Aisha Mie Faith Fernandez

Exam: QUIZ CRIMINAL LAW DEC 14 2020

Word count: 823

Writing time: 115 minutes

Email: mie.aisha23@gmail.com

Class: Criminal Law Review

Teacher: Judge Ric S. Bastasa

If I were the Judge, I would not issue the warrant of arrest based on the information filed. The accused should not be charged with estafa as defined and penalized under article 315, par 2 (d) of the RPC, but rather she should be charged of violation of BP BLG 22 or the Anti-Bouncing Checks Law.

There is violation of the anti-Bouncing Checks Law, when any person who, knowing that the insufficiency of his fund or credit with the drawee bank, makes or draws and issues any check to apply on account or for value, which check is subsequently dishonored for insufficiency of funds. What is being punished here is the issuance of a check, with the knowledge of the insufficiency of funds where such amount may be drawn. On the other hand, to be liable for estafa through issuance of bouncing check, the accused must have used the check in order to defraud the offended party in order to induce him to part her property to the accused. What the law punishes is the fraud or deceit and not mere issuance of the worthless check.

In the given case, the check was not issued by the accused in order to induce the offended party to enter into the transaction but, it was issued after the transaction has transpired. Hence, the offended party was not induce to enter into the transaction through issuance of the check. The liability of the accused should be anchored to the issuance of a worthless check with the knowledge of its insufficiency which in violation of the Anti-Bouncing Checks Law.

The crimes committed are, estafa and illegal recruitment committed by a syndicate and in large scale.

Estafa is committed by any person who defrauds another with unfaithfulness or abuse of confidence by means of fraudulent acts executed prior to or simultaneously with the commission of the fraud or through fraudulent means. On the other hand, illegal recruitment is committed by any non-licensee or non-holders of authority including the commission of any of the prohibited acts provided law. Illegal recruitment is committed by a syndicate if carried out by a group of three or more persons conspiring with each other to carry out any of the unlawful acts, enterprise or scheme. Furthermore, illegal recruitment in large scale is committed if committed against three or more person individually or collectively.

In the case at bar, the accused having no authority to recruit defrauded the complainants by promising them for overseas employment for a fee. The complainants by the fraudulent acts of the accused was induced to pay for the placement fees.Hence, they are liable for the crime of estafa under the Revised Penal Code. Furthermore, they can also be held liable for illegal recruitment under the Labor Code, for recruiting and promising the complainants for employment without the authority of doing so.

III

In the given case, no crime has been committed by the accused ITI and Supertrac.

For syndicated estafa to prosper it must be committed by a group of five or more persons to defraud another with unfailthfulness or abuse of confidence by means of false pretenses or fraudulent acts executed prior to or simultaneoulsy with the commission of fraud, and such defraudation results in the misappropriation of money or property contributed by stockholders or members of cooperatives, rural banks, and associations.

The facts of the case shows that there was no defraudation made by ITI and Supertrac to defraud its members. Furthermore, there is no misappropriation of funds of BATELEC II. Hence the crime of estafa cannot prosper.

A recidivist is one who, at the time of his trial for one crime shall have been previously convicted by final judgement of another crime embraced in the same title of the RPC. There must be two convictions. In recidivism the crime committed must be felonies, it does not prescribe because there is no time limit between the first and second convictions.

In reiteracion, the offender must have been previously punished. The first offense must be with an equal or greater penalty, or he must have committed two or more crimes previously where he has meted lighter penalty. In reiteracion it requires service of sentence and the offense need not be under the same title of RPC, what matters is the penalty served.

On the other hand, habitual deliquency is a special aggravating circumstance which has its own penalty which increases with the increase in the number of convictions and cannot be offset. In habitual deliquency, there must be at least three convictions within the period of ten years from the date of the released or last conviction of the crimes of falsification, robbery, estafa, theft, serious or less serious physical injuries.

A habitual deliquent is not necessarily a recedivist. Recidivism as an aggravating circumstance is not a factor which necessarily forms part of habitual deliquency. The elements constituting them is different from each other.

Aisha Mie Faith Fernandez

2020-12-16

Ameliano Himang

Exam: QUIZ CRIMINAL LAW DEC 14 2020

Word count: 807

Writing time: 129 minutes

Email: mhelghimang49@gmail.com

Class: Criminal Law Review Class

Teacher: Judge Ric Bastasa

Ameliano G.Himang

Criminal Law Review Class

1. If I were the Judge, I will not issue the warrant of arrest.

Under the law on estafa, any person who shall defraud another by postdating a check, or issuing a check in payment of an obligation the offender knowing that at the time he had issue the said check he had no funds in the bank or the funds deposited by him were insufficient to cover the amount of the check and without informing the payee of such circurmstances. Under the said provision, the supreme court ruled that mere issuance of a check with the knowldge on the part of the drawer that he had no funds to cover its amount and without informing the payee of such scenario, it does not constitute the crime of estafa if the check was payment of the pre-existing obligation. Futhermore, inorder that a deceit to constitute the crime of estafa should be the effecient cause of the defraudation and should either be prior to or simultaneous with the act of fruad.

Here, Daylinda Lagua issued a a post-dated check in the amount of P30,000.00, payable to Marcos Chua as payment for her pre-existing obligation, however, upon presentment after its due date, the check was dishonored by the drawee bank for issufficient funds. And the notice was sent to Daylinda lagua demanding payment therefore, but she failed to pay. It is clear that there was an absence of deceit to constitute the crime of estafa and the issuance of a check was not the efficient cause of defraudation and it is not prior to or simultaneous with the act of fruad.

The crimes committed by the accused is illegal recruitment committed by a syndicate.

Under the law, illegal recruitment is deemed committed by a syndicate if carried out by a group of 3 or more persons conspiring and confederating with one another, and they have no valid license or authority required by law to enable them to lawfully engaged in recruitment and placement activities.

Here, the crime were committed by more than 3 persons in the named of Rosemarie Robles, Bernadette Miranda, Nenita Catacotan and Jojo Resco and Beth Temporada. They were employees of Travel and Tours Corporation one of the agencies which was prohibited under the law to engage in recruitment and placement of workers. Hence, they crime committed is Illegal recruitment committed by a syndicate.

