quiz december 18, 2020

 Agapito Balili

Exam: quiz december 18, 2020

Word count: 423

Writing time: 106 minutes

Email: sanbasec.balili@gmail.com

Class: Criminal Law/Political

Teacher: Atty. Ric Bastasa

1.  The punong Barangay, Santiago Paera committe"d the crime Grave threats punishable under  Article 282 of the Revised Penal Code. His act of charging his bolo towards Indalecio shouting " patyon tikaw" and to Indalecio's wife Diosetea "wala ko'y gipili bisag babaye ka patyon tikaw", and to Vicente "bisag gulang ka, buk-on nako na imomng ulo" all constituted grave threaths falling under the aforesaid provision of the RPC. The Revised Penal Code in its Article 282, provides, that a person who shall threathen another person with harm or infliction upon his person, honor or property of any act amounting to a crime shall be liable and punished in accordance with law. Since SANTIAGO committed such threaths of killing them ( Indalecio, his wife, and Vicdnte), which amount to a crime, he therefore, has violated the said provision of the RPC.

2. In one case decided  by  by theSupreme Court, the elements of Grave coercion are as follows: a.) A person employs violence, threaths or intimidation to compel another person to do an act against his will; b.) Such person who compelled another has no authority under the law to do so; c.) the person so compeled to do an act against his will sustain damage or is prejudiced by the result of his act. In this particular case, I would convict the accused for Grave coersion. In the instant problem all the elements of Grave coercion are present. Hence, the conviction.

 3.  It is submitted that the charge is not proper. The reason is that, a member of the UP Board of Regents, although undisputably a public official, is not an accountable officer as contemplated by the law. Under the  Revised Penal Code, specifically in its Section 217, for one to held liable for Marversation of Public  funds, he should be, by reason of his office  a custodian of public funds or properties. In this  case the subject UP Board of Regent is not a custodian of public funds or an accountable officer. He may be held liable for graft under the RA 3019 or the Anti Graft Law, for embezlement.

4. Yes. The denial  of Cariaga's motuion for reconsideration is correct. It must be noted that in the case at bar, Cariaga's complaint consists merely of general and blanket denial of the incidents described in the blotter intries, which denial under the rules cannot prevail over the positive, truthful and credible recordings in the blotter made in good faith while in the performance of the respondent's official duties.

5.

Agapito Balili

2020-12-19

Aisha Mie Faith Fernandez

Exam: quiz december 18, 2020

Word count: 456

Writing time: 60 minutes

Email: mie.aisha23@gmail.com

Class: Criminal Law I

Teacher: Judge Ric S. Bastasa

I

     The crime committed by Santiago is three counts of Grave Threats.

    Any person  who shall threaten another with the infliction upon the person, honor or property of the latter or of his family of any wrong shall be liable for grave threats. These felony is cosummated as soon as the threats come to the knowledge of the person threatened.

        In the given case the act of the accused of threatening to kill Indalencio and Dioseta and to crack open the skull of Vicente are wrongs on the person of the complainants. These threats were consummated as soon as the complainants heard from the accused  the threatening rearks. Furthermore, since these threats are spoken by the accused at three different points in time,hence the accused committed three separate criminal liabilities.

II

a.)        The following are the elements of grave coercion: (a) that a person is prevented by another from doing something not prohibited by law or compelled to do something against his will, be it wrong or right; (b) that the prevention or compulsion is effected by violence, threats, or intimidation; and (c) that the person who restrains the will and liberty of another has no right  to do so, or not made under thlawful authority or in the exercise of a lawful right.

b.)        In this case, the accused cannot be convicted of the crime of grave coercion.

            It is an acceptable practice by banks or even individuals to demand payment of their accounts and to threat to insitute an action should upon demand the other party will fail to settle the accounts. Such threat is within the means to enforce collection. Such threat does not constitute duress, so long as the other party believes that he has the right to do so.

            Furthermore, the complainant was not compelled to signed the withdrawal slip and affidavit but acted voluntarily. The complainant has all the opportunity to resist from doing such, despite her prostestation she still consented to do all the aforesaid acts.

III

        The crime charge is not proper. The crime committed is estafa.

        Estafa is committed by any person who shall defraud another with unfaithfulness and abuse of confidence by misappropriating or converting or denying having received personal property under the obligation to deliver or return the same to the prejudice of another.

        In the given case, the accused misappropriated the funds entrusted to her in relation to her office  to the prejudice of the government. By defrauding the president through her false pretenses that the renovation of the hall will happen, the latter was made to deliver  the amount of Fifteen Million, which was later on misappropriated by the accused. Hence, the accused shall be liable of the offense of estafa.

Aisha Mie Faith Fernandez

2020-12-19

Ameliano Himang

Exam: quiz december 18, 2020

Word count: 491

Writing time: 128 minutes

Email: mhelghimang49@gmail.com

Class: Criminal Law Review Class

Teacher: Judge Ric Bastasa

AMELIANO G. HIMANG

Criminal Law Review Class

Judge Ric Bastasa

1.    Santiago is liable for three (3) counts of Grave Threats.

Under the law, any person who shall threaten another with the infliction upon the person, honor or property of the latter or of his family of any wrong amounting to a crime. 

In the case at bar, it is clear that Santiago threaten to kill Indalecio and Diosetea and threaten to crak open Vicente's skull, these are wrongs amounting to a crime, for homicide and serious physical injuries as punishable under the revised penal code. 

Furthermore, these threats were consummated as soon as Indalecio, Diosetea, and Vicente heard Santiago uttering his threatening remaks. Santiago's threats at different points to these three individuals; he incurred the three separate criminal liabilities of Grave Threats.

2.    The elements of grave coercions are as follows, that any person without the authority of law shall, by means of violence, prevent another from doing something not prohibited by law  or to do something against his will, whether right or wrong. 

No, I would not convict the accused for grave coercion, mere shouting at the victim and with a piercing looks and threatened to file the charges against the same unless she returned all the money equivalent of the subject check does not constitute a crime of grave threats. Under the law, there is nothing unlawful on the threat to sue the complainant; her freedom of movement was not restrained, she, was able to move about freely unguarded from the office of the accused; and there is no overt acts to prevent the complainant from leaving despite the alleged loud threats coming from the accused. Hence, acquital is proper. 

3.    The charge of malversation of public funds proper, because it can be committed by a public officer who by reason of the duties of his office is accountable for public funds or property shall appropriate the same. 

In this case at bar, Hannah Eunice Serana is considered a public officer according to the court, the UP student regent is a public officer and being the student regent of UP and while in the performance of her official functions committing the offense in relation to her office and taking advantage to her position to commit the crime of malversation.

4.    Yes, the denial of motion for reconsideration is proper, under the law, absent any showing of ill-will motive on the respondents part in making the blotter entries, there can be no basis to charge them of falsification of private documents according to OPP's ruling. The statements therein were supported by testitmonies of several witnesses, and there is colorable truth to the same, since the search conducted by the police authorities in Cariagas home and cattle farm resulted in the siezure of a firearm and several ammunitions and eventual filing of a criminal case against him. Hence, it proper for the OPP to deny his motion for reconsideration. 

5.     

Ameliano Himang

2020-12-19

Anilyn Evangelista

Exam: quiz december 18, 2020

Word count: 249

Writing time: 91 minutes

Email: anilyn_evangelista114@yahoo.com

Class: Criminal Law Review

Teacher: Judge Ric Bastasa

1.

The crime committed was grave threat.

It is stated that any person who shall threaten another with the infliction upon the person, honor, or property of the latter or of his family or any wrong amounting to a crime. Given the facts, Santiago clearly committed the criem of grave threats.

2. 

For grave coercion to  lie, the following elements must be present, first, that a person is prevented by another from doing something not prohibited by law, or compelled to do something against his will be it right or wrong, second, that the prevention or compulsion is effected by violence, threats or intimidation, and lastly, that the person who restrains the will and liberty of another has no right to do so, or that the restraint is not made under authority of law or in exercise of any lawful right.

The accused cannot be convicted for grave coercion absence of its elements.

3. 

No, the charge is not proper. The crime committed is estafa. Defendant herein, the former UP Student Regent, with intent to gain and committing the offense in relation to her office and taking advantage of her position.

4

Yes, the denial of the motion for reconsideration is correct.

5.

The SC resolved the issue by maintaining the constitutionality of the questioned legislative acts by saying that legislative acts are presumed constitutional, to be declared unconstitutional, it must be shown to have clearly and unmistakably breached the Constitution, which petitoner has failed overcome the said presumption.

Anilyn Evangelista

2020-12-19

Ariel Acopiado

Exam: quiz december 18, 2020

Word count: 719

Writing time: 80 minutes

Email: spitfirea211@gmail.com

Class: JD-IV

Teacher: Judge Ric S. Bastasa

1. The crime that Santiago commited was grave threats for three counts.

    Under the law, an infraction categorizes as a grave threat when the offender threatens another or his family with with bodily harm or injury that is tantamount to a crime.

