the accused because of the negligence of the government agencies and such negligence cannot be attributed to the accused.

Problem No. 7.

Romeo and Jun committed the crime of homicide, frustrated homicide and serios physical injury.

Jun and Romeo are not correct in claiming that their act is an act of self-defense.

Self-defense can be validly invoked when there is unlawful aggression, which is an indispensable element, reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it and lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself. In the present case, when Romeo and Jun fired their gun to the three brothers, they are not justified so for the very reason that when they were attacked by stones, they can just easily ran away for they were inside their car but they opt to fire their gun. The attacked done by the three brothers is not in an immediate and imminent manner.

The use of an unlicensed firearm is a special aggravating circumstance and the effect to their criminal liability is that it will be imposed to the maximum period.

The imposable penalty will not be lowered neither by degree nor period. The law provides that special aggravating circumstance cannot be offset by ordinary mitigating circumstance.

Problem No. 8.

The ruling of the RTC is not correct. Accused Robert Tan validly invoked self-defense and defense of stranger.

The basis of the judgment of the RTC is a pure presumption. The accused proved that there is unlawful aggression and there was reasonable necessity to prevent or repel it. That the defense of stranger was also present no showing that the accused was induced by revenge or evil motive.

Problem No. 9.

The real name of the victim should not be stated in the decision to protect and hide the identity of the victim. So avoid being scrutinize in the public.

Problem No. 10

Yes. As a Judge, I will allow him to plea bargain to a lesser offense to both charges.

Yes, I will also grant his application for probation after due hearing.

The law provides that those who are convicted by final judgment involving sale of illegal drugs and the amount is ranging from 0.01 to 0.99, considered as light enough to be included in plea bargaining to a lesser offense. Probation can be applied after judgment of conviction and in applying probation what is essential is not the offense charged but to which the accused is ultimately guilty.

Anilyn Evangelista

Ariel Acopiado

2020-10-20

criminal law review preliminary examination

Word count: 1468

Problem 1

(1) I will file a case for Estafa through Falsification of public documents. This is for the reason that there was deceit and fraud in obtaining Lopez's signature which lead her to part with her property, which was prejudicial to her. Further, such deceit was made through the use of a Special Power of Attorney which is a public document.

(2)There is a high possibility of conviction since a jurisprudence exists of similar facts wherein a Japanese national who defrauded her mother-in-law was also convicted of the charge aforementioned.

(3) The motion should be dismissed by the judge since under established case law, the exemptions for erring relatives under absolutory cause only applies to simple theft, swindling (or estafa) and malicious mischief and not if the same are complexed by other crimes.

(4) There is no absolutory cause that applies to the case at hand since what the law exempts are those simple acts of theft, swindling and malicious mischief. It does not cover estafa through falsification of public documents since the same goes beyond personal disputes and within the purview of public interest.

(5) A deed of sale would have eliminated the public element of the crime and would have rendered the same as a simple crime of estafa, which would fall qualify as an absolutory cause under the law.

(6) No. My conclusion would be different if it was a deed of sale, since as mentioned, the same would remove the public element of the crime which the State is interested in prosecuting.

Problem 2

The crime committed by Richard and his wife is kidnapping for ransom and serious illegal detention. Richard being a principal to the crim while his wife as an accomplice

Under the law, kidnapping for ransom is committed when there is (a) intentional kidnapping of victim, (b) victim is deprived of liberty and (c) motive of kidnapping is to ransom the victim. Additionally the law classifies a principal to acrime either by direct action, indispensable participation and inducement. Finally the law provides that an accomplice is one who has (a) unity of design with the principal, (b)participates in previous or subsequent acts and (c) that such acts relate to the acts of the principal.

Problem 3

The crime is qualified rape. Reyes as principal and Teves an accomplice

The law provides that rape is committed when (a) a person commits carnal knowledge to a victim, and (b) there is force, threat or intimidation (among others). Rape is qualified when the victim is a minor or one of the perpetrators is a relative. The law also provides that a person is becomes an accomplice to an offense when: (a) unity of purpose (b)participation in previous or subsequent and (c) acts of accomplice relates that to the principal. Further, jurisprudence provides that actions of an accomplice must not be indispensable, otherwise the same is liable as principal. Conspiracy to commit a crime under the law is when there is an agreement and decision to commit a crime and the crime is carried out.

In this case, the situation falls as qualified rape since the daughter is a minor. Further Teves is only an accomplice since her acts are not indispensable to the commission of the crime as principal Jose as presented would still commit the crime regardless of her approval. There is no conspiracy in this case as Marina was not a participant in the commission of the crime itself despite giving her consent.

Problem 4

The crime committed by Richard is estafa through falsification of commercial documents. Carlos on the otherhand, must be acquitted of the same charge. There is no conspiracy existing in this case.

The law elucidates that estafa through falsification of commercial documents when there is (a) deceit employed (b) victim parted with her property or a consideration because of the deceit (c) victim was prejudiced thereby and (d) committed through the execution of commercial documents. Case law aso puts forth that to be liable as a conspirator, there must be knowledge of and willingness to commit a crime.

In this case, it is clear that Carlos was reluctant in allowing Richard to use his passbook. It is apparent that he was not knowledgeable nor willing to the hidden machinations of the latter in swindling the bank.

Problem 5.

The crime charged against the five persons will be that of murder.

Under the law, a complex crime is one wherein a single act results in two or more grave or less grave felonies. Under complex crimes, the maximum penalt is imposed. Futher, the elements of murder are: (a) a person is killed (b) accused commits the killing (c) there is treachery, ambush or other instances as provided under the law and (d) the same does not fall under patricide or infanticide.

In this case it is clear that the deaths and injuries caused in the scenario were borne about the single acts of each of the five persons in spraying of bullets. Further, he execution of the crime being that of an ambush, falls within the ambit of murder.

Problem 6

The SC acquitted by the accused by explaining the the lower courts blindly admitted the sole testimony of the prosecution's star witness. The court impugning such reliance elucidated that for the testimony to stand the following must be met: (a) The witness is credible and (b) that the testimony put forth is believable and not contrived. The Court in the case mentioned stated that the star witness of the NBI was an asset and could have used information already known by the agency to frame the accused. Additionally, the SC put forth that the lower courts must always approach cases with an open mind and not be a slave to doctrines being reiterated almost always (positive identification vs alibi) otherwise, the High Court warns that if such was the case, only the death of the accused would be an acceptable alibi in Philippine jurisdiction.

Problem 7

The crime is committed is homicide.

Elements of homicide is that: (a) a person is killed (b) accused commits the killing (c) and there is no treachery that would qualify it as murder..

No. self-defense is untenable.

Requirements for self-defense is that there must be: (a) unlawful aggression, (b) reasonable necessity of the means employed to deter the aggression and (c) lack of sufficient provocation on the one claiming self-defense.

In the case, there is no unlawful aggression since there was no actual or imminent danger on the lives of the accused. Also there was no reasonable means of deterence since the shooting of the gun was not the last resort accused could have resorted thereto as they could run or call the authorities.

An unlicensed firearm is an special aggrevating circumstance under the law which would not be offset by any mitigating circumstance.

Since in the case there is an special mitigating circumstance, the ordinary mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender cannot lower the penalty by a period which would have been its normal effect if the former was absent.

Problem 8.

No. The RTC erred in is judgment

In case law of similar import, reasonable necessity of the means employed to deter the aggressionmust be afforded leeway on a case to case basis since people who defend themselves are not in the position to consider with a clear mind what is reasonable. Further, the SC in jurisprudence also stresses that a blow to a head does not deter unlawful aggression since the perpetrators usually have adrenaline coursing through their veins in the enactment of the crime.

RTC should have considered more of what was the perpective of the person defending himself at the time of the crime and not what others would think as to his actions.

Problem 9

The crime is qualified rape as the same was aggravated by family relation and the victim's minority.

The penalty imposable is death (reduced to reclusion perpetua due to the suspension of the death penalty.

The amount of damages relating to the crime under Jugueta is P100,000 and moral damages of P100,000.

The identity of the victim is hidden to protect the same from public shaming and scrutiny. The intention is to prevent the negative stigma associated from being a victim of rape further damaging the innocence of a child whose dreams have already been robbed.

Problem 10

Yes. As judge I would allow plea bargaining upon agreement if the prosecutor is amenable and upon consideration of the circumstances as my discretion allows. This is for the reason that the prohibition for plea-bargaining under RA 9165 has been declared unconstitutional and jurisprudence has allowed the manifestation of such plea-bargaining.

Yes, since probation is allowed for if the sentence is 6 years or less assuming that the accused is not a recidivist.

Ariel Acopiado

Arnold Bongcayao

2020-10-20

Email: arnoldbongcayao@gmail.com

Class: Criminal Law Review

Teacher: Judge Ric Bastasa

criminal law review preliminary examination

Word count: 1258

Problem No.1

1. If I were the Fiscal, I will file a criminal case of Estafa Through Falsification of Public Document. The act of Jose Bugtas in deceiving Maria Lopez into signing the SPA and misapproriating the proceeds of the sale constitute the complex crime of estafa through falsification. There is only one crime committed in the eyes of the law since it was a product of one criminal design which is to defraud Maria Lopez.

2. Jose may be liable for the complex crime of estafa through falsification of public document. The offense is a necessary means to commit the other.

3. The motion to dismiss will not prosper. Absolutory cause under Article 332 of the Revised Penal Code will apply only in simple crimes of theft, swindling and physical injuries. In this case, the crime committed is a complex crime.

4. The absolutory cause of relationship will apply in this case under Article 332 of the RPC.

5. The crime would be estafa only. His deceitful act of letting her sign a Deed of sale constitute one crime.

6. No, my conclusion will not be the same. The absolutory cause of relationship under Article 332 will apply. There is no criminal liability, when an offense is committed against ascendants in crimes of theft, estafa, or physical injuries. Hence, Jose Bugtas will not be criminally liable for estafa. However, he is civilly liable for the value of the property sold for 50 million.

Problem No. 2

Richard committed the crime of kidnapping for ransom.

Under the law, the elements of kidnapping are the following: a) intent of the offender to deprive the victim of his liberty; b) actual deprivation of the victim's liberty; c) the offender ask for ransom for the release of the victim.

In the instant case, Richard satisfies all the elements. Hence, Richard will be liable as a principal for the crime of kidnapping for ransom.

Maria, the wife of Richard, will be liable as accomplice to the crime of kidnapping.

Under the law, a person may be held liable as an accomplice when the following elements concur: a) there is community of design, meaning she knows the criminal design of the principal; b) the person perform previous or simultaneous acts in order to render material or moral aid in the execution of the crime in an efficacious way; c) there is a relation between the acts committed by the principal and the acts of a person charged as an accomplice.

In this case, Maria satiesfies the elements of being an accomplice. She knew the plan of her husband and failed to report to the authorities. She provided moral support by acting as food provider to the victim. Hence, Maria will be liable as an accomplice.

Problem no. 3

Jose Reyes committed the crime of rape.

Under the law, rape is committted under the following instances: a) when the victim is below eighteen years of age; b) when the victim is deprived of reason or is unconscious.

Here, the victim is a minor and was intoxicated at the time of incident. She was deprived of her reasoning faculties and thus Jose may be liable for rape.

Marina Teves will be liable as an accomplice of the crime of rape. She rendered moral aid to Jose but her acts are not indispensable in the execution of the crime.

Problem No. 4

Richard Sy committed the crime of Estafa through falsification of commercial document. His fraudulent scheme causes damage to the bank.

Carlo Dy has no criminal liability. He cannot be considered as an accomplice because there is no community of design. He is not aware of the criminal design of the principal Richard Sy.

5. As Prosecutor, I will charge the Five accused of two (2) counts of Murder and two (2) counts of frustrated murder.

The use of firearms and motor vehicle qualifies the killing into murder. Ambush presupposes treachery. The accused use means and methods which deprived the victims to defend themselves.

The killing of the Mayor was murder. However, the medical intervention to his guards gave rise to Frustrated Murder only.

There is treachery when the bullet hit and killed the bystander. Murder is also committed against the fish vendor. They will be liable under the principle of aberratio ictus under Article 4 of the Revised Penal Code.

Problem No. 6

According the Supreme Court, the defense of alibi will prosper if the following elements concur: a) the accused is at a place in another time different from the place where the crime was committed; b) the alibi is supported by clear and convincing evidence that it was physically impossible for the accused to be at the scene of the crime.

The testimony of Jessica Alfaro imputed Webb as the mastermind of the crime. Without the participation of Webb, the fellow accused cannot commit theSince the Supreme Court considers the defense of alibi of Webb as credible, the cases against his cohorts also must fall.

The Supreme Court also utilize the absence of DNA evidence to acquit the accused based on reasonable doubt. The missing sperm specimen found in the victim's body was considered a material evidence to support a conviction. Since it was not found, reasonable doubt arises.

Problem No. 7

Romeo and Jun may be held liable for Homicide of Jose, Frustrated Homicide of Juan and Less Serious Physical Injury on Pedro who was shot on his leg.

Yes, they can claim self defense. There was unlawful agression of the victims, there was reasonable necessity of the means employed to repel or prevent the attack, lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the persons defending.

The use of unlicensed firearm will qualify the crime to murder.

Under the law, the use of unlicensed firearm is not a generic aggravating circumstance. It cannot be offset by an ordinary mitigating circumstance such as voluntary surrender. Hence, lowering the imposable penalty by degree or by period is not possible.

Problem No. 8

The ruling of the RTC is not correct.

The means employed by the accused to defend himself is entirely his own judgment depending on the time when his life is on danger. People will respond differently to the same stimulus. The unlawful aggression did not end when Lucio Cheng was hit in the head if Robert Tan think that it has not yet ended.

9. The crime committed is two (2) counts of Statutory Rape because the victim is fifteen (15) years old and below eighteen. The penalty imposable is reclusion perpetua to death.

In accordance with the Jugueta case, the damages to be awarded are the following: a) Civil imdemnity ex delicto, this is automatic in rape cases; b) Moral damages on mental anguished of the victim; c) Exemplary Damage for the correction of the public good.

The real name or identity of the victim should not be stated in the decision in order to protect the privacy of the child against discrimination. This is in conformity to Republic Act 7610.

Problem No. 10

1. I will approve the plea bargaining if the prosecution is agrees to it because it is entirely under the prosecutor's control. I will also assess the prosecution's evidence if it is enough to warrant a conviction under Sections 5 or 11.

2. I will grant his application for bail because the he is not disqualified under the Probation Law. His penalty upon conviction of Section 12 is not more than six (6) years of imprisonment. Hence, Bert Pascua may be entitled to probation.

Arnold Bongcayao

Bobby Borces

2020-10-20

criminal law review preliminary examination

Word count: 1921

ANSWERS TO:

Problem No. 1.

1. If I were the Fiscal, I will file a criminal charge against Jose Bugtas for Estafa through Falsification of Public Documents.

2. Given this charge that I had filed against him, the possibility of conviction of Jose Bugtas is very high considering that there is enough evidence that can prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt considering that he was the one who defrauded his mother-in-law by telling to sign some documents purportedly referring for exemption of realty taxes but in truth and in fact it was actually a Special Power of Attorney authorizing his daughter Marilou Lopez-Bugtas to sell her Bulacan Property.

3. If the lawyer of Jose Bugtas files a Motion to Dismiss the case on ground of absolutory cause, the same has to be denied because his case is not one of those crimes enumerated under Article 332 of the Revised Penal Code, i.e., theft, swindling or malicious mischief. He is facing a complex crime of Estafa through Falsification of Public Document and not a simple crime of Estafa. Thus, an absolutory cause of relationship will not exempt him from his criminal liability.

4. If there be any absolutory cause that will apply in this case, this absolutory cause is the absolutory cause of relationship by affinity the fact that Jose Bugtas is the son-in-law of Maria Lopez, the complainant or victim in this case.

5 &6. If Jose Bugtas merely defrauded Maria Lopez by simply letting her sign a Deed of Sale to him of the said property, my conclusion will not be the same because the crime he committed would have been only a simple crime of estafa. Since relationship by affinity is an absolutory cause in the crime of Estafa pursuant to law, then he is therefore exempt from his criminal liability.

Problem No. 2.

(1) As far as Richard is concerned, he committed the crime as principal by direct participation of Kidnapping and Serious Illegal Detention because the kidnapping or detention lasted for more than three days and he was the one who actually perpertrated the criminal act of kidnapping.

As far as his wife Maria is concerned, she is also committing the crime of Kidnapping and Serious Illegal Detention but not as principal by direct participation but only as an accomplice because her cooperation in the execution of the offense was simly by her simultaneous acts of taking care of the victim and that her participation is not indispensable considering that Richard can still commit such crime even without her cooperation.

Problem No. 3.

Jose Reyes committed the crime of rape as principal by direct participation because he was the one who actually did the crime of rape. Although, there is no showing that there was force and intimidation when the sexual congress happened, the crime is still rape since the victim named Marie was deprived of reason at the time of the incident as she was unconscious because of intoxication.

As far as Marina Teves is concerned, she also committed the crime of rape as a mere accomplice only as she did not actually take part in the execution of the crime of rape but she merely cooperated by her previous acts of forcing her daughter to drink for her to be intoxicated and also by giving her consent for Jose Reyes to have sexual intercourse with her daughter. Her cooperation is not indispensable because Jose Reyes can still commit the crime of rape even without her participation, thus, at most, she only committed the crime of rape as a mere accomplice.

There is no conspiracy of the two to speak of also because conspiracy exists only when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it. In the instant case, what Marina Teves did was only by giving her consent for Jose Reyes to have sex with her daughter. Both did not agree that a crime of rape would be committed by Jose Reyes, thus, conspiracy is not attendant in this case.

Problem No. 4

Carlo Dy and Richard Sy committed the crime of Estafa through falsification of commercial document. This is so because the two, granting that Carlo Dy has a hand to the crime, have falsified a commercial document for them to defraud the bank.

From the given facts, it can be inferred that conspiracy did not exist. As defined, conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it. In the case at bar, Carlo Dy has no knowledge as to the plan of Richard Sy that he would defraud the bank by making anomalous transactions. Since, Carlo Dy has no knowledge of Richard Sy's evil intent, it goes without saying therefore that he cannot come to an agreement with Richard Sy concerning the commission of the said crime. Thus, conspiracy is wanting in this case.

Problem No. 5.

If I were the Prosecutor, I will charge the five accused of Murder as far as the death of the Mayor is concerned and another charge of Murder as far as the death of fish vendor is concerned. These crimes are Murders because the victims were assaulted treacherously without them knowing that they will be killed at that particular time. Even on the part of the fish vendor, that is still murder because the fish vendor was not given any chance of depending himself as the shooting incident was done so abruptly.

I will also charge with separate cases of Frustrated Murders as far as the two bodyguards are concerned for the same reason as above-cited. This is merely in its frustrated stage because the victims would have died if not because of the immediate treatment they received at the nearby hospital. In short, all the acts of execution were already perpertrated by the offenders but the felony was not produced by reason of causes independent of the will of the perpetrators, i.e., the timely medical assistance.

Problem No. 6

While it is true that alibi cannot prevail over the positive identification, in the case of Hubert Webb, the Supreme Court however considered the alibi of the accused as basis for his acquittal. In that case, it was sufficiently shown to the court by Hubert Webb that it would be really impossible for him to be at the scene of the crime because he was a mile away from the Philippines the fact that he was then in the United States of America. Although, alibi is the weakest defense but it can be considered for as long as the accused can sufficiently establish that he was in another place when the crime was committed and it would be very impossible for him to be at the scene of the crime in view of the distance.

Problem No. 7

Romeo and Jun commit the crime of homicide as far as the death of Jose is concerned because the killing was not attended by any qualifying circumstance that would qualify the crime to murder. Jose at the time of the shooting incident was throwing stones at them and in fact warning shots were made but Jose and company still did not stop. From that fact alone of having warning shots, Jose is already warned that he might be shot if he will not stop throwing stones, thus, the killing was not attended by any qualifying circumstance.

With respect to Pedro and Juan, Romeo and Jun committed the separate crime of frustrated homicide becuase both have already performed all the acts of execution to consummate the crime but because of timely medical attendance, the victims did not die, and also the fact that there is no qualifying circumstance that can qualify the crime to frustrated homicide, thus, only separate crimes of frustrated homicide are committed.

Their claim of self-defense is not correct because of the absence of reasonable necessity employed to prevent or repel the attack. In the problem, stones were the only arms used by the unlawful agressors, and so when they used guns to repel the attack, gun is therefore not a reasonable means to repel the attack in view of the big disparity between stones and gun.

The requisites to successfully invoke self-defense are as follows:

1. Unlawful agression;

2. Reasonable means used to prevent or repel the attack; and

3. Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself.

The effect of using unlicensed firearms with respect to their criminal liability is that the penalty will be imposed in its maximum period because using unlicensed fiream in murder or homicide is considered as a special aggravating circumstance.

No, because a special aggravating circumstance of using unlicensed firearma cannot be offset by any ordinary mitigating circumstance like voluntary surrender. Thus, the imposable penalty cannot be lowered by degree or by period.

Problem No. 8

The ruling of the RTC is not correct because under the facts given it is very clear that Lucio Cheng was still able to grab his bolo and assault Robert Tan's common-law spouse. Drawn from this, the initial unlawful agression by Lucio Cheng had not yet ceased even if he was already hit in his head. Jurisprudence dictates that the victim's resolution at the spur of the moment during the unlawful agression prevails because he has all the rights to defend himself. If he believes that his life is still in danger because of the unlawful agression, he can do whatever he can do for as long as it is still a reasonable means to repel or prevent the attack. In the case at bar, it is his judgment call that he should kill the agressor in order to defend himself. Thus, his claim of self-defense and defense of stranger should given more credence and he should be acquitted and his case dismissed.

Problem No. 9

The kind of rape that the accused committed is incestous rape because he is the fact of the victim.

In this kind of rape, the imposable penalty is death but by virtue of R.A No. 9346 proscribing the imposition of death penalty, the penalty shall only be Reclusion Perpetua.

In accordance with Jugueta, the damages that could be awarded to the victim are as follows: Moral damages, exemplary damages and actual damages, in the absence of proof thereof, only temperate damages.

The real name or identity of the victim should not be stated in the decision so as to protect her image from public judgment.

Problem No. 10

(1) Yes, because plea bargaining is now allowed in drug cases unlike before the amendment of R.A. No. 9165 wherein plea bargaining was expressly provided as not allowed. Under the amended law however, for as long as the number of grams is not more than as allowed by circular given by the Supreme Court, then plea bargaining should be allowed. In the case given, the number of grams are only 0.256g and 0.052g, respectively. Since it is only minimal, then the accused should be allowed to plea bargaining even if it was done only after arraignment. What is required in plea bargaining is that, he should only reduce his motion into writing and the same should be heard giving the prosecution to object the motion but the discretion lies with the court.

(2.) Yes, because probation in drug cases is now allowed provided that he has no disqualifications to avail the same.

Bobby Borces

Breezy Jimenez

2020-10-20

criminal law review preliminary examination

Word count: 0

Breezy Jimenez

Cherrie Mae Granada

2020-10-20

Email: cherriemae.aguila@gmail.com

Class: Criminal Law Review

Teacher: Judge Ric Bastasa

criminal law review preliminary examination

Word count: 1274

a) If I were the fiscal, I would file an action of estafa through falsification of public documents since Jose let Maria sign a document purporting to be that of realty taxes when in fact it was a Special Power of Attorney.

b) It will be possible that Jose Bugtas will be convicted of the complex crime of estafa through falsification of public documents since all the elements of the such complex crime are present.

c) There could be no absolutory cause in this case. Although the Revised Penal Code provides for absolutory cause in crimes of theft, swindling/estafa, and malicious mischief committed between ascendants and descendants, spouses, brothers and sisters, and relatives within the third civil degree, such cannot apply to the complex crime of estafa through falsification of public documents which is deeply impressed with public interest.

2. The crime committed by Richard and his wife Maria is kidnapping for ransom.

As provided by the Revised Penal Code, kidnapping for ransom is committed when the following requisites concur:

(a) there is intent to deprive victim of his liberty;

(b) there is actual deprivation of liberty; and,

In this case, since the consul was actually deprived of his liberty, with the intent of the perpetrator to extort ransom in exchange of the former's liberty, then the crime of kidnapping for ransom was committed by Richard being the principal and Maria being an accomplice.

3. The crime committed by Jose and Marina is rape.

Under the Revised Penal Code, the crime of rape is committed when (a) a man has carnal knowledge of a woman, and (b) such carnal knowledge was committed through force, threat, or intimidation, or when a woman is asleep or unconscious.

Since Jose had carnal knowledge of Marie when the latter was unconscious due to intoxication, the crime of rape was committed. However, there is no conspiracy between Jose and Marina, the latter only acting as accomplice to the crime.

As provided by the RPC, an accomplice:

(a) community of design, that is knowledge of the intent of the principal by participation;

(b) cooperates in the execution of the offense by previous or simultaneous acts, with the intention of supplying material or moral aid to the commission of the crime in an efficacious way; and,

4. The crime committed is estafa through falsification of commercial documents. However, there is no conspiracy between Ricahrd Sy and Carlo Dy.