3. The crimes committed in the case at bar may give rise only to Civil Liablity. Under the law without proof of misappropriation or conversion the crime of estafa under Article 315 (1) B, much less sydicated estafa obviously cannot hold. The evidence of the prosecution only tends to establish that the petitioners have committed various lapses and irregularities in approving the ITI Contract and that such lapses and irregularities in turn caused some prejudice to BATELEC 11. Such evidence by itself is not enough for purposes of criminal prosecution for ESTAFA.

In reiteracion the accused in on trial for an offense; he previuosly serve sentence for another offense to which the law attaches an equal or greater penalty; or two or more crimes to which it attaches a lighter penalty than that for a new offense; and he convicted of the new offense.

In recidivism, the offender is on trial for one crime; he was previously convicted by final judgment of another crime; both first and second offenses are embraced in the same title of the revised penal code; and the offender is convicted of the new offense.

In habitual delinquency, within the period of ten years from the date of his release or last conviction; of the crimes of falsification, robbery, estafa, theft, serious or less serious physical injuries; he is found guilty of the said crimes a third time.

Yes, habitual delinquent necessarily a recidivist. example if the first conviction is serious physical injuries, second is for robbery, theft or estafa, and third is for falsification the moment the habitual delinquent is convicted in his fourth conviction is one of the crimes mentioned of the three categories, he is also considered a recidivist.

In a conditional pardon no need for conviction by final judgment before a petitioner can be validly rearrested and recommitted for violation of the terms of his conditional pardon as long as he violated the conditioned set forth in the pardon, because in acceptance of a pardon he binds all the condition, limitations and restrictions contained therein. And accordingly he can be rearrested and serve the balance of his original sentence.

Here, his right to procedural due process were violated, he was not given a day in the court to be heard as to the violation of the conditioned set forth in the pardon. The essence of due process is the opportunity to be heard.

Ameliano Himang

2020-12-16

Ariel Acopiado

Exam: QUIZ CRIMINAL LAW DEC 14 2020

Word count: 1007

Writing time: 106 minutes

Email: spitfirea211@gmaill.com

Class: JD-IV

Teacher: Judge Ric S. Bastasa

1. No. I will not issue an arrest warrant.

It is submitted that estafa has the following elements: (a) postdating or issuance of a check in payment of an obligation at the time the check was issued, (b) insufficiency of funds unpaid for after notice for three days by the bank or payee which gives presumption to deceit or fraud and (c) damage to the payee. Further, case law provides that estafa in the issuance of post-dated checks as worded by the law shall only apply when the post-dated check was issued at the time an obligation was contracted and not a pre-existing obligations.

In this case, it is clear that Lagua did not issue the check at the time the obligation,which was the price of the logging supplies, was contracted. Since the law mandates that the check must be issued upon the contracting of the obligation to even qualify for estafa, the same cannot be held here. Penal laws are contrued favorably to the accused, hence, Lagua must not be held liable for estafa as alleged in the information.

2. The crimes committed are illegal recruitment in large scale and estafa.

Recruitment is defined as the act of canvassing, enlisting, contracting, transporting, utilizing, hiring and procuring workers. Under the law, illegal recruitment in large scale occurs when: (a) offender has no valid license or authority to conduct recruitment activities, (b) a person with a licnese undertakes recruitment activities but commits those prohibited recruitment activities under the law and (c) when such acts were committed against 3 or more persons.

Additionally, estafa occurs when (a) one defrauds another or abuses confidence given to him, (b) the offended party suffers damage capable of pecuniary estimation.

In this case, it is clear that accused performed acts that would qualify as recruitment under the law in as much as they promised the victims employment abroad which were in fact unfulfilled. Further, the acts the accused did qualify as estafa since there was deceit employed by them in representing that they could send the victims abroad when they did not. Finally the accused did not return the funds of the victims which caused the latter damages capable of pecuniary estimation.

3. There was no crime committed.

In the same case of similar import, officials of BATELEC were charged with syndicated estafa or simple estafa, both which were dismissed. The same will be considered here as alleged in the information (there being none in the question)

Under the law syndicated estafa occurs when: (a) there is estafa fulfilled by its elements of: (i) fraud or abuse of confidence and (ii) damage to victims capable of pecuniary estimation, (b) when the same is committed by at least 5 persons, (c) having formed a bank, association, samahang nayon, corporation, cooperative or any other that solicits funds from the general public and (c) the association was specifically made to defraud its own stockholders, members, public, etc. Further for the charge of estafa to prosper, it must be shown that the one who defrauded the other and who has received property has juridical possesion of the same. Juridical possesion is title that can be enforced by the transferee even on the transferor.

In this case, BATELEC cannot be made liable for simple estafa much more syndicated estafa. The officials of BATELEC whom are charged cannot be responsible even for simple estafa since they do not have juridical possession of the property merely receiving them for the company. Much of the allegations can be attributed to mismanagement on the part of the officers and not fraudulent in character. Further, even assuming arguendo that the requisites for estafa were present, it still cannot qualify as a syndicate since BATELEC was not in any way formed from the start with the intention of defrauding its members. Hence, there is no criminal liability only a civil one.

4. Reiteracion refers to crimes committed but not in the same title of the Revised Penal Code. Recidivism refers only to crimes committed in the Revised Penal Code. Habitual delinquency on the other hand refers only to serious and less serious physical injuries, robbery, theft, estafa and falsification.

Reiteracion does not concern the number of crimes for as long as there is one in law that attaches an equal or greater penalty or at least two if a lighter penalty. Recidivism requires at least two offenses, wherein one is convicted for one offense while trial for another crime is ongoing. Habitual delinquency requires three offenses (among those given) occuring within 10 years of last conviction of one another,

Reiteration and Recidivism both has the effect of an aggravating circumstance while habitual delinquency adds to the penalty of the accused.

5. (1) Conviction is not necessary for recommittal.

As provided by law, the grant of conditional pardon is an executive function, which is beyond the purview of the courts being non-justiciable in nature and solely on the wisdom of the chief executive. A conditional pardon or the breach of its condition is subject to the President's discretion, hence cannot be subject to judicial inquiry.

Clearly in this case, the President found the accused violating the conditions of the pardon, hence the revocation. Such cannot be inquired on by the courts since the same is vested in the President by the Constitution as a power of a co-equal branch of government.