    In the scenario indicated it is clear that Santiago utterances would fall under the ambit of the elements of grave threat, since such threats, if carried out would amount to crime of homicide at worst. The crime was consummated the moment he made the declarations and were heard by those he threatened.

2. Elements of grave coercion are: (a) when one forces another to do an act, the latter is not willing to do or the forming preventing the same latter from doing an act not prohibited by law, (b) when the one offender lacks authority and (c) when the coercion is done by violence.

    No. The accused should be acquitted.

    As mentioned under the statute aforementioned, grave coercion only arises when there is violence involved. Violence being defined a use of force to harm the other. Clearly in this case, there was no force employed. Much that there was only a threat to sue and the discourteous manner of delivering the same. Under the law, threats to sue for a lawful cause does not register as a threat that would qualify as intimidation or violence.

3. The charge is proper. The crime commited is malversation of public funds and property.

    The elements of malversation of public funds under the law are: (a) offender is a public officer, (b) that the same has custody over the the funds or property in question by reason of his office, (c) there was misappropriation and (d) he was accountable for the funds. Further, a person is a public officer when he holds by virtue of appointment or election a position in public trust and performs duties related to such position.

    In the case stated, Serana qualifies as a public officer, since a student regent appointee is a public office, as evidenced by the Presidential appointment and the nature of the University of the Philippines which is a State University.  Further, the funds she handled, also came from a government office (Office of the President) and were intended for public use which categorically makes it a public fund. The failure of the project to come into fruition places a presumption that the funds were malversed. Being a public officer mishandling public funds, her alleged acts fulfill all the elements and constitute that of the offense charged.

4. Yes. The denial of the motion is proper.

    It is submited that reports made by officials in their official functions are impressed with regularity. Further under case law, the determination by the prosecutor of probable cause in the filing of cases is an executive function which falls beyond the purview of the judiciary. The only exception is when there is grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.

    In this case, it is clear, that the determination made by the OPP of probable cause is beyond that of the judiciary absent grave abuse of discretion. Further, the regular exercise of their functions cannot be subverted by the mere claim that the blotter reports were false, since such apprehensions are self-serving on the part of Cariaga. Hence, there was no error in the denial of the motion for reconsideration.

5. The Court upholds the constitutionality of the said provisions.

    In established law and jurisprudence, the court provides that the mere provision indicating that an act or ommission is prima facie evidence of a crime, does not render it unconstitutional, for the same can be controverted by evidence during the trial proper. The court further elaborates of numerous examples under the law (e.g. possession of drugs as prima facie for a drug case) as examples. The court, in addition, mentions that the provisions in Section 5 and 14 in the Anti-Hazing Law are essential, since fraternities or sororities are usually sworn to secrecy, hence, it would be very difficult for the prosecutor to mount a case against fraternity members especially when there is death. The questioned provisions under the law balances State interests to that of the individuals rights so as not merely render justice illusory in the face of such conditions.

Ariel Acopiado

2020-12-19

Arnold Bongcayao

Exam: quiz december 18, 2020

Word count: 666

Writing time: 106 minutes

Email: arnoldbongcayao@gmail.com

Class: Criminal Law Review

Teacher: Judge Ric Bastasa

1. Santiago may be liable for Attempted Homicide against the Indalecio, Diosetea and Vicente. 

There is an attempt when the offender commences the commission of the felony by overt acts, and does not perform all acts of execution which should produce the felony by reason of some cause or accident other than his own spontaneous desistance. 

Homicide is the killing of any person which does not constitute parricide, murder or infanticide and is not attended by any justifying circumstance. 

In this case, Santiago acted with intent to kill as he pursue Indalecio and Diosetia armed with a bolo. It was also present when he approach Vicente and repeatedly thrust the bolo towards him. Intent is to kill, being a state of mind, is discerned through external manifestations.  The words he uttered clearly demonstrate his evil intent to kill the three victims if they were not successful in evading the attack of Santiago. 

2. The following are the elements of Grave Coercion:

a) That a person has been prevented by another from doing something not prohibited by law or by compelling him to do something against his will whether it be right or wrong; 

b) That the prevention or compulsion is done by the use of violation of material force or such display of force as would produce intimidation and control the will of the offended party. 

I would convict the accused of Grave Coercion. 

This is a case of compulsive coercion. The offender uses intimidation to compel the offended party to do an act which may or may not be prohibited by law. 

Whether the act is prohibited or not is immaterial; whether the offender has the right to do so is immaterial. The purpose of the law is to prevent anybody to take the law into their own hands. 

Paulino Chin was clearly intimidated and his signing of the checks was against his will. Hence, the accused may be liable for Grave Coercion. 

3.  The charge is proper. 

Both Bugayong and De Guzman had custody and control of the funds by reason of the duties of their office, the funds involved are public funds for which they are accountable, they had appropriated the funds as the renovations did not materialize. 

Even they are not holding public offices, Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction to such felonies which are intimately connected with the public office and are perpetrated by the public officer while in the performance of his official functions. 

Hence, the crime committed is Malversation of Public Funds or Property. 

4. Yes, the denial of the motion for reconsidetation is correct. 

Good faith is a defense in falsification. There is no falsification of a public document if the acts of the accused are consistent with good faith. 

The police blotter is a public document, it is a prima facie evidence of the facts stated therein. It cannot be rebutted by other competent evidence. The court decision which dismissed the criminal case of illegal possession of firearm cannot overcome this disputable presumption because it is totally unrelated. 

Hence, the assertions of Cariaga must fail. 

5. Section 5 is unconstitutional. 

Hazing is not entirely prohibited for it maybe allowed subject to the compliance with the requirement of prior written notice to the school authorities before the conduct of such initiation. Provided, that no physical violence be employed by anybody during such initiation rites.

However, the law is violated if the person subjected to hazing suffers physical injury or dies as a result thereof.  Thus, Section 5 is unconstitutional. 

While Section 14 is constitutional. 

The presence of any person during the hazing is prima facie evidence of participation therein as principal unless he prevented the commission of the acts punishable herein. The offenders are not entitled to the benefit of praeter intentionem. 

This provision serves as deterrent to those outsiders who want to witness the initiation rites. They will charge as principals and their failure to report to the authorities means a penalty of reclusion perpetua and PHP 3 million fine.  

Arnold Bongcayao

2020-12-19

BOBBY BORCES

Exam: quiz december 18, 2020

Word count: 766

Writing time: 98 minutes

Email: borcesbobby@gmail.com

Class: CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW

Teacher: Judge Ric S. Bastasa

1.)

        Santiago committed the crimes of Attempted Murder as far as Indalecio is concerned. Grave Threats as far as Dioseta Darong is concerned and Murder as far as Vicente is concerned.

        Attempted Murder was committed by Santiago against Indalecio because he charged his bolo towards Indalecio albiet he was not able to hit the latter as he was able to ran for safety. The attack was given without a warning, thus, Indalecio was given no opportunity to defend himsel. Treachery is therefore present. Thus, Attempted Murder is committed by Santiago because the law says that there is an attempt when the offender commences the execution of a crime by some overt acts, and did not perform all the acts of execution which should produce the felony by reason of some cause or accident other than the accused's spontaneous desistance.

        Grave Threats was also committed by Santiago against Diosetea Darong because he threatened Diosetea of an infliction of any wrong amounting to a crime by shouting "Wala koy gipili, bisag babaye ka, patyon tikaw.

        Granting that the victim has died because of the attack, though silent in the problem, murder was likewise committed because the victim named Vicente has no idea that he would be attacked by Santiago considering that as soon as Santiago passed by Vicente, Santiago repeatedly thrust his bolo towards the victim who is already of old age. Under the law, if the attack is so suddened leaving the victim no opportunity to defend himself, the crime committed is Murder if the victim should have died, or Frustrated Murder, if the victim should not die. In this case, Murder was committed in view of the attending circumstances, granting that Vicente should have died in that particular incident.

2.)

        The elements of grave coercion are as follows:

        a. That a person prevented another from doing something not prohibited by law or by compelling him to do something against his will;

    b. That the prevention or compulsion be effected through violence, threats or intimidation;

         c. That the person making such prevention or compulsion has no authority to do so.

        Given the foregoing elements, it is submitted that the accused should not be convicted of grave coercion because one of the elements, i.e. "the compulsion be effected through violence, threats or intimidation is absent. Mere threatening remarks of filing charges against her is not the kind of threat being contemplated by law since it is the right of any person to do so and this statement would not amount to a crime.

        Thus, the accused should not be convicted.

3.)

        The charge is not proper. Under the law, a person can only be charged of Malversation of Public Funds if such person has the custody or control of such funds by reason of his office.