For conspiracy to prosper, the prosecution must establish the presence of concerted acts in the execution of a common criminal design. This presupposes that each of the accused has a unity of intent or purpose in the execution of the crime.

In this case, Carlo Dy was only acting in good faith in letting his friend Richard Sy use his passbook. Thus, he cannot be held liable to answer for the crime of estafa through falsification of commercial documents absent the knowledge of the criminal intent of his co-accused.

5. As the prosecutor, I will charge the five accused with the crime of murder.

The Revised Penal Code provides that murder is committed when a person is killed with evident premeditation which could likewise be manifested through treachery.

In this case, it is evident that there was premeditation and employment of treachery since sudden attack and use of superior strength are present. It is inconsequential that the fish vendor, as one of the victims, died during the course of the ambush because of a stray bullet since the act against the former is deemed to carry the same criminal intent of the perpetrators.

6. In the acquittal of Hubert Webb, the Supreme Court put aside the principle that positive identification prevails over alibi. The Court's primordial ground is the failure of the prosecution witness Jessica Alfaro to pass the two-pronged test of credibility which is characterized by (a) a positive identification coming from a credible witness, and

(b) presention of a plausible, not inherently contrived story or testimony.

Moreover, the Court ruled in this case that alibi can be a ground for acquittal provided that the accused can effectively prove not only that he was somewhere else when the crime was committed, but also, by clear and convincing evidence, that it was physically impossible for him to be at the place of the crime during its commission.

7. The crime committed by Romeo and Jun against Jose is homicide, while the crime of attempted homicide was committed against Pedro and Juan. Since no reasonable amount of time has elapsed when the former took out their guns to shoot, there is no premeditation to speak of.

As to their claim of self-defense, such is incorrect. The law provides the concurrence of the following requisites to establish self-defense:

(a) Unlawful aggression;

(b) reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it; and,

In this case, the unlawful aggression alleged by the accused is the hurling of stones which hit their car and Jun's left shoulder. As laid down by jurisprudence, such act is not deemed as the unlaful aggression which is strong and eminent as what the law contemplates. Shooting the victims was not necessary since the accused could have avoided the stones by any other means such as running away from the scene. Moreover, the Court ruled that absent the element of unlawful aggression, self-defense will not have a leg to stand on since it is the primary ground to invoke such defense.

As to the unlicensed firearm, it will not be filed as a separate offense but will be absorbed in the crime of homicide. However, as a special aggravating circumstance, it would set the imposable penalty for said crime in its maximum period.

Voluntary surrender would lower the imposable penalty by one degree since it is a special mitigating circumstance.

8. No, the ruling of RTC is incorrect.

The Revised Penal Code provides that there is no crime committed under the justifying circumstance of defense of stranger when the following requisites concur:

(a) Unlawful aggression;

(b) reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it; and,

In this case, in convicting the accused, the RTC failed to appreciate the substantial jurisprudential pronouncements that provided for instances wherein unlawful aggression remained present despite the injury suffered by the one commencing such aggression. In many cases, unlawful aggression did not cease because of the effect of adrenaline rush to such aggressor. The allegation of head injury does not prove the cessation of the unlawful aggression that will invalidate the defense of strangers in this case.

Moreover, the Court reiterated that when ruling on defense of strangers or self-defense, the lower court should not look upon the circumstances according to its own perspective but that of the person defending himself or others. Such person may employ whatever means necessary for him to defend himself or his relatives and strangers.

9. In the case of People vs. AAA, the crime committed was qualified rape since it has met the following requisites:

(a) having carnal knowledge of a woman who is below 18 years old; and

(b) the carnal knwoledge was committed by the ascendants, descendants, step-father, adoptive father, or common law spouse of the parent of the victim.

The imposable penalty for qualified rape is reclusion perpetua with no eligibility of parole.

Cherrie Mae Granada

Christian Val G Dionglay

2020-10-20

criminal law review preliminary examination

Word count: 847

1) Under the Revised Penal Code, the act of Jose Bugtas constitute a crime of falsification made by private persons with the use of falsified documents.

2) All the necessary requisites for the crime mentioned above is present, that offender is a private person, he committed falsification under the rpc and the use of falsified public document. thus making him liable of the offense charged.

3) Yes, the said offense can also be subjected to an absolutory cause under the rpc, because of the relationship of Jose to maria lopez under art 332.

4) Under Art 332, relatives are exempted from criminal liability if the offense committed is theft, estafa or malicious mischief.

5. my answer would still be the same because a falsified deed of sale is a public document.

6. Based on all the facts above, my conclusion would be, that the absolutory cause will apply to Jose Bugtas because of his relationship to maria lopez. He will not be criminally liable but only civil liability.

II.

In a similar decided case, the offender (husband) was guilty of kidnapping and serious illegal detention because the illegal detention lasted for more than 3 days and the purpose is extorting for ransom.

The wife can be considered as an accomplice to the crime for her failure to report to the proper authority and cooperating or her act of helping in taking care of the consul.

III.

In a decided case, the same with the facts mentioned above the offender was found guilty for the crime of rape under the revised penal code while the mother was also found guilty for conspiracy of the crime of rape for allowing her daughter to be violated.

IV.

Carlo Dy and Richard Sy committed swindling or estafa under the revised penal code. Under the revised penal code, for a conspiracy to exist, two or more person should reach to an aggreement for the commission of a specific crime and decided to commit it. In the case at bar, all the requisites for conspiracy is present.

The five accused is guilty of murder under art 248 of the rpc for killing the mayor and the fish vendor with aid of armed men and employing means necessary for the commission of the crime. They will also be liable to frustrated murder againts the two bodyguards who survived. The provision on complex crime cannot be appreciated because the requirement is that a single offense should result to two or more crimes.

The Supreme Court dismissed the case and acquitted the accussed for failure of the prosecution to prove thier guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The issue was that the NBI lost the DNA evidence. and Webbs alibi puts more weight over the testimoy of the witnesses because of certain important documents that any ordinary person could not automatically acquired for a short period of time that could prove that he was somewhere else during the commission of the crime.

VII.

Romeo and June is guilty of the crime of murder fro killing jose and serious physical injuries to juan and slight physical injuries to pedro.

To invoke self defense the requisites are, there must be unlawful aggression, the reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it and lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself. In the given situation, self defense cannot be appreciated because not all the requisites are present. the means they have employed is unncessary. the unlicensed firearm can be appreciated as an aggravating circumstance and the voluntary surrender can also be appreciated as a mitigating circumstance.

VIII

All the requisites of self defense is present in the given situation, it was Lucio Cheng who entered the home of Robert Tan and his wife with an air gun converted to a caliber 22 and bolo threatening to kill them.

Robert Tan was the only protecting his safety and of his wife in thier own home. It would be an unjustice to prosecute him for murder, because his intention was not criminal.

IX.

In a decided case, a special law amended the rpc which now uniformly applies in cases involving sexual intercourse committed againts minor. the imposable penalty now is reclusion perpertua in lieu of the death penalty.

under the Jugueta case, the victim will now be awarded with civil, moral and exemplary damages in certain amount which the court has now provided. The real name or the identity of the victim no longer stated for her/his security and protection. and also to preserve his/her integrity. to save themselves from unneccessary criticisms from other people.

1. In a recently decided drugs related case, plea bargaining is now allowed, the court has now disregarded or declared unconstitutional the prohibition againts plea bargaining provided under RA 9165. Therefore i will grant plea bargaining.

2. The penalty under section 5 and 11 of RA 9165 is life imprisonment to death, therefore the prohibition under probation law will apply. No probation shall be given to persons sentenced to serve imprisonment more than 6 years.

Christian Val G Dionglay

Cyrus Tingcang

2020-10-20

criminal law review preliminary examination

Word count: 1348

Cyrus Tingcang

Problem 1.

1. As a Fiscal, i will file the criminal charge of Estafa complex with Falisification of Public Documents against Jose Bugtas considering that he clearly defrauded Maria Lopez by falsifying a Special Power of Attorney which is deemed a public document.

2. The examinee respectfully submits that there is a high possibility of conviction inasmuch as the elements of the crime os Estafa is evident in the given problem namely; deceit committed by Jose Bugtas and the intent to gain from the acts complained of. Moreover, as can be gleaned from the statement of the problem, the falsification of the Special Power of Attorney was necessary in the accomplishment of the crime od Estafa. Hence, the answer.

3 and 4. The Lawyer of Jose Bugtas may invoke the absolutory cause of Art. 332 of the Revised Penal Code considering that his filiation with Maria Lopez still within the degree of relationship. However, case law dictates that the absolutory cause of relationship under Art. 332 of the Revised Penal Code finds no application if the crime of Estafa is complexed with other crime such as in the case at bar.

5 and 6. It is respectfully submitted that the answer would still be the same inasmuch as the Deed of Sale is coonsidered as a public document.

Problem 2.

The examinee humbly submits that the crime committed is Kidnapping. This is so because the following elements inorder to warrant conviction of the said crime are present namely; 1. intent on the part of the acccused to deprive the victim of his liberty, 2. actual deprivation of liberty on the part of the victim and, 3. a demand for the payment of ransom was made as a condition for the release of the victim. Here, Richard will be held laible as a principal by direct participation. However, in the case of Maria, she will only be liable as an accomplice inasmuch as her participation was limited to the act of supplying material and moral aid in the commission of the crime. Her actions are not indispensable in the accomplishment of the crime as aforestated. This is in accord with the principle that in the application of the criminal laws, that interpretation which would be lenient or favorable to the offender would be upheld.

Problem 3.

It is respectfully submitted that the crime committed was Rape. Under the law, it is unlawful for any person to have sexual intercourse with another person against the latter's will or while the latter is unconscious. Here, accused Jose Reyes took advantage of the victim's state of intoxication inorder perpetrate his crime. However, Marina Teves cannot be held as an conspirator as she did not take any part in raping the victim. This can be deduced from her act of leaving the victim and the accused in the crime scene. Consequently, she can only be held liable as an accomplice because of the material aid she afforded to the accused. Again, this is in accord with the principle that in the application of the criminal laws, that interpretation which would be lenient or favorable to the offender would be upheld.

Problem 4.

The exminee submits that the crime committed is Estafa through Falsification of Commercial Documents. In the case at bar, it is evident that there is an intent to defraud the bank on the part of Richard Sy and that the said criminal design was carried out by depositing and withdrawing funds using the passbook of Carlo Dy and was made possible by falsifying the the bank ledgers surrounding the said anomalous transactions. However, there is no conspirary in the case at bar because prior agreement to commit the said crime is wanting as can be gleaned from the given facts of the case.

Problem 5.

Being the Prosecutor, i will file the criminal charge of Multiple Murder for the death of the mayor and the fish vendor and Multiplpe Frustrated Muder for the acts committed against committed against the bodyguards. Here, the suddenness of the assault and the position of the accuseds was done in such a way that the victims would not have the opportunity to defend themselves against the harm inflicted by the accuseds. In other words, the treacherous assault qualified the killing into a crme of Murder. Anent the Frustrated Muder, it is clear that the victims were hit in their abdomen which is deemed fatal and had it not because of the timely medical treatment, they would not have survived. In the case of the fish vendor, the accuseds can be held liable inasmuch as the resulting death of the fish vendor was a necessary consequence of the criminal acts committed by the accused when they perpetrated the Murder which is considered a crime against person.

Problem 6.

As a rule, Alibi is a weak defense. However, when the claim is supported with indubitable evidence that indeed the accused was in a place that would make him physically impossible to be at the crime scene, then the of Alibi should be afforded evidentiary value and thus it should be given credence. Testimonies for them to be credible must not only come from a credible witness but also credible in itself, meaning it must be in accord with normal human experience.

Problem 7.

It is respectfully submitted that the crime committed was Muder for the killing of Jose and Frustrated Muder for the attempt on the lives of Pedro and Juan. This evident in the weapons used by the accuseds namely, the guns hidden all the while in their car and the intent to kill which is deducible from the fact that one of the victims died as a result. The accuseds cannot successfully invoke self-defense inasmuch as they are obviously guilty of provoking the victims in committing the aggression against them and the firing their guns fatally inflicting harm against the victims cannot be taken as a reasonable means to repel the supposed aggression. Anent the unlicensed firearm, case law dictates that the same is absorbed in the crime of Murder and Frustrated Murder which shall be taken as an aggrvating circumstance which would give rise to the increase of the period of imprisonment by one degree. Lastly as regards the voluntary surrender, the same may be taken as generic mitigating circumstance which would warrant the decrease of penalty by one degree.

Problem 8.

The Murder conviction is incorrect. There is no proof beyond reassonable doubt that the killing was premeditated. If at all, the killing may be taken as a homicide inasmuch as the killing was a result of a scuffle between the accused and the victim. In the alternative, the accused may be held liable only for reckless impridence resulting to homicide. A person, when defending himslef has all the right to take reasonable actions necessary to repel an aggression. If the same is not reasonable, then the resulting death could only be taken as one caused by reckless imprudence or negligence

Problem 9.

The crime committed is multiple incestuous rape considering parent-daughter relationship between the accused and the victim. Taking into account the aggravating circumstance of relationship, then the imposable penalty should be increased by one degree. It is setteled that exemplary and nominal damages should be awarded to the rape victim. The reason why the name of the rape victim should be disclosed in the decision is to afford protection to the honor and reputation of the victim.

Problem 10.

As a judge, i will approve the manifestation to plea bargain inasmuch as it is one of the fundamental rights of the accused. The provision found in R.A. 9165 prohibiting plea barganing in illegal drugs cases was already ruled as unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. Anent the propriety of granting the appplication for probation in question, i will grant the said application. This is so because the beneficial effects of the Probation Law is mandatory to all person not otherwise disqualified by the said law. Under the Probation Law, a rescidivist is not allowed to enjoy the benefits of probation.

Cyrus Tingcang

Dexter Kim Patron

2020-10-20

criminal law review preliminary examination

Word count: 1252

Dexter Kim Patron

Problem 1

The Criminal Charge would be complex crime of Estafa through Falsification of Public Documents.

Falsification of public documents is committed when a)the offender induced the offended party to sign a document b)deceit was employed to make the offended party sign the documents c)the offended party personally signed the document d) caused prejudiced.

In the case at bar, Jose made Maria bbelieved that what she was signing was only an application of real taxes of which she signed not knowing that she will be prejudiced. If I were the Fiscal I will file Complex crime of Estafa through Falsification of Public Documents.

The chance of conviction is high since the offender could not invoke criminal exemption when teh felony committed is estafa against ascendants, decendants and spouses since waht is committed first is the falsification of teh public documents of which the product of such deception is the estafa.

The Absolutory cause would be that no criminal liability only civil liability shall result from teh commission of teh crime of theft, swindling, or malicious mischief if committed to spouses, ascendants and decendants or relative by affinity of the same degree.

If Jose defrauded MAria by simply letting her sign a Deed of Sale to him then he is liable to Estafa thus one of teh absolutory cause which would exempt Jose from criminal liability but not civil liability.

Problem 2

In the instant case Richard is guilty of kidnapping with ransom and serious illegal detention. Richard pretended to be a taxi driver to victimize teh consul of which he kept for 10 days he demand payment of 5 million cash for his release which constitued the ransom. He shall be liable as principal to teh crime.

Meanwhile, his wife Maria whose participation is not clear never the less her presence in providing care of teh victim would somehow be a humanitarian effort but her failure to report the incidence to the proper authority would make her liable as an accomplice of which she know the criminal design of the principal by direct participation, that she cooperated in the execution by previous or simultaneous act and her providing food to teh consul to keep him alive is an act with relation to the act of teh principal in kidnapping teh consul, whom his being alive is necessary for them to get the ransom.

Problem 3

Conspiracy is commited when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it.

Marina after being drunk only consented to the request of Jose to have sex with her daughter who is 16 years old. Her participation is not being indispensable. The crime would push through even if she did not agree. Thus there is no conspiracy.

Jose Reyes is guilty of the crime of rape when a man have carnal knowledge of a woman when she is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious. The daughter of Marina was intoxicated and unconscious during the act committed by Jose.

Problem 4

The crime committed of Richard Sy is Estafa through falsification of Private documents by using imaginary transaction.

There was no conspiracy between the two since knowledge in the criminal intent of the principal is an essential of which Mr. Dy has no knowledge acts committed by Mr. Sy. He cannot also be convicted as an accomplice since he still has no knowledge of the intent of the principal nor did he cooperated in the execution of the crime by previous or simultaneous acts . Therefore, he has no criminal liability but only civil liability because there was damaged done.

Problem 5

I will charge the 5 accused of 2 counts of Murder and 2 counts of Frustrated murder.

The act was committed with treachery by employing means or method which tends to directly insure its execution without risk to himself arising from the defense of the offended party.

When the accused sprayed bullets to the car which the intended victim was caught unaware causing his instanteneous death and the two bodyguards who survived after the offender performs all acts of execution but did not die due to the immediate medical attention which is independent of the will of the 5 accused. However, the unfortunate fish vendor was hit though there was no intention but still the 5 accused is liable to his death.

Problem 6

The Court pressented the detailed presentation on various agency declaring his stay in the US during the time of the incidence thus they remarked that what is important for the court is not whether it will entertain doubts about the innocence oif the accused since an open mind is willing to explore all possibilities but rather entertain a reasonable lingering doubt as to his guilt.

Problem 7

The crime committed is less serious physical injury.

To be able to claim self defense these must be present:

That there is unlawful aggression, reasonble necessity of teh means employed in order to repel or prevent it and the last is lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself.

In the case at bar, Romeo mocked Jose which cause the latter to be angry and hit him which started the free fight. Sufficient provocation was present. The means employed was not reasonable as the offended party uses only stones which they can easily avoid or escape to other direction.

The use of the unlicensed firearm would be a special aggravating circumstance which would increase to the penalty to its maximum.

The voluntary surrender will only lower the penalty by degree.

Problem 8

The RTC is not correct in rejecting the plea of self defense since there was an unlawful agression by Mr. Cheng when he entered the house of Mr and Mrs Tan while they are sleeping and shouted "... pagpapatayin ko kayo." while holding his riffle an dthe necessity employed was to grappled with teh gun and shoot while there was a chance to cripple the assailant and there was lasck of sufficient provocation on the part of Mr Tan as they were already retiring after the days labor. His claim for self defense is clear. While the other claim of defense of a strager was questioned as the lawful aggression haulted when he hit Mr Cheng. The Supreme Court well discussed that the unlawful aggression is of two kinds which is actual and imminent. It is clear that there was imminent unlawful aggression when Mr. Cheng after being hit at his by the bullet continued to grab the bolo which if allowed would cause damage to them.

Problem 9

The offender committed qualified rape under the anti rape law which is punishable by Death when committed by the parent to his child under 18 years old.

The penalty will be civil indemnity Php 100,000.00 moral damages Php 100,000.00 exemplary damages Php 100, 000.00 and actual damages.

The identity of the victim has to be hidden in order to protect her honor and reputation and not to add more injury to her.

Problem 10

Yes he is allowed to plea bargain to a lesser offense since based on the for selling the maximum weight acceptable is 0.99 grams while he has only 0.256g and possession of up to 4.99g while he has only 0.052 thus allowed to plea bargain.

Yes the grant of application to probation be allowed provided that the penalty to be impose is less than 6 years.

Dexter Kim Patron

Eduardo Luayon

2020-10-20

criminal law review preliminary examination

Word count: 794

Problem No. 1

1. Estafa thru Falsification of Public Documents

2. Jose Bugtas could be convicted of estafa thru falsification of public documents

3. Absolutory cause only involves theft, estafa and malicious mischief

Problem No. 2

1. Richard and his wife committed the crime of kidnapping and serious illegal detention. The consul was taken or held against his will by force as well as detained for 10 days. Richard could be charged as the principal by direct participation while his wife as the accomplice to the crime, the fact that she knew of richard's plan and concur with it and even aided her husband by bringing meals and meds to the consul.

ProblemNo.3

Jose Reyes committed Rape while Marina Teves acted as an accomplice to the crime of rape. Conspiracy could be construed the fact that Marina had full knowledge of the evil design of jose and she concurred and consented with the plan of jose.

Problem No. 4

Richard Sy committed the crime of estafa thru falsification of commercial documents.

There was no conspiracy between the richard sy and carlo dy since the latter did not know of the evil plan of the former.

Problem 5.The five accused shall be charged with Murder for killing the mayor using superior force and treachery which was evident by the suddenness of the attack with the victims unable to retaliate ; then frustrated murder for the bodyguards who survived if not for immediate medical intervention. For killing the fish vendor accidentally, they could also be charged of Homicide.

Problem 6. There was the lingering question of Alfaro as a credible witness with all her manifests inconsistencies in her testimony. Taking this into consideration, /webb was acquitted on reasonable grounds.

Problem No 7.

Jun and Romeo could be charged with Murder of Jose and serious physical injuries for Juan and Pedro.

To invoke self defense, the defendant must show with clear and convincing evidence that that there was unlawful aggression by the victim which should be actual or emminent thereby putting his life(defendant) in real danger. Second, the defendant applied reasonable force to repel or prevent the aggression of the victim. Lastly, there's of lack of sufficient provocation on the part of defendant on the process of defending himself.

The use of unlicensed firearm will just be a special aggravating circumstance to their crime of Murder.

Voluntary surrender is just an ordinary mitigating circumstance as such it will not lower the imposable penalty to one degree.

Problem No. 8.

The RTC ruling is not correct for it didnt appreciate the fact that there was indeed self defense and defense of a stranger as can be gleaned on the testimony and evidence offered by Robert Tan. Under the law, a person who acted in defense of his person and rights will not incur any criminal liability provided the following concurs: 1st - there's unlawful aggression by Lucio Cheng; he fired his gun and shouted papatayin ko kayo then barged into the house of robert. 2nd- in order to defend himself (Robert) and his wife, he employed reasonable means to repel the attack or aggression of Lucio; robert grabbed the gun of Lucio and shot him; robert also manage to get the bolo of Lucio and hacked him. 3rd- Robert didnot provoke Lucio. For the defense of the stranger, the fact that juliet is Robert's spouse and there's the presence of the 1st and 2nd requisites plus the fact that robert didn't act in revenge etc., As such Robert Tan must be acquitted.

Problem No. 9

The rape committed was thru sexual assault.

The penalty imposable is reclusion perpetua to death but since death penalty is no longer allowed, the penalty should be reclusion perpetua with no possibility of parole.

Damages awarded include actual damages, moral damages, exemplary damages.

To protect the identity of the rape victim letters may be used in lieu of the real name. This will also negate further embarassment, humiliation and demoralization of the victim and her family .

Problem No. 10.

1. Yes I will allow the manifestation of Pascua to plea bargain to both charges(sectn 5 and 11 of RA 9165) to a lesser offense under sction 12. Considering that such provision in RA 9165 that prohibits plea bargaining is declared unconstitutional by the SC and with the consent of the prosecutor, I will allow plea bargaining to decongest our courts especially for shabu drug cases involving minute quantities as provided for in the plea bargaining framework of SC.

2. His application for probation must also be granted since he is actually be found guilty of the lesser offense which is subject of the plea hence he will be meted with penalty less than 6 years,thereby qualifying him for probation.

Eduardo Luayon

Ferdinand Solas

2020-10-20

criminal law review preliminary examination

Word count: 1031

Prob. No. 1

1. As fiscal, I will file the complex crime of estafa through falsification against Jose Bugtas. There was false pretense on the part of Jose by making Maria believed that the said document was in connection with her taxes when in fact it was an SPA. Using the document, Jose sold her mother in law's lot to 3rd parties to the damage and prejudice of the latter.

2. The possibility of conviction is clear, considering that all the elements of estafa through falsification are present.

3. The Motion to Dismiss will be denied. The absolutory cause under the RPC only applies exclusively to the felonies of thief, swindling and malicious mischief. It does not apply where any of the crimes mentioned is complexed with another crime.

4. No absolutory cause may be applied in this particular case.

5. He is now entitled to an absolutory cause, since the crime committed is estafa or swindling, thus he cannot be held liable for the fraudulent misrepresentation.

6. My conclusion will not be the same. Considering that Jose is being held liable for simple estafa, he is now entitled for an absolutory cause, said cause applies to thief, malicious mischief and swindling.

Prob. No. 2

1. Richard committed the crime of Kidnapping for ransom and serious illegal detention,while his wife is an accomplice. The act of giving food to the victim was not essential and indispensable for the perpetration of the crime of kinapping for ransom, but merely an expression of sympathy or support for her husband.

Prob. No. 3

Jose committed the crime of rape. Under the RPC, rape is committed by a man who have sexual intercourse with a woman under, among others, of the following circumtances, when the victim is deprived of reason or unconscious.

Here, Jose succeeded in having carnal knowledge with the victim by forcing her to drink tanduay, resulting to the deprivation of the victim's reason and unconsciousness. Thus, the crime of rape was committed.

Prob. No. 4.

Carlo committed the crime of estafa by means of deceit.