(2) Due process is not violated.

Under the law, due process is to the opportunity to be given day in court and to defend one's self against accusations. Such is observed under a trial against the accused. Before a pardon can even be given, there must have been a conviction and such a conviction with trial is with due process. Accordingly, a presidential pardon is an exercise of generosity on the part of the chief executive, exercising his constitutional prerogative. There is no need for trial and hearing on the part of revoking a pardon since none was required in the Constitution and the same has already been afforded to the accused in trial.

Ariel Acopiado

2020-12-16

Arnold Bongcayao

Exam: QUIZ CRIMINAL LAW DEC 14 2020

Word count: 372

Writing time: 54 minutes

Email: arnoldbongcayao@gmail.com

Class: Criminal Law Review

Teacher: Judge Ric Bastasa

1. The issuance of warrant of arrest is proper.

Under the law, issuance of postdated checks which were later dishonored for insufficiency of funds constitutes a crime of violation of BP 22 or estafa.

BP 22 or the Bouncing Checks law punishes any person who makes or draws and issues any checks to apply on account of or for value, knowing at the time of issue that he does not have sufficeint funds for the payment of such check upon its present.

This is the case on the facts presented. Thus, warrant of arrest for Daylinda Lagua is proper.

2. All of the elements of syndicated estafa are present in the case.

Under Art. 315, any person who shall defraud another by any means mentioned below:

a) By means of any of the of the following false pretenses or fraudulent acts executed prior to or simultaneously with the commission of the fraud,

b) By using a fictitious name or falsely pretending to possess power, influence, qualifications, property, etc.

3. The crime committed is syndicated estafa. It is committed when fraud is employed to the prejudice of another.

It may be committed in several ways, such as a) through unfaithfulness or abuse of confidence, b) by false pretenses or fraudulent acts executed prior to or simultaneous with the commission of the fraud, c) by other fraudulent means, d) by swindling or other deceits.

Estafa is syndicated when five or more persons group together with the intention of carrying out the unlawful or illegal act or transaction.

4. Reiteracion is a circumstance, where the accused at the time of the trial for an offense has been previously served a sentence to which the law attaches an equal or greater penalty than that attached to the second offense.

In recidivism, the accused was convicted of the first crime by final judgment at the time of the trial of the second crime. While in habitual delinquency, there must be at least three crimes committed.

5. The violations will forfeit the conditional pardon.

Notice to the accused is no longer needed because it is involves a discretionary act of the President. It is absolute and it is not subject to judicial review as mandated by the Constitution.

Arnold Bongcayao

2020-12-16

BOBBY BORCES

Exam: QUIZ CRIMINAL LAW DEC 14 2020

Word count: 994

Email: borcesbobby@gmail.com

Class: CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW

Teacher: JUDGE RIC S. BASTASA

(1)

If I were the Judge, I will issue the warrant of arrest against Daylinda A. Lagua. The Rules of Court provide that upon receipt of the record of the case, the Judge to whom the case was filed shall evaluate the entire record of the case including the resolution of the investigating prosecution and its corresponding documentary attachments. On the basis of that evaluation, if the Judge is convinced that probable cause exists that the accused is probably guilty and should be held for trial, then the Judge shall issue a warrant of arrest if the accused is not yet under the custody of the law or a commitment order should the accused is already under the custody of the law.

In the case at bar, judicial evaluation on the allegation contained in the information, it is submitted that probable cause exists warranting the issuance of a Warrant of Arrest against accused Daylinda A. Lagua. Firstly, accused Daylinda A. Lagua issued a post dated check dated August 24, 1974 in payment of her obligation in favor of the complainant; secondly, the issued check bounce for insufficiency of funds; and thirdly, there were repeated demands for her to make good the check but to no avail as she refused and failed to make any payment. All these circumstances tend to prove that there is a clear case of estafa, and therefore probable cause exists against the said accused.

Viewed thereof, for reasons above stated, as a Judge, I will issue a Warrant of Arrest against Daylinda A. Lagua.

(2)

Given the foregoing facts, the crime committed by the accused and appellant is syndicated illegal recruitment.

Under the law, syndicated illegal recruitment is committed by a group of three (3) or more persons conspiring or confederating with one another. Here, there were five accused involved in the recruitment of the complainants. By failing to send all the complainants to their area of destination abroad, it is presumed that the accused have no valid license or authority to enable them to lawfully engage in the recruitment and placement of workers. Thus, all accused, by conspiring each other, clearly committed the crime of syndicated illegal recruitment.

(3)

It is submitted that given the foregoing facts, the crime committed by the Directors of BATELEC II is violation of R.A. NO. 3019 or the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. It must be stressed that BATELEC II is an Electric Cooperative created pursuant to the law to cater the electricity needs of the community. It is basically a government owned and controlled corporation as it is imbued with national interest.

Since the said directors have given unwarranted benefits to the involved companies despite its seeming lack of qualifications aside from the fact that there are a lot of anomalies in the mentioned transaction thereby causing undue injury or damage to the populace including the government, it goes without saying therefore, that these directors of BATELEC II committed the crime of Violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. They should he held for trial therefore pursuant to this Act known as Act No. 3019.

(4)

Reiteracion, recidivism and habitual delinquency may be distinguished as follows:

In reiteracion, it is a circumstance where the offender, at the time of his trial for an offense, has been previously served a sentence to which the law attaches an equal or greater penalty than that attached by law to the second offense, or for two or more offenses, in which the law attaches a lighter penalty; while in recidivism, it is one who at the time of his trial for one crime, shall have been previously convicted by final judgment of another crime embraced in the same title of the Code, and in habitual delinquency, a person is deemed to be habitual delinquent, if within a period of ten years from the date of his last release or last conviction of the crime of robbery, theft, estafa, or falsification, he is found guilty of any of said crimes a third time or oftener.

The effect of all these to the accused is that these will serve as aggravating circumstances against the accused. Meaning, if these aggravating circumstances are not off-set by any mitigating circumstances, then the penalty that should be meted out against the accused should in its maximum period.