        In this case, the accused is not the custodian or having any control of the public funds. The funds were directly given to the OSRFI, a duly created corporation which has a separate and distinct personality with the accused. Being not in custody or having any control of such funds, the accused cannot be charged of Malversation of Public funds.

        Therefore, the charge is not proper.

        Anent the second question, the accused has not committed any other crime since there is no showing that the accused has taken the funds for her personal use and advantage to the detriment of the general public.

4.)

        The denial of the motion for reconsideration is not correct. Contrary to the findings of the OPP, the questioned blotter intries is purely hearsay considering that the one who made the blotter is not the very person who witnessed the incidents. It therefore violated the hearsay rule such that the witness should have personal knowledge of the incident and not rely on the knowledge of the other person. Therefore, the blotter cannot be used as evidence against him. Although, denial is the weakest defense but given the evidence against him to be hearsay, his denial should therefore be given more weight.

        Thus, the ORSP-Urdaneta City, Pangasinan is not correct in denying his motion for reconsideration.

5.)

        The SC should resolve the issues in favor of their constitutionality since such sections of law were crafted in the exercise of the police power of the state. It is the bounded duty of the state pursuant to the parens patria principle to protect its people. Needless to state, that these two sections were crafted  for the general welfare of the people.

        Thus, the constitutionality of these two sections should be upheld by the Supreme Court.

        

       

       

    

        

BOBBY BORCES

2020-12-19

Cherrie Mae Aguila-Granada

Exam: quiz december 18, 2020

Word count: 615

Email: cherriemae.aguila@gmail.com

Class: Criminal Law Review

Teacher: Judge Ric S. Bastasa

1.    Santiago committed three counts of grave threats.

    The Revised Penal Code provides that any person who shall threaten another with the inflicyion upon the person of the latter or his family of any wrong amounting to acrime shall be liable for Grave Threats. Moreover, the Supreme Court ruled that said felony is consummated as soon as the threats come to the knowledge of the person threatened.

    Based on the foregoing, it is evident that the threats uttered by Santiago to the three victims are wrongs amounting to homicide and serious physical injuries. As these threats were made upon different times, petitioner incurred three separate criminal liabilities.

2.     Under the Revised Penal Code, there is grave coercion when the following elements are present: 1) that a person is compelled to do something against his will, whether it be right or wrong, or prevented from doing something not prohibited by law; 2) that the person who restrains the will and liberty of another has no right to do so; and, 3) that the compulsion or prevention is effected by threats, violence, or intimidation.

    If I were the judge, I will not convict the accused of grave coercion.

     What can be gleaned from the facts of the case is a voluntary act, although reluctant, on the part of the complainant. Thus, her consent to return the money from the spurious check through the encashment of her time deposit certificate was freely given. Moreover, there was no showing that intimidation was present since complainant was not restricted from any movement inside the bank premises during the whole time she was there. Therefore, petitioner cannot be held liable of grave coercion.

3.      The complaint of Malversation of Public funds is not proper since the proper charge should be estafa.

    Citing P.D. No. 1606, the Court made clear that the jurisdiction of Sandiganbayan embraces other offenses and felonies committed by public officials and employees mentioned in the same law provided that the offense is committed in relation to their office.

    In this case, since the student regent was classified by law as a public officer and the taking of the funds was committed in relation to her office, estafa is proper and well within the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan.

4.     Yes, the denial of the OPP for the motion for reconsideration is correct.

    The provincial prosecutor correctly ruled that there is no probable cause to indict respondents of the crimes of Slander by Deed and False Certification. He found that there was no improper motive on the part of respondents in making the blotter entries as they were made in good faith; in the performance of their official duties as barangay officials; and the latter has no intention to malign, dishonor, or defame Cariaga. Further, the mere act of authenticating photocopies of the blotter entries is not tantamount to committing the crime of False Certification. 

    To reiterate, the provincial prosecutor's denial is proper as there was no probable cause.

5.    To resolve the constitutionality issue of the questioned sections, the Supreme Court elucidated thus: the constitutional provisions must be understood as being parts of a greater whole. Stated differently, the intention of the Constitution as a singular unit must be taken into consideration.

    The Anti-Hazing Law aims to prevent organizations from making hazing a requirement for admission. By making hazing or initiation rites that cause physical and psychological harm a malum prohibitum, the law does not accept the defense that a person's desire to be part of an organization gives such group the license to injure the former.

    Thus, based on the foregoing discussion, Section 5 and Section 14 of the Anti-Hazing Law are not deemed bills of attainder.

Cherrie Mae Aguila-Granada

2020-12-19

Christian Val G Dionglay

Exam: quiz december 18, 2020

Word count: 346

Writing time: 58 minutes

Email: christianval4680@gmail.com

Class: Criminal Law Review

Teacher: Judge Ric S Bastasa

1.

    The act of Santiago threatening Indolencio, Diosetea and Vicente constitute a crime punishable under the revised penal code which is Grave Threats.

    His acts of threatening another with the infliction upon the person, honor or property of the victim or his family any wrong which constitute a crime, with or without asking for money and wether or not the purpose is achieve constitute the crime of Grave Threats. It is a crime againts personal liberty and security.

2.

         The elements of Grave Coercion are the following;

1. When any person prevents another from doing anything not prohibited by law or when someone compels another to do something againts his will wether or not it be right or wrong.

2. the prevention or compulsion is effected through violence and intimidation.

3. the person who restrains another has no authority to do so. or the act was not in accordance with the law.

    In the given situation, the violence though force that would  produce intimidation and that would control the will of the offended party is lacking. Shouting at the complainant with piercing looks is not enough. 

    The essential element of the crime of grave coercion is absent therefore i will not convict the accused for the said crime.

3.

    The charge is not proper, in a decided case, a crime of estafa was filed againts a UP regent to the Sandiganbayan. It was held that a UP Regent is a public officer and Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction  over crimes of estafa committed by public officer even though such public official may not have a salary grade 27.

4.

    Yes the denial of the motion for reconsideration is correct. In a decided case it was held that authenticating of photocopies of blotter entries does not amount to false certification under the law, the ORSP correctly found no probable cause.

5.

        In a decided case, it was held that Section 14 of RA 11053 or the Anti Hazing law is valid. its purpose is to suppress the escalation and encouragement of hazing, and to severely punish bystanders and watchers.

    

Christian Val G Dionglay

2020-12-19

cyrus tingcang

Exam: quiz december 18, 2020

Word count: 468

Writing time: 100 minutes

Email: cyrust2011@gmail.com

Class: Fourth year Juris Doctor

Teacher: Judge Ric Bastasa

1. 

The examinee respectfully submits that crimes committed are three counts of Attempted Homicide. As can be gleaned from the narration of facts, accused Santiago used his bolo and started the overt act of attacking the person of Indalecio and the latter's wife. He, however, failed to perform all the acts necessary to complete the crime of homicide due to the victimes' act of fleeing away from the accused. In the case of the third victim Vicente, the accused was able to thrust  his bolo against him. Nonetheless, there is no showing that the victime suffered fatal wounds. With respect to all victims, the accused's overt acts were accompanied with accused's intent to kill as can be inferred from his shouted statements which inevitably supports the conclusion that the crime is Homicide in its attempted stage.       

2.

The issue posed in the question should be resolved in the affirmative. Shouting at the complainant with piercing looks with threats of filing charges against a 23 year-old bank employee is more than enough to consitute compulsion by means of material force producing intimidation on the part of the complainant-victim. 

Under the prevailing jurisprudence, the following elements must be proved for there to be a conviction of the crime of Grave Coercion namely, 1. the person has been prevented by the offender from doing something not prohibited by law or compelled him to do something against his will whether it be right or wrong, 2. that the prevention or compulsion is done by the use of material force producing intimidation and that 3. the offender had no authority to do so.   

Taking into account the factual milieu in the case at hand, accuse Francis Lee's coviction is inevitable as his authorship of the crime of Grave Coercion is proven given the fact that he had no authority to compell complainant to do the acts out of intimidation.    

3. 

It is humbly submitted that crime of Malversation of Public Funds against accused Serana is not proper. This has to be so because the accused had no custody or control of funds in question on account of her  duties as a public officer. The narration is mute as to whether accused had the power to appropriate, misappropriate, much less,  consenting to the misappropriation of the subject funds.  

4. 

The denial of the Motion for Reconsideration is corret. What the law seeks to penalized under Article 171 of the Revised Penal Code is the unlawful act of falsifying a written document. At bar, complainant Cariaga only assails the veracity of what was written in the Barangay Blotter which is essentially a judicialfunction and not for the Office of Prosecutor to pass upon. Certainly, there is no showing the the accuseds Barangay Officials changed the entries in the said blotter and falsified the same. 

5.

   

cyrus tingcang

2020-12-19

Dexter Kim Patron

Exam: quiz december 18, 2020

Word count: 553

Writing time: 82 minutes

Email: dpatron200517@gmail.com

Class: Criminal Law Review

Teacher: Judge Ric Bastasa

1. Santiago committed grave threats

The law provides that any person who shall threaten another with the infliction upon the person, honor or property of the latter or of his family of any wrong amounting to a crime.