Under the RPC, estafa can be committed with abuse of confidence, false pretense or fraudulent means and that the offended party relied on such false pretense or means and induced to part his money or property

In this case, the act Richard Sy of borrowing the passbook of Carlo Dy and using the same of his unlawful transaction constitutes unfaithfulness and abuse of confidence. His misrepresentation also induced the victim to part with his passbook making possible his unlawful act to the prejudice and damage of the offended party.

For these reasons, Carlo committed the crime of estafa by means of deceit.

Prob. No. 5

As prosecutor, I will charge the five accused for 2 counts of murder for the death of the mayor and the fish vendor and 2 counts of attempted murder for the two bodyguards.

Deeply rooted is the doctrine and in accordance with prevailing jurisprudence that when various victims expire from separate shot, such acts constitutes separate and distinct ones.

Under the RPC, criminal liability is incurred by any person committing a felony although the wrongful act done be different from that intended, and pursuant to the doctrine of aberratio ictus, which impose criminal liability for criminal acts and for all the resulting natural and logical consequences.

Here, the death of the fish vendor although not the intended victim was the consequence of their acts for the ambush of the mayor which is attended by treachery, the victims having no opportunity to defend themselves, thus, without risk on the part of offender arising from retaliatory acts the offended party might make. Considering that there is treachery, following the case of Pp v. Flora, the accused can be convicted for two separate counts of murder for the death of the mayor and the fish vendor.

Prob. no. 6

The High COurt based its acquittal notwithstanding the positive identification of Hubert Webb on the inconsistencies of the main witness testimony as well as the credibility of said witness.

The Court also acquitted the accused based on scientific grounds which is the use of DNA testing.

Prob. no. 7

Romeo and Jun committed the crime of homicide. Their claim of self defense cannot be appreciated. The unlawful aggression alledgedly committed by the offended party are not actual or imminent danger of their life, limb or right. The means employed which using a gun against stones is not reasonable. The two could simply avoid the confrontation by getting into their car and speed away.

The requisites of self defense are, 1. unlawful aggression, 2. reasonable means employed to prevent or repel the unlawful aggression, 3. lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person depending himself.

The unlicense firearm is a general aggravating circumstance, not a separate crime.

In the case at bar, in appreciating voluntary surrender, the penalty shall be lowered by a period, since voluntary surrender is only an ordinary mitigating circumstance which the effect of lowering the penalty is by period. Unlike special mitigating circumtance, i.e, minority, where the effect is lowering the penalty by one degree.

Prob. No. 8

Yes the ruling is correct.

The facts have shown that the aggression on the part of the victim had already ceased when the offender attacked him. What transpired in this case is not self defense but an act of retaliation.

Prob. No. IX

The accused was convicted of rape under art. 266 A of the RPC and sexual abuse under R.A 7610. Rape and sexual abuse are two separate crimes with distinct elements.

The imposable penalty is reclusion perpetua without eligibity for parole. The victim is entitled to the ff damages; moral damages and temperate damages in the amount of 75,000,

attorney's fee.

The real identity of the victim is not disclosed to protect her from ridicule, humiliation as well as discrimination.

Prob. No. 10

As a Judge, I will not approve the plea bargaining.

Under the law, drug cases cannot be the subject of plea bargaining.

Granting that I allowed the plea bargaining, I would not grant his application for probation since the imposable penalty is more than 6 years.

Ferdinand Solas

Florencio Saministrado Jr.

2020-10-20

criminal law review preliminary examination

Word count: 1039

Name: Florencio Saministrado Jr.

Problem 1.

1. I will file a case for estafa thru falsification of public document for the law provides that a crime for estafa is committed if the accused used deceit or any unlawful machinations in order to defraud another, furthermore, if falsification of public document is committed to facilitate the commission of estafa, then a complex crime of estafa thru falsification of public document is committed. In the case at bar Jose Bugtas used deceit in order to secure the signature of his mother-in-law purporting the document to be for the payment of taxes when in truth it was Special Power of Attorney which he used to sell the property, therefore the crime committed is a complex crime of estafa thru falsification of public document.

2. There is great chance of convicting him because the evidence is strong and the presence of falsified documents used by Jose Bugtas in order to perpetrate the crime is present.

3. Absolutory cause are causes that if present in the crime would absolve the accused, it is as if he did not commit the crime, however such will fail, the supreme court held in a case that the absolutory cause refers only to simple crime and it does not apply to complex crime, hence Jose Bugtas cannot escape his liability.

4. He can invoke his relation to his mother-law because his wife is the daughter of Maria Lopez, the complainant in this case.

5. In this case the crime that will be committed is a simple crime of estafa, in which he could invoke the absolutory cause of his relationship with the complainant, thus he commits no criminal liability only civil.

6. My answer will not be the same, as stated above since it is only a simple crime of estafa his liability is only civil, as held by the supreme court in one case.

Problem 2.

1. The crime committed is kidnapping because the consul was taken against his will, was deprive of his liberty and a ransom was demanded by them for the release of the consul, since all the elements of kidnapping is present then Richard is laible for kidnapping while Maria is liable as an accomplish because her presence in the crime scene by giving food and medicine to the victim is tantamount to the giving of aid and moral support to the accused.

Problem 3. Jose Reyes is liable for the crime of rape, Marina Teves on the other hand is liable as an accomplish because her act in agreeing to the perpetration of the crime is lacking an element for become a principal by inducement for the accused can still commit the crime even without her consent. Moreover, conspiracy cannot be appreciated in this case because the crime was committed spontaneously, for in conspiracy there must be agreement prior to the commission thereof.

Problem 4. The crime committed is estafa thru falsification of commercial document because fraud was used by Richard Sy the employee of the bank in order encash the checks by depositing it in the account of Carlo Dy in order to manipulate the ledger. However there is no conspiracy in this case because Carlo Dy is not aware of the evil deeds of Richard Sy, it is important in conspiracy that all parties is aware of the crime to be committed, in the case at bar Carlo Dy was not aware.

Problem 5. I will file, murder for the killing of the mayor and fish vendor because of the use of firearms as an aggravating circumstance and abuse of superior strength, while for the two bodyguards of the mayor, since there was timely medical treatment on them that save their lives, a case for frustrated murder would do, because tha accused had everything in order to perpetrate the crime, however a timely medical was made on the victim that save them which were independent of the will of the accused.

Problem 6. The accused Hubert Webb was acquited in this case because the theory of the prosecutor is preposterous and their witness is not credible for her testimony is not in accord with human experience and nature. The Supreme court also noted that the alibi of webb therein is supported by documentary evidence, which gave strenght to his alibi against the identifaction of an incredible witness.

Problem 7. Romeo and Jun committed murder because it was done with the used of firearms. In order to succesfully invoke self-defense it is necessary that, there is unlawful aggression on the part of victim, that there is reasonable necessity of the means employed in order to prevent or repel it and that there is sufficient provocation on the part of the persons defending himself, in the case at bar the self-defense cannot be invoke because the accused had the opportunity to get away from the scene and they were not cornered they had a chance to escape but they did not, hence there is no self-defence in these case.

Problem 8. The ruling of the RTC is correct, the defense of the accused in the case at bar could not be sustained because after the victim was hit by a gun in the head it was impossible for him to still provoke the accused, hence there was sufficient provocation on the part of the victim.

Problem 9. The name of the victim is not stated in the decision in order to protect the identity and dignity of the victim. The father is liable for rape with aggravating circumstance of relationship since the victim was rape by the her own father. As for the damages the accused is liable for moral, exemplary and nominal damages.

Problem 10.

1. Yes, i will allow him to plea bargain for a lesser offense as provided for by the supreme court because a part in the R.A. 9165 which prohibits plea bargain was declared unconstitutional by the supreme court because plea bargain is the procedural process not substative.

2. Yes, because the amount of shabu confiscated is less than 1 gram which shows the lesser peversity of the accused and since his sentence will only be less that 6 years, therefore he is entitled to probation.

Florencio Saministrado Jr.

FRILIN LOMOSAD

2020-10-20

criminal law review preliminary examination

Word count: 1715

FRILIN M. LOMOSAD

PROBLEM 1

Question 1.

I will file the complex crime of estafa thru falsification of documents.

Question 2.

There is a high possibility that Jose Bugtas would be convicted of the case filed against him.

No, the lawyer of Jose cannot file a motion to dismiss the case invoking absolutory cause.

Question 4.

No, there is no absolutory cause that would exempt Jose from criminal liability in the case. The RPC expressly provides that the absolutory cause only applies to the simple crime of theft, swindling, or malicious mischief. The law being so clear, categorical and plain it must be interpreted based on what is expressly stated therein.

Question 5.

In this case, the crime would only be a simple crime of estafa.

Question 6.

No, my conclusion would be different. In the case, the crime would only be simple estafa, hence, the absolutory cause as provided in the RPC would apply to Jose. Among the persons that would be exempt from criminal liability are the relatives by affinity in the same line. Jose, being the son-in-law of Maria Lopez, woud be exempt from criminal liability of the simple crime of estafa.

PROBLEM 2

Question 1.

The crime committed by Richard and his wife is Kidnapping for Ransom.

The law provides for the following as the elements of the crime of Kidnapping for Ransom:

a. There is an intention on the part of the accused to deprive the victim of his liberty;

b. There is actual deprivation of such liberty of the victim; and

c. There must be motive of the accused to ask money from in exchange for the realease of the victim.

In the case at bar, all the above requisites are present. The intent and actual deprivation of the victim of his liberty is clearly present in the case. They also sent note to the wife of the victim asking for payment of 5 million in exchange for the release of the victim.

PROBLEM 3

Jose Reyes and Marina Teves commited the crime of Rape. No, there is no conspiracy of the two.

To commit the crime of rape, the accused must had carnal knowledge or sexual intercourse of a woman and that it was done through force, threat, intimidation, or against the will of the victim. In the case, Jose is guilty as the principal, while Marina is only that of an accomplice.

There is conspiracy only when two or more persons come to an agreement to commit the crime and subsequently decides to commit the same. In the case at bar, there is no such agreement between Jose and Marina. Marina was not even present the moment Jose commited the crime of Rape against her daughter. Marina, is only guilty as an accomplice, knowing the crime that is about to be commited by Jose, she even consented and left them at their house. Hence, having community of design and by providing a moral aid to the accused, she should be liable as an accomplice thereof.

PROBLEM 4

The crime commited in the case is estafa thru falsification of commercial documents. No, there is no conspiracy existing in the case between Carlo Dy and Richard Dy.

Estafa is committed when thru deceit or fraud, a person unlawfully deprives a person of his property. In the case at bar, Rihard Dy is guilty of manipulating the personal ledger of Carlo Dy to unlawfully acquire money from Banco Filipino. Richard also deceived Carlo to lend the passbook of the latter to be used in committing the crime. However, it is only Richard Dy that would be guilty of the crime. Carlo, who does not know of the crime that is about to be committed by Richard could not be convicted of the crime, not even as an accomplice thereof. To be an accomplice, there must be community of design, hence the person must have knowledge of the criminal intent of the principal which is not present in the case.

There is conspiracy only when two or more persons come to an agreement to commit the crime and subsequently decides to commit the same. In the case at bar, there is no such agreement. Carlo Dy is not even aware of the crime that is about to be committed by his deceiving friend Richard Dy.

PROBLEM 5

I will charge them with two counts of Murder for the death of the Mayor and the fish vendor and two counts of Frustrated Murder for the two bodyguards who survived the ambush.

The crime committed was thru an ambush. Hence, it is cleary illustrated that there is treachery in the case, the victims having no opportunity to defend themselves during the said attack. The accidental death of the fish vendor is also attributable to the accused.

Under the doctrine of aberratio ictus, the law made a person criminally liable for the acts commited in violation of the law and for all the natural and logical consequences resulting therefrom. In the case at bar, the fish vendor also died so defenseless that he was not even able to hide or run to avoid such incident.

PROBLEM 6

Hubert Webb was acquitted by the Supreme Court on the reason that his defense of denial and alibi was strong that it even overcome the positive identification of the adverse witness.

In a line of jurisprudence, the supreme court held that for the defense of alibi to prosper, he must be able to prove by clear, positive and satisfactory evidence that he was present in another place at the time the crime was committed and that it would physically impossible for him to be present at that moment in the crim scene. In the case, Hubert Webb was able to present sufficient, clear and satisfactory evidence to convince the court that he did not commit the crime, thereby granting him acquittal of the said crime.

The Supreme court also questioned the credibility of the sole witness presented by the prosecution. There was inconsistencies with her statements. In addition, the Supreme court also recognized the right of due process as raised by Hubert, since there was failure of the NBI to keep the DNA sample that was under their custody. Hence, DNA testing could no longer be done.

PROBLEM 7

Romeo and Jun committed the crimes of Homicide for the death of Jose and Frustrated Homicide for the injuries suffered by Pedro and Juan.

No, the accused claiming the act to be that of a self-defense is not correct. Not all the elements of a self-defense are present in the case.

The requisites to successfully invoke self-defense are the following:

a. There is unlawful aggression;

b. There is reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent the unlawful aggression; and

c. There must be no sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself.

In a line of cases, the Supreme court held that the use of an unlicensed firearm in commiting the crime of murder or homicide, the same shoud be treated as a special aggrivating circumstance and it could not be offset to any ordinary mitigating circumstance.

I would lower the crime only by period and not degree.

PROBLEM 8

No, the ruling of the RTC disregarding the act of self-defense as invoked by Robert Tan.

All the requisites to invoke a valid self-defense are present in the case at bar. There was unlawful aggression committed by Lucio Cheng committed agaisnt Robert and his wife by the former`s intention to kill them bringing with him a gun and a bolo. Robert, who prevented the former from killing him and his wife fights over the possession of the gun thereby accidentally shooting the former in the head. There was also no presence of provocation on the part of Robert and his wife with Lucio. Hence, Robert can validly invoke self-defense.

The RTC in ruling that it was invalid stating that it was the hacked wounds that killed Lucio and not the gunshot wounds was erroneous. Reasonable necessity of the means in preventing the peril as required by law does not mean absolute necessity. Robert being on a state of mind that is to protect his life and his wife from any danger is expected to do any acts that would prevent such danger without the chance of thinking as to its reasonability. Being in state of danger, he is no longer in the position to think first what to do and decide wether it would be legal or not.

PROBLEM 9

The crime committed in the case is Qualified Rape with an imposable penalty of Reclusion Perpetua to death.

As provided in the law, the crime of rape would be qualified when it is committed against a victim which is under 18 years of age and when it is committed by his parent, ascendant, step-parent, guardian and those provided for in the law. In the case at bar, the victim is only 15 years old and the offender was her father.

Since the penalty is reclusion perpetua to death, the damages that would be awarded are moral damages of 100,000 and exenplary damages of 100,000.

The purpose of not stating the real name or the identity of the victim is to protect him or her from the humiliating public. For him or her as much as possible to live a peaceful life without the critics from other persons who knows his or her story.

PROBLEM 10

Question 1.

Yes, I will grant the plea bargain manifested by the accused to both charges. The Supreme Court in a line of cases now allowed the accused to plea bargain to a lower offense with a limit as to the grams of drugs confiscated from them. In the case at bar, the value of drugs in both charges are within the limits as provided by the Supreme court to validly plea bargain to a lower offense.

Question 2.

Yes, I would allow the application for probation in both charges. Provided, that all requisites are present to validly avail of probation then I would grant the same. Since the lower offense which the accused pled guilty is allowable for probate, then he would granted probation subject to the condition as may be imposed by the court and under its supervision.

FRILIN LOMOSAD

Immanuel Granada

2020-10-20

criminal law review preliminary examination

Word count: 1808

(1) If I were the fiscal, I will charge Jose Bugtas of the complex crime of estafa through falsification of a public instrument.

(2) Given the charge that I file, Jose Bugtas will be convicted of estafa through falsification of a public instrument. The elements of the crime are present and each is committed by Jose Bugtas.

(3) The motion to dismiss should be denied. In the case at hand, absolutory cause will not apply.

Absolutory cause only applies to thief, swindling (estafa), and malicious mischief, which are property crimes committed within a private relationship. This is to avoid scandal in the family. However, in the present case, the problem does not only involve a simple crime of estafa but a complex crime of estafa through falsification of a public instrument, particularly a Special Power of Attorney. Falsification of a Special Power of Attorney is a public crime, that is, it breaches public interest. It arouses public scandal.

Hence, the motion must be denied; invoking absolutory cause is misplaced.

(4) If there be any absolutory cause that would apply, it would be the case of Marilou Lopez-Bugtas against Maria Lopez. Since Marilou is the daughter of Maria, the former would be exonerated of simple estafa, provided she did not participate in the falsification of the Special Power of Attorney.

(5) If Jose Bugtas merely defrauded Maria Lopez by simply letting her sign a Deed of Sale, Jose Bugtas will be guilty of falsification of a public document. Absolutory cause will not apply. Abosolutory cause only applies to thief, swindling, and malicious mischief. In the question, none of the three is present. Hence, my answer will be that absolutory cause will not apply.

Richard committed Kidnapping for Ransom as principal; his wife as accomplice.

Kidnapping for ransom is committed when:

(1) There is intent to deprive the person of his liberty;

(2) There is actual deprivation of liberty of the said person;
(3) The deprivation and the release is in exchange for money or ransom.

Further, the person who executed all the aforementioned elements is guilty of the said crime as principal and any person who cooperates in the execution of the offense by previous or simultaneous act is guilty as an accomplice.

Here, Richard executed all the elements of the crime of kidnapping for ransom, thus, he is the principal thereof. His wife, on the other hand, is guilty as an accomplice since the following are committed by her:

(1) Community or knowledge of the design (kidnapping for ransom);

(2) Cooperates in the execution of the offense by previous or simultaneous act (the omission of setting the victim at liberty, helping Richard to accomplish his design); and

(3) There is relation of the conduct of the principal with that of the conduct of the accomplice.

Jose Reyes committed rape as principal. Marina Teves is an accomplice. There is no conspiracy of the two.

Since Jose Reyes executed all the elements of rape, that is, having sexual intercourse with a woman by force, intimidation, or in unconsciousness, he is guilty as principal. On the other hand, Marina, is guilty as an accomplice since the following are met as an accomplice:

(1) Community or knowledge of the design;

(2) Cooperates in the execution of the offense by previous or simultaneous act;

(3) There is a relation between the act of the principal with that of the acts of the accomplice.

Marina knew and was even informed and asked persmission to commit the crime of rape. She consented to the same and even left the two (the accused and the victim) alone in the house. Further, she ignored the whole incident when told by the victim.

Conspiracy is not evident since in conspiracy there must the agreement to commit the unlawful act and the decision to commit the same. There must be unity in intent, purpose and conduct.

In the problem, Marina did not participate in the raping of his daughter. In fact, she was not there. Hence, the element of unity of purpose and execution in conspiracy is missing.

Carlo Dy committed no crime. Richard Sy committed estafa through falsification of commercial documents. There is no conspiracy that exists.

Estafa through falsification of a commercial document is committed by a person when he, with intent to defraud another, falsify a commercial document. In his case, Richard Sy defrauded the bank by making false deposits.

On the other note, for conspiracy to exist:

(1) There must be a agreement to commit a crime; and

(2) There must a decision to commit the crime.

The important element in conspiracy is that there must unity in purpose and act.

In the instant case, agreement to defraud the bank is absent. Carlo Dy has no knowledge of the design of Richard Sy. Since he has no knowledge of it, it is consequential that he can not decide to act upon it. There can not be a unity of purpose, design, and act. Hence, conspiracy is non-existent in the present case.

If I were the proseuctor, I will charge the five accused of two counts of murder and two counts of frustrated murder.

Murder is committed when there is intent to kill the person with evident premeditation, treachery, use of superior strength, or sudden attack. In the facts presented, the accused ambushed the mayor killing the latter as well as the vendor. There is clearly the killing of persons by the use of treachery or sudden attack, referred to by law as murder.

There are two counts of murder. The law perceives each incident of murder as a result of a single act each. Although the sinlge act of pulling of the trigger releases numbers of bullets, the law looks for the intent. Here, the accused intended to kill all the persons in the vehicle.

In the same vein, frustrated murder is committed when all the acts necessary to kill a person is executed, however, due to circumstances beyond the control of the perpetrator, murder is frustrated. Here, although all the necessary acts of ambush -- killing -- were executed, nevertheless, the murder of the two bodyguards were frustrated due to circumstances beyond the control of the accused. They were just hit on their abdomen and were treateed immediately. Hence, the two counts of frustrated murder.

In the case of Hubert Webb, the Supreme Court found the positive identification by Jessica Alfaro of Webb as weak and not credible. Firstly, Alfaro has been dormant for so long a time to participate in the case. The Court even described her as a "stool pigeon." She was just lurking around the NBI with no intention of advancing the case. Secondly, the Court found out that Alfaro did not actually see Webb in the locus criminis.

In order for positive identification to be reliable:

(1) The positive identification must come from a credible witness;

(2) The positive identification must be believable.

The Court in Webb found that Alfaro is not a credible witness since she just volunteered herself when it appears that no other witness is able to testify in court aside from the fact she has witnessed in a number of cases for various times.

The Court further found that Alfaro cannot positively identify Webb as among the rapists.

The Court also found the alibi of Webb as strong. Webb was in the US when the incident happened providing the court with the documents necessary to support his claim such as his application for a driver's license, citation tickets, concert tickets, plane tickets, immigration documents, among others. The Court also is convinced that it is physically impossible for Webb to be at the time the incident happened.

Romeo and Jun committed homicide against Jose, frustrated homicide agaisnst Juan, and attempted homicide against Pedro.

Their claim of self-defense is not correct.

To successfully invoke self-defense, the following must concur:

(1) Unlawful agression (by the victim);

(2) Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel the aggression; and

(3) Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person invoking self-defense.

Their use of an unlicensed firearm is a special aggravating circumstance which will increase the penalty to the maximum period but not the degrees. It cannot be set-off by an ordinary mitigating circumstance.

Voluntary surrender, as a mitigating circumstance, will lower the imposable penalty by degree.

The ruling of the RTC is incorrect.

For self defense to exist:

(1) There must be an unlawful aggression coming from the victim;

(2) Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel the aggression; and

(3) Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person invoking self-defense.

For defense of stranger to exist:

(1) There must be an unlawful agression of the victim;

(2) Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel the aggression; and

(3) Defense is not due to revenge, retaliation, or evil motive.

In the facts, Robert Tan has obviously performed the act of self-defense and defense of stranger.

The RTC's observation that the initial unlawful agression by Lucio Cheng had ceased when Robert Tan shot him in the head is not plausible since the RTC lacks sufficient factual basis that a shot in the head will definitely stop the aggression of an angered perosn or determined perpetrator.

As the Supreme Court puts it, the RTC cannot determine the amount of adrenaline released during which the person is determined to kill.

The accused in the case of People vs. AAA committed qualified rape. The penalty imposable should be reclusion perpetua to death. Since death is no longer allowed by law, the penalty of reclusion perpetua with no eligibility of parole should be imposed.

Applying Jugueta, the victim should be awarded moral, actual, exemplary damages, and attorney's fees.

The real name or identity of the victim should not be stated in the decision for privacy purposes and to protect the victim from undue public embarassment.

(1) Yes. As a judge, I will approve the manifestation to plea bargain to both charges to the lesser offense.

The law states that where the illegal drug does not weigh more than a gram, plea bargaining is allowed.

In the instant the total weight of shabu is only 0.308 gram. Hence, plea bargaining is allowed.

The Court held in Pascua the proscription of plea bargaining by Congress as unconstitutional as it directly suppresses the Court's rule-making power. The Court provides in its Rules of Court provisions on plea bargaining which allow the accused to plea to a lesser offense.

(2) Yes. I will also grant his application for probation.

The law allows probation to convicted persons whose penalty is not more than six years.

Here, the accused would be convicted of an offense punishable by less than six years. Hence, he should be allowed probation.

Immanuel Granada

Jeryll Janiola

2020-10-20

Email: jeweljeryll@gmail.com

Class: Criminal Law Review

Teacher: Judge Ric Bastasa

criminal law review preliminary examination

Word count: 886

1. The charge is estafa wit abuse of confidence. There os a posibility of conviction because, Jose induced Maria to sign documents which turned out to be a SPA, there was deceit when he made her sign the document, Maria signed the document herself and she was prejudiced on the result of such deceit.

The relationship of Maria and Jose which the latter is her son in law, is not among those absolutory cause of relationship. Thus, the Motion to dismiss on said ground is not tenable.

I maintain the same conclusion because, to "defraud" is tantamount to deceit, thus, the crime of estafa is still committed.

2. Richard and Maria are liable for kidnapping and serious illegal dtetention. Maria is acting in conspiracy and helping her husband by giving meals to the consul. The kidnapping lasted for more than three days. Threats to kill the consul were made including demand of payment for ransom for 5 Million pesos. Richard and Maria are private individuals, thus, the crime committed is only slight illegal detention.

3. Jose Reyes and Marina Teves committed the crime of rape, acting in conspiracy. Both Jose and Marina forced her daughter to drink made her unconcious. While her daughter is intoxicated that made her unconcious, Jose succeeded in committing tha crime of rape. Yes, there is conspiracy because Maria agreed to the proposal of Jose to rape her daughter, and decided to commit it. Maria left so that the perpetration of the crime be committed and thus, Jose succeeded the act therof.