(5)

(1) It is not necessary that there must be conviction of a crime before the petitioner can be validly rearrested and recommitted for violation of his conditional pardon and for him to serve the balance of his original sentence. It has to be stressed that the conditional pardon granted to the petitioner is only a mere privilege and not a right. And so, being a mere privilege, the granting authority can withdraw it especially when there is a violation of the condition imposed against the petitioner. By stating in the condition that he should not violate any of the penal laws of the Philippines would not mean that he should be convicted first. It is enough that he was charged for allegedly committing a crime for him to violate the condition imposed against him.

As far violation of due process, the same is not also present. The petitioner cannot cry afoul that he was denied due process when his conditional pardon was ordered cancelled by the President because as a grantee of the conditional pardon, such granting of pardon is only a mere privilege accorded to him. Being a mere privilege, at any time, as when there is violation of the conditions set forth in the pardon, the granting authority may cancel or withdraw the same without violating the due process clause of the constitution. Further, the petitioner is not under any indictment, be it criminal or civil, when he violated the conditions of the conditional pardon. Otherwise stated, the pardoning authority simply cancels the same if there is a violation to the imposed conditions.

Thus, due process is not violated here.

BOBBY BORCES

2020-12-16

Cherrie Mae Granada

Exam: QUIZ CRIMINAL LAW DEC 14 2020

Word count: 944

Writing time: 144 minutes

Email: cherriemae.aguila@gmail.com

Class: Criminal Law Review

Teacher: Judge Ric S. Bastasa

1. I will not issue the warrant of arrest, if I were the judge.

As clearly stated in the RPC, estafa may be committed by any person who shall defraud another by means of issuing a postdated check or issuing a check as payment of an obligation when the offender has no funds or insufficient funds in the bank to cover the amount of the check. However, for deceit to prosper, there must be a showing that the drawer derives material benefit from the issuance of the check. To constitute estafa, deceit should be the cause of the fraud.

From the foregoing facts, it is evident that the accused issued a postdated check which was later dishonored for insufficiency of funds. However, deceit is not evident in the acts of Lagua since her issuance is not the means to obtain consideration. Thus, a warrant of arrest is not proper.

2. The accused committed the separate crimes of illegal recruitment committed by a syndicate and estafa simultaenously.

Under the Labor Code, any recruitment activity which shall be undertaken by non-licensees or non-holders of authority shall be deemed illegal and punishable. Moreover, the same law provides that when such act is committed by a syndicate or in large scale, such is considered an offense involving economic sabotage and thus penalized with higher penalty. Illegal recruitment is deemed committed by a syndicate if carried out by a group of three or more persons. Illegal recruitment is deemed committed in large scale if committed against three or more persons individually or as a group.

As for the crime of estafa, the RPC provides that it shall be committed by any person who shall defraud another by means of false pretenses or fraudulent acts executed prior to or simultaenously with the commission of the fraud by falsely pretending to possess power, business, qualifications or by means of other similar deceits.

It can be inferred from the facts that the five accused are non-holders of authority or non-licensees in recruiting or placing the five complainants for overseas employment since the latter were never able to leave or deployed. Thus, a crime of illegal recruitment committed by a syndicate is the proper crime to file. Moreover, as the acts of collection of placement fees were done fraudulently by means of false pretenses as to the agency's authority to recruit, a case of estafa can also be filed simultaneously.

3. The Court ruled that the accused may only be held civilly liable for damages to BATELEC II due to some lapses and irregularities regarding the contracts, but not criminally liable in the charge of syndicated estafa.

Under the law, any person or persons who shall commit estafa or other forms of swindling as defined in the Revised Penal Code shall be punished by life imprisonment to death if such act is committed by a syndicate. Such syndicate consists of five or more persons formed with the intention of committing the unlawful act or transaction, and such defraudation results in the misappropriation of funds contributed by stockholders, members of samahang nayon, rural banks, farmers' associations, cooperatives, or funds solicited by associations from the general public.

In this case however, the Court held that although there were five or more directors invloved and BATELEC II is a cooperative, there was no misappropriation or conversion of funds present. BATELEC II was not used by the directors as a means to defraud the members from their contribution.

4. Reiteracion is a form of habituality in the commission of offenses where the offender has been punished and has served his sentence. His first offense with equal or greater penalty or he has previously committed two or more crimes with lighter penalty. This form of habituality involves felonies and offenses.

Recedivism is another form of habituality wherein the offender, during the trial of one crime, shall have been previously convicted by final judgment of another crime under the same title. This form of habituality invloves felonies.

Habitual deliquency takes place when a person, if within a period of 10 years from the date of his release or last conviction of the crimes of Falsification, Robbery, Estafa, Theft, Serious Physical Injuries, or Less Serious Physical Injuries, is found guilty of any of the said crimes third time or oftener. This form of habituality involves felonies.

Consequently, since the crimes enumerated under the purview of Habitual Delinquency fall under three different titles in the RPC, a habitual deliquent is not necessarily a recedevist. However, an offender may be a recedevist and habitual delinquent at the same time if he was convicted for the third time of the crimes within the same title.

Recedivism is a generic aggravating circumstance which may be offset by an ordinary mitigating circumstance, while habitual deliquency cannot be offset since it is a special aggravating circumstance. As for reiteracion, it is a

(1) Conviction by final judgment is not necessary for rearrest.

Case law has established that determination of the existence of breach of condition of a pardon and its corresponding consequence may either be a judicial act or a purely executive act. The former needs trial and subsequent conviction of the violation of the conditional pardon as provided in the RPC. However, the latter needs no judicial pronouncement of guilt of subsequent crime or conviction by final judgment.

This case is a clear manifest of the latter.

(2) No, due process is not violated.

In a string of decisions, the Court ruled that due process is not always unique in judicial proceedings. Since the conditionally pardoned convict was already given due process during his trial, there is now no violation of due process.

Cherrie Mae Granada

2020-12-16

Christian Val G Dionglay

Exam: QUIZ CRIMINAL LAW DEC 14 2020

Word count: 392

Writing time: 78 minutes

Email: christianval4680@gmail.com

Class: Criminal Law Review

Teacher: Judge Ric S Bastasa

If i were the judge, i will first evaluate the complaint or information provided by the prosecutor together with the supporting evidence. if it will fail to establish probable cause then i will dismiss the case. But if there is probable cause then i will issue a warrant of arrest as provided under the rules of court.