Santiago holding the boloo while shouting "patyon tikaw" running after Darong constitute a threat which to be inflicted upon Darong.

Santiago indeed committed grave threats.

2. The elements of grave coercion:

a. That a person prevented another from doing something not prohibited by law or that he compelled him to do something against his will, be it right or wrong.

b. That the prevention or compulsion be effected by violence, threats or intimidation.

c. That the person that restrained the will and liberty of another had not the authority of law or the right to do so.

The Accused cannot be convicted of Grave coercion as the RPC provides that Grave coercion is committed when a person without authority of law shall by means of violence, threats or intimidation prevent another from doing something not proohibited by law or compel him to do something against his will.

The shouting with peircing looks doesnot constitute intimidation nor threats as contemplated by law. The "threat to file charges against her" is not the threat as contemplated by law.

Therefore, he is not guilty of grave coercion.

3. No the charge is not proper since the offender is a private individuals thus they are guilty of estafa.

Estafa is committed when any person defraud another by any means mentioned... 

1.With unfaithfulness or abuse of confidence by misappropriating or converting to teh prejudice of another money or goods received by the ofender in trust or for admoinistration.

Hannah and her brother received the money from the Office of teh President with the intention of the repair of the building but  misappropriate such money defrauding the Office.

They are guilty of estafa.

4. The denial of the motion for reconsideraation is correct.

 as held by the Supreme Court that there was no motive on teh part of the respondents in making the blotter entries as they were done in good faith and it was done in the performance of the duties and without intention to malaign or defame Cariaga.

As slander by deeds is commited when the offender performs any act not included in any crime against honor, that such act is performed in teh presence of other person ans it will cast dishonor, discredit or contempt upon teh offended party.

There was no intent to dishonor nor discredit Cariaga in the entry of the blotter thus they are not guilty of slander by deeds.

5. The SC explained that the law is adequate to deter and prosecute hazing though it is far from perfect. It added that the intoxication, presence of non-residence or alumni fraternity members during the hazing should be considered as aggravating circumstance as it will increase the applicable penalties. It also mentioned that there should be penalty for non compliance of the notice requirement and another section mentioned  would be considered as psychological harm done to the victime of hazing. The Law is a movement against hazing and a response to the uproar against hazing. It demonstrates that there must  be another way of fostering brotherhood other than through the culture of violence and suffering.

Dexter Kim Patron

2020-12-19

eduardo luayon

Exam: quiz december 18, 2020

Word count: 334

Writing time: 154 minutes

Email: emanlu1962@yahoo.com

Class: IV

Teacher: Judge R. Bastasa

1. Santiago committed the crime of grave threats. In the crime of grave threats, the offender threatened another person with the infliction upon his person of a wrong which amounted to a crime and that the threat was not subject to a condition. In the case at bar, Santiago threatened to kill Indalecio, Dioseta who both scampered for safety. When he passed by Vicente, he also threatened him. These acts constitute grave threats.

2. Elements of grave coercion include the following

1st)

that a person is prevented from doing something not prohibited by law or compelled to do something against his will.

2nd)that the prevention or compulsion is effected by violence, threats or intimidation 3rd)that the person who restrains the will and liberty of another has no right to do so, ergo that the restraint is not made under authority of law or in the exercise of any lawful right

a)The accused could not be convicted of grave coercion. in the case at bar, shouting at the complainant with piercing looks and threats to file charges against her are not enough grounds to charge the accuse of grave coercion. 

3.The charge is not proper. Serana committed the crime of estafa. In the case at bar, serana is considered a public official and the crime was committed through fraud and by abuse of confidence hence she could be charge of estafa.

4.The denial of the MR of Cariaga is correct.  There was no improper motive on the part of the respondents in making the blotter entries as they were made in good faith. The respondents are just performing their official duties as barangay officials and they have no intention to dishonor Cariaga as such there was no probable cause to charge the respondents.

5. With the abolition of dealth penalty, heinous crimes became punishable by reclusion perpetua and as a deterrent to future offenders to the Anti hazing law a hefty sum of 3M is imposed as a fine by the Supreme Court.

eduardo luayon

2020-12-19

ferdinand solas

Exam: quiz december 18, 2020

Word count: 660

Writing time: 116 minutes

Email: ferdinandsolas55@gmail.com

Class: criminal law

Teacher: Judge Ric Bastasa

1.

    Under the facts given, Santiago committed the crime of grave threats.

    Under the Revised Penal Code, Grave threat is committed by any person who shall threaten another with the infliction the person, honor or property of the latter or his family of any wrong amounting to a crime.

    In this case, the act of Santiago charging his bolo towards the victims constitutes a threat with the infliction against their person amounting to a crime of homicide.

    Thus, Santiago committed the crime of grave threats.

2.

    Elements of Grave Coercion are, a.) a person is prevented from doing somethin not prohibited by law, or compelled to do do something against his will, whether it is right or wrong, b.) that prevention or compulsion is accompanied by violence, intimidation or threats.

    In this particular case, I would convict the accused petitioner of grave coercion.

    The shouting and piercing looks and threats of the petitioner to file charges against the offended party respondent is sufficient to constitutes grave coercion.

    Applying the above elements, The offneded party was compelled to do something against her will, accompanied by intimidation and violence. There is intimidation when one of the party is compelled by a reasonable and well grounded fear of an imminent and grave evil against his person or property. For there to be intimidation, material violence is not indispensable. Shouting with piercing looks and threats to file charges, produced fear in the mind of the offended party respondent which  restricts or hinders the exercise of her will

    Consequently, for these reasons, I would convict the accused of grave coercion.

3.

    Yes, the charge is proper. The committed is Malversatiion of Public funds and property.

    Under the Revised Penal, the crime of malversation is committed when a public officer by reason of his official duty is accountable for public funds or property, shall misappropriate the same, or through abandonment or negligent shall permit any person to take such funds or property.

    In the instant case, Eunice Serana, as UP student regent is a public officer. In the case of Geduspan v. People, the Supreme Court held that public officials includes other executive officials whose positions may not be be salary grade 27 or higher but who are by express provision of the law placed under the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan.  Serana falls within this officials, since she was appointed by then Pres. Estrada.

    Her acts of taking and misapproriating the amount donated by Pres Estrada intended for a specific project for their personal use and benefit, to the damage and prejudice of the government constitutes malversation.

    Therefore, the charge of malversation of public funds and property is proper.

4.

    The denial of the motion is correct.

    Under the law, entries made in the usual performance of a duty are deemed true and correct.

    Here, the entries were made in the performance of respondent's official duties and based on personal knowledge of what has been transpired.

    Thus, the denial is correct.

5.

    The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the two sections.

    The High Court declared that the constitutional presumption of innocence is not violated when there is a connection between the fact proved and the fact presumed. If the prima facie evidence that the accused is present during initiation, the conviction founded on such evidence will be valid. However, despite the disputable presumption that an accuse who is present in an initiation is a principal, it does not preclude the presentation of contrary evidence.

    The Court futher declared that code of omerta or the code of silence and secrecy are common characteristics of an organization, and these includes fraternities and sororities. It would be impossible for the state to prosecute offenders on offenses relating to frat violence if the prosecution is required to indicate every step of the plan initiation rite.

    Because of this, it has been held that the provision that presence during hazing is prima facie evidence of participation is constitutional.

    

    

ferdinand solas

2020-12-19

Florencio Saministrado Jr.

Exam: quiz december 18, 2020

Word count: 424

Writing time: 117 minutes

Email: saministradojrflorencio@gmail.com

Class: Criminal Law Review

Teacher: Judge Ric Bastasa

1.  The crime committed is grave threat, the law provides that any person who shall threaten another with an infliction of a crime and the harm or wrong is in the nature of a crime. In the case at bar, Santiago threaten Indalecio, his wife and Vicente to kill them, hence he may be guilty of grave threat, since there are indications that he will make good of his promise to kill them.

2. The elements of grave coercion are, that a person is prevented or compelled by another from doing something, it is accompanied by violence or intimidation and that the harm or wrong is direct and personnal.

In the case at bar, i would convict him because the environment is within his immediate control, thus creating an intimidating environment, hence by his shouting and piercing looks and threats to file charges against her sufficient to convict him of grave coercion.

3. The charge of malversation of Public Funds is not proper because in such a crime  it is necessary that the accused is a public officer, that he has in his custody funds or property by reason of his office and that the funds or property is a public funds for which he is accountable. In the case at bar, petitioner Serana is not a public officer being the president of the student council and the funds was given to her by President Estrada was not in a nature of public funds since it was not given by reason of his office nor was it solicited from  the public and if any she may be guilty of estafa since she misappropriated the money given to her for her personal benefits.