4. Carlo Dy and Richard Sy committed the crime of estafa with abuse of confidence. Money is received by both offender. Richard Sy misappropriated the money of the bank when he supposedly falsified the posting of the deposits. There is abuse of confidence because Richard Sy is an employee of the bank.

There is no conspiracy. Carlo Dy and Richard Sy did not come to an agreement to commit the crime. Carlo only agreed that his passbook be used by Richard. It was Richard who committed the crime without Carlo's knowledge about it.

5. I will charge the five accused of Homicide for the death of the Mayor, Homicide for the death of the vendor, 2 Frustrated homicide for the 2 body guards. The act of spraying bullets constitutes not one act as it was not given as to what arm had they used in firing the victims. the spraying of bullets, constitutes several acts, thus, the five accused is liable for as many death as were committed and as many frustrated homicide were committed.

The Supreme Court in deciding the case of Hubert Webb gabe weight to the alibi of the accused than of the postivie identification of the accused as the perpetator. The High court also relied on the following to corroborate or to give weight to his alibi: The quality of the eye witness; the suspicious details; the quality of the testimony; The corroborations; the missing corroboration; his alibi; and the effect of his alibi to others.

7. Romeo and Jun committed the crimes of Murder as to the death of Jose, Frustrated murder for Juan and slight physical. injuries for the injury of Pedro.

There is no self-defense. There is lawful agression on the part of the offended party however, the means employed to prevent or repel it is unreasonably necessary. They were throwing stones as compared to firing their guns. The was provocation on the part of the persons defending themselves when drank as all of them were,threw rants over the victim's singing.

In self-defense, the following requisite must be present: unlawful agression on the part of the offended party;reasonable means employed to prevent or repel the agression and there must not be any sufficient provocation on thr part of the person defending himself.

Yes. the presence of one mitigating circumstance of voluntary surender can be appreciated to lower the imposable penalty as provided for by the Indeterminate Sentence Law.

8. No. The ruling of the lower court is in correct. There was unlawful agression on the part of the offended party when he fired bullets at their house, moreso when he forcibly entered the house ar,ed with his rifle. There was reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it when he grab his bolo to disarm him with the aggressor's rifle and there was no provocation on the part of the person defending himself.

9. 2 counts of rape is committed by the accused against his own daughter. The penaltyof reclusion perpetua is the imposable penalty. Civil indemnity of 100,000, Moral Damages of 100,000 and Exemplary Damages of 100,000 shall be awaded to the minor victim as rescuciated in the Jugueta case. The real name of the victim shoud not be stated in the decision in order to preserve the dignity of the minor victim.

10. As a Judge, I will grant or allow the plea bargain offer of the accused to a lesser offense to sec 12 or possession of drug paraphernalia pursuant to the approvedSupreme Court guidelines on the allowance of lea bargain and the gant of probation. The accused is charged of selling ans possession, the total but is but less than 5 grams. I will grant probation because the penalty of imprisonment to both charges is probationable.

Jeryll Janiola

JOHANNES RUEDAS

2020-10-20

criminal law review preliminary examination

Word count: 2089

1.1.

If I were the Fiscal, Iwill file a case against Jose Bugtas for estafa through falsification of private documents.

Under the Revised Penal Code, any person who defrauded another thru false pretenses by making fake documents to the damage and prejudice of another is liable for the crime of estafa.

Here, Jose Bugtas has defrauded Maria Lopez by pretending to present a document relative to the application for tax exemption of the real estate of the latter, but in truth and in fact it was a special power of attorney authorizing his daughter to sell the property of Maria Lopez. It is by virtue of such false pretenses of Jose that Maria was defrauded of her property to the prejudice of the latter.

Hence, Jose may be held liable for the crime of estafa through falsification of private documents.

1.2

Jose Bugtas may be convicted of the crime charged.

The Supreme Court has held that estafa through falsification may be committed by a person who with intent to defraud another defrauded another by making false pretenses to the prejudice and damage of the latter.

Here, Jose Bugtas has successfully defrauded Maria Lopezon by making it appear that the document is just an application for tax exemption but in reality it is a special power of attorney to authorize his daughter to sell the property of the latter, to the detriment of Maria.

Hence, Jose may be convicted of the crime of estafa through falsification of private document.

1.3.

The lawyer of Jose could not successfully invoke an absolutory cause as a defense.

The Supreme Court has held that the crime of estafa through falsification of private document against a son-in-law is not one that is being contemplated under the absolutory cause under the Revised Penal Code.

Here, the son-in-law is charged for estafa through falsification of private document and not only the simple estafa. The relationship that is being invoke by the lawyer as an absolutory cause referes to simple estafa; hence, the lawyer of Jose could not validly invoke the defense of absolutory cause in the crime of estafa through falsification of private document.

1.4.

The absolutory cause that would apply in the case is the absolutory cause enshrined under the Revised Penal Code which exempts an accused the criminal liability but not civil liability on the crime of estafa, theft and malicious mischied committed against father/mother in law.

Here, the accused is the son-in-law of the victim; hence, the accused had invoked the absolutory cause to relieve him of the criminal liability for the crime allegedly committed by him.

1.5.

However, if Jose Bugtag has defrauded Maria Lopez by simply letting the latter sign a Deed of Sale, that would constitute a crime of simple estafa. As such, an absolutory cause of relationship would be a valid defense for Jose Bugtas.

1.6.

My conclusion would not be the same because the crime would be simple estafa. As such, Jose Bugtas could validly invoke the absolutory cause of relationship as a defense and he would be exonerated of the crime charged as he was the son-in-law of the victim.

Under the Revised Penal Code, the crime of estafa, theft and malicious would not lie against a person who is his son-in-law; hence, the simple estafa case would not prosper against Jose.

Richard may be held liable for kidnapping for ransom and Maria as an accomplice thereof.

Under the Revised Penal Code, the crime of kidnapping for ransom may be committed by taking or detaining another against his will for a period of more than three (3) days and asked for a sum of money as a consideration for his release.

Here, Richard and Maria had taken and detained the consul to a place in Paranaque against his will for ten days and demanded a ransom money from the victims wife for his release.

Hence, Richard is liable for the crime of kidnapping for ransom by direct participation as he is the author of the crime committed and Maria, who helped her husband Richard by providing meals and medicines of the victim may be held liable as accomplice of the crime committed by Richard.

Jose Reyes may be held liable for the crime of rape by having sexual intercourse with Marie, Marina's daughter, against her will.

Under the law, the crime of rape may be committed by any person who has sexual intercourse of a girl without or against the latter's consent.

Here, Jose Reyes had succeeded in having sexual intercourse with Maria without or against her consent as the latter had lost consciousness by reason of intoxication and could not give her consent to such bestial act of Jose; hence, he is liable for the crime of rape committed against Maria.

Marina, who is Marias daughter, may be held liable to the crime of rape as an accomplice.

An accomplice, under the law, is a person who is not the principal of the crime committed, has cooperated in the commission thereof by the principal by previous or simultaneous act.

In the case, Marina has clearly cooperted in the crime of rape committed by Jose Reyes by aceding to the request of the latter and cooperated the criminal design by intoxicating the victim with liquor which eventually render the victim unconscious that enables the accused to rape the victim.

Hence, Marina may be held liable for the crime of rape committed by Jose as an accomplice.

Richard Sy may be held liable for the crime of estafa through falsification of commercial document while Carlo Dy is liable for the crime of estafa through falsification of commercial document as an accessory.

Under the Revised Penal Code, the crime of estafa through falsification of commercial documents may be committed by any person who by reason of his position has committed a scheme or design making it appear that a commercial transaction has been entered into but where in fact it was fraudulent and deceptive to the detriment and damage of another.

Here, Richard Sy by reason of his position had successfully designed a scheme to deposit and withdraw a check in the bank where he was employed where such transaction is a fraudulent mechnism to defraud the bank and to the detriment and damage of the latter.

Hence, Richard Sy may be held liable for the crime of estafa through falsification of commercial document.

Carlo Dy may be held liable as an accessory for the crime committed by Richard Dy as he cooperated in the commission of the crime by lending his pass book to make a fraudulent deposit and withdraw the same to the detriment and damaged of the bank.

Under the Revised Penal Code, an accessory to the crime is a person who cooperates by assisting the offender in the commission thereof.

Here, Carlo has lent his passbook to Richard which helps the latter to perpetuate his criminal design against the bank by defrauding its transactions; hence, Carlo is liable as an accessory for the crime of estafa through falsification committed by Richard.

If I were the Prosecutor, I would file a case of Direct Assault with Homicide against the five accused for the death of the Mayor, two counts offrustrated homicide committed against the two bodyguards who survived, and a homicide for the death of a side walk vendor. The five accused who conspired and confederated in the commission of the crime may be prosecuted for the aforesaid crimes.

Direct Assault with Homicide was committed when by reason of their common criminal design with intent to kill the five accused ambushed the mayor who died on the spot. The Mayor by reason of his official function is considered by law as a person in authority who may a victim of direct assault. Since, he died on the occasion of direct assault, the crime would be a complex crime of direct assault with homicide.

Also, the crime of frustrated homicide was committed against the two body guards of the mayor who survived the attack. As there was intent to kill and the victims were not killed on the occasion, a frustrated homicide may be the proper charge.

Further, the five accused may also be held liable for the crime of homicide for the death of the side walk vendor who was hit on the occasion thereof.

A conspiracy is present in the instant case as it was their common criminal design to kill which produces the crime of Direct Assault with Homicide, Homicide, and Frustrated Homicide committed against the victims.

In the case of Hubert Webb, he was acquitted for the crime of Rape with Homicide despite the positive identification of the star witness because the credibility of the witness as to her character has been assailed being the NBI's favorite asset. The defense lawyers has successfully destroyed the credibility of the witness which taints her testimony with some biases; hence, the guilt of the accused, Hubert Webb, was not proven beyond reasonable doubt.

The crimes committed by Romeo and Jun are homicide and two frustrated homicide.

Homicide was committed by Romeo and Jun who with intent to kill fired their guns against Jose who was instantly killed by reason thereof.

Frustrated homicide was also committed by Romeo and Jun when on the occasion of the shooting incident Pedro and Juan were hit, respectively, on the different parts of their body. Since by reason of their felonious act of shooting the victims, Jose was killed, intent to kill is presumed; hence, the crime of homicide and two counts of frustrated homicide are committed by the accused.

The claim of self defense by the accused is not availing in this case.

Self defense inoder to be validly invoked, unlawful aggression is indispensable element.

Here, the accused were already on the way to their car when they could have escaped from trouble, however, they retaliated by pulling their guns and fired at the victims which resulted to the death and injuries of the victims.

Hence, they are considered the aggressors and at the same time the perpetrators of the crime; thus, they could not successfully invoke self defense.

Under the Revised Penal Code, the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender attendant in the case may lower the penalty by degree only.

Yes, the ruling of the RTC is correct.

Murder, under the Revised Penal Code, may be committed by a person who with intent to kill shall kill another person with the attending circumstance of treachery or evident pre-meditation.

Here, the accused was treacherous in killing the victim as the latter was helpless to defend himself when he was hacked at the back and after the victim was hit on the head. He could not successfully invoke self-defense as there was no more unlawful aggression by the victim when the gun was successfully grappled by the accused.

Hence, the act of stabbing the victim at a time when the latter was already hit in the head causing the death of the victim constitutes the crime of murder.

The crime committed by the father in raping his 15 year old daughter is incestuous rape.

The penalty imposable penalty is reclusion perpetua to death.

The damages that may be awarde are as follows: moral damages - for the wounded feelings and bismerched reputation of the child; exemplary damages - to warn the public, and; temperate damages - to temper the damage caused against the child.

The victims real name should not be stated in the case inorder to protect the reputation and security of the child who will undergo a certain social stigma by reason of the rape.

10.

10.1.

Yes, if I were the Judge I will approve the plea to a lesser offense.

The Supreme Court has held that a plea for a lesser offense in the crime of illegal selling of shabu and illegal possession thereof may be a subject to a plea baragaining. Plea bargaining is a provision found in the Rules of Court which is favorable to the accused. Consistent with the presumption of innocense of the accused until proven otherwise, the accused is entitle to plea to a lesser offense as charged.

10.2.

The grant of probation may also be allowed by the accused after plea bargaining.

The Supreme Court has held that probation is a substantive right of the accused.

Hence, the accused is entitled to avail thereof if the crime would be probationable after the plea bargaining.

JOHANNES RUEDAS

Karl Rigo Andrino

2020-10-20

criminal law review preliminary examination

Word count: 2503

Name: Karl Rigo E. Andrino Rating:_________

Problem 1.

1. If I were the Fiscal, the criminal charge would be the crime of Estafa thru falsification of a public document because the accused made fraudulent representations to Maria Lopez to make her sign the Special Power of Attorney for the disposition of the property relying the misrepresentation that it was for her realty tax.

2. There is high possibility that Jose Bugtas will be convicted of the offense of Estafa thru Falsification of public documents because there evidence that Jose Bugtas allegedly defrauded Maria Lopez in signing a Special Power of Attorney to dispose of her properties on mispresentation that it was for the realty taxes of the latter.

3. The motion to dismiss invoking an absolutory cause has no merit in this case. It is true that Jose Bugtas committed estafa making him entitled to the absolutory cause. However, what he committed was Estafa thru falsification of public document. The absolutory cause does not apply in this case because it involves the interest of the state. That is the Special Power of Attorney he acquired through deceiving Maria Lopez. Since a Special Power of Attorney is a public document it involves the interest of state, thereby making the absolutory cause in Article 332 inapplicable in this case.

4. The absolutory cause that might apply to this case is the absolutory cause in the crimes of theft, estafa, and malicious mischief by virtue of his relationship by affinity to the victim. Jose Bugtas being a son-in-law of Maria Lopez grants him the absolutory cause if and only when the crime he committed is simple theft, simple estafa and malicious mischief on the properties of the latter.

5. No. My conclusions would have been different if Jose Bugtas defrauded Maria Lopez by simply letting her sign a deed of sale to him of the said property. The crime committed would have only been simple estafa. Since it is simple estafa, the absolutory cause would have exempted him from criminal liability.

Problem No. 2

The crime committed by Richard and his wife, Maria, is the offense of Kidnapping with Serious Illegal Detention. Richard is the principal by direct participation in the Kidnapping of a Consul. However, Maria is only an accomplice in the crime of Kidnapping with Serious Illegal Detention. The following requisties must concur to make a person as an accomplice: first, there must be a community of design, that is, knowing the criminal design by the principal by direct participation, and she concurs to latter with his purpose; second, she must cooperate in the execution of the crime by previous or simultaneous acts, with the intent to support material and moral aid in the execution of the crime in an efficacious way; and lastly, there must be a relation between the acts done by the principal and those attributed to the person charged as an accomplice.

In this case, the consul is kept in the house of Richard and Maria. Maria knows that the consul was kidnapped and she has not rebutted her husband for kidnapping the consul. Also, Maria has cooperated in the execution of the crime because she the one who was taking care of the consul by giving him his meals and medicine. Lastly, there is a relation between the acts of Richard and Maria for the crime committed. Since Maria participated in the commission of the crime and is willingly helping her husband in detaining the victim. Hence, only Richard is guilty of Kidnapping with serious illegal detention for Ransom and Maria is guilty as an accomplice to the Kidnapping.

Problem No. 3

The crime committed by Jose Reyes is simple rape and Marina Teves is an accomplice of Jose Reyes in the commission of the crime of rape. Jose Reyes is guilty of simple rape because Marina's daughter has positively identified Jose Reyes as the perpetrator for raping her. The Supreme Court held that testimonies of minors below 18 years old are given credence because an innocent child would not fabricate a story when she was raped. Furthermore, cirmcumstancial evidence points that it was Jose Reyes is guilty of raping the child.

In addition, Marina Teves, the mother of the child is guilty as an accomplice in the crime of rape. Marina consents to the idea of the Jose Teves raping her daughter. She even supported the offender by letting her daughter drink Tanduay to intoxicate her and making her unconscious. Such actions of Marina Teves makes her guilty as an accomplice to the crime of rape.

There is no conspiracy in this case because Marina only consented to the rape of her daughter and even without her consent Jose Reyes can consummate the crime of rape on his own.

Problem No. 4

1. The crime committed by Richard Sy is complex crime of estafa thru falsification of commercial documents and Carlo Dy has no criminal liability in this case. Only Richard Sy can be liable for the commission of the abovementioned crime. Carlo Dy having no knowledge whatsoever about the crime committed by his friend. The lack of knowledge absolves Carlo Dy as an accomplice of the crime. As matter of fact, it must be proved by the prosecution that Carlo has knowledge of the transactions done by Richard Sy. However, in this case, it was not proved beyond reasonable doubt that Carlo Dy has supported Richard in the commission of the said crime. Hence, Carlo Dy is not liable as an accomplice.

2. There is no conspiracy in the case at bar because Carlo Dy having no knowledge of the criminal intent of Richard Sy to defraud Banco Filipino using the passbook of the former. It was only Richard Sy that is liable since he also misrepresented that the using of the passbook was for his father's insurance policy when in fact it is used for the commission of estafa thru falsification of commercial documents.

Problem No. 5

If I were the prosecutor the crime committed by the group of five persons is the crime of 2 counts of murder and 2 counts of frustrated murder. The following elements must be present: first, a person has been killed; second, that accused killed him; third, that the killing was attended by qualifying cimcumstances; and lastly, the killing is not parricide or infanticide. In this case, two persons were killed and the other two have been treated immediately in the nearby hospital. The latter is in its frustrated state since the accused performs all of the acts necessary to consummate the crime, but death does not follow for causes entirely apart from his will. Furthermore, since the mayor and his 2 bodyguards were ambushed, the aggravating cirmcustance of treachery is present in this case. Lastly, the vendor who was killed without the intention of the accused has killed him through abberatio ictus or mistake in blow. As held by the Supreme Court, a bystander killed through mistake of blow is still murder since it still qualifies the presence of the aggravating circumstance of treachery. Therefore, the accused are guilty of two counts of murder for killing the mayor and the fish vendor, and they are guilty of two counts of frustrated murder for death does not follow due to the immediate medical treatment of the two bodyguards.

Problem No. 6

The Supreme Court acquitted Hubert Webb because of three grounds. The 1st ground that led to Webb's acquittal is the disappearance of the DNA evidence found in victim's vagina. The alleged evidence is the semen specimen found in the victim and is presumed to be that of Hubert Webb. Since the material evidence was lost it gives rise to acquit Hubert Webb.

The 2nd ground is that the star witness of the case is not a credible witness. Jessica Alfaro, the star witness of the case is not a credible witness. The Court held the though it seems that her statements were accurate and is supported by evidence, however, Alfaro's testimonies were all fabrications and lies to convict the accused-appellant. It was proven that she was an informant of the NBI to gather information on drug lords and drug pushers.

The 3rd ground and last ground is that the prosecution failed to disprove Webb's alibi. Webb's alibi that he was not in the Philippines and it was impossible for him to be in the Philippines because he was in the United States of America at the time the Vizconde Massacre was committed. As supported by documents that he was indeed in America. The Court opines that although it still possible for Webb to be in the Philippines through machinations using the influence of his father as a politician to hide evidence that he was in the Philippines when the Vizconde Massacre took place. However, as held by the Supreme Court the prosecution failed to establish and prove that Hubert Webb is in the Philippines.

Problem No. 7

1. The crime committed by Romeo and Jun is Homicide and 2 counts of Frustrated Homicide. Their contention that it was self-defense is untenable. All the requisites are not present in this case. First, there was an unlawful aggression on the part of the victims, however, there provocation caused by the persons defending themeselves. Apparently, Romeo mocked and insulted one of the victims causing the brawl in the bar. Moreover, it is true that the victims are throwing rocks at the offenders, however, firing back using firearms is not a reasonable means to prevent or repel the unlawful aggression of the victims. They could have fled or live the premises.

Additionally, the crime of homicide and frustrated homicide was committed by Romeo and Jun because there was no aggravating cirmcumstance to make it a case of murder.

2. The requisites to successfully invoke self-defense is that there must be an unlawful aggression on the part of the victim, that the means employed are reasonable to prevent or repel it, and that there must be lack of provocation on the part of the person defending himself.

3. The use of an unlicensed firearm would be a special aggravating cirmcumstance. The Supreme Court held that if homicide or murder is committed with the use of an unlicensed firearm, such use of an unlicense firearm shall be conidered as a special aggravating circumstance.

4. In appreciating voluntary surrender as a mitigating cirmcumstance, the imposable penalty must be lowered to its minimum period. As a general in the application of the divisible penalties, if there is only one mitigating circumstance it must be one period lower. In this case however, there is a special aggravating of an unlicensed firearm. As a rule, if there is one aggravating circumstance and one mitigating circumstance, it must offset and apply the foregoing penalty.

Problem No. 8

The Ruling of RTC is incorrect. The following requisites must concur for self-defense to be applicable: first, there must be unlawful aggression on the part of the victim; second, there must be reasonable means employed to prevent or repel it; lastly, there must be lack of sufficient provoation on the part of the person defending himself.

In this case, Lucio Cheng forcibly entered the abode of Romeo Tan and aimed the gun at the latter and his wife. There was an unlawful aggression on the actions by Lucio Cheng. Second, the Regional Trial Court avers that Romeo Tan's action is not a reasonable means to prevent the unlawful aggression of Lucio Chenge for hacking him with a bolo when he was already shot in the head. That reliance is incorrect. They must have to take into account the human experience of Romeo. It does not mean if person is hit by .22 caliber to the head would immediately neutralizes the threat and there is still a possibility that person is capable of causing harm to another. Romeo being in the situation to defend himself and his wife, he has the knowledge of what transpired on the night of Lucio Cheng's demise. Lastly, Romeo Tan did not provoke Lucio Cheng. Lucio Cheng on his own action enters forcibly in the abode of the former and threatened to kill him and his wife. All the requisites of self-defense are present in this case.

Therefore, the Regional Trial Court's decision is incorrect and Romeo Tan must be acquitted on the ground the justifying cirmcumstance of self-defense.

Problem No. 9

1. The rape commitred by the accused is qualified rape. There is qualified rape when the victim is below 18 years of age and the offender is an ascendant or relative by consanguinity or affinity within the third civil degree. In this case, the accused was the father of the victim and that the victim was 15 years old. Thus, the requisites concur with crime of qualified rape.

2. In the summary guidelines provided by the Jugueta case, the damages to be awarded to the victim are civil indemnity, moral damages and exemplary damages. Civil indemnity must be awarded for commission of the offense to the victim. Moral damages must be awarded for the sleepless nights and mental anguished caused by the accused to the victim. Exemplary damages must be awarded as an example to deter others from committing such heinous offense.

3. The real name and identity of the victim should not be stated because the Courts must respect the privacy of the rape victim and to remove the stigma of rape to the victim.

Problem No. 10

1. I will approve his manifestation to plea bargain to both charges to the lesser offense in Section 12 of RA 9165, provided that the prosecution consents to the plea bargaining offer of the accused, Bert Pascua. Provided further, that the Supreme Court Guidelines on Plea Bargaining allows the Plea Bargain to a lesser offense. In this case, the illegal selling of 0.256 g of shabu can be plea bargained to a lesser offense in Sec. 12 because Guideline"s provides that the selling of shabu must not be 1 g or more before plea bargaining is disallowed. As to the illegal possession of 0.052g of shabu, it can also be plea bargained to the lesser offense in Section 12 of the same law. No plea bargaining can be had if the illegal of possession of Shabu is more than 5g. Therefore, I as a judge, will grant the plea bargaining to the lesser offense in Section 12 of RA 9165.

2. Yes, I would also grant the application for probation. Probation cannot be granted only if the offender is pushing and trafficking illegal drugs. Moreover, the crime imposed in the judgment of the case determines the applicability of probation and not in the allegations stated in the information. In this case, Bert Pascua's violation of illegal selling of shabu has been plea bargained to a lesser offense in Section 12 of RA 9165, thus, the not applicability of the Probation Law does not apply in his case. Therefore, the application for his probation must be granted.

Karl Rigo Andrino

Leah Paco

2020-10-20

criminal law review preliminary examination

Word count: 1307

Leah Paco JD-4

Problem No. 1

1.)

If I were the fiscal, I would file a criminal complaint for estafa thru falsification of public document.

2.)

Jose Bugtas shall be held liable for the crime of estafa thru falsification of public document since the evidence and circumtances present in the case strongly holds the accused liable for the charge.

3.)

The motion to dismiss on the ground invoking absolutory cause shall not prosper. As provided for by the law, absolutory cause shall be invoked only on simple cases of theft, estafa and malicious mischief. In the case at bar, not a simple case of estafa was committed but that of estafa thru falsification of public document.

4.)

In the case at bench, Jose Bugtas can raise the fact that no criminal liability is imposed in simple cases of theft, estafa and malicious mischief committed by members of the same family, including that which is obtained thru marriage.

5.)

If Jose Bugtas defrauded Maria Lopez by letting her sign a Deed of Sale to him the said property, the fomer shall be lible for estafa.