The accused can be held liable under the labor code on illegal recruitment committed in large scale because it was committed againts 3 or more persons. And also they are liable of Estafa under the Revised Penal Code by defrauding the complainants with abuse of confidence or by deceiving them. and damage was done.

In the given problem, falsification of the contract or public document was essential in the commission of estafa because without falsification, the crime of estafa cannot be committed. therefore the crime of estafa becomes the result of the crime. They should be charged with falsification of private documents.

Recidivism - there must be at least to crimes committed. the first and second crime are embraced in the same title of the rpc. the accused should have been convicted on the first crime by final judgement at the time of trial of the second crime.

Habitual Delinquency - there must be at least three crimes committed. the first, second and third crimes must be habitual delinquency crime, that is theft, estafa, robbery and serious physical injuries.

Reiteracion - the accused must have been previously convicted of an offense which has equal or greater penalty. or it can also be when the offender is punished for two or more crimes which attached a light penalty.

A Habitual Deliquent is not necessarily a recidivist because the two classification provides different nature of crimes committed, the time element and nature of the aggravating circumstances involved. It can aggravate the crime committed and the accused cannot avail of probation or the indeterminate sentence law.

5. The granted pardon by the president has a condition stating that the petitioner should not violate any of the penal laws of the Philippines. it did not state that he should be convicted but only upon violation that the said pardon would then be cancelled.

Upon his commission of the differenct kinds of offenses which are penal in nature, the president can now cancel the conditional pardon.

Christian Val G Dionglay

2020-12-16

cyrus tingcang

Exam: QUIZ CRIMINAL LAW DEC 14 2020

Word count: 819

Writing time: 99 minutes

Email: cyrust2011@gmail.com

Class: 4th year Juris Doctor

Teacher: Judge Ric Bastasa

No. It has, time and again, been held that for there to be avlid information for estafa, it is necessary to allege the manner of fraudulent machinations perpetrated by the accused in the commission of the crime charged. Here, the narration of facts is mute as to whether accused employed fraudulent scheme that caused damaged to the victim. Verily, the mere issuance of a worthless checks does not ipso facto means that the crime of Estafa was committed. For these reasons, a warrant of arrest for the crime of Estafa cannot be validly issued.

The examinee respectfully submits that the crimes committed are 1. Syndicated Estafa and 2. Illegal recruitment. This is so beacuse the elements of the crime of Syndicated Estafa are present namely; 1. there are five individuals who formed a corporation to recruit and promise employment to applicants for a fee with the intention of committing illeagl acts, and 2. the illegal acts consists of collecting payments from the applicants and misappropriating the same. This is evident from the fact that none of the complainants were deployed to work overseas.

Moreover, the crime of Illegal recruitment was committed in the case at hand considering that the accused recruited the applicants for overseas employment and committed other acts of recruitment despite the fact that it has no government authority to do so. There is nothing in the narration of facts which suggests that the corpration in question obatined a lawful authority to recruit from the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration.

The crime committed is multiple counts Estafa as penalized under Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code inasmuch as the elements of the said crime are extant in the case at bar. As can be gleaned from the facts, the Board of Directors fraudulently mispapproriated the funds of BATELEC II which were held by the board in trust from it members for administartion BATELEC II. The said fraudulent acts caused prejudice to its members and BATELEC II. This is in line with the pro reo doictrine which enunciates that in the application of the criminal laws that interpretation which results to a lighter ciminal responsiblity shall be upheld. The accused in the case at bar, cannot be convicted of Syndicated Estafa as there is no showing that at least five of the Board of Directors conspired to perpetarte a scheme to defraud BATELEC II and its members.

In reinteracion, the accused has previously punished for an affense with a penalty equal or greater than that he is charged or two mor more offenses that carry light penalties. This is different from rescidivism in the sense that the accused, at the time of the trial of one crime, he was previously convicted by final judgment of a crime belonging the same title of the Revised Penal Code. In the case of habitual delinquency, the accused is found to have been convicted or released for the crime of Falsification, Robbery, Estafa, Theft or Serious Physical Injuries or Less Serious Physical Injuries within ten (10) years from his last release or conviction. It is necessary that a rescidivist must have been released or convicted for three time or oftener within the said 10-year period. Anent the effect on accused's criminal liability, the generic aggravating circumstances of Rescidivism and reiteracion increase the penalty by degree and the same may be offset by a generic mitigating circumstances. On the other hand, habitual delinquency is a special aggravating circumstance which qualifies the crime as grave felony and thus the penalty for habitual delinquency is imposed in addition to the crime charged as may be provided under the law.

1. It is humbly submitted that final judgment of the court finding accused to have violated the conditional pardon is not necessary for there to be a valid recommitment order. Case law dictates that the President has the prerogative to issue pardon in favor of an convicted felon and in doing so, he can set conditions therein as he may deemed appropriate. Once said conditions are violated, then the President reserves the right to rearrest the subject person. A contrary ruling would render illusory the President's power to grant pardon.

2. No. This is so because the decision in question partakes of a nature of an administrative decision which is essentially an administrative function belong to the Office of the President being the highest office in the Executive Department. At bar, the pardonee is appraised that should he commit any act in violation of the conditions of the pardon, he will be imediately rearrested and he, by accepting the conditional pardon, impliedly undertakes to be bound by the order of recommitment duly issued by the proper authority. The fact that it was the Minister of Justice who issued the said order is inconsequential because he is deemed by law as an alter ego or an extension of perosnality of the President.

cyrus tingcang

2020-12-16

Dexter Kim Patron

Exam: QUIZ CRIMINAL LAW DEC 14 2020

Word count: 721

Writing time: 117 minutes

Email: dpatron200517@gmail.com

Class: Criminal Law Review

Teacher: Judge Ric Bastasa

According to teh RPC, swindling is commited by any person who shall defraud another by any of the means menatined here after:

By means of any of the following false pretenses or fraudulent acts executed prior to or simultaneously with teh commission of teh fraud:

-by post dating a check or issuing a check in payment of an obligation when the offender had no funds in the bank or his funds depisted therein were not sufficient to cover teh amount of teh check. The failure of teh drawer o fthe check to deposit teh amount necessary to cover his check within 3 days from receiot of notice from teh bank or the payee or holder that said check has been dishonored for lack or insufficient funds shall be prima facie evidence of deceit constituting false pretense or fraudulent act.