4. The law provides that the MTC has jurisdiction for crimes which has a penalty of not exceeding 6 years, in the case at bar the  crime of slander by deed and false certification carries a penalty of less than 6 years which is under the jurisdiction of the MTC, thus the resolution of the Regional State Prosecutor is final, therefore the denial of the motion for reconsideration is correct for the blotter entries are recordings of the facts stated therein and besides he still has a remedy under the law.

5. The law is constitutional because the presence of any person in the scene of the crime and not reporting it to the authorities amounts  to conspiracy by his silence and concealment of the crime committed in his presence, it is as if he agreed to  the commission of the offense. 

Florencio Saministrado Jr.

2020-12-19

Frilin Lomosad

Exam: quiz december 18, 2020

Word count: 570

Writing time: 76 minutes

Email: lomosadfrilinm@gmail.com

Class: Criminal Law Review

Teacher: Frilin Lomosad

1. 

    Santiago committed the crime of three counts of Grave Threats.

    

    As defined in the Revised Penal Code, Grave Threats is committed by any person who shall threaten another with the infliction of any wrong amounting to any crime upon the person or his family. It is considered consummated when the threats comes to the knowledge of the person being threatened.

    In the case at bar, it is clearly shown that Santiago threatened to kill Indalecio and his wife Dionesia and to inflict injuries towards Vicente. The crime wa consummated the moment the victims herein heared the threats as uttered by Santiago holding a bolo.

2. 

A - Under the law, the elements of Grave Coercion are the following:

    1. That a person is prevented by another from doing something not prohibited by law, or someone has compelled him to do something against his will, whether it may be right or wrong:

    2. That the restaint or the act compelling him is without authority or in the exercise of a lawful right; and

    3. That the prevention or compulsion is effected by violence, threats or intimidation.

B- No, I will not convict the accused of grave coercion in this particular case.

    In the case at bar, there was no violence, threat or intimidation involved that is so grave that would warrant the conviction of the accused. As a rule, for threats or intimidation to compel someone to do something, it must be unlawful or without authority for it to qualify as grave coercion. In the case however, the demand of Maria to return the proceeds of the check accompanied by a thread to file criminal charges was not improper. It cannot be considered as unlawful when you threat to someone. More so, when you have a legal ground to file a case against a cetain person.

3.

    No, the charge is not proper in the case at bar. It is the crime of estafa that is committed.

    As a rule, malversation is committed by an accountable public officer involving public funds or property under his custody and accountablity. Estafa can be committed by a non-accountable public officer or private individual involving funds or property of the government which he is not accountable for. Hannah was appointed by the President to be a student regent of UP. Board Regents performs tasks or functions similar to that of a board of trustee of a non-stock corporation. Hence, she must be accoutable for the funds that has been intrusted to her.

4. 

    Yes, the denial of the motion for reconsideration is correct. 

   

    In the case at bar, there is no probable cause for filing the complaint for the crimes of Falsification of Public Documents, False Certification and Slander by Deeds. It is clear from the facts that the respondents herein, upon making the blotter entries,  has no improper motives against the complainant and such entries was made in good faith and in the performance of their official duties as Barangay Captain and Secrectary.  There was no showing that such was done with the intention to dishonor or defame the petitioner herein. 

5. 

    The Suprreme Court resolved the the questioned sections of the Anti Hazing Law to be constitutional.

    As a rule, legislative acts has the presumption of constitutionality. For petitioner to declare such statutes as unconstitutional, they must have to show that the questioned statute have clearly and unmistakably breached the constitutional provisions.

Frilin Lomosad

2020-12-19

Immanuel Granada

Exam: quiz december 18, 2020

Word count: 745

Email: Giwu8686@gmail.com

Class: Criminal Law Review

Teacher: Judge Ric S. Bastasa

1. 

    Santiago committed three counts of Grave Threats.

    In Criminal Law, grave threat is committed by any person who shall threaten another with the infliction upon the person of any wrong amounting to a crime. This felony is consummated as soon as the threats come to the knowledge of the person threatened.

    In the set of facts given, it is obvious that Santiago threatened to kill Indalecio and Diosetea which would otherwise amount to homicide. He also threatened Vicente of cracking the latter's head which would otherwise amount to serious physical injuries. Moreover, theses threats which would otherwise amount to crimes punishable under the law are heard personally by the persons threatened.

    Therefore, in view of the above premises, Santiago committed three counts of grave threats.

2.

    The elements of grave coercion are:

(a)    A person is prevented to do something not prohibited by law or compelled to to something against his will, whether it be right or wrong;

(b)    The prevention or compulsion is by the use of violence; and

(c)    The person preventing or compelling is without authority of law.

    No. I would not covict the accused of grave coercion.

    It is settled in jurisprudence that in order for grave coercion to exist, violence is used as a means to compel the person to do against his will. The violence must be continuing such that the person is compelled to do an act against his will. Intimidation is not sufficient. Further, the law also provides that a threat to enforce one's claim through competent authority, if the act is just and legal, does not vitiate consent.

    In the instant case, the petitioner did not use violence to compel complainant to sign the withdrawal slip. A shout and a pierce look do not constitute violence. In fact, it was complainant who signed the slip freely and voluntarily. On the other hand, the threat of petitioner to file charges against complainant should she refuse to sign is just and legal which does not vitiate her consent. Thus, the accused-petitioner should be acquitted of the crime of grave coercion.

3.

    No. The charge is not proper. The crime committed is estafa.

    Estafa is committed when a person defrauded another by abuse of confidence or by means of deceit and by reason  thereof, damage capable of pecuniary estimation is caused to the offended party. 

    In the instant case, Serana, by means of her public office defrauded the Government by misappropriating the P15,000,000. 

    Under P.D. No. 1606, the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over offenses committed by the public officials in relation to their office. This includes estafa.

    It is settled in jurisprudence that a student regent is a public officer since he has been invested with sovereign functions of the Government for public welfare.

   

4.

    The denial of the motion for reconsideration is correct. The complaint should be dismissed for lack of probable cause.

    As held in once case, Slander by Deed and False Certification must be motivated by ill-will. Absence of any improper motive will cause the outright dismissal of the case for lack of probable cause.

    Here, there was no improper motive on the part of respondents in making the blotter entries as they were made in good faith. The making is by virtue of the duties imposed upon them by law, thus, it is well within in the performance of their official functions. They had no intention to put a stain on the honor and integrity of Cariaga. They were merely recording the reports made to them by the concerned residents and as were also personally confirmed by them.

5.

    The Supreme Court resolved that Sections 5 and 14 are constitutional.

    

    The Court has upheld the constitutionality of disputable presumptions in criminal laws. It elucidates that if a logical connection between a fact proved and a fact presumed exists, the constitutional presumption of innocence remained undisturbed. This is the disputable presumption.

        In the Anti-hazing law, the disputable presumption is that the presence of any person, even if such person is not a member of the fraternity, sorority, or organization, during the hazing is prima facie evidence of participation therein as a principal.  This is constitutional since it can be disputed by contrary evidence of having prevented the hazing or of promptly reporting the same to the law enforcement authorities.

    It was further held that the presence of one during the initiation is tantamount to conspiracy. Likewise, this is only a disputable presumption unless proven otherwise.

   

    

     

Immanuel Granada

2020-12-19

Karl Rigo Andrino

Exam: quiz december 18, 2020

Word count: 801

Writing time: 92 minutes

Email: karlrigo13@gmail.com

Class: Criminal Law Review

Teacher: Judge Ric S. Bastasa

1.

The crime committed by Santiago in the given set of facts are three counts of grave threats. Under the law, a person is liable for grave threats when he shall threaten another with the infliction upon the person, honor, or property of the latter or of his family of any wrong amounting to crime. The crime of grave threat is consummated from the moment the offended party has heard the utterance of the offender's threats.

In this case,  Santiago Paera had threaten to kill Indalecio Darong in one instance when  and in another instance threatened to kill Diosetea Darong, the wife of Indalecio when she inquired what was the matter. Also, he also threatened to crack the skull of Vicente when passed him. Such threats amounts to a crime penalized in the Revised Penal Code, specifically, homicide and serious physical injuries. Each of threats were uttered in three separate ocassions as a result, Santiago is liable for three counts of grave threats.

2.

a. The elements of grave coercion are: first, is that a person prevented another from doing something not prohibited by law or that he compelled him to do something against his will, whether it is right or wrong; second, is that the prevention or compulsion be effected by violence, threats or intimidation; and lastly, that restraint shall not be made under authority of law or in the exercise of a lawful right.

b. No, I will not convict the accused of grave coercion. All the elements of the case are absent in this case. First, Maria Chin was not compelled to sign the withdrawal slip to return the money she allegedly deposited a blank check in the said bank. Evidence shows that she voluntarily signed the withdrawal slips after the lapse of time after realizing that might be held liable for drawing a blank check that was dishonored in the said bank. As to the second element of the crime of grave coercion, there was no showing of any intimidation against the Maria Chin, evidence shows Francis Lee, merely informed her of act she violated and threatened to file a case against her if she would not have sufficient funds for the check. This does not constitute intimidation, the court ruled that for intimidation to be present it must be continuous. In this case, Francis Lee has done that only one time. Hence, Francis Lee is not guilty of the crime of grave coercion.