6.)

If that will be the case, my conclusion will not be the same. Jose Bugtas can now invoke the absolutory cause since the case shall be for simple estafa alone.

Problem No. 2

Richard and his wife shall be charged for the crime of Kidnapping for Ramson, with Richard as principal and his wife held as an accomplice.

Under the law, the crime of kidnapping for ransom shall be committed when a person is deprived of life and liberty with the attendant demand for money to secure the release of the person so detained.

In the case at bar, the consul was deprived of his life and liberty by the act of Richard of taking him and demanding a hefty sum of money as a condition for the former's release. Morover, the participation of Maria shall be only that on an accomplice since her actions are not indispendible in nature. Hence, only Richard shall be liable as a principal for the crime of Kidnapping for Ransom while his wife shall be held as an accomplice.

Problem No. 3

Jose Reyes and Marina Teves committed the crime of rape, Jose being the principal and Marina being held as an accomplice.

The crim of rape is committed when the perpetrator succeeded in having carnal knowlegde with the victim, against its will, who is a minor at the time of the commission thereof.

In the case at bar, the crime of rape was consummated when Jose suceeded in having sexual intercourse with Marie against her will. Jose being the principal and Marina being the accomplice because she acceded to the lewd design of Jose.

No, conspiracy is not present in the case.

Conspiracy under the law is an act committed with the concerted design. In the case at bar, Marina's participation of the act is not indespensible in nature. Even in the absence of her express consent, the act of committing rape can still be consummated. Hence, conspiracy is not present.

Problem No. 4

1.)

Carlo Dy and Richard Sy committed the crime of estafa thru falsification of private document.

In the case at bar, estafa thru falsification of a private document is committed when Richard manipulated the savings account ledger of Carlo, and then later on succeeding in letting the latter withdraw the amounts from his account pruporting the same to be the proceeds of his father's insurance policy thereby causing damage to the bank.

2.)

No, conspiracy is not present in the case at bar.

Conspiracy happened when there is a concerted design to commit an offense thru the acts of the perpetrators. The case at bar does not present the concerted design required by law. There is no showing that Carlo had knowlegde of the plans of Richard to swindle money from the bank. Carlo's participation was attributable only to the misrepresentations brought about by Richard in claiming his transactions are valid and legal.

Problem No. 5

If I were the prosecutor, I will charged the five accused of Murder for killing the mayor, Frustrated Murder for wounding the two bodyguards, and Homicide for killing the fish vendor who was hit on the side walk.

The crime of Murder shall be the proper charged in killing the mayor since the aggravating circumstance of force and treachery are present in the case.

The crime of Frustrated Murder for woulding the two bodyguards shall be the proper charged had it not with the timely medical attention, the victims would have not survived the ambush.

The crime of Homicide with regards the killing of the fish vendoris but proper since no aggravating circumstance that would make the offense to be charged as murder is present.

Problem No. 6

In the Hubert Webb case, the defense of alibi has been granted by the court in consideration of the fact that it would be physically impossible for the latter to be present in the crime scene considering that there are only few flights from the US to the Philippines at the time the crime was committed. The positive identification of him did not outweigh the greater tilt poured on his defense of alibi since the prosecution was not able to discharged its burden of proof.

Problem No. 7

Romeo and Jun committed the crimes of Homicide by killing Jose and Frustrated Homicide for hitting Pedro on his leg and Juan on his chest.

No, the act of Romeo and Jun cannot be regarded as self-defense. Their act of using a gun to deter the actions of Jose, Pedro and Juan who were hitting stones at them cannot be countenanced. A gun cannot be set at an equal footing with that of a stone, thus, their claim for self-defense is bereft of merit.

Self-defense shall be invoked only when there exist an unlawful aggression, that there are no provocation on the part of the perpertrator and that there are no other means to evade the aggression.

The use of the unlicensed firearm has the effect of a special aggravating circumstance which higher the imposable penalty by period only. The enactment of the law that treat unlicensed firearm as a special aggravating circumstance instead of treating it as a separate offense has been the basis of this judgment.

In appreciating voluntary surrender as a mitigating circumstance, the effect would be to lower the penalty by period and not by degree.

Problem No. 8

No, the ruling of the RTC is incorrect.

The law provides that the plea of self-defense and defense of stranger shall be available only in cases wherein there exist and unlawful aggression, and that there was no provocation on the part of the perpetrator and there are no other means to evade the aggression.

In the case at bar, there exist an unlawful aggression when Lucio Cheng fired a gunshot towards Robert Tan and his wife, that there was no provocation on the part of Robert that triggered the actions of Lucio, and there are no other means to evade the aggression but by the act of self-defense and defense of stranger when the life of Robert and his wife are in grave danger.

Hence, the plea of self-defense and defense of stranger shall be given merit.

Problem No. 9

The accused committed qualified rape by raping his daughter twice. The penalty imposable for the offense shall be reclusion perpetua.

In accordance with the ruling in Jugueta, the victim shall be awarded with actual, moral and exemplary damages.

In rape cases involving victims which are below eighteen (18) years of age, the law gives them the privilege that their real name or identity shall not be stated in the decision so as to their reputation.

Problem No. 10

Leah Paco

Liwayway Elumbaring

2020-10-20

Email: liwaywayelumbaring.realmotors@gmail.com

Class: Criminal Law Review

Teacher: Judge Ric Bastasa

criminal law review preliminary examination

Word count: 761

Problem I.

1.) If i were the fiscal, I will file a case of complex crime of Estafa through falsification of public Documents against Jose Bugtas for deceiving his mother in law Maria Lopez by telling that the documents handed by him was the application for exemptoion of realty taxes in her property in Bulacan while it turned out to be a Special Power of Attorney authorizing his wife to sell the property and also because Jose Bugtas utilized the Special Power Of attorney authorizing to sell the property and was sold in 50 million.

2.) Given that charge that i will file, Jose Bugtas would be convicted by the crime of Estafa through falsification of public documents since all the elements of the case is present knowing it was consumated.

3.) The motion to dismiss case that was filed by the lawyer of Jose Bugtas invoking an absolutory cause may prosper. It is said that the effect of absolutory causes is to absolve the offender from criminal liability, although not from civil liability. It has the same effect as an exempting circumstance. Article 20 provides that the penalties prescribed for accessories shall not be imposed upon those who are such with respect to their spouses, ascendants, descendants, legitimate, natural and adopted brothers and sisters or relatives by affinity within the same degrees however, there is an exception of accessories who profited themselves or assisting the offender to profit by the effects of the crime.

4.) The absolutory cause that would possibly apply to the case is the relationship by affinity.

5.) If Jose Bugtas, defrauded Maria Lopez by simply letting her sign a Deed of Sale to him of the said property, the crime would have been simple crime of stafa.

6.)

Problem 2.)

The crime commihtted by Richard and his wife is a crime against liberty which is kidnapping and serious illegal detention. It is committed when any private individual kidnaps or detain another, or in any other manner deprive him or his liberty under the following circumstances: If the kidnapping or detention shall be lasted more than three days; if it shall have been committed simulating public authority; any serious physical injuries shall have been inflicted upon the person kidnapped or detained or threats to kill him shall have been made; or if the person kidnapped or detained shall be a minor, except when the accused is any of the parents, female or public officer. In order to hold a person criminally responsible under the penal code, it is imperative to proved that he has taken and detained another and such act of taking and detention be unlawful or illegal.

Problem 3.

The crime committed by Jose Reyes is rape. The consent of the victim's mother is immaterial.

The mere act of having a sexual intercourse or committing lascivious conduct with a child who is exploited in prostitution or subject to sexual abuse constitute the offense. It is a malum prohibitum, an evil that is prescribed. While on the other hand, the mother Marina Teves is liable of child abuse for letting Jose Reyes raped her daughter. Yes, there is conspiracy of the two, since they planned about the crime, and the mother consented on the said crime.

Problem 4

Carlo Dy did not commit any crime as he was totally unaware of the situation. He has no knowledge of the plan of Richard Sy to defraud the bank through posting false deposits at the passbook of Carlo Dy and withdrawing it later. However, what happened created a doubt for letting his passbook used by Richard Sy, thus although he will not be criminally liable but can be civilly liablebased on reasonable doubt. On the other hand, Richard Sy is liable in the crime of stafa thru falsification of public documents for defrauding the bank using the passbook of Carlo Sy. In the case at bar, conspiracy is not establish since Carlo Dy, is unaware of the criminal intent of Richard Sy.

Problem 5

If i were the Prosecutor, i will charge the five accused murder. All elements of murder was present. That the person was killed, that the accused killed him/them, that the killing was attended by any of the qualifying circumstances mentioned in Art. 248 and that the killing is not parrice or infanticide.

Problem 6.

The Supreme Court acquitted Hubert Webb since his guilt was not proven. The prosecution failed to prove their guilt beyond reasonable doubt hence, they are ordered immediately released from detention.

Problem 7

Liwayway Elumbaring

MARNELLI PASTORFIDE

2020-10-20

criminal law review preliminary examination

Word count: 1071

Name: MARNELLI T. PASTORFIDE Rating: _______

a. If I were the fiscal, I will charge Jose Bugtas with the crime of estafa. Under the law, a person can be charge of estafa when the following elements are present: (1) that the accused defrauded a person by employing abuse of confidence or by means of deceit and;(2) that the damage capable of pecuniary estimation is caused to the offended. In the given case said elements were present.

b. The probability of him being convicted of estafa, given the facts of the case is high. Assuming that the prosecution will be able to provide evidences such as but not limited to; testimony of Maria Lopez expressing that she was indeed unaware of the content of the document which she was led to sign; that she trusted Jose Bugtas since he was her son-in-law; that she is vehemently against the sale of her property and; the signed document which supposedly caused the sale of her property. The best evidence will be the denial of Maria Lopez of the contents of the document which she signed unbeknowst to her.

c. If the lawyer of Jose Bugtas will invoke the absolutory cause under Article 332 of the RPC, his case has no merit. It is expressed in said provision that only those felonies of theft, swindling and malicious mischief can be condoned. The crime of estafa is definitely not covered under said article, hence, the case will prosper.

d. Absolutory causes for Jose Bugtas will have no merit. This as a defense will not prosper or aid his case.

e. The mere fact that he employed deceit or intended to defraud Maria Lopez by letting her sign a document unbeknowst to her is still a case of estafa.

2. The instant case is similar to the decided case against John Yau and Susana Yau. Richard and his wife is guilty of the crime of kidnapping for ransom. However, Richard is the principal while his wife is only an accomplice. The mere fact that she did not report the wrongdoing of her husband is already an attestation of her involvement. Given the circumstances, she provided support by feeding the victim.

3. As decided in People of the Philippines vs. Tampus and Montesclaros, the accused Tampus was guilty of rape while Mostesclaros was guilty of being an accomplice. Having analogous circumstances, the same sentence is also applicable to Jose Reyes and Marina Teves.

4. Richard Sy committed the crime of Estafa through falsification of commercial documents. The same cannot be said about Carlo Dy since it would be necessary to prove that he cooperated in the execution of the offense by previous or simultaneous act. While it is true that by lending him his passbook he cooperated with Richard Sy but what the law punishes is rendering assistance knowing the criminal intent of the other. In the given case, Carlo Dy did not know of it. Criminally he cannot be held liable but civilly, he can be held accountable since it was his passbook that was used in consumating the crime. His gullibility and negligence contributed to the perpetration of the crime committed by Richard Sy. This is based on the decided case of Benjamin Abejuela vs. People.

5. The crime of multiple murder and frustrated murder can be charged against the five accused. The principle of transferred malice will occur. The mistake as to the victim is irrelevant since their primary intent was really to kill.

6. The supreme court acquitted Webb and parties based on the quality of the witnesses and the totality of the evidences presented to refute his involvement in the said crime. The requirement "guilty beyond reasonable doubt" was not satisfied, hence, the acquittal.

7. The crime committed by Romeo and Jun would be homicide and frustrated homicide. The fact that the victims kept on hurling stones towards the accused Romeo and Jun, said accused fired shots to deter them and hit one of the victims which caused his death while injuring the others. However, invoking self-defense will not prosper since in the circumstances provided, the two could have run away since they have their car but instead, continued to fight with the victims. For a valid self-defense; unlawful aggression must be existing; that the means employed to counter said aggression were reasonable and lack of provocation on the part of the person resorting to self-defense. The mere act of throwing stones do not put the life of the accused in peril. Basis of my answer is the decided case of Palaganas vs. PPL which has a similar circumstance with the instant case.

The use of an unlicensed firearm shall be considered as an aggravating circumstance. This will have the effect of increasing the penalty of the crime to its maximum period but cannot increase the same to the next higher degree. The voluntary surrender on the other hand will cause for the lowering of the period but not of the degree.

8. In invoking self-defense the following must be present; the unlawful aggression must be existing; that the means employed to counter said aggression were reasonable and lack of provocation on the part of the person resorting to self-defense. If we are to rely on the testimony of Robert Tan, we can safely assume that he acted in self-defense. But, the means employed by Roberto Tan in killing Lucio Cheng was more than what was necessary. He have already weakened Lucio Cheng when he hit him with his rifle, hacking him was an overkill. But I would not totally agree that Robert Tan should be charged with murder since it was Lucio Cheng who went to his house to taunt him. He will only be guilty of homicide, and not with murder.

9. As per R.A. 8353 and Art 335 of the RPC, the act of Rape was committed. Reclusion perpetua (life imprisonment) or death penalty (if the law permits) can be imposed for said crime. Following the imposition in Jugueta's case, apart from the imprisonment, he will pay P50,000 as indemnity and pay an amount representing actual damages and pay for the costs incurred pursuing the case/trial.

10. No. plea bargaining is not allowed under Section 5 of R.A. 9165. However, it is possible under Section 11 of said act provided that the quantity is less than 5 grams but he will not be entitled to probation.

MARNELLI PASTORFIDE

Mendel Casao

2020-10-20

criminal law review preliminary examination

Word count: 1691

ANSWERS:

Q1. Under these set of facts, being the Prosecutor handling this case, I will file a case for Estafa through Falsification of public documents against Jose Bugtas. Estafa for pocketing the proceeds of the sale of the property of Maria Lopez which he was able to accomplish by deceiving Maria Lopez who was already blind, to sign the SPA supposedly in order to settle her real estate taxes and which he used the same SPA to sell the latter's properties.

Q2. The possibility of conviction of Jose Bugtas is probable because even if he cited the exemption under the Revised Penal Code for being a relative by affinity of the complainant, said exemption only applies to cases where the relative committed the crimes of estafa, theft and malicious mischief. Here, the offense committed was a complex crime of Estafa through falsification of public document which falls under Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code. Therefore, Jose Bugtas should be held guilty of the Estafa through falsification of public documents.

Q3. Jose Bugtas committed a complex crime of Estafa through Falsification of public document, a crime which is not covered by the absolutory cause under the Revised Penal Code. The law only exempts from criminal liability a relative who committed the crime of theft, estafa, and malicious mischief against his relative by consanguinity or affinity, but he is not exempt from civil liability. Therefore, Jose Bugtas is not exempt from criminal liability because a complex crime of estafa through falsification of public document is not covered by the absolutory cause under the Revised Penal Code.

Q4. The absolutory cause that applies to this case is the exemption from criminal liability of a relative who commits the crimes of theft, estafa, and malicious mischief against his or her relative by affinity or consanguinity. But in this case, it is not applicable because the crime committed falls under Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code which is a complex crime of estafa through falsification of public document.

Q5. If Jose Bugtas defrauded Maria Lopez by simply letting her sign a Deed of Sale in his favor of the said property, then is liable only for Estafa under the Revised Penal Code.

Q6. My conclusion now if the situation is the same in question 5, Jose Bugtas may now avail of the absolutory cause as provided in the Revised Penal Code because the crime committed is only simple estafa which is exempted under the said provision of the law.

Richard in this case committed the crime of Kidnapping for Ransom and Serious Illegal Detention under the Revised Penal Code. Kidnapping for Ransom for kidnapping the consul and demanding ransom in exchange for his safe release and Serious Illegal Detention for detaining the victime for twenty two (22) days. Richard's wife Maria is liable only as an accomplice because she was the one who provided food and medicine for the consul. Said act committed by Maria was in support of her husband and is not indipensable in the commission of the crime of kidnapping for ransom and serious illegal detention.

Jose Reyes commited the crime of rape under the Revised Penal Code. Marina Teves is liable only as an accomplice because although there was a community of design, Marina Teves only gave permission to Jose Reyes to have sexual intercourse with her daughter. Said permission given by Marina Teves was not indispensable in the commission of the crime of rape because even without permission rape may still be committed by the offender Jose Reyes.

The crime committed by Carlo Dy is Estafa under the Revised Penal Code while Richard Sy may be held to answer for his civil liability, he is not criminally liable.

Conspiracy does not exist in this particular case because in the same case decided by the Supreme Court, Richard Sy was deceived by Carlo Dy in order that the latter may use the passbook of the former. The same situation in the case decided and the Supreme Court ruled that there is no community of design where the other only lent his passbook in order to facilitate the checks for Carlo Dy's father's insurance proceeds.

Being the Prosecutor handling the case, I will file a case for Murder against each of the five (5) accused for the killing of the mayor of San Agustin. Two (2) counts of Frustrated Murder against each of the five (5) accused for the injury sustained by the two (2) bodyguards of the mayor. And another charge for murder for each of the five (5) accused for the death of the fish vendor who was hit by the stray bullet while he was on the sidewalk.

In this case, conspiracy is present. There was a community of design with the intention to commit the crime and all five accused participated in the commision thereof. The doctrine of the "act of one, act of all" applies to this case. The fish vendor who was hit as a result of a stray bullet while on the sidewalk, which under Article 4 of the Revised Penal Code provides that criminal liability may be incurred by any person committing an offense although the crime committed is different from the one which he intended to commit. Under the jurisprudence, one felonious act constitutes one offense, and one squeeze of the trigger of the firearm constitutes one crime. Here, although the bullet that hit the fish vendor was not intentional, he was killed by a bullet from one of the five accused while they were perpetrating the crime against the mayor and his bodyguards. And the suddenness of the attack which leaves the victims no opportunity to defend themselves qualifies the crime to murder. The same for the fish vendor who was killed by a bullet without any opportunity to hide or save himself, the Supreme Court justified that the same is also a crime of murder.

In the case of People vs. Hubert Webb, the Supreme Court rationalized the acquittal of the accused by looking at the records of the case whereby the positive identification of the accused by the lone prosecution witness did not prevail over the alibi of the accused that he was out of the country when the crime was committed. Records showed that the prosecution witness failed to corroborate her testimony and there was conficting statements where the witness failed to support her claims. The Court also found that the witness was not new to the case as she was a former NBI asset who knowledge about the case. It was also held that the alibi of being out of the country during the time the crime happened was succesfully proved by the accused. Hence, the Court acquitted Mr. Webb and all his co-accused.

Romeo and Jun commited Homicide for the killing of Jose. The crime committed here is a consummated act, hence it is Homicide.

Romeo and Jun is also liable for Attempted Homicide for injuring Pedro on his leg. An attempted crime is committed when accused commenced the perpetration of the act but not able to accomplish the same for reason other than his spontaneous desistance.

Both of them is also liable for Frustrated Homicide for the injury sustained by Juan. A frustrated crime is when the offender performed all the acts necessary for the commission of the offense but was not able to accomplish it due to immediate medical attention given to the victim.

They are wrong. Self defense may not be invoke by Romeo and Jun because self defense may be successfully invoked only if there is unlawful aggression on the part of the victim who died, and there is reasonable necessity of the means employed by the person defending himself, and there is lack of provocation on the part of the person defending himself.

The effect of the use of an unlicensed firearm under the law is that it is a generic aggravating circumstance which can affect the penalty to a higher period but not to the next degree of penalty.

In appreciating voluntary surrender in this case, I will lower the imposable penalty to the minimum or medium period as the case may be.

The RTC ruling in this case is incorrect. The RTC did not give credence to the claim of self defense of the accused who was then peacefully resting in his own abode together with his common law spouse. The RTC failed to appreciate that there was unlawful aggression committed by the victim Lucio Cheng who shouted to kill the accused outside his house and decide to enter and attack the accused and his partner. It also failed to notice that when the victim was hit in the head by a caliber 22 rifle, said victim was still able to draw his bolo and attacked the accused common law spouse. Therefore, the accused Robert Tan is acquitted of the crime charged.

In this case, a father who rape his own 15 year old daughter is liable for incestous rape under the Revised Penal Code. The imposable penalty against the accused should be Reclusion Perpetua to Death without eligibility for parole.

Damages to be awarded to the victim is moral and exemplary damages as provided for in Jugueta case.

According to the Supreme Court, the real name of the victim should not be stated in the decision in order to protect her identity from embarassment and shame.

10.

1.) As a judge in this case, I will approve the manifestation of the accused to plea bargain to a lesser offense under Section 12 of RA 9165. The law now allows plea bargaining to a lesser offense those persons charged under RA 9165 provided that the amount of drugs confiscated is within the allowable limit of weight under the rules provided by the Supreme Court. The same weight of not exceedeing one (1) gram of shabu or marijuana.

2.) I will also grant his application for probation. The law allows probation if an accused pleads to a lesser offense which is punishable with less than six (6) years imprisonment.

Mendel Casao

Mudzmar Muyong

2020-10-20

criminal law review preliminary examination

Word count: 844

Problem 1.

(1) If I were the Fiscal I will charge Jose Bugtas for the complex crime of estafa through falsification of public document. According to the Revised Penal Code criminal liablity shall also be incured by a person committing an offense which is a necessary means for committing the other. Here, Jose Bugtas resorted to falsificationof public documents as a necessary means to commit the estafa.

(2) Given the charges that I will file, Jose Bugtas may be held guilty for the crime charged.

(3) The motion to dismiss on the ground of absolutory cause is without merit. According to the Revised Penal Code, absolutory cause may be invoked only in cases of theft, malicious mischief and estafa. In this case the crime charged is a complex crime of estafa through falsification of public document. Hence, the motion to dismiss should be denied.

(4) No possible absolutory cause applies in this case because the complex crime of estafa through falsificatiion of public document is not one of among the crimes by which the absolutory cause may be invoked.

(5) If Jose Bugtas let her wife sign a Deed of Sale to him of the said property, my conclusion will still be the same. The crime committed is still estafa through falsification of public documents. Jose cannot invoke absolutory cause for the same reason on my answer on number 2 and 3.

Problem 2.

The crime committed is Kidnapping for ransom. The law provides that Kidnapping for ransom is committed when the accused has the intetion to deprive the victim of his liberty, there is actual deprivation of the victim of his liberty and the purpose of the deprivation is to extort ransom for the release of the victim. Here, the purpose of Richard on depriving the liberty of the victim was to extort ransom. Hence, the crime committed is Kidnapping for ransom.

Problem 3.

Marina and Jose Committed the crime of Rape. There is conspiracy in the instant case.

Under the law conspiracy exists when two or more persons comes into an agreement for the commission of the felony and decide to commit it. Here, the fact that both forced Marie to drink, and when asked by Jose Marina consented for the carnal knowldge of Jose on Marie, is a clear indication of community of criminal design which clearly shows conspiracy. In addition according to the Supreme Court when there is conspiracy, the act of one is the act of all. Hence, Marina and Jose committed the crime of Rape.

Problem 4.

The crime committed is estafa and falsification of commercial document.

Problem 5.

If I were the Prosecutor I will file a single information for the complex crime of multiple murder with frustrated murder against the group of 5 persons. There is commonalty of criminal design in this case, and as a result of the ambush death of the 2 vendors resulted.

Problem 6.

According to the Supreme Court for the positive identification to be crdible must come personally from a credible witness and the story that what she perosonally show must be believable. In the case at bar the burdened of proving the positive identification of the accussed was not met. Hence, the acquittal of the accused.

Problem 7.

Pedro and Jun committed the complex crime of murder with frustrated homicide.

Their act cannot be considered as sel-defense because the essential requisite of unlawful aggression is absent in this case. According to the Revised Penal Code it is essential that an accused may invoke self-defense when there is unlawful aggression, reasonable necessity of the means employed and lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself.

Under the law the used of the unlicensed firearm in the commission of the offense shall be considered as special aggravating circumstance.

In appreciating voluntary surrender the penalty shall be lower by one degree because there is no any aggravating circumstance that may be set off.

Problem 8.

Yes, the RTC is correct.

Problem 9.

The crime committed is Qualified Rape taking into consideration the relationship of the accused with the victim. Under the law qualified rape is committed when the victim is below 18 years of age and the offender is an ascendant or relative by consaguinity or affinity within the third civil degree.

The penalty for qualified rape is the indeterminate penalty of 12 years of prision mayoras minimum to 20 years of reclusion temporal.

According to the Supreme Court the victime shall be awarded for civil indemnity of P100,000.00, P100,000.00 for moral damages and P100,000.00 for exemplary damages.

Problem 10.

As a Judge I will allow the plea bargaining provided the plea is with the consent of the prosecutor, because the prosecution of a crime is within the domain of the prosecutor.

