PRELIMINARY EXAMINATION IN CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW 2020

 

 

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