3.

Yes, the charge is properly filed with the Ombudsman because the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over cases the offender is a public officer and that the offense is committed in relation to their office. In this case, Hannah Serana is a student regent of UP. Such position is covered by the definition of a public officer mentioned in PD 1606. Further, such misappropriation for her personal benefit is committed in relation to her office. 

However, the crime committed by Hannah and her brother is estafa. Such funds were given to her for the renovation of the Vinzons Hall. She has the juridical and material possession of such funds for the purpose that the Vinzons hall will be renovated and later on will be named as Estrada Hall. The funds were then encashed by her brother, for their own personal benefit and thus, caused damages and prejudiced the goverment. Hence, they are guilty for the crime of estafa.

4.

Yes, the denial of the motion for reconsideration is correct. The Office of the Provincial Prosecutor has the discretion whether or not such motion for reconsideration will be granted or not. In this case, the office of the Provincial Prosecutor validly denied the motion for reconsideration on the ground that the blotter entries in the barangay were made in good faith. Further, the Regional State Prosecutor also denied his motion because there was no showing of ill-motives done by the barangay chairman and the baranagay kagawads. Furthermore, Cariaga cannot appeal it to the Court of Appeals on the ground of non-exhaustion of administrative remedies because he can still appeal it with Secretary of Justice.

5.

The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the disputed provisions of the Anti-Hazing Law. The Supreme Court held that because the law only provides for the act as prima facie evidence, it is still a disputable presumption that can be rebutted. Nevertheless, as the Court rationated that such conspiracy must still proved in court and it does not violate the Constitutional right of presumption of innocence. Further, the Court noted that since it does not necessarily mean that when an frat member is present in the inititaion, he is already guilty of the said acts but it is only a presumption that can be rebutted by evidence when such fratman has prevented the punishable acts listed in the Anti-Hazing Law. 

Karl Rigo Andrino

2020-12-19

Liwayway Elumbaring

Exam: quiz december 18, 2020

Word count: 483

Writing time: 74 minutes

Email: liwaywayelumbaring.realmotors@gmail.com

Class: Criminal Law Review

Teacher: Judge Ric Bastasa

1.) The crime committed by Santiago given these facts is Grave Threats under Article 282- the act threatened to be done is a crime like to kill, to burn or destroy property, to box or to inflict injuries. Since Santiago was holding his bolo while shouting like he will kill regardless if it is a woman or an erderly. Even chasing indalecio while holding a bolo, therefore he is liable of grave threats.

2.)  Grave coercion is committed by any person who, without authority of law, shall, by means of violence prevent another from doing  something not prohibited by law, or compel him to do something against his will whether it be right or wrong. In this particular case, i will will not convict the accused of grave coercion by simply shouting at the complainant with piercing looks and threats to file charges against her. Since the elements of grave coercion were not present, therefore, the accused cannot be convicted of  grave coercion.

3.) The elements of malversation of public funds under Article 217 of the Revised Penal Code are the following: That the offender is a public officer, that he had custody or control of funds or property by reason of duties of his office, that those funds or property were public funds  or propert for which he is accountable and that he appropriated, took misappropriated or consented or through abandonment or negligence, permitted another person to take them. Therefore, the charge is not proper. The crime committed should be estafa. The crimes of estafa and malversation are similar in nature in that both involve misappropriation of funds or property. However in the given case, the offender is not a public officer although the funds was from the office of the President. Hence, the crime committed should be estafa.

4. Yes, the denial of the motion for reconsideration is correct. A motion for reconsideration is a prime opportunity to seek relief from a court order. It is an application to the Court requesting that the court alter or amend a judgment or order, and it must be served no later than twenty days  (20) after the order has been served on all parties. Since, it was already lapsed, hence the denial of the motion for reconsideration is correct.

5.) The Supreme Court resolved that the school authorities including faculty members as well as barangay, municipal or city officials shall be liable as an accomplice and likewise be held administratively accountable for hazing conducted by the fraternities, sororities, other organizations, if it can be shown that the school or barangay, municipal or city officials allowed or consented to the conduct of hazing, but such officials failed to take any action to prevent the same from occuring or failed promptly report to the law enforcement authority if the same can be done without peril to their person or their family.

Liwayway Elumbaring

2020-12-19

Oscar Abadies Jr

Exam: quiz december 18, 2020

Word count: 480

Writing time: 97 minutes

Email: seidabaracso@yahoo.com

Class: Criminal Law Review

Teacher: Judge Bastasa, R.

1. Santiago committed three counts of grave threats. 

Under the law, any person who shall threaten another with the infliction upon the person of the latter or his family of any wrong amounting to a crime is liable for grave threat. It should be underlined that this felony is consummated as soon as the threats come to the knowledge of the person being threatened.

In this case, it is apparent that Santiago threat to kill Indalecio and Diosetea and crack open Vicente's skull amounting to homicide or serious physical injuries under the Revised Penal Code. These threats were consummated as soon as the said persons heard these threatening remarks at different points in time to these individuals, albeit in rapid succession, thereby committing three separate criminal liabilities.

2. Under the law, the elements of grave coercion are the following, viz:

a. That a person is prevented from doing something not prohibited by law or compelled to do something against his will, be it right or wrong;

b. That the prevention or compulsion is effected by violence, threats or intimidation; 

c. That the person who restrains the will and liberty of another has no right to do so.

In the instant case, the accused cannot be convicted with grave coercion, because coercion did not exist in this case, not to mention that the elements above are not present. Moreso, the fact that the complainant refused to sign the promissory note in spite of the alleged threats of the herein petitioner negates intimidation which is one of the elements of grave coercion.

3. No. The crime committed in this case is estafa that should be filed with the Sandiganbayan. 

It is settled that it is not only the salary grade that determines the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan, because those officers expressly placed under the jurisdiction of the said court may be tried thereover. 

In this case, Hannah's case falls under the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan since the said court has jurisdiction over presidents, directors or trustees or managers of GOCC, state universities, among others.

4. Yes, because under the law, and in order to expedite the disposition of appealed cases, all petitions for review of the resolutions of the Provincial Prosecutor in cases cognizable by the MTC, except in the NCR, shall be filed with the Regional State Prosecutor who would resolve the petition with finality.

5. The Supreme Court has upheld the the constitutionality of these provisions because according to them the constitutional presumption of innocence would not be violated when there is logical connection between the fact proved and the ultimate fact presumed. But the prosecution must prove the guilt of the accused. Also, the court explained that there is no objection to the passage of a law for as long as the presumption of innocence should be overcome by a contrary presumption founded upon the experience of human conduct. 

Oscar Abadies Jr

2020-12-19

Pamela Rubi-Anito

Exam: quiz december 18, 2020

Word count: 519

Writing time: 75 minutes

Email: pamela12813@gmail.com

Class: Political Law Review

Teacher: Judge Ric Bastasa

Problem 1

        Santiago committed three counts of grave threats against Indalecio, Diosetea and Indalecio. 

        Under the law, grave threat is committed by any person who shall threaten another with infliction upon his person, honor or property or that of his family of any wrong amounting to crime, subject to a condition (like money) or that the threat not being subject to a condition. The law also provides that the crime is consummated as soon as the threats come to the knowledge of the person threaten.

        In this case, Santiago threaten to kill all three victims and he even had succeeded in hurting Vicente when he repeatedly thrust his bolo towards the latter.  Hence, Santiago committed the crime of grave theats against the victims as provided for by law. 

Problem 2

    Under the law, the following are the elements of the crime of grave coercion:

        That a person prevented another from doing something not prohibited by law, or

        That person compelled another to do something against his will, whether such act is right or wrong; 

        That the compulsion or prevention is effected by threat, violence or intimidation; and,

    That the accused had no authority of law or right to demand such compulsion or prevention. 

        In this case, I would not convict the accused with grave coersion. The simple act of shouting at the complainant with piercing looks does not warrant grave coersion. Moreover, the act of Francis Lee, as the bank manager, to demand return of the amount encashed is not without authority of law. It is within his duty as the bank manager to demand the return of the money. Hence, he cannot be convicted of grave coercion under this case as provided for by law. 

Problem 3

Here, the charge against the accused is proper. 

Under the law and per jurisprudence, the Ombudsman found probable cause to indict the Serana with estafa before the Sandiganbayan. This case is within the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan, Serana, being a public officer and the offense complaint off was committed in relation to her office as the student regent of UP. 

Problem 4

Yes, the denial of the motion for reconsideration was correct. 