On the assumption that I will allow the plea, I will also grant the application for probation. The law provides that in offenses punishable under RA 9165, other than for illegal drug trafficking or pushing under section 5, the law on probation shall apply.

Mudzmar Muyong

Oscar Abadies Jr

2020-10-20

criminal law review preliminary examination

Word count: 1532

Oscar L. Abadies Jr

Problem No. 1

Question 1:

Answer: If I were the Fiscal, I will file an estafa case against Jose Bugtas.

Under the law, a person may be held liable for estafa if he defrauds another by abuse of confidence or by means of deceit, among others and that damage capable of pecuniary estimation is caused to the offended party.

In this case, all the aforesaid elements are present, hence, Jose Bugtas is liable for estafa provided he is proven to be not living with Maria Lopez as his mother-in-law, otherwise absolutory cause will apply.

Question 2:

Answer: Jose Bugtas may be convicted for estafa as the principal by direct participation since he used the name of his daughter in order to deceive Maria Lopez if it is proven that he is not living with his mother-in-law.

Question 3:

Answer: If it is proven that Jose Bugtas is not living with Maria Lopez, his mother-in-law, then the motion to dismiss may be denied. However, if it is proven that he is living with his mother-in-law, then the motion to dismiss may be upheld since under the law, a mother-in-law, belongs to the relative by affinity under the prevailing jurisprudence.

Question 4:

Answer: Absolutory cause on matters relating to relative by affinity.

Question 5:

Answer: Still Jose Bugtas may be held liable for estafa if it is proven that he is not living with his mother-in-law, otherwise, he will be absolved from any liability under the absolutory cause.

Problem 2

Question 1:

Answer: Richard may be held liable for kidnapping for ransom.

Under the law, kidnapping is committed if the kidnapping lasted for more than 3 days and if the purpose is to extort money from the victim. As held, the essence of the offense is the actual deprivation of the victim`s liberty coupled with the intent of the accused to effect it.

In this case, the consul was kept for 10 days and there was a demand of payment as condition for his release. Hence, Richard is liable.

However, as to Richard`s wife, she is only liable as an accomplice of the crime of kidnapping for ransom since it is shown that she takes care of the consul by giving him his meals and medicine.

Under the law, an accomplice is one who, not having participated as principal, cooperates in the execution of the offense by previous or simultaneous act. Albeit there is no showing that Maria conspires with Richard, still she is liable as an accomplice since she cooperated in the execution of the criminal act by taking care and giving meals and medicines to the consul.

Problem 3:

Answer: Jose Reyes is liable for rape.

Under the law, rape is committed by a man who has carnal knowledge of a woman when the said woman is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious, among others and that the sexual intercourse was done through the use of force or intimidation.

In this case, Marie, who was under intoxication and unconscious, was sexually abused by Jose Reyes sans the former`s consent. Hence, he is liable for rape.

With respect to Marina, since it is shown that she consented to the rape committed against her daughter, then she is liable as a conspirator of the crime of rape as principal by indispensable cooperation, since she cooperates in the commission of the offense by another act of giving consent to the rape carried out by Jose.

Unde the law, conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement to commit the unlawful act and then decide to commit such act. In this case, it is clear that there is conspiracy between Jose and Marina by allowing the former to rape the victim.

Problem 4:

Answer: Richard Sy committed the crime of estafa thru falsification of commercial documents.

Under the law, estafa is committed by any person who defrauds another by misappropriating money to the prejudiced of another or by means of deceit and that pecuniary damage is caused to the victim.

In this case, Richard Sy, as the bookkeeper of the bank, was able to convince Carlo Dy to use the latter`s passbook as an avenue to transfer the money to Dy`s account and later on made some withdrawals. This act is prejudicial to the bank and the money was misappropriated by Sy. Hence, he is liable for estafa thru falsification of commercial document.

As regards Carlo Dy, he is only civilly liable for not exercising prudence and care in entrusting his passbook to Sy.

Moreover, there is no conspiracy between Sy and Dy since the latter has no knowledge of the criminal intention of the former in the commission of the said crime.

Problem 5:

Answer: If I were the Prosecutor, I will charge them with murder for the death of the mayor, homicide for the death of the fish vendor and frustrated murder for the injury incurred by the two body guards.

Under the law, murder is committed by killing another which is not parricide or infanticide with the aid of armed men, among others.

In this case, the mayor was killed in the ambush by a group of five armed men, hence murder is the proper charge.

However, as to the death of the fish vendor, the charge should be homicide although the wrongful act was never intended (aberratio ictus).

As to the body guards, since they survived the ambush as they were at once treated in the hospital, then frustrated murder is the charge, since the offenders were able to perform all the acts of execution which produced the felony but the same was not materialized through some causes independent of the will of those five offenders.

Problem 6:

Answer: Webb was acquitted because his alibi was documented that he was indeed in the U.S. when the crime transpired. Hence, his alibi prevails over the identification made by the witness. Consequently, such documented alibi impeaches the testimony of the witness as the same was the product of suspicion, surmises or speculations.

Problem 7:

Answer: Romeo and Jun were liable for homicide on the death of Jose, while they are also liable for less serious physical injuries as against Pedro and serious physical injuries as against Juan.

The claim of self-defense will not hold water because for unlawful aggression, as the primordial consideration in self-defense, to be appreciated, there must be an actual, sudden and unexpected attack or imminent danger on the part of the person invoking self-defense.

However, in this case, the unlawful aggression ceases to effect when the three men went back to the karaoke bar. Also, Romeo and Jun cannot invoke self-defense since the means employed by them in using their guns is not equivalent to the means of attack used by the three men in throwing stones.

Under the law, one may invoke self-defense if there is unlawful aggression, reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent ot repel the agression and want of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself.

With regards to the use of unlicensed firearm, the same is considered as qualifying aggravating circumstance under the law. Hence, it will change the nature of the crime and the consequent imposition of a higher penalty.

In the case of voluntary surrender as a mitigating circumstance, under the law, the imposable penalty will be reduced in its minimum period because voluntary surrender is an ordinary mitigating circumstance which can be offset by aggravating circumstance by the use of unlicensed firearm.

Problem 8:

No, because under the law, in order to invoke self-defense, the reasonable necessity is dependent upon the established circumstances of each case. In this case, Tan has neither the time nor presence of mind to think what to do in the said emergency, except to preserve his life and limb. Albeit he was able to wrestle the weapon from the assailant, the fact that the latter is determined to kill them would require a quick act in order to pacify the aggressor.

Problem 9:

Answer:

The accused is liable for two counts of rape.

Under the law, rape is committed by a man who has carnal knowledge of a woman and the same was made through the use of force or intimidation. The penalty to such felony is reclusion perpetua.

The damages to be awarded should be moral and exemplary damages. Moral damage is due to the physical suffering of the family of the victim, mental angush and moral shocks; while exemplary damage is for the damage which is intended to punish the offender for his outrageous conduct.

The real name of the rape victim should not be stated in the decision so as not to diminish the credibility of the victim.

Problem 10:

Question 1:

Answer: As a Judge, yes but only to violation of Section 5 of RA 9165, because under the law, in order to declog the cases in the courts, plea bargaining should be given if the illegal drugs or shabu does not exceed 1 gram such that the suspect can plead guilty to a lesser offense under Section 12 thereof.

Question 2:

Answer: Yes, I would grant his application for bail.

Oscar Abadies Jr

Pamela Rubi-Anito

2020-10-20

criminal law review preliminary examination

Word count: 1098

Problem No. 1.

Jose should be charged of the crime of Estafa as provided under the law.

Under the law, swindling or estafa is committed by a person who defraud another with unfaithfulness or abuse of confidence.

Here, Jose defrauded Maria Lopez when he made the letter signed a special power of attorney by making her believed to be an application for tax exemption.

Problem No. 2

Richard and his wife committed the crime of Kidnapping.

Under the law, kidnapping is committed by any private individual who kidnaps another or in any manner deprive him of his liberty and for the purpose of exorting ransom.

In this case, Richard kidnapped and detained the consul for 10 days. Moreover, Richard demanded from the consul's wife the 5 million cash a condition of the consul's release. His wife, Maria, can also be held liable for kidnapping considering the she concurred Richard's act of depriving the consul of his liberty and in demanding ransom from the victim's wife. Hence,Richard and Maria, both committed the crime of Kidnapping under the law.

Problem No. 3

Jose and Marina committed the crime of Rape under Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code. Yes, there is conspiracy in this case. Marina also committed rape for conspiring with Jose.

Under the law, rape is committed by a man who shall have carnal knowledge of a woman under certain circumstance. One of which is when the woman is unconscious or deprived of reason. The law also provides the conspiracy exists when there is community of design or purpose in committing a crime.

Here, Jose and Marina both forced Marie to get drunk. Marina even left Marie alone with Jose and so the latter could have sex with her intoxicated and unconscious minor daughter. Hence, Jose committed the crime of Rape. Marina, also committed Rape due to conspiracy with Jose. In conspiracy, act of one is act of all.

Problem No. 4

Richard Sy committed the crime of qualified theft. There is no conspiracy in this case. Carlo Dy, however, can be held liable as a principal by indispensable cooperation.

The law provides that theft is committed by any person, who, with intent to gain but without violence against or intimidation of persons and force upon things, shall take property of another without the latter's consent. Theft is qualified when there is abuse of confidence. The law also provides that one who cooperates in the commission of an offense by another act without which the offense could not have been accomplished.

In this case, Richard Sy, as an employee of the bank, successfully posted false deposits to Carlo's account. These false deposits were eventually withdrawn with the help of Carlo. Here, here is illegal taking of the banks money by Richard using his position as savings bookkeeper. The false deposits, however, could not have been made and withdrawn without Carlo's act of allowing Richard to use his passbook and his act of withdrawing the money. Hence, Richard committed the crime of qualified theft and Carlo the crime of theft as a principal by indispensable cooperation.

Problem No. 5

The five accused can be charged of the crimes of murder for the death of the mayor and the fish vendor and frustrated for the two bodyguards who were hit but had recovered.

The law provides that a crime of murder is committed when a person is killed by the accused and the killing was attended by certain circumstances under the law. One of these circumstances is when the killing is with treachery, taking advantage of superior strenght and done with the aid of armed men.

Here, the five accused where armed when they killed the mayor and the fish vendor and in injuring the two bodyguards. It is apparent in the facts of the case that the five accused used treachery and abuse of superior strength are also employed in the commission of the crime. Hence, the accused can be charged with two counts of murder and 2 counts of frustrated murder.

Problem No. 6

In the case of Webb, the court acquitted the accused on the basis of Webb's documented alibi. The accused presented documents that he was indeed out of the country when the crime happened. The prosecution, on the other hand, was not able to dispute the entries in Webb's passport and was relying only on the testimony of it's witness. Is is settled in criminal law and in our jurisprudence that when there is doubt, for the accused. Hence, Webb and the other accused were acquitted.

Problem No. 7

Romeo and Jun can be held liable for the crime of murder and frustrated murder.

Their claim for self defense will not prosper. Under the law, for self-defense to be appreciated, there must be an unlawful aggression, there is a reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel the aggression and there is lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself. There was provocation on the part of Romeo when he mocked Jose. Moreover, using the firearms was not a reasonable means used to repel the aggression done by Jose and others.

Romeo and Jun's used of the firearm qualifies the killing to murder as provided for by law. Hence, this would qualify the killing to murder for employing superior strenght and with the use of firearms.

Voluntary surrender as an ordinary mitigating circumstance which will lower the emposable penalty by period as provided for by law.

Problem No. 8

No, the ruling of the RTC is not correct.

Tan's claim for self-defense should be appreciated. In this case, the means employed by Tan, was reasonable under the circumstance.

Problem No. 9

The father has committed the crime of Rape as provided under Article 266-A of the RPC. The father, having a moral ascendancy over the victim, the penalty is death.

The real name of the victim is not stated to protect the later from humiliation and so she could live again with a normal life free from the criticising eyes of the public.

Problem No. 10

As a judge, i would grant the plea bargain. Under the law, plea bargaining in drugs cases is allowed. Under the rules, the accused is allowed to plea bargain when the sale and trading of illegal drugs does not exceed 1 gram. This will reduce the penalty to 6 months.

Here, the shabu in Bert's position does not exceed 1 gram and is qualified for plea bargaining.

The application for probation, however, shall not be granted considering the lower penalty after plea bargaining.

Pamela Rubi-Anito

Paula Bianca Eguia

2020-10-20

criminal law review preliminary examination

Word count: 1982

(1)

1. If I were the fiscal, I will charge Jose Bugtas of the complex crime of Estafa through Falsification of Public Documents. The law expressly provides that a crime of estafa is committed when the offender induced the offended party to sign a document, deceit was employed to make the offended party sign the document, the offended party personally signed the document and there is damage or prejudice caused to the offended party. The crime was complexed due to the fact that the falsification of the public document, in this case the SPA, was a necessary means to commit the deceit of convincing Maria Lopez to sign the SPA to sell the property.

2. He will be convicted beyond reasonable as to the complex crime of Estafa through Falsification of Public Documents since from the facts stated, all the elements of such crime is present and duly proven by clear and convincing evidence.

3. Invoking the absolutory will not warrant any merit. The law provides that absolutory cause shall strictly apply to the simple crime of theft, swindling (estafa) or malicious mischief committed or caused mutually between relatives as provided under the law. As the crime committed in this case is the complex crime of estafa through falsification of public document, absolutory cause will not serve as a ground for the dismissal of the case.

4. There can only be an absolutory cause if with the facts presented Jose Bugtas is charged with the crime of simple theft.

5. In this case, the crime that is committed is a simple crime of estafa since it complies with all the elements such as employment of deceit and inducement of the offender to the offended party and prejudiced is caused to the offended party.

6. No. Since only the simple crime of estafa is only committed, then Jose Bugtas can avail of the benefit of absolutory cause since the same can be invoked when the crime committed is estafa or swindling against spouses.

(2)

1. Richard committed the crime of kidnapping for ransom while his wife is an accomplice to the commission of the same crime. The law provides that kidnapping for ransom is committed when there is intent on the part of the accused to deprive the victim of his liberty, that there is actual deprivation of the victim of his liberty and the driving motive of the accused is extorting ransom for the release of the victim. Richard is a principal by direct participation because he is the main perpetrator who took the effort of deprving the liberty of the consul. On the other hand, Maria is an accomplice since there is a community of design on her end, knowing the criminal design of the principal and concurs with the latter in his purpose. She also supplied material and moral aid to her husband and that there be a relation between the acts done by the principal and those attributed to the person charged as accomplice. It has long been held that being being present and giving moral support when a crime is committed make a person responsible as an accomplice in the crime committed. However, since there is voluntary surrender on the end of the wife when she reported the matter to the police, this may be appreciated as a mitigating circumstance on her end.

(3) Jose Reyes and Marina Teves committed the crime of Rape. Under the law, the crime of rape is committed when the offender had carnal knowledge of a woman and the carnal knowledge was accompanied with threat, force or intimidation. By the circumstances given, Jose Reyes is guilty of the crime of rape since he is the perpetrator who had carnal knowledge with Marie and used threat and intimidation in order to consummate the same. Marina Teves on the other hand is an accomplice for the same crime since she cooperated in the execution of the offense by prior act . Marina's act shows that she had knowledge of the criminal design of Jose Reyes and consented his plan and there is a relation between the act done by Jose and those attributed to Marina that it resulted to the commission of rape. There is conspiracy between the two since it exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit and there is furtherance of such agreement by overt acts.

(4) Carlo Dy committed the crime of Estafa through falsification of commercial documents. The law expressly provides that a crime of estafa is committed when the offender induced the offended party to sign a document, deceit was employed to make the offended party sign the document, the offended party personally signed the document and there is damage or prejudice caused to the offended party. Carlo Dy shall be held liable since he is the one who manipulated and deceived Richard Sy so that he could deposit checks into the bank and entrusted him with the passbook. He was essentially hoodwinked by Carlo Dy thinking that he has money due to the assurances and the insurance proceeds from his father. On the other hand, Richard Sy cannot be held responsible of the crime committed by Dy. The courts have held that the knowledge of criminal intention of the principal is indispensable in order to hold a person liable as an accomplice. To be convicted as as an accomplice, there must be a cooperation in the execution of the crime by prior or simultaneous acts. since he is unaware of the criminal design and fraudelent scheme of Dy, Sy cannot be treated as an accomplice to the crime. As he is not an accomplice, there can be no conspiracy between the two since the same requires that two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit.

(5.) The five persons will be charged with the crime of murder for the killing of the mayor as it was done by treachery and evident premeditation as evidenced by the manner and means employed by them which is through ambush. On the case of the two bodyguards, they can be charged with frustrated homicide since the felony was not produced due to reason other than the independent will of the perpetrator. With regard to the fish vendor, the five can be charged with homicide as there is no premeditation or other circumstances as to qualify the crime to murder.

(6.) The other grounds used by the Supreme Court in acquitting the accused was that the witness failed to meet to criteria of the positive identification which are that the positive identification of the offender must come from a credible witness and the witness story must be believable. The Court did not find the testimony of the witness as credible. The court relied upon the presumption of innocence rule since when there is even a slight, lingering and reasonable doubt as to the guilt of the accused, the court should rule in its favor.

(7) Romeo and Jun committed the crime of Homicide. Homicide is the killing of any person which does not constitute parricide, murder, infanticide and is not attended by any justifying circumstances. The crime of homicide was consummated when they killed Jose but with respect to Pedro and Juan, they committed frustrated homicide since they perform all acts of execution which would produce the felony as a consequence but nevertheless, do not produce it by reason or causes independent of the will of the perpetrator. The killing was not consummated due to the timely medical intervention to Pedro and Juan.

The claim of self-defense is not correct. In a catena of cases, the Court has long held that where an accused admits the killing of the victim but invokes self-defense, it is incumbent upon the accused to prove by clear and convincing evidence that he acted in self-defense. To successfully invoke self-defense, there must be an unlawful aggression on the part of the victim and such should be an unprovoked attack of immediate and imminent kind; reasonable necessity of the means employed in order to prevent or repel it and lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself.

The use of unlicensed firearm in the commission of the crime of homicide serves as a special aggravating circumstance. The law provides that if a homicide is commited with the use of an unlicensed firearm, shall be considered as a special aggravating circumstance. As a special aggravating circumstance, it cannot be offset by an ordinary mitigating circumstance.

Voluntary surrender, as an ordinary mitigating circumstance, cannot offset the special aggravating circumstance of the use of unlicensed firearm. By virtue thereof, there can be no lowering of the imposable penalty by degree or period. Hence, the penalty imposed should be in its maximum period.

(8.) The ruling of RTC is incorrect. Under the law, in order to exonerate a person on the ground of self-defense, it requires clear and convincing evidence to prove that there is an unlawful aggression on the part of the victim, reasonable necessity of the means employed and lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself. Further, the test of unlawful aggression requires that whether the aggression from the victim put in real peril the personal safety and life of the person defending himself and the same must not be an imaginary threat. In this case, Lucio Cheng, who was drunk and armed with a rifle forcibly entered their house. When an altercation started, it did not stop Lucio from getting the bolo and continued attacking them. By these facts, the continuous and persistent unlawful aggression, warranted Robert to not only to defend himself but also his wife. The imminent threat caused by Cheng is positively strong and justified him to act promptly in order to prevent such unlawful aggression. Hence, the RTC should have acquitted Robert on the grounds of self-defense.

(9)

The crime committed was qualified rape. The law provides that rape is committed by any person having carnal knowledge of a woman and said carnal knowledge was accomplished through threat, force or intimidation. Rape shall be qualified if the victim is under 18 years of age and the offender is the parent of the victim. As this case involves a father raping his 15 year old daughter, all the elements for the commission of the crime of qualified rape are present by reason of the minority of the child and the relationship between them as father and daughter.

In line with the pronouncement made in the Jugueta case, the damages awarded in case of qualified rape are as follows: Civil indemnity amounting to 100,000 pesos; Moral damages amounting to 50,000 and Exemplary damages amounting to 100,000 pesos. The real name or identity of the victim should not be stated in the decision because the law provides a security of confidentiality to respect the dignity and protect the privacy of women and children in these type of cases.

(10)

(1)

Yes. Recent pronouncements of the Court shows that plea bargaining in cases involving durgs is now allowed. Included in the offenses which could be the subject of plea-bargaining is the sale of shabu weighing less than 1.00 gram and the same charge necessarily includes the violation for illegal possesion of shabu. Hence, such manifestation to plea bargain shall be allowed.

(2)

No. Probation can only be applied only when the trial court arrives at a judgment of conviction. The law defines probation as a disposition under which a defendant, after conviction and sentence, is released subject to the conditions imposed by the court and to the supervision of a probation officer. As there is no conviction and sentence yet as Bert Pascua has only been charged and arraigned, the application for probation shall be denied.

Paula Bianca Eguia

Perigrino Varquez

2020-10-20

criminal law review preliminary examination

Word count: 1709

Problem No. 1.

1. If I were the prosecutor, I will file a criminal charge of Estafa through Falsification of Public Document. In this case, Jose Bugtas through deceit successfully allowed her mother-in-law to sign a document which he pretended to be an application for exemption of realty taxes which in truth was a Special Power of Attorney giving him authority to sell Maria Lopez's properties which was eventually sold in the amount of Ph50Million Pesos.

Furthermore, the crime of falsification of public document which is a Special Power of Attorney is a necessary means to commit the crime of Estafa.

Hence, damage and deceit were present in this case which will give rise to the crime of Estafa through Falsification of Public Document.

2. The possibility of conviction is really high because of the presence of the elements of deceit which Jose Bugtas employed when she let her mother-in-law sign a document different from the intended purpose. The victim also suffered damage as to the value of the property in the amount of Ph50Million. Moreover, the falsification of a public document through a Special Power of Attorney (SPA) is a necessary means to commit the crime of estafa that is by selling the properties of Maria Lopez. Thus, Jose Bugtas without doubt should be convicted of the crime charged.

3. The invocation of absolutory cause by his lawyer will not be given due course. In one case decided by the Supreme Court, it said that absolutory cause will only apply to felonies of Theft, Estafa and Malicious Mischief.

In the given case, the offense committed was Estafa through Falsification of Public Document which is a special complex crime and not a simple crime of estafa.

Therefore, the invocation of the lawyer is not tenable.

4. For absolutory cause to prosper the crime should have been a simple estafa committed by a decendant against his ascendant who is his mother-in-law which is not present in this case as the crime committed was a complex crime of estafa through falsification of a public document.

5. In that case then Jose Bugtas can avail of the defense of an absolutory case as the crime committed is a mere estafa committed by a decendant being a son-in-law against his mother-in-law, Maria Lopez. Under the law relationship by affinity is covered under ascendant against his or her descendant and vice versa for the crimes of estafa, theft and malicious mischief.

6. Yes, my conclusion will be the same since the crime committed by Jose Bugtas is only estafa and he can benefit of his relationship by affinity being a son-in-law against his mother-in-law.

Problem No. 2.

1. Richard and his wife committed the crime of Kidnapping for ransom. Under the Revised Penal Code, when a person detains another against his will and for ransom the accused committed the crime of kidnapping for ransom. It is evident from the facts of the case that Richard employed chemical spray in order to succeed his plan of kidnapping the consul by pretending a taxi driver and once inside he used a chemical spray against the consul his passenger.

However, as to the liability of Maria, the wife of Richard she is only an accomplice to the crime of kidnapping for ransom as it is not clear from the facts that she participated in the planning and execution of the crime. Her participation is merely to give food to the consul during the period of detention.

Therefore, the liability of Richard being the principal as he is the one who executed the kidnapping of the consul and his wife is merely an accomplice as her participation is only after the commission of the crime and that is by giving food to the consul which she merely concurred after the crime of kidnapping was committed.

Problem No. 3.

Jose Reyes and Marina Teves committed the crime of rape through sexual intercourse. As provided by law when a person intoxicates a woman and have a sexual intercourse the crime committed is rape as there is no consent. In this case, the victim was a minor cannot give a valid consent under the law.

In the problem given, Jose Reyes and Marina Teves are both conspirators to the crime of rape committed by Jose Reyes against Marie the daughter of Marina Teves. The mother is a principal by indispensable cooperation because she allowed her daughter to be intoxicated by forcing her to drink Tanduay and after which the accused, Jose Reyes asked her if she could have sexual intercourse with her daughter and she consented to the unlawful and evil design of Reyes. Therefore, Jose Reyes and Marina Teves should be held as conspirators to the crime of rape through sexual intercourse.

Problem No. 4.

1. The crime committed is estafa through falsification of commercial document by Richard Sy only. In this case, Richard Sy, being the savings bookkeeper employed fraud by manipulating the ledger account of Carlo Dy through false deposits and after which withdrew the purported deposits from Carlo Dy's bank account. He took advantage of his position as he can facilitate it being a savings bookkeeper of the bank.

Even if without the passbook of Carlo Dy, the crime was already consummated by Richard Sy as the act of borrowing his passbook was only to facilitate the withdrawal of the amount which he already transferred to the bank account of Carlo Dy.

The crime of conspiracy can only be committed when both the offenders have planned and decided to commit it which is wanting in this case.