However in the instant case the check was issued as a payment of a pre-existing obligation and cannot be penalized as estafa by means oif deceit since the language of teh laaw is plain. It was held by teh supreme court that the issuance of a bouncing check for a pre-existing contract does not constitute estafa.

Considering the premises, I will not issue warrant of arrest.

2) The Accused comitted the crimes of syndicated Illegal recruitment committed by large scale and estafa.

An employee engaged in illegal recruitment may be held liable as principal together with his employer if it is shown that he actively and consciously participated in illegal recruitment. Considering that the accused received the amount mentioned then they actively participated in the crime.

The defense of the accused that they were not aware of teh illegal nature of the activities cannot be sustained since under the Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995, a special law, the crime Syndicated illegal recruitment comitted in large scale is a malum prohibitum thus criminal intent of the accused is not necessary.

The accused also committed 5 counts of estafa. Under the RPC, the elements of Estafa are: 1.The accused defrauded another by abused of confidence or by menas of deceit. 2. the offended party or third party suffered damage or prejudice capable of picuniary estimation. The all of the accused defrauded the complainants into believing that they will be employed abroad causing them to part their hard earned money in exchange of such promised. However such promise was not materialized neither they were able to recover what they paid.

3. The Supreme court held that without misappropriation or conversion, any prejudice caused upon may only give rise to civil liability. The Directors of teh coop who approved teh contract didnot receive funnds of the coop, they dont have juridical possession of teh Coop funds. Hence there is no crime committed only civil liabilty.

4. Reiteracion means that the offender shall have been punished previously for an offense to which teh law attaches an equal or greater penalty or for two or more crimes to which it attaches a lighter penalty.

Recidivism means that the offender who at the time of his trial for one crime, shall have been previously convicted by final judgment of another crime embraced in the same title of this code. The previous conviction enter into the third or subsequent offense to the extent of aggravating it and increasing the penalty.

Habitual Delinquent means that the offender commits within the 10 year period from the date of his last release or conviction of a crime of serious or less serious physical injuries and found guilty of any aforementioned crimes a third time or more.

Yes a habitual delinquent is also a recidiivist considering that physical injury serious or less serious are embraced in the same title of the code.

Accordingto the criminal law, the presence of these will increas ethe penalty of the crime committed.

5. The convict who has been conditionally pardoned and who is alleged to have breached such condition, accordingto teh Supreme Court the Executive Department has choices to proceed against the convict under the revised administrative Code or under the RPC. The choice is an exercise of teh President's executive prerogative and is not subject ro judicial scrutiny.

Due process was not violated as pardon being granted at the discretion of the president and taking it back is within his prerogative.

Dexter Kim Patron

2020-12-16

eduardo luayon

Exam: QUIZ CRIMINAL LAW DEC 14 2020

Word count: 437

Writing time: 112 minutes

Email: emanlu1962@yahoo.com

Class: IV

Teacher: Judge R. Bastasa

1. I will issue a warrant of arrest if I could establish that there is probable cause that a crime of estafa thru the issuance of bouncing check has been committed by the accused.To establish probable cause I have to personnaly evaluate the information or resolution of the prosecutor and its supporting evidence. If necessary, I must examine under oath or affirmation the complainant and witnesses he may produced. If probable cause is established then I will issue the warrant of arrest.

2. Illegal recruitment, Large scale was committed by the accused. Illegal recruitment is committed when a person or group of persons recruited and promised an employment especially overseas employment to another person or persons for a sum of money but ultimately such promise is not fulfilled. A crime of Estafa is also committed by the accused, the fact that they defrauded such persons thru deceit by promising employment abroad in exchange for sum of money. The accused then with intent to gain appropriated the sum of money to their advantage, hence estafa is committed.

3. Violation of the Procurement Act as evidenced by the overpricing of the items bidded out and allowing dummy companies in joining the bidding process to the prejudice of the government.

4, Recidivism refers to a state wherein a person who at the time of his trial for one crime, shall have been previously convicted by final judgemetn of another crime in the same title under the Revised Penal Code whereas habitual delinquency refers to a person who is a repeat offender, that is within a period of ten years from the date of his release or last conviction of such crimes such as serious or less serious physical injuries, estafa or falsification, he is found again guilty of any of said crimes a third time or oftener. Reiteracion refers to a circumstance where the offender, at the time of his trial for an offense has been previously served a sentence to which the law attaches an equal or greater penalty than that attached by law to the second offense. It is not necessary that the offenses be covered under the same title of the Penal Code. These will served as an aggravating circumstance to the crime committed.

5. The petitioner can be validly rearrested and recommitted if he violated the terms of his conditional pardon and thereby serve the balance of his original sentence. The law provides that if ever the terms of the conditional pardon will be violated by the petitioner then be rearrested and recommitted, as such no violation of due process in the case at bar.

eduardo luayon

2020-12-16

ferdinand solas

Exam: QUIZ CRIMINAL LAW DEC 14 2020

Word count: 0

Email: ferdinandsolas55@gmail.com

Class: criminal law

Teacher: Judge Ric Bastasa

ferdinand solas

2020-12-16

ferdinandd solas

Exam: QUIZ CRIMINAL LAW DEC 14 2020

Word count: 698

Writing time: 113 minutes

Email: ferdinandsolas55@gmail.com

Class: criminal law

Teacher: Judge Ric Bastasa

If I were the Judge, I will not issue the warrant of arrest.

A Warrant of arrest is not necessary in cases covered by a summary procedure.

Considering that the amount involved is 30,000, an amount covered by a summary procedure, the issuance of a warrant of arrest is not necessary.

Thus, as Judge, I will not issue a warrant of arrest.

The accused committed the crimes of estafa and illegal recruitment committed by a syndicate.

Under the RPC, estafa is committed by means of deceit and by means of abuse of confidence, and that damage and prejudice capable of pecuniary estimation is caused the offended party or third person.