Under the law, it is within the duty of the office the prosecutor to deny complaints san probable cause. Here, there is no clear showing or evidence to support that the blotter entries were done with irregularity. 

Hence, the denial of the motion for reconsideration was proper under the law. 

Problem 5

    As to Section 14 of the law in questioned, the court ruled in favor of the Constitutionality of theprovision.

    Changing the penalty from reclusion perpetua to reclusion perpetua and P 3M fine is not unconstitutional. A penalty may ba considered unconstitutional when it is degarding or cruel and the fines imposed is unreasonable. In this case, the penalty and fines cannot be considered as cruel or unreasonable. The intent of the anti-hazing law is to prevent members of the fraternity or sorority from making hazing as a condition for admission. The penalty and fines provided in the Section 14 is well with the intent of the law. 

Pamela Rubi-Anito

2020-12-19

Paula Bianca Eguia

Exam: quiz december 18, 2020

Word count: 759

Writing time: 81 minutes

Email: pb.eguia@gmail.com

Class: Criminal Law Review

Teacher: Judge Ric Bastasa

1.

    Santiago committed three counts of grave threats. Under RPC, the crime of grave threats is committed by any person who shall threaten another person with the infliction upon the latter or his family of any wrong amounting to a crime. Grave threats is said to be consummated when the threats come to the knowledge of the person threatened. In this case, these threats were made at three different times to three individuals, even though they were done succession. Further, since the threat consists of killing Indalecio and Diosetea  and crack open the skull of Vicente, these are wrong on the person that will amount to a crime of homicide or physical injuries as penalized under the law. Hence, Santiago should incur three separate liabilities. 

2.

    The elements of grave coercion are the following: it is committed by any person without authority of law; he prevents another from doing something not prohibited by law or compel him to do something against his will, whether it be right or wrong; and it is committed by means of violence. 

    I would not convict the accused of grave coercion because the elements of the crime are not present in this case. Compelling someone by demanding to return the proceeds of the check and threatening to to file a case if she does not comply is not improper since it is not unlawful to give a threat to sue in order to demand payment. Neither was the complainant threatened  and compelled to stay in the bank by the accused as she went there in order to prove her innocence. With the foregoing circumstances, the accused cannot be held liable for the crime of grave coercion. 

3.

    No. The crime committed is estafa. Estafa is committed by any person who misappropriates or converts to the prejudice of another, money or property received by the offender in trust, or on commission or on administration or under any obligation involving the duty to make delivery or to return the same. In this case, petitioner, appointed as student regent of UP, committed the crime of estafa since she abused the confidence reposed upon her by misappropriating the financial assistance given by the office of the president for the renovation of the Vinzons Hall Annex. A student regent of UP is classified as a public officer who can be charged for the crime of estafa which shall be under the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman. Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over offenses whether simple or complexed with other crimes committed by public offcials. 

4.

    Yes, petition should be denied. Slander by deed is committed by any person who shall perform any act not not punished under the law which shall cast dishonor, discredit or contempt upon another person. There can be no crime of slander by deed when there was no improper motive in making the blotter entries as they were done in good faith and in the performance of their duties. Neither was such act committed with the intention to dishonor, malign or discredit Cariaga and the testimonies in the blotter entries were corroborroted by substantial evidence. 

5.

    The court upheld the constitutionality of the assailed sections. The constitutional presumption of innocence is not violated when there is a logical connection between the fact proved and the ultimate fact presumed. Petitioner fails to show that the logical relation between the fact proved, which is the presence of a person during hazing and the ultimate fact presumed, their participation in the hazing, is lacking. The sections also does not violate the Res Inter Alios Acta rule. Res Inter Alios Acta provides that a party's right shall not be generally prejudiced by another's act, declaration or omission. However, an exception to the rule is an admission by a conspirator relatin to a conspiracy. Conspiracy as a crime will render all the conspirators as co-principals regardless of the extent of their participation in the act or omission. Hazing is committed with conspiracy among those involved, from the planning, to inducing the victims up to the actual participation in the initiation rites. Thus, the rule on res inter alios acta does not apply. The court also ruled that the petitioner failed to show that the penalties imposed under the Anti Hazing Law is cruel punishment since they are also similar to those same offenses imposed under the RPC. The intent of the law is to prevent organizations from making hazing as a requirement for admission and to punish the conspiracy of silence that would result to impunity and shroud crimes that would be committed. 

Paula Bianca Eguia

2020-12-19

Perigrino Varquez

Exam: quiz december 18, 2020

Word count: 627

Writing time: 68 minutes

Email: varquez.perigrino@gmail.com

Class: Criminal Law Review

Teacher: Judge Ric S. Bastasa

1. Santiago committed the crime of grave threats. Under the law, when a person who is armed and used threatening words like "patyon tikaw!" and followed the person threatened is committing the crime of grave threats which is punishable by law. In this case, Santiago as Punong Barangay, who is under the law a person in authority as he is vested with jurisdiction of public function is more reason that the intended victim will be fearful of the utterance which he threatened to commit and more so that he is armed with a bolo when he uttered threatening words is enough to convict him of the crime of grave threats as there is an imminent danger. Thus, Santiago committed the crime of grave threats.

2. The elements of grave coercion as provided by law: that the person is uttering threatening words to commit a crime and that the crime to be committed is not immediate or to be committed in the future. In this case, I would not convict the accused of grave coercion because the threats are not enough to warrant the commission of the crime of grave coercion by just having piercing looks and threats to file charges.

3. No. The charge of malversation of public funds and property with the Office of the Ombudsman is not proper. According the the law for malversation of public funds and property to warrant there must be an appropriation intended for a specific public purpose and it was not used for that purpose as required by law. In the given facts, the accused as member of the Board of Trustees of UP has made a representation to then President Estrada that Vinzons Hall Annex of UP needs renovation and by this the President donated Fifteen Million Pesos (Ph15,000,000.00) on the proposed project to the foundation which was owned by the relatives of the accused which is a clear case of graft and corruption. The project after the lapse of time did not materialize despite the money intended on the project. The accused committed the crime penalized under the anti-graft and corrupt practices act because he has taken advantage of his position and has derived pecuniary gain and benefit resulting to the damage and injury of the interest of the government. Hence, the crime committed is violation under the anti-graft and corrupt practices act and not malversation of funds and property.

4. Yes. The denial of the motion for reconsideration is correct. The entries under the blotter are presumed correct because it is a narration of the incident that transpired as reported by the person. There is therefore a presumption of regularity that all the entries as stated in the blotter are true and correct. He who alleges of its falsity must present strong and convincing evidence that it was false. The allegation by Cariaga of its falsity must be rebutted by him with proof otherwise the entries therein shall stand as faithful and true narration of the incident. In the case at bar, he failed to rebut of its falsity thus, the denial of his motion for reconsideration is correct.

5. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the constitutionality of the two sections in the Anti-Hazing Law as amended by Republic Act No. 11053 because the rationale of this amendment is to send a strong message to all fraternity, sororities and organizations that death during initiation rites must be stopped. The penalty under the new amendments is heavier as compared to the old law in order to put an end to loss of lives during initiation rites and that the school shall be penalized if and when it will not do its part of monitoring the presence of fraternities, sororities and similar organizations inside the school.  

Perigrino Varquez

2020-12-19

Renante Carumba

Exam: quiz december 18, 2020

Word count: 433

Writing time: 94 minutes

Email: renantecarumba153@gmail.com

Class: Political Law Review

Teacher: Judge Ric Bastasa

1.

    Santiago committed three counts of grave threats. Under the law, Grave Threats can be committed by any person wholl shall threaten another with the infliction upon the person, the latter's family, any wrong amounting to a crime. In this case instant, Santiago actually threatened Indalecio, Diosetea and Vicente. The theatening utterances of Santiago against Indalecio and Dioseta already consumate the crimes of grave threats and the threatening words having been in three different points in time to three separate indivuduals. Thus, Santiago committed three counts of the crime of Grave Threats.

2. 

The following are the elements of Grave Coercion

    In this particular case, i will not convict the accused for the crime of Grave Coercion. Case law provides that a threat to enforce once's claim through competent authority, if the claim is just or legal, does not give rise to the crime of Grave Coercion.. Here, it is within the right threat Maria with a legal suit taking into consideration the nature and participation of the transaction. Hence, the demand that Maria must return the proceeds of the check accompanied by a threat to file criminal charges was not improper. there is nothing unlawful on the the threat to sue.

3.

Yes, the charge is proper. The alleged crime was committed in relation to accused office and was committed during the term of his office as a Student Regent. 

    Accused Serana, not being an accountable officer, committed the crime of simple estafa.

True that Serana position is not Salary Grade 27. However, under the law, it is not only the salary grade which determines the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman but also those public offrcers or employees enumarated by law, Here, being one of the members of the Board of Regents, accused Serana postion,  by provision of law, falls within the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman.

4.