Thus, Richard Dy is not liable to the crime of estafa through falsification of commercial document and his liability is only civil in nature which is only the amount corresponding to the deposits made by Richard Sy.

Problem No. 5.

1. If I were the prosecutor, I will file criminal cases of Two (2) counts of murder for the deaths of the mayor of San Agustin and the fish vendor and two (2) counts of frustrated murther.

As provided by the Revised Penal Code, when a person dies in the course of an ambush the accused could be charged of as many offenses depending on the number of victims hit by the bullet. In the given facts, two (2) victims died instantly while the other two (2) victims were spared because of the timely medical intervention.

Hence, the crime committed were two (2) counts of murder and two (2) counts of frustrated murder.

Problem No. 6.

The case of Hubert Webb is a departure to the rule that an alibi in a criminal case is the weakest defense and this is an exception to the rule. The Supreme Court in this case departed to the general rule on alibi by the accused over the positive identification made by the prosecution's witness and gave weight to the alibi of the accused.

The justifications made by the Supreme Court are anchored on the question of credibility of the prosecution's witness that Jessica Alfaro being an asset of the police her credibility is highly-questionable. And also the court took note on the DNA evidence which is material to the case and the government being the custodian cannot present it anymore. These are the reasons why the court has given the alibi of Webb as more weight than the positive identification of the witness. But this case is only an exception to the rule.

Problem No. 7.

Romeo and Jun committed the crime of murder for the death of Jose, frustrated murder against Juan who was hit on his chest. Serious Physical Injuries against Pedro who was hit on his leg and treated in the hospital for 20 days.

No, self-defense will not apply in this case. The unlawful agression was initiated by them hence, they are the aggressors.

The requisites of self defense are: unlawful aggression by the victim; reasonable means or force to be employed by the accused to stop the agression.

The unlicensed firearms used in the commission of the offense will be absorbed and will be considered as an aggravating circumstance. Under the law the firearms will only be considered as a separate offense if there is no other offense being committed.

The voluntary surrender as a mitigating circumstance will be considered in the imposition of the penalty by one degree the reason for this is that the government was able to save expenses in the apprehension of the accused.

Problem No. 8.

No, the ruling of the RTC is not correct. There is an impending an imminent threat to the life of Robert Tan's common-law spouse when they are struggling to get the bolo as Lucio Cheng is trying to assault his common-law spouse and he is trying to wrest control of the bolo. There is therefore self-defense of stranger in this moment. The most important element is that there is unlawful aggression on the part of Lucio Cheng, the means employed are necessary to repel the force and that he is not prompted from vengeance. Hence, his invocation of self-defense is proper and the RTC is not correct.

Problem No. 9.

In People vs. AAA, the kind of rape committed by the accused is incestous rape as the victim is his daugher. The imposable penalty is reclusion perpertua to death since death is suspended by Congress it shall be reclusion perpetua. The damages to be awarded are actual damages in the amount of Ph100,000.00; exemplary damages of Ph100,000.00.

The identity of the victim or the real name should not be stated in the decision is in order to protect the dignity of the victim.

Problem No. 10.

1. As a judge being given the authority and discretion to evaluate on the application for plea bargaining under Section 12 of R.A. 9165, I will grant the application for plea bargaining in order also to help the government decongest the conditions of jails from the overcrowded prisoners.

2. The application for probation should also be granted in order to help the accused to be rehabilitated from the offense and also for the accused to start a new life. By this the accused will be able to chart a new life and should serve a lesson for him.

Perigrino Varquez

Prince Dave Santiago

2020-10-20

criminal law review preliminary examination

Word count: 1588

SANTIAGO, Prince Dave C. Rating: ____________________

Problem No. 1

a. If I were the Fiscal Prosecutor, I will file a criminal charge of Simple Estafa against Jose Bugtas. To constitute a crime of Simple Estafa, the following conditions must br present: a.) the offender must made a person sign a document through vitiation of consent; and b.) the signing of the document is prejudicial to such person. In the case, Jose Bugtas made Maria Lopez signed pertinent documens that was made known as her taxes of her real property which, in fact, it is a Special Power of Attorner authorizing the latters daughter Marilou to sell her property in Bulacan. The requisites of Simple Estafa concurs the facts presented which prejudiced Maria in exercising her rights over her properties in Bulacan by way of signing a false document through the inducement of Jose Bugtas.

b. The possibility of conviction of Jose Bugtas is his acts of inducing Maria Lpez in signing the documents that will prejudice the latter over her rights or properties. Simple Estafa qualifies the charge over the actions made by Jose which will prove his possible conviction

c. It is possible. Under the Revised Penal Code, it provides an aboslutory cause which an accused is exempted from criminal liability, but not exempts him from civil liability, over a crime if the accused is an ascendant or descendant, a sister or brother, or step-sister or step-brother, step-parents, or adopter or by consanguinity or affinity of third degree.

d. The Philippine Law adopted an American Jurisprudence pertaining to the absolutory cause of Continuing Affinity View which does not extinguish the relationship by affinity through divorce or death of one of the spouses. By this view, the relationship beween the surviving spouse and his affinity will continue provided, however, that am issue os currently existing before and after the death of the other spouse in order to settle their differences over their certain rights or property.

5. The offense would be simply falsification of documents. To qualify the crime, the following requisites must concur: a.) a private document was made other than its true form; b.) the offender was able to obtain the signature of th person; c.) he obbtained the signature through fraud; and d.) it will prejudice the person who signed the falsified document.

6. My conclusion is the same Simple Estafa and Falsification of Documents are offenses separate and distinct from each other. Therefore, Jose Bugtas can be charged of Simple Estafa for his acts of inducing Maria to sign documents different from what he mentioned or simply a falsification of documents.

Problem No. 2

a. Richard and his wife Maria committed the crime of Kidnap for Ransom. To constitute a crime of Kidnap for Ransom, the following coniditions must concur: a.) the offender take a person by force or intimidation against the will of the victim; b.) such taking is for the purpose of exchange monetary value as a condition of his release; and c.) the non compliance of such condition might pose a grave threat over the life of the victim. Th requisites provided qualify the case presented which amounts the conviction of Richard and Maria proving their guilt beyond reasonable doubt as charged.

Problem No. 3

Jose Reyes committed the crime of Qualified Rape against Marie while Marina Teves being an accomplice in the crime. Qualified Rape can be committed when the following conditions are met: a.) the victim is eighteen (18) years of age or below, and b.) the offender has a carnal knowledge of immoral act of sexual intercourse against his victim. In the case, Marie was on her tender years of sixteen whe she was forced by Jose Reyes to do his carnal knowledge of overt acts when the former was unconscious due to alcohol intoxication.

As to Marina Teves, she will be held liable as an Accomplice in the crime of Qualified Rape against her daughter Marie for her acts of condoning Jose Reyes in succeeding his immoral intentions to Marie. To constitute an accomplice in a crime, he must have knowledge on the crime planned and its possibility of being executed and was able to assist the principal to successfully perform the criminal act. Marina in the case consented Jose to to have a sexual intercourse to Marie by forcing the latter to drink an intoxicating product that made her unconscious. Thus, Marina is guilty as an accomlice in the crime of Qualified Rape.

There is no conspiracy between the two because Marina was not on the actual performance when the crime was committed. To constitue a conspiracy, two or more persons are principal offenders who agree to perform a criminal act and be all of them are part of its actual performance. In the case, there was no actual performance on the part of Marina, therefore, conspiracy will not suffice.

Problem No. 4

Carlo Dy and Richard Sy committed a complex crime of Estafa with Falsification of Documents. The actions of Carlo Dy in manipulating the ledgers by posting fictitious deposits are acts that falsifies private documents prejudicial to the bank that tantamounts to the commission of the crime of Falsification of Documents. Carlo Dy also made inducement to Richard Sy by befriending him so that the former could successfully acquire the latters passbook with consent which defraud him over the series of deposits and withdrawals made by Carlo. Such actions also tantamount to the commission of the crime of Estafa. However, the rule on Comlex Crime provieds that there is mutuality of acts or two acts that constitute only to one offense.

The Supreme Court held that the case does exists the act of conspiracy however, Richard Sy will still be liable for the same offense because he exercise a lack of deligence in overseeing the transactions made by Carlo using Richard's passbook.

Problem No. 5

The crimes that will be charged against the five accused are Murder, two counts of Attempted Murder and one count of Homicide. Murder requires an intent to kill which pomts the accused to spray bullets on the car of the mayor of San Agustin that caused his instant death. Attempted Murder will also be charged against the accused because the two body guards were able to survive the incident. Even if they are not the direct target of the accused, the intent to kill was still present by inflicting the two body giards in order to succeed their plan of killing the mayor. Lastly, homicide will be also charged againstbthe accused becuase the innocent vendor suffered death from the sprayed bullets made by the accused which an intention to kill was absent.

Problem No. 6

Problem No. 7

Romeo and Jun committed the crimes of Muder and two counts of Homicide. However, they are not correct in invoking the act of self-defense. To constitute a legal self-defense, the following elemnts mucst be present: a.) there is unlawful aggression, b.) there is reasonable necessity of the means employed, and c) it lacks of self provocation on the part of the victim. In the case, Romeo and Jun failed to establish unlawful aggression which is the most important element of a legal self-defense. The throwing of stones against them by Jose, Pedro and Juan were to far to pose a grave threat on their lives.

The use of unlicensed firearms in the case is an act of aggravating circumstance with respect to their criminal liability which will increase their imposable penalty. However, their act of voluntariness to surrender is a mitigating circumstance which will offset the act of aggravating circumsntance which result in lowering the imposable penalty of one degree lower.

Problem No. 8

No. Self-defense and defense of stranger actually existed in the given case. To constitute an unlawful aggression, the act of the perpetrator must post grave threat against the life or property of the victim. Robert Tan invoke the reasonable necessity to shot Lucio Cheng after he managed to wrest the gun away from the latter which is his means employed to legally defend himself and his common-law partner. Onsidering the factual antecedence, it is belived that the requisites for a lega self-defense are present which must acquit Robert Tan after failure to establish a plausible defense of revenge against Lucio Cheng.

Problem No. 9

The accused committed the crime of Qualified Rape after concurring the following conditions: a.) the victim is eighteen (18) years of age or below, and b.) the offender has a carnal knowledge of immoral act of sexual intercourse against his victim. The imposable penalty provided by law is reclusion perpetua or lifetime imprisonment to death and civil liabilities. The damages that must be awarded to the victim are moral damages after incurring sleepless nights and trauma on the mentaj faculty of the victim. She is also entitled with exemplary damages after exhausting all of her efforts to prove her claim in the petition of Qualified Rape against her father.

The real name or identity of the victim in rapes cases are not disclose in ordert to protect her integrity and morality from the abuse of unsolicited criticisms of others and those who have eyes of gossips. The State has the duty to protect the mental faculty of rape victims by not disclosing even the slightest information of the victim in order to uphold her morale and mental staibility in facing the phases of her life.

Problem No. 10

Prince Dave Santiago

Renante Carumba

2020-10-20

criminal law review preliminary examination

Word count: 1445

Problem No. 1

Answers:

1. If i were the fiscal, I will charge Jose for Estafa with Falsification of Public documents.

This criminal action stemmed when Jose fraudulently convinced Maria to sign a document purporting to be an application of exemption of real property tax but it turn out te be a Special Poweer of Authority to sell Maria's real property.

2. Jose could be convicted of the crime which carries with a higher penalty. This is so because the law on complex crime punishes the penalty which carries a higher penalty;

3. The motion to dismis should be denied. the absolutory causse applies only in the crimes in simple Theft, Estafa and Malicious Mischief. however, once the mentioned-crimes is complex with another crime, it will no longer apply and the accused can no longer cliam any exemption thereof.

4. In the given problem, there is no possibility that the crimes enumerated in Art. 332 of the Revised Penal Code coulb be apply because it was complexed with the crime of falsification of public document.

5. Jose Bugtas then can invoked the absolutory cause of because when he defrauded Maria by simply letting her sign a Deed of Sale of the said property in his favor, the said act will give rise to the crime of Swindiling or Estafa which is one of the criimes enumerated in Art. 332 of the Revised Penal Code.

6. My conclusion will not the be same when Jose defrauded Mariao to sign a Deef of Sale of real property in his favor becuase the crime is just a simple crime of Estafa and under Art. 332 of the Revised Penal Code, it will exempt Jose for criminal prosecution because of it is an absolutory cause.

Problem No. 2

Answers

!1. As to the husband Richard, the latter committed the crime of Kidnapping when against the will of the Consul and was later brought to his in Paranaque. the ransom note for demanding 5 Million will only aggravate the crime and increased the penalty provided by law.

As to the wife Maria, the latter can be held liable for accomplice in the crime of Kidnapping. her participation is limited only giving meal and medicine to the consul. her knowledge to the criminal intent of her husband will not make her liable as principal unless she herself participated in the actual kidnapping of the Consul.

Problem No. 3

Answer

1. Jose and Marina committed the following crimes.

A. Jose is liable for the crime of Rape in relation to R.A. 7610. the act of Jose in forcing Marie to drink the liqour causing the latter to loss her conciousness then sexually abused Marie will give rise to the crime of Rape by depriving her consciousness. Considering that Marie is just a minor, she being a minor, Jose could be likewise liable for violation under R.A. 7610.

B. as to the Mother Marina, the latter could only be held liable as an accomplice to the crime of Rape because of her knowledge of the criminal design and intent of Jose to sexually abuse Maria, which knowledge is indispensable in order for one to be liabe as an accomplice.. Marina's act of living Marie so that Jose could rape Marie is not indespensable to the consummation of the crime of Rape.

There is no conspiracy exist between Jose and Marina because there is no unity of design or plurality of the acts. her active presnece at the scene of the crime does not necessarly mean that she is a principal and corperation is not indispensable for the commission of the crime of Rape because Marie was already unconscious during the sexual assault;

Problem No. 4

Answer

1. On the part of Richard, the latter committed the crime of Estafa when he made several fictitious deposits to the bank account of Carlo.

2. As to Carlo, the latter is laible only as an accomplice to the crime of Estafa committed by Richard. while the law requires that criminal knowledge or design of the princial is indispensable in order for one to be held liable as accomplice and absence of such knowledge, then no liabilty will attach to third person as an accomplice. Herei, while Carlo has no knowledge of the criminal designed of Richard, however, his act of reecklessly entrusting his bank passbook will make him liable as an accomplice/

Problem No. 5

Answer

1. If i were the prosecutor, i will charge the five accused for the complex crime of murder with double frustrated murders. It is axiomatic that if it cannot be determined who among the five accused hit and killed the mayor, then the perpertrators can only be charge of complex crime with double frustrated murders and not separate crimes of the death of the mayor and the death of the vendor and the fatally wounded the two bodyguards. herre, because there was no evidence as to who among the accused killed the mayor then i can only charge them of the complex crime of murder with double frustrated murder.

Probem 6

Answer

1/ The rationale of the Supreme Court in aquitting Hubert Webb notwithstanding that Webb is positively identified by the alleged witness is that, Webb was able to establish the strongest defense of alibi particularly the elements of improbable impossibility of the accused at two different places at the same time. Webb's partification and identification was only based on the mere allegation of the lone dubious witness.

Problem No. 7.

Answer

Romeo and Jun committed the crime of Homicide for the instantaneous death Jose, the crime of Frustrated Homicide for the fatal or mortal injury sustained by Juan and for the crime of Attempted Homicide for the Pedro. here it cannot be said as Murder, Frustrated Murder and Attempted Murder because the free fight was a spur at the moment. there was no evident premidation. Likewise, it cannot be complexed because the injuries were sustained as a result of multiple gun shots and not from a single act.

Romeo and Jun cannot claim Self-defense becasue the means emplued is not reseanable to repel or prevent the attacked. here there was no imminent danger to the lives and limbs of Romeo and June when Jose, Pedro and Juan threw some stones. the dou could easily hide behind the vehicle and the use of firearm is not reasonable because of want of immident danger.

In order to successfully invoke Self-defense, the following requisties must be presents, ti wit;

A. Unlawful aggression

B . Reasonable of the means employed to prevent or repel an attack

C. Lack of sufficient provacation of the part of the people defending himself.

When an unlicense fiream was used in the crime of Homicide or Murder as the case may be. will be appreciated as special aggravating circumstance.

In the case at bar. notwithstanding the presence of mitigating cirucumstance of voluntary surrender, the imposable penalty cannot be lowered by degree or period because the used of an unlicense firearm the crime of Homicide or Murder is appreciated as special aggravating circumstance and cannot be off-set by any ordinnary mitigiating circumstances like voluntary surrender.

Problem No. 8.

Answer

No. The ruling of the RTC is not correct. In order legally invoke self-defense, it is necessary that there must be unlawful aggression at the onset of the homicidal attack. here the act of Lucio in forcibly enterring the house of Robert while the latter and his wife was sleeping causing the latter to stand and was abble to grab the gun and shot Luciol that despite of the gun shot wound, Lucio still managed to grab his bolo and continuously attacked Robert is considered in law continuing unlawful aggression which is immidiate and imminent. thus, Robert should be acquitted on the ground of self-defense.

Problem No. 9.

Answer

The accused committed the crime of two counts of Rape under R.A/ 7610.

The maximum penalty provided by law is Reclusion Perpetua.

The reason given by law on not the reveal the real identity of the victim in the decision

Problem No. 10.

Answer

1. As a judge, i will not approve hte manifestation of the accuse to plea bargaining on both charges The law allowns plea bargaining in drug cases if the crime charged is only illegal possession of shabu alone, and not when the accused was charged smultaneously with illegal selling of shabu.

2. Granting that i will allow the plea bargaining, then i would also also grant his application for probation because the penalty of lesser offense of illegal possesion of shabu is within the probationary period of Prision Correcional, that is Six years and below.

Renante Carumba

Rey Gavino Cadag

2020-10-20

criminal law review preliminary examination

Word count: 888

1. a. The criminal charge that i will file against Jose Bugtas is Estafa thru Falsification ouf Public Docucment becase of deceit and the Special Power of Attorney executed is considered a public document under the law.

b. He will be ccnvicted of the crime of Estafa with Falsification of Pubic Document because his relationship with the complainant with not exempt him having committed a complex crime which is not a simple Estafa.

c. The Motion to Dismiss on the ground of absolutory cause will not excuse his liability because the accused being a son in-law is not exempted when the crime committed is a complex crime such as Estafa thru Falsification of Public Document.

d. The absolutory cause that will apply in this case only when he is forgiven by way of Affidavit of Desistance.

e. He will be charged for Falsification of Public Document only.

f. No. because with said crime of Falsification of Public Document he will be exempted by reason of relationship as son -in law.

2. Richard and his wife are charge for Kidnapping with Ransom and Illegal Detention for having illegally detain the consul against his will within 10 days and asking fr ransom money for his liberty.

3. Jose Reyes and Marina Teves committed the crime of Rape. Conspiracy existed when both of them join together in one purpose as the act of one is the act of all. this is because Marina induce her daughter to engage a sexual act with her consent to Reyes.

4. Carlos Dy and Richard Sy will be charged of a complex crime for Estafa with Falsification of Commercial Document. Conspiracy did not exist in the instant case because Carlos Dy has no knowledge of the fraudulent act of Richard Sy. his participation is only being the owner of the passbook which has no bearing to prove his participation of the alleged crime.

5. The five persons are charged with Double Murder for the death of Mayor and the fish vendor, and two counts of Frustrated Murder because in the abuse of strenght and treachery the five men ambush them and spray bullets to insure the death of the victim. It is Frustrated Murder because all the act of execution to commit the crime of murder but because of the timely medical intervention the victim survive the fatal wounds.

6. Most of the time positive identification prevails over alibi. in the case of Hubert web alibi prevails because there was really impossibility that he was in the crime scene or in the Philippines showing the evidence of passport and certification from U.S. Immigration that he was in the United State which the Supreme Court believe such alibi having done beyond spand of distance that if not given weight then the only alibi which the law may given weight is that the person is from heaven or hell.

7. Romeo and Jun committed the crime for Homicide for killing Jose, Frustrated Homicide for Juan and Attempted Homicide for Pedro. The accused invoked self-defense cannot be sustained because in self-defense the three elements must concur, first the unlawful aggression, secnd the reasonable nessity to prevent or repel the aggression and third the lack of sufficient provocation in the part of the person defending himself. in the case at hand it was Jose who started the agrression having hit Rmeo with the micrphone.

The use of unlicensed firearm will be absorbed and became a special aggravating circumstance in the crime of homicide.

Voluntary surrender is a mitigating circumstance will lower by a period but if vluntary surrender and plea of guilty can be considered as mitigating that can reduce to one degree from the imposed penalty.

8. No, the ruling of RTC must be set aside because Robert Tan validly invoke self defense. First it was Lucio Cheng who give the unlawful aggression by disturbing the spouses in the house while sleeping, second Lucio has a firearm while Robert has only a bolo which is inferior in terms of weapon use, third the provacation stated in Lucio which Rbert has to defend his family. this means that there is cmplete self defense in the part of Richard that will abslved him frm criminal liability.

9. The father committed an incestous Rape and the accused must be sentence of Reclusion Perpetua to Death and because of relationship the crime imposable is death but because of the deletion of death under the law, then the accused will be sentenced to a penalty of Reclusion Perpetua without eligibility of parole.

In Rape cases or any cases that affects the well being of the child his/her identity must be be undisclosed to give the child her protection and her name is written in letter such as AAA or BBB

10. 1. Yes, as a judge i will approve the accused plea of guity to a lesser of offense of Sec. 12, of RA 9165 because the corpuz deliti which are the shabu did nt exceed more than 1 gram. besides it is within the discretion of the judge having the jurisdiction over the case.

2. Probation is not a right, it is a priviledge and granting that the accused deserves to be given the chance, as a judge i will extend to him the priviledge of granting his probation.

10.

Rey Gavino Cadag

Richel Caindug

2020-10-20

criminal law review preliminary examination

Word count: 1585

Name: Richel Pamil Caindug Rating:

Problem No. 1

(1) If I were the Fiscal, I will file a complex crime of Estafa through Falsification of Public Document against Jose Bugtas. Here, Jose Bugtas deceive Maria Lopez-Bugtas by believing that the document he made to sign was an application for exemption of realty taxes, but it truth it is a Special Power of Attorney in favor of his daughter Marilou Lopez-Bugtas. Thereafter, the SPA was used in selling the properties owned by Maria Lopez-Bugtas, thus, the crime committed was not a simple crime of estafa, but a complex crime of estafa through falsification of a public document.

(2) Jose Bugtas may be held criminally liable of the complex crime of Estafa through Falsification of a Public Document by inducing Maria Lopez-Bugtas to sign the SPA making it believe that the same is for the exemption of realty taxes. Jose Bugtas is also civilly liable to pay moral damages, exemplary damages against Maria Lopez-Bugtas.

(3) Jose Bugtas cannot invoke the absolutory cause under the Revised Penal Code. Under the Code, an absolutory cause applies only to the felonies of theft, swindling and malicious mischief. It applies exclusively to the three mentioned crimes. It does not apply to other crimes that is co plexed with another crime like a crime of estafa through falsification of a public document.

(4) Under the Revised Penal Code, an absolutory cause applies only to felonies of theft, swindling and malicous mischief. It is exclusive of the three crimes.

(5) It would be different if Jose Bugtas defrauded Maria Lopez by simply letting her sign a Deed of Sale to him of the said property. Here, the crime committed is a simple crime of estafa.

(6) My conclusion will not be same because a simple crime of estafa is committed by Jose Bugtas if he directly defraud Maria Lopez to sign the SPA. Hence, an absolutory cause may be availed of by Jose Bugtas.

Problme No. 2

(1) The crime committed by Richard and his wife Maria is Kidnapping for Ransom. Here, Richard kinapped the consul and demanded money as a ransom for his release. Richard will be liable as a principal for the said crime, and his wife Maria is liable as an accomplice. Maria is only liable as an accomplice because she did not participate in the decision to commit the criminal act. What she did was giving moral support of the crime committed by his husband by giving aid and giving food of the victim.

Problem No. 3

Jose Reyes committed Rape against Marie while Marina Teves is an accomplice of the crime of rape. Here, Marie participated in the commission of the crime by previous act, by forcing her daughter to drink an alcohol, and once intoxicated gave consent to the criminal design of Jose to rape her daughter. Hence, Marie is only an accomplice because her participation is not indiepensable to the crime of rape.

No. There was no conspirascy between the two, Jose Reyed and Marina Teves. In conspiracy, the act of one is the act of all. Here, there is no plan to rape the victim, but the criminal design to rape the victim was already in the mind of Jose. He just asked permission to his criminal intent, in which Marina agree of the same. Hence, the criminal charges of both are diffirent because there is no unity in the criminal act. Both will be eld liable criminally and civilly.

Problem No. 4

(1) Richard Sy committed the crime of estafa through falsification of a commercial document, while Carlo Dy is not liable of the said crime. Here, Carlo Dy had no knowledge of the criminal intent of Richard Sy. He only allow Richard Sy to use his passbook to help him, believing that he will us it only to encash his money. But the criminal intent to defraud the bank was not on the knowledge of Carlo Dy.