The act complained of the given case is penalized under the RPC, wherein the accused by false pretenses, deceit, and abuse of confidence executed prior or simultaneous with the commission of the fraud, promised overseas employment for a fee in various amount to complainants, causing damage and prejudiced capable of pecuniary estimation. The accused falsely pretended to possess influence, qualifications, business or other imaginary transactions making the complainants to part with their money and important documents, in the belief that accused would make true their promises for them to have overseas employment.

The accused are also liable for illegal recruitment committed in by a syndicate or in a large scale since it was carried out by 3 or more persons conspiring or confederating with one another to commit illegal recruitment.

The crime committed is Syndicated Estafa.

The law provides that in order to be considered as estafa committed by a syndicate, the perpetrators must not only comprised at least 5 individuals but must also used the association that they formed or managed to defraud its own stockholders or members.

Here, the perpetrators are more than 5 and they used the cooperative they formed and manage to defraud the members by overpricing the trucks they purchased and by rigging the bidding process for their own benefit and to the prejudice and damage of their own members.

Hence, the crime committed is syndicated estafa.

Reiteracion, recidivism, and habitual deliquency may be distinguish in the following ways:

As to crime committed, in habitual deliquency, the crimes are specified, while in recidivism, the accused shall have been previously convicted by final judgement for anothe crime embraced in the same title of the RPC. In reiteracion, the previous and subsequent offense, which the law attaches an equal or greater penalty can be from different titles.

As to period of times committed, in habitual deliquency, the offender is found guilty within 10 years from his release or last conviction. While in recidivism and reiteracion, no period of time between the former conviction and the last conviction.

As to effect, an additional penalty is imposed in habitual deliquency, while in recidivism, it serves to increase the penalty to maximum if not offset by a mitigating circumstance. Reiteracion is not always an aggravating circumtance.

A conviction of a crime by final judgement is necessary before the petitioner can be validly arrested for violation of the terms of his conditional pardon.

In one case, the Supreme Court held, that before a person granted conditional pardon rearrested for supposedly violating his conditional pardon, he must first be convicted by final judgement for the allege crime committed after the pardon was granted.

Yes, due process is violated.

Under the Constitution, no person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law, nor shall be denied the equal protection of laws.

In the present case, petitioner's right guaranteed by the Constitution which is the supreme law of our land was clearly deprived leading to its violation, when the authorities cancelled the conditional pardon before final judgement of the alleged crime committed by the petitioner. Such cancellation violates the constitutional presumption of innocence, that guarantees the accused in all criminal prosecutions to be presumed innocent until the contrary is proved. Hence, before final judgement, the petitioner,in the eyes of the law, has commited no crime, consequently, he may not be held liable for violation of his conditional pardon.

Thus, the supposed cancellation violates due process as guaranteed by the Constitution.

ferdinandd solas

2020-12-16

Florencio Saministrado Jr.

Exam: QUIZ CRIMINAL LAW DEC 14 2020

Word count: 629

Writing time: 93 minutes

Email: saministradojrflorencio@gmail.com

Class: Criminal Law Review

Teacher: Ric Bastasa

1. In order to issue a warrant of arrest the judge needs to determine the existence of probable cause of the resolution of the prosecution and its supporting documents or evidences for the crime charge. If I were the judge i would issue the warrant of arrest because there is probable cause in the present case, the fact of issuing a check by the petitioner knowing that it has insufficient funds to cover the amount of the obligation as stated in the check and despite having been notified thereof still the petitioner failed to pay thereof is sufficient to engender a knowledge of the existence of probable cause to issue a warrant of arrest.

2. They are liable for illegal recruitment as defined under the Migrant Workers Act. Under the said law it is hereby declared illegal for Travel and Tours agency or corporation to engage in the recruitment and procuring workers for employment abroad. In the case at bar All employees and officers of Alternative Travel and Tours Corporation are prohibited from recruiting and procurering workers for overseas employment and since they did recruit serveral persons they are liable for large scale illegal recruitment and moreover, it seems that they are confederating and coniving with each other in the perpetration of the crime , hence they are also liable for syndicated illegal recruitment.

3. They are liable for estafa by means of misappropriating the funds they collected as payment from the consumers, thus those funds or money is under their administration and they must be held accountable thereof for misappropriating the same, on the other hand they cannot be held liable for graft and corruption because they are electric cooperative even the funds they received are from the public for they are not imbued with some public functions.

4. Recidivism is the one who at the time of his trial, shall have been previously convicted by final judgement of another crime embraced in the same title of the Revised Penal Code, while reiteracion is when the offender who have serve his sentence for a previous crime committed and subsequently committed another offense embraced in the same title, and habitual delinquent is a person who within 10 years from his release from prison for a crime of serious or less serious physical injuries has been found guilty of any crime on the third, fourth or more time.

It is not necessary that habitual delinquent is also a recidivist because in the latter case it is necessary that the subsequent crime committed is embraced in the same title which is not the case of the former wherein in may be commit any crime.

The effect of these to the accused is that it is a generic aggravating circumstance and cannot be offset by any mitigating circumstance.

5. A conditional pardon is a private act of the President in forgiving the accused as a consequence thereof the accused is exempted from serving his sentence, it can be inferred from the foregoing that a pardon is a private act of the President. In the case at bar, before an accused can be granted pardon he must first be convicted because the accused is exempted from serving his sentence if ever he is granted one, hence it is necessary that he must first be convicted in order to be exempted from serving his sentence.

Since a pardon is a private act of the President due process does not apply, for due process is applicable only to acts of the government against an individual where is called for to answer for any act he/she committed against the fundamental laws of the country, in the case at bar, it is the sole prerogative of the President which cannot be questioned by any due process.

Florencio Saministrado Jr.

2020-12-16

Frilin Lomosad

Exam: QUIZ CRIMINAL LAW DEC 14 2020

Word count: 884

Writing time: 103 minutes

Email: lomosadfrilinm@gmail.com

Class: Criminal Law Review

Teacher: Judge Ric S. Bastasa

No, I will not issue the warrant of arrest. As a rule, estafa can be committed in two ways; (1) with abuse of confidence or unfaithfullness, and (2) through deceit or false pretense. In the case at bar, the proper case should be violation of th bouncing check law.

It is clear in the case that the checks were issued to pay a pre - existing obligation and not to decieve Gempesaw Hardware to deliver the hardware materials. The mere postdating or issuance of a check with insufficient funds would not be immediately a crime of estafa.