Yes. the denial of the motion for reconsideration is correct. the law provides that the ruling of the OPP may be appealed to the by way of Petition for Review before the ORSP. Here, the law made no mention of the filing of the motion for reconsideration as a condition precedent. Here, Cariaga should have filed a verified petition for review to the ORSPL

5.

The Supreme Court resolves the constitutionality of the disputable presumption in criminal laws. it furhter ruled that the constitutional presumption of innocence is not violated when there is a logical connection between the fact proved and the ultimate fact presumed. notwithstanding the presence of prima facie evidence, however, the prosecution  must still prove the guilt of the accused beyong reasonable doubts. 

    

Renante Carumba

2020-12-19

REY GAVINO CADAG

Exam: quiz december 18, 2020

Word count: 445

Writing time: 113 minutes

Email: reygavinocadag@gmail.com

Class: REFRESHER

Teacher: JUDGE RIC BASTASA

1. In the case presented the crimes committed by Santiago against Indalecio is Grave Coercions because Santiago without an authority of the law prevented Indalecio of his lawful act of reconnecting the line and the criminal act of charging the bolo of Santiago and the shouting that he will kill Indaleo was immediate to do harm which is a crime that falls within the ambit of Grave Coercions.

For Dioseta , the crime charged against Santiago is also Grave Coercion. Same

For Vicente: the crime charged against Santiago is Attempted Homicide because there is an element of intent to kill by repeatedly thrusting the bolo and granting Vicente was not struck to death by the bolo or there was no fatal wounds or no wounds at all. there is already an overact of attempt to kill the person.

2. No. the action of the petitioner in shouting at the complainant with piercing looks is not sufficient to convict the manager of grave coercion because while it considered an intimidation against the empoyee, the said act is the immediate cause of the fault committed by the employee in her assigned task. the intimidation or threat should be made to the employee to do something against her will.

Element of Grave Coercion are the following;

first, the person without authority of the law prevent another person from doing something against his will.

second: the person in prevent the said person used threat, intimidation and violence.

3. The complaint of Malversation of Public Funds filed against Hannah Eunice Serana will not proper because the first element in the crime of malversation is that the accused must be a public officer, in the case at bar the accused is a student or a private individual, while she was appointed a student regent of UP, she is still considered a private citizen. The registration before the SEC is only to obtain permit that the said business has legal personality but it will vest her a title as government employee..

The Crime charged against the accused is Qualified Theft because she is entrusted to her the big amounts of funds of which she was the student regent of UP and said amount was used by her for her personal gain. There is failure on her part to account the said amount and with the trust and confidence entrusted to her, she therefore liable of Qualified Theft.

4. The denial of the motion for reconsideration is not correct because entries in the blotter are considered official and legal documents prevails over testimonial evidence. The Resolution dated July 28, 2014 must be set aside.

5. No. idea i have not read the case.    

REY GAVINO CADAG

2020-12-19

ROJEAN CULANAG

Exam: quiz december 18, 2020

Word count: 640

Writing time: 95 minutes

Email: rojeanculanag.rc@gmail.com

Class: CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW

Teacher: JUDGE RIC BASTASA

1.) Santiago Paera is liable for three (3) counts of Grave Threats.

    Under the Revised Penal Code, grave threat is committed by any person who shall threaten another with the infliction upon the person of any wrong amounting to a crime.

    Here, it appears that Santiago threaten to kill Indalecio and Diosetea and crack open the skull of Vicente and these threats amounts to a crime of either homicide or serious physical injuries.

    Thus, having uttered the threats at different points in time to the three persons, Santiago incurred three (3) counts of Grave Threats.

2.)

    The elements of grave coercion are the following, to wit:

    a. That a person is prevented by another from doing something which the law does not prohibit or compelled to do something against his will, whether it be right or wrong;

    b. That there is violence, threats or intimidation employed; and

    c. That the person who restrains the will of another has no right to do so.

    In the present case, I will not convict the accused for the crime of grave coercion.

    The demand made by the petitioner against the respondent requirng the latter to return the proceeds of the check accompanied by a threat to file criminal charges against her was not improper or illegal. There is nothing unlawful on the threat to sue.

    Thus,  I will not convict the accused for the crime of grave coercion.

3.)

    a.) No, the charge of Malversation of Public Funds and Property is improper since Hannah Eunice D. Serana had no custody of the public funds allegedly embezzled.

    The Supreme Court has held that in order for a person to be held liable for malversation, the law requires, among others, that the said person must have a custody or control of public funds or property by reason of his office.

    Here,  Hannah Eunice D. Serana was merely a student regent of UP and as such, she has no  custody of the subject public funds.

    Hence,  the charge of Malversation of Public Funds and Property is improper.

    b.) The possible crime committed by  Hannah Eunice D. Serana is estafa.

    Under the Revised Penal Code, estafa is committed when the accused defrauded another by abuse of confidence or by means of deceit which resulted to the damage and prejudice of the offended party.

    Here, deceit was present since Hannah succeeded in obtaining the amount in question from the government under the pretext that the money will be used for the renovation of the Vinzons Hall Annex which, however, did not materialized.

    Hence,  Hannah Eunice D. Serana committed the crime of estafa.

4.) Yes, the denial of the motion for reconsideration is proper.

    Well-settled is the rule that in the power to determine probable cause or in ascertaining whether or or not a crime has been committed and that the accused is probably guilty thereof and should be held for trial is discretionary on the part of the prosecutor. The prosecutor cannot be compelled to file a case if, in his judgment, there is no sufficient evidence to support the same.

    Here, the investigating prosecutor correctly dismissed the case since the questioned blotter entries were all made in good faith and merely for recording purposes; done in the performance of respondents' official duties; and based on personal knowledge of what actually transpired.

    Thus,  the denial of the motion for reconsideration is proper.

5.) In resolving the constitutionality of Anti-Having Law as amended by R.A. No. 11053, the Supreme Court held that Section 4 and 14 thereof does not violate the constitutional presumption of innocence.

    Accordingly, the constitutional presumption of innocence is not violated when there is logical connection between the fact proved and the ultimate fact presumed.

    Thus, the existence of disputable presumption does not exclude the presentation of evidence.

ROJEAN CULANAG

2020-12-19

Vera Nataa

Exam: quiz december 18, 2020

Word count: 551

Writing time: 117 minutes

Email: vnataa@gmail.com

Class: Criminal Law Review

Teacher: Judge Ric S. Bastasa

1.

Santiago committed three counts of grave threats. As defined under the RPC, the crime of grave threats is committed when the offender threatened another person with infliction of any wrongful act amounting to a crime, and is consummated as soon as such threat comes to the knowledge of the offended person.

In this case, Santiago threatened to kill Indalecio and Diosetea, and to crack open the skull of Vicente. Such threats amount to three separate criminal liabilities notwithstanding its rapid succession. Moreover, Santiago cannot claim for justifying circumstance for having acted in his official function as punong barangay to protect his constituents. He exceeded the bounds of his authority the moment he threatened the offended parties with his bolo.

2.

The elements of grave coercion are: (1) a person is prevented by another person from doing something which is not prohibited by law or is compelled to do something against his will; (2) there is violence, force or intimidation; and (3) the offender has no right to restraint or compel the offended party.

In this case, coercion did not exist. In the abovementioned elements, it is necessary that there must be intimidation, force or violence to compel another person to do something against his will. It must be noted that there is intimidation when a person is compelled by a reasonable and well-grounded fear of an imminent danger or grave evil upon his person or property.

In the case at bar,  the complainant was merely informed about the subject fake dollar check that was deposited with said bank upon her assurance that it was genuine. The complainant was not compelled into signing the withdrawal slip, but she acted freely and voluntarily in executing her affidavit and in returning the money equivalent of the subject check. The mere "shouting at the complainant with piercing looks" and "threats to file charges against her" is not a threat actionable as a crime of grave coercion. There is nothing unlawful on such threat to sue.   

3.

The charge should be estafa. Hannah Eunice as a public officer  defrauded the government by false pretense and fraudulent representation as her power and influence, that the renovation of Vinzons Hall Annex of the University of the Philippines will be renovated, which induced the President to part P15,000,000 resulted from such false pretenses for their own personal use and benefit, and despite several demands to return said amount, the accused failed to do so which resulted damage and in prejudice of the government.

4.

No, the complete denial of the motion for reconsideration is not proper. The petition for the crime of Falsification of Public Documents may only be dismissed on the ground of non-exhaustion of administrative remedies since it may still be referred to the Secretary of Justice. However, the the petition for the ORSP ruling for the crimes of False Certification, and Slander by Deed may be raised before the higher courts. 

5.

The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the questioned sections. Citing several jurispridence, the Court held that prohibition against cruel punishment is meant at the character of the punishment rather than its severity. Imposition of severe penalty is inadequate ground to declare a law unconstitutional. It is not cruel and degrading but rather is meant to suppress the evil that demoralizes the society. 

Vera Nataa