There is no conspiracy exesting in the case at bar. Here, both did not plan to commit estafa through falsification of a commercial document. The criminal intent was only on the part of Carlo Dy. There being no conspiracy, the act of Carlo Dy is not the act of Richard Sy.

To convict Carlo Dy as an accomplice of the said crime, the prosecution must prove that he has knowledge of the criminal intent of Richard Sy. Also, there must be a cooperation in the execution of the offense by previous and simultaneous acts. However, here, the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt of the participation of Carlo Dy.

Problem No. 5

(1) If I were the Prosecutor, I will charge Murder against the perpatrators. It is murder because they were not given the chance to repel the persons committing the felony. Here, there is conspiracy to commit a crime. Hence, the act of one is the act of all. Therefore, the five persons will be liable for Murder for the on the spot death of the Mayor, while they are liable of frustrated homicide against the two bodyguards becuase of the timely treatment in the nearby hospital.

With respect to the bystander, the group of five persons are liable for homicide because their is no intention to kill the fish vendor. He was only hit in the course of the ambush. Thus, the criminal design to kill him is wanting.

Problem No. 6

In the case of Hubert Webb, the Supreme Court acquitted the accused because of the semen specimen taken from the victim's cadaver. Here, Webb request to submit the said specimen for DNA analysis, to give the accused and the prosecution access to scientific evidence that they might avail themselves for the correct decision in the case. However, the prosecution to present such evidence, thus, prompted the accused Webb to file an urgent motion to acquit him on the ground that the government fail to preserve such vital evidence and resulted in the denial of his right to due process.

Problem No. 7

Romeo and Jun guilty of the homicide fot the death of Jose, frustrated homicide for fatally wounding Juan and attempted homicide for shooting Pedro.

Their claim of self-defense is unmeritorious. There is no self-defense to speak of because the use of gun is deadlier than the stones thrown by the three brothers Jose, Pedro and Juan. It is incumbent upon the accused to prove by clear and convincing evidence thet they acted in self-defense. Thre must be actual use of weapon or actual force. Here, it is clear that there was no unlawful aggression on the part of the three brothers that justified the accused in shooting them.

The used of unlicensed firearm is a special aggravating circumstance. If a homicide is committed with the use of an unlicensed firearm, such use shall be considered as an aggravating circumstance and cannot be offset by an prdinary mitigating circumstance. Voluntary surrender of the accused in this case is merely an ordinary mmitigating circumstance.

Problem No. 8

No. The ruling of the RTC is not correct. Here, Robert Tan is entitled to the justifying circumstance of self-defense. In self-defense, the esence of unlawful aggression is indispensable. In unlawful aggression, there must be a physical or material attack, the attack must be actual, and the attack must be unlawful. Here, the imminent threat to life of the accused was positively strong to act promptly to repel the unlawful aggression. The right of a person to take life in self-defense arises from his belief in the necessity of doing so. Hence, the justifying circumstance of self-defense is positively established acquitting the accused of the said crime.

Problem No. 9

The accused AAA committed qualified rape against his daughter who is 15 years old. In committing rape, the following must be present, (a) the offender had carnal knowledge of a woman; and (b) said carnal knowledge was accomplished through froce, threat or intimidation. The gravamen of rape is sexual intercourse with a woman against her will. The saem is qualified if the victim is under eighteen years of age; the offender is a parent, ascendant, step-parent, guradian, relative by consaguinity or affinity within the third civil degree, r the common law sopuse of the parent of the victim. The penalty for a qualified rape is reclusion perpetua and the accused is liable to pay for moral damages and exemplary damages against the victim.

In the crime of rape, the real name or identity of the victim should not be stated in the decision to protect the best interest of the child. The paramount consideration of every member of society must be with the child. The child must be protected against moral abuse in the community.

Problem No. 10

(1) Yes. As a judge, I will approve the manifestation of Pascua to plea bargain to both charges (Sec. 5 and Sec. 11) to the lesser offense in Section 12. Here, the shabu involved does not exceed 1 gram , thus, Pascua can plead guilty to Section 12 that will reduce his penalty from life imprisonment. However, there is a new rule granting only a person charged under Section 5 can only plead to the lesser of Section 11.

(2) Yes. I will grant the application for probation because the penalty is not life imprisonment thus, application for probation can be availed of by the accused. Under the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the offender in drug cases can avail of Probation if he is not a recedivist.

Richel Caindug

ROJEAN CULANAG

2020-10-20

criminal law review preliminary examination

Word count: 1486

Problem No. 1

Answer

1.) If I were the Fiscal, I will file a complex crime of Estafa through Falsification of Public Documents. This is so because the falsication of documents, SPA in this case, was resorted to by Jose as a means to commit Estafa. Here, Jose presented documents to Maria Lopez which purported to be an application for exemption of realty taxes where in truth and in fact, it was a Special Power of Attorney authorizing his wife, Marilou to sell the Bulacan poperty of Maria Lopez and with this, Jose succeeded to sell the property and appropriated the amount to the damage and prejudice of Maria Lopez.

2.) Because of the charged of Estafa through Falsification of Public Documents, there is a strong possibility that Jose Bugtas can be convicted of the same considering that all the elements of this complexed crime are present in this case. Here, Jose falsified an SPA which is a public document by presenting a document to Maria Lopez which purported to be an application for exemption of realty taxes where in truth and in fact, it was a Special Power of Attorney authorizing his wife, Marilou to sell the Bulacan poperty of Maria Lopez. Further, after falsifying the SPA, Jose succeeded to sell the property and appropriated the amount to the damage and prejudice of Maria Lopez.

3.) The defense of absolutory cause cannot be validly invoked by the lawyer of Jose. Absolutory cause under Article 332 of the Revised Penal Code applies only to simple crimes of theft, swindling or malicious mischief. Here, the charged was a complex crime of Estafa thru falsification of Public Documents. Hence, the absolutory cause does not apply.

4.) Jose Bugtas cannot avail of any of the absolutory causes under the Revised Penal Code considering that the crime committed is a compex crime which is not covered by Article 332 of the Revised Penal Code. Also, desistance cannot likewise be availed because the crime was already consummated.

5.) If Jose Bugtas defrauded Maria Lopez by letting her sign a Deed of Sale then the crime committed would only be estafa.

6.) Thus, my conclusion will not be the same. here, he could no longer be held liable in view of the absolutory cause provided under the Revised Penal Code which imposes no criminal liabilty but only civil if a crime of swindling or estafa is committed by the son-in-law against his mother-in-law.

Problem 2

Answer

1.) Richard and Maria committed a crime of Kidnapping with ransom for taking the consul and depriving the latter of his liberty against his will and demanding money to the wife of the consul in return for his release. However, Richard's participation of the said crime was that of principal since he himself was the one who executed the commission of the crime of kidnapping while Maria could only be held liable as an accomplice because knowing the criminal design of Richard, she concurred with the latter in his purpose by giving moral support as shown by her act of giving the kidnap victim his meals and medicine.

Problem No. 3

Answer

Jose committed the crime of rape against Marie for having carnal knowledge with her against her will since she was under the state of intoxication at the time of the incident. However, Marina is liable only as an accessory for the crime of rape because having knowledge of the criminal design of Jose, she concurred with the latter in his purpose as shown by her act of forcing Marie to drink Tanduay and consenting the request of Jose to have sexual intercourse with her daughter.

In view thereof, no conspiracy exists between Jose and Marina because it appears that her degree of participation is not indispensable in the commission of the crime of rape. While it is true that Marina consented Jose to have sexual intercourse with her daughter, nevertheless, the same cannot be considered as indispensable because Jose can still commit the crime even without the consent or approval of Marina. Hence, no conspiracy can be inferred therefrom.

Problem No. 4

Answer

Richard Sy, Jr., is liable for the complex crime of Estafa thru falsication of commercial documents.

Under the Revised Penal Code, a complex crime is committed when one crime is resorted to as a means to commit another.

Here, Richard resorted to falsication by manipulating the ledger and posting fictitious deposits in the bank account of Carlo Dy in order to withdraw the money from the bank and to appropriate the same to his own benefit and to the damage o the bank.

Hence, Richard Sy Jr., is liable for the complex crime of Estafa thru falsication of commercial documents.

However, CARLO DY is not criminally liable as principal for the complex crime of Estafa thru falsication of commercial documen because he did not participated in the commission of the said crime. He cannot likewise be held lible as an accomplice since he had no knowledge of the criminal design of Richard.

In view thereof, there was no conspiracy in this case since CARLO DY had no knowledge of the criminal design of Richard. Under the Revised penal Code, conspiracy is committed when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it.

Problem 5

Answer

If I were the prosecutor, I will file a compex crime of murder with frustrated murder.

In one case decided by the Supreme Court, it held that if it cannot be determined who among the accused killed the victims or inflicted injury, then they can only be charged of a complex crime of murder with frustrated murder.

Here, it does not appear who among the five persons killed the mayor and the fish vendor and who among them hit the two bodyguards.

Hence, the proper charged would be a compex crime of murder with frustrated murder.

Problem 6

Answer

In the case of Hubert Webb, the Supreme Court acquitted the accused based on mere alibi because it appears that it was physically impossible for Hubert Webb to be present in the place where the crime was committed. Here Hubert Webb was able to prove that he was in U.S at the time the crime was committed.

While it is a settled rule that alibi is a weakess defense and cannot prevail over positive identification, nevertheless, when there is a physical impossibility f a person to be present in the place where the crime was committed, then such alibi should be given great weight.

Problem 7

Answer

Romeo and Jun committed a complex crime of murder with frustrated murder because their act of firing their gun resulted to the death of Jose and injuries sustained toPedro and Juan.

Both Romeo and Jun cannot claimed self-defense. In order for self-defense to be availed of, the law requires that there must be unlawful aggression; reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel the aggression and lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person making the defense.

Here, the act of the victims in throwing stones cannot be considered as unlawful aggression because Romeo and Jun have all the options to evade the attaced by simply running away and secure help from authrorities. Also, the used of firearms is not commensurate to means of attacked employed by the victim. Further, the used of firearm by Romeo and Jun constitutes provocation on their part.

Hence, self defense cannot be availed of by Romeo and Jun.

The used of unlicensed firearms will be treated as a special aggravating circumstances for the compex crime of murder with frustrated murder. However, it will not increased the penalty to be imposed by one degree but it will only result to the imposition of penalty in its maximum period.

Voluntary surrender as a mitigating circumstance cannot lower the penalty by either by degree or period in this case in view of the presence of the special aggravating circumstance. This mitigating circumstance cannot therefore be offset by the aggravating circumstance.

Problem 8

Answer

No, the ruling of the RTC is not correct.

In one case which involves similar facts, the Supreme Court held that self-defense can be validly claimed because all the elements are present, namely: unlawful aggression, reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repeal it and lack of sufficient provcation on the part of the person defending the same.

Here, there was unlawful aggression when LUCIO forcibly enter the house of the accused and tried to attacked them. Also, the means empoyed was reasonably necessary gieven that the accused had no more time to think what weapon to be used in order to repel the attacked and lastly, there was no sufficient provocation made by the accused to the victim.

Hence, the ruling of the RTC is not correct

ROJEAN CULANAG

Vera Nataa

2020-10-20

criminal law review preliminary examination

Word count: 1529

Problem No. 1

(1)

If I were the Fiscal, I would file an Information againt Jose with estafa through falsification of public document. Jose employed deceit to falsify a public document as a necessary means to commit estafa.

(2)

The possibility of conviction of Jose is probable for the instant case does not merely involve a simple conflict in a family relation but a paramount public interest.

(3)

A motion to dismiss the case invoking an absolutory cause has no merit. The absolutory cause under the Penal Code only applies to the simple felonies of swindling, theft and malicious mischief. It does not apply to cases involving a breach of public interest through employment of falsified public documents.

(4)

There would be no absolutory cause which can be applied to the case since

(5)

If Jose defrauded Maria by simply letting her sign a Deed of Sale in his favor, the situation would have been different. The crime committed would have been a simple estafa only since the damage would have been caused at the same time the document was executed and not prior thereto.

(6)

My conclusion would have been different in the situation provided in the preceding number.

Problem No. 2

Richard committed a crime of kidnapping for ransom as principal and his wife as an accomplice. Under the Revised Penal Code, the elements of such crime are as follows: (1) the intent to deprive the victim of his liberty; (2) there is an actual deprivation of the victim's liberty; and (3) the motive to exort ransom for the release of the victim. Further, in order that a person may be considered an accomplice, the elements are as follows: (1) there is knowledge in community of criminal design of the principal by direct participation; (2) there is cooperation in the execution with the intent of supplying material and moral aid; and (3) there is a relation between the acts done by the principal and the charge attributed to the accomplice.

In the instant case, the wife knew of the criminal design of her husband but she never reported the incident to the police. Instead, she was the one taking care of the consul by giving him his meals and medicine. Hence, Richard should be liable as the principal, and his wife, Maria, should be liable as the accomplice.

Problem No. 3

Jose committed the crime of rape as the principal and Marina as an accomplice. There was no conspiracy between Jose and Marina. A conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a crime and decide to commit it. On the other hand, in order that a person may be considered an accomplice, the elements are as follows: (1) there is knowledge in community of criminal design of the principal by direct participation; (2) there is cooperation in the execution with the intent of supplying material and moral aid; and (3) there is a relation between the acts done by the principal and the charge attributed to the accomplice.

In this case, Marina cooperated in the execution of the crime when prior to the act of rape, Marina forced Marie to drink Tanduay, and she gave her consent to Jose to have sexual intercourse with her daughter. However, there was no conspiracy since there was no agreement between them to commit a felony prior to the commission of the crime.

Problem No. 4

Richard can be charged of a crime of estafa through falsification of commercial document, and Carlo cannot be charge as an accomplice. The most that could be attributed to Carlo was his gross negligence in lending his passbook and his utter gullibility.

There was no conspiracy existing in the case at bar. A conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a crime and decide to commit it.

Problem No. 5

Problem No. 6

The Supreme Court ruled that in order for a positive identification to be acceptable, the follwing criteria must be achieved: (1) that the positive identification of the accused must come from a credible witness; and (2) that the testimony of the witness was his personal knowledge and must be believable, not inherently devised. The Supreme Court ruled that the testimony of the witness failed to meet the criteria. Also, the Court ruled that to establish alibi, the accused must prove by positive, clear and satisfactory evidence that he was at another place at the time of the commission of the crime. The documented alibi of Webb impeached the testimony of the witness since the prosecution failed to present evidence to overcome the presumption of truth of such official records.

Furthermore, the Court acquitted the accused on the ground of the loss of DNA evidence. The SC has given weight to the importance of forensic evidence. Failure to present forensic evidence and its subsequent loss cast doubt as to the reasonableness of the evidence presented for no persons have the same DNA with centain exception.

Problem No. 7

Jun committed a crime of homicide, frustrated homicide, and attempted homicide aggravated by the use of unlicensed firearm. The accused were not correct in invoking their right to self-defense. The RPC provides for the elements in order to validly invoke a plea of self-defense as justifying circumstances. Any person who acts in defense must prove that the following circumstances concur: (1) that there is unlawful aggression; (2) that there is a reasonable necessity to employ the means to prevent it; and (3) that there is lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself.

In the case at bar, there was no unlawful aggression that would justify the act of the accused in shooting. There were no actual or imminent danger to their lives. It is an essential requisite for without unlawful aggression on the part of the victim, there can be no self-defense. With regard to the use of unlicensed firearm, it must be considered as a special aggravating circumstance which cannot increase the penalty for the offense to the next higher degree. Moreover, it cannot be offset by an ordinary mitigating circumstance unlike in the ordinary aggravating circumstance. Hence, voluntary surrender which is merely an ordinary mitigating circumstance, cannot offset the special aggravating circumstance of the use of unlicensed firearm.

Problem No. 8

The RTC is not correct. The RPC provides for the elements in order to validly invoke a plea of self-defense as justifying circumstances. Any person who acts in defense must prove that the following circumstances concur: (1) that there is unlawful aggression; (2) that there is a reasonable necessity to employ the means to prevent it; and (3) that there is lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself. Also, to invoke defense of stranger, it is required that there is clear and convincing evidence to prove the following: (1) that there is unlawful aggression; (2) that there is a reasonable necessity to employ the means to prevent it; and (3) that the person defending is not induced by revenge, resentment or other evil motive. The test is whether the aggression from the victim would put in real danger to the life of the person defending, and such peril must be imminent, not just an imaginary threat.

In the case at bar, the elements of the justifying circumstances of self-defense and defense of stranger were present. The imminent threat to the life was present which induced the accused to act promptly to prevent such aggression, otherwise it would have cost him his own life. Hence, entitled him his acquittal.

Problem No. 9

The accused committed a crime of qualified rape. The accused was found guilty of having carnal knowledge with his daughter against her will and while she was unconscious and while she was sleeping. The prosecution established several circumstantial evidence that he used force and intimidation, that when the victim regained her consciousness, she was naked and felt pain over her body and in her vagina, and that she was threatened by father to kill her if she would report the crime.

The penalty imposable is reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole and liable for civil indemnity and moral damages.

The real name or identity of the victim should not be stated in the decision to protect the privacy rights and confidentiality of the identity and personal information of the victim in sensitive cases as mandated by law.

Problem No. 10

(1)

As a judge, I would approve his manifestation to plea bargain as it was recently allowed after the previous provision disallowing such was dclared unconstitutional for contravening the rule-making authority of the Supreme Court.

(2)

With due consideration of the criteria laid down in the Probation Law, I may grant the application for probation. Probation is defined as a dispostion which a defendant, after conviction and sentence, is release subject to conditions imposed by the court and to the supervision of a probation officer. It is essential that the offense to which the accused is ultimately found guilty. In this case, the accuse was actually found guilty of the lesser offense subject to plea.

Vera Nataa

Virgilio Encabo

2020-10-20

criminal law review preliminary examination

Word count: 1007

Name: Virgilio B. Encabo Rating:___________

Answer to Problem no. 1

(1). If I were the Fiscal, I will file criminal charge of Estafa by means of false pretense or fraudulent acts because Jose Bugtas defrauded Maria Lopez, his Mother-in-Law by asking her to sign documents for application of realty taxes but turned out to be a Special Power of Attorney authorizing Marilou Lopez Bugtas to sell the Bulacan Property for 50 Million, which proceeds was not given to Maria Lopez.

1(2). The possiblity of conviction is naught because Jose Bugtas, being the husband of Marilou Lopez-Bugtas, is the son-in-law of Maria Lopez and under the law it is one of absolutory cause.

1(3). The motion to dismiss is meritorious in invoking absolutory cause for the same reason cited in 1(2).

1(4). The absolutory cause applies to Marilou Lopez-Bugtas as daughter of Maria Lopez. It also applies to Jose Bugtas, the son-in-law of Maria Lopez. Under the law, these relationships are covered by absolutory cause.

1(5). If Jose Bugtas defrauded Maria Lopez by letting her sign a Deed of Sale to him of the said property then he would still liable for Estafa by means of False Pretenses.

1(6). Yes, my conclusion would still be the same, that is, he is guilty of the crime of Estafa by means of false pretenses. However, since he is covered by absolutory cause , he would not be liable for the said crime. Under the Law, Absolutory cause, a crime is committed but for reasons of Public policy, there is no penalty imposed.

Answer to Problem 2

(1) The crime committed is Kidnapping and serious illegal detention. Kidnapping and serious illegal detention is a crime against the personal liberty of a person and when detention last for more than three days. Here, the consul was deprived of liberty for ten days. Hence, the crime of Kidnapping and serious illegal detention is proper. Richard, will be liable as principal by direct participation while Maria is liable as accomplice for taking care of the consul during those days of detention thus, she knowingly assented to the commission of the crime.

Answer to Problem 3.

Jose Reyes and Marina committed the crime of Rape through sexual intercourse. Jose Reyes having carnal knowledge of a woman who was deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious thorugh the intoxication. Here, there is conspiracy in the commission of Rape. Under the law, there is conspiracy when two or more persons decide to commit it. Jose Reyes and Marina are both liable, because the act of one, is the act of all.

Answer to Problem 4.-------

The crime committed by Carlo Dy and Richard Sy is Estafa with unfaithfulness or abuse of confidence. There is conspiracy here because the two decided to commit the crime. Hence, they are liable for the direct, natural consequences of their acts.

Answer to problem 5.

If I were the prosecutor, I would charge the five accused of the following crimes:

1. Murder for intentionally killing the Mayor.

2. Frustrated Murder for hitting the two bodyguards who survived by reason or cause independent of the perpetrator;

3. Homicide for accidentally hitting the Fish vendor who later expired.

Answer to Problem 6.

In acquitting accused Hubert Webb, the Supreme Court looked into the absence of spermatozoa or semen; Webb was not positively identified to be at the scene of the crime;

and the testimony of the witness, Jessica Alfaro, is inconsistent.

Answer to Problem 7.

The crimes committed by Romeo and Jun are the following, to wit;

a. Homicide for killing Jose, without the attendant circumstances under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code;

b. Serious physical injuries for wounding Pedro on the leg and Juan in the Chest.

The Act of self defense cannot be invoked. The requisites of Self-defense are:

a. That there be unlawful aggression;

b. There is reasonable necessity to repel it

c. There is Lack of Sufficient provocation on thepart of the person defending himself;

In the case at Bar, Romeo and Jun could have simply evaded the hurling of the stones or they could run. The use of the gun in repelling the aggression did not commensurate or is not reasonable means to repel it.

There is no effect if the gun used is unlicensed firearm because the crime already absorbed it.

Voluntary surrender lowers the penalty by degree.

Answer to Problem 8.

The Ruling of RTC is not correct. The court failed to appreciate Tan's self-defense. Under the law, there is self-defense when the following requisites are present:

1. There must be unlawful aggression;

2. There is reasonable necessity of the means employed to repel the aggression;

3. There is Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself. Here, it was Lucio Cheng who acted with unlawful aggression by firing the gun, which created an imminent danger or threatened the life of Robert Tan such that the latter acted to repel Cheng's aggression by grabbing the gun from him.

Answer to Problem 9.

The crime committed by the Father is Raped as penalized under the Revised Penal Code. The Father, being the direct ascendant of AAA. The imposable penalty is death being that the victim is under 18 years old and the offender is the parent of the victim. However, the penalty of Death could not be imposed due to the effect of Republic Act 9346, which suspends the Death Penalty, thus, reclusion perpetua could be imposed.

Under the Jugueta case, the damages that could be awarede are: Civil Indemnity, 100,000; Moral Damages, 100,000; and Temperate Damages for 100,000.

The real name of the victim should not be stated in the decision to protect the victim's right to privacy.

Answer to Problem 10.

As Judge, I will approve the Plea Bargain to lesser offense in both Charges. The Supreme Court has already pronounced that the court has the discretion to grant the plea. I would not allow the grant of probation because the case is still pending, there is no conviction yet.

Virgilio Encabo

answer of the students to the exam to the preliminary exam in criminal law review/you may score yourself by checking your own exam

Agapito Balili

criminal law review preliminary examination

Word count: 954

Aisha FERNANDEZ

criminal law review preliminary examination

Word count: 2039

Aisha Mie Faith Fernandez

criminal law review preliminary examination

Word count: 0

Ameliano Himang

criminal law review preliminary examination

Word count: 1138

Anilyn Evangelista

criminal law review preliminary examination

Word count: 861

Ariel Acopiado

criminal law review preliminary examination

Word count: 1468

Arnold Bongcayao

Email: arnoldbongcayao@gmail.com

Class: Criminal Law Review

Teacher: Judge Ric Bastasa

criminal law review preliminary examination

Word count: 1258

Bobby Borces

criminal law review preliminary examination

Word count: 1921

Breezy Jimenez

criminal law review preliminary examination

Word count: 0

Cherrie Mae Granada

Email: cherriemae.aguila@gmail.com

Class: Criminal Law Review

Teacher: Judge Ric Bastasa

criminal law review preliminary examination

Word count: 1274

Christian Val G Dionglay

criminal law review preliminary examination

Word count: 847

Cyrus Tingcang

criminal law review preliminary examination

Word count: 1348

Dexter Kim Patron

criminal law review preliminary examination

Word count: 1252

Eduardo Luayon

criminal law review preliminary examination

Word count: 794

Ferdinand Solas

criminal law review preliminary examination

Word count: 1031

Florencio Saministrado Jr.

criminal law review preliminary examination

Word count: 1039

FRILIN LOMOSAD

criminal law review preliminary examination

Word count: 1715

Immanuel Granada

criminal law review preliminary examination

Word count: 1808

Jeryll Janiola

Email: jeweljeryll@gmail.com

Class: Criminal Law Review

Teacher: Judge Ric Bastasa

criminal law review preliminary examination

Word count: 886

JOHANNES RUEDAS

criminal law review preliminary examination

Word count: 2089

Karl Rigo Andrino

criminal law review preliminary examination

Word count: 2503

Leah Paco

criminal law review preliminary examination

Word count: 1307

Liwayway Elumbaring

Email: liwaywayelumbaring.realmotors@gmail.com

Class: Criminal Law Review

Teacher: Judge Ric Bastasa