The accused in the case at bar committed the crimes of Illegal Recruitment involving economic sabotage and the crime of estafa. Illegal Recruitment is committed by any act of canvassing, enlisting, transporting, contracting, hiring, utilizing or procuring workers, and includes referrals. contract services, promising or adverting for employment locally or abroad, whether for profit or not, by any person or entity which a non-licensee or a non-holder of authority. It may also be committed by a licensee or holder of authority by doing those prohibited acts as provided by law.

In the case at bar, the offenders are employees of a travel agency, an entity which is prohibited by law to engage in any recruitment and placement activities. There is also failure on their part to make good of their promise to employ the complainants herein. Hence, illegal recruitment is committed. Illegal recruitment is considered an offense involving economic sabotage when it is committed by a syndicate or in a large scale. It is syndicate when it is committed by a group of three or more persons and it is in a large scale when it is committed against three or more persons.

The crime of estafa is also committed. The complaint or conviction on the crime of Illegal Recruitment will not bar the case of estafa. Illegal recruitment is malum prohibitum while estafa is mala in se. In the case, it was clear that the accused deceived the complainants by misrepresenting themselves to be a holder of a license to validly do recruitment and placement activities. It is also for the intent to gain from the parties by asking placements fees.

In the case at bar, the crime of simple estafa or syndicated estafa was not committed. The accused herein are the board of directors who approved the contract. The elements of estafa are not present in the case at bar. Syndicated estafa is committed when the offender is a group of five or more persons which is not the in the case. There was no abuse of confidence nor misrepresentation on their part in approving the contracts. They also did not receive funds in representation of the cooperative and there was not misappropriation of funds.

Hence, the complainant may only claim civil damages from the accussed for the damages it may have caused to them.

Reiteracion is present when the offender has been previously punished or has served sentence. It may either be that the first offense that he was punished or has served sentence an equal or with a greater penalty; or that he committed two or more crimes previously where he was punished with lighter penalty. The service of the previous penalty is necessary.

Recidivism occurs when a person, who at the the time of his trial for one crime, shall have been previously convicted by final judgment of another crime embraced in the same title of the Revised Penal Code. There must be two convictions for it to take place.

Habitual delinquency is present when a person, within a period of 10 years from the date of his release or his last conviction of the crimes of Estafa, Falsification, Theft, Robbery, Serious or Less Serious Physical Injuries, he is foud guilty of these crimes for the third time or oftener.

A habitual delinquent is necessarily a recidivist. The crimes committed for the third time or oftener to be a habitual deliquent person are also embraced in the same title of the RPC.

The effects of reiteracion, recidivism and habitual delinquency would aggravate the crime committed by the accussed. It would escalate the penalty charged to the accussed if convicted.

5-A.

No, conviction of a crime by a final judgment of a court is not necessary before the petitioner can be validly rearrested and recommitted in prison to serve the balance of his original sentence. As provided in the Revised Administrative Code, the President is given the authority to arrest and recommit to prison any person who shall violate the conditions of a pardon, parole or suspension of sentence. It is an executive prerogative which is enjoyed by the president and is not subject to any judicial scrutiny.

5-B.

No, there is no violation of due process in the case at bar. The accused herein had already been accorded judicial due process in his trial and conviction for the offense for which he was conditionally pardoned. The conviction of the new offense is not necessary and the investigation made by the Department of justice is enough to serve due process. In addittion, the grant of pardon and the determination of the terms and conditions of a conditional pardon are purely executive acts which are not subject to judicial scrutiny.

Frilin Lomosad

2020-12-16

Immanuel Granada

Exam: QUIZ CRIMINAL LAW DEC 14 2020

Word count: 859

Email: Giwu8686@gmail.com

Class: Criminal Law Review

Teacher: Judge Ric S. Bastasa

I will not issue a warrant of arrest.

In Criminal Law, to constitute estafa, the false pretense or fraudulent act must be executed prior to or simultaneously with the commision of fraud. The issuance of a check as payment for a pre-existing debt, the drawer derives no material benefit in return as its consideration had long been delivered to him before the check was issued. The issuance in this instance is therefore not the means to obtain a valuable consideration. Thus, there is no deceit. Deceit, to constitute estafa, should be the cause of the fraud.

Thus, without a finding of deceit made by the accused Lagua, I will not issue an arrest warrant.

The accused committed the crimes of illegal recruitment in large scale and five counts of estafa.

Under the law, illegal recruitment in large scale is committed if:

(a) the offender has no valid license and authority required by law to enable him to lawfully engage in recruitment and placement of workers;

(b) the offender undertakes any of the activities within the meaning of recruitment and placement under the Labor Code, or any of the prohibited practices enumerated under the said Code; and

Here, it is obvious that the accused committed a violation of a provision under the Labor Code when they recruited the five complainants but subsequently denied them of the promised foreign employment.

On the other hand, estafa is committed when:

(a) there is a false pretense or fraudulent representation as to his power, influence, qualifications, property, credit, agency, business or imaginary transactions;

(b) that such false pretense or fraudulent representation was made or executed prior to or simultaneously with the commision of the fraud;

(c) the offended party relied on the false pretense, fraudulent act, or fraudulent means and was induced to part with his money or property;

(d) that, as a result, the offended party suffered damage.

Here, it is also obvious that the accused by false pretense and fraudulent representation that they have power to employ abroad, complainants were induced and were made to part their money which caused them to suffer damage.

There is no crime committed.

It is settled in jurisprudence that in order for the crime of syndicated estafa to prosper, the syndicate must be five or more persons who used the association that they formed of managed to defraud its own stockholders, members or depositors. However, in the instant case, the accused never used BATELEC II as a means to defraud its members.

Further, even a simple crime of estafa is absent in the case.

For the crime of estafa to prosper, the offenders must have received money, goods, or other personal property in trust, on commission, for administration, or under any obligation involving the duty to make delivery of, or return the same, and they have misappropriated or converted or denied receipt of the same. Here, none of these is manifest.

Reiteracion, recidivism, and habitual delinquency can be distinguished as follows:

In reiteracion, it is necessary that the offender shall have served out his sentence for the first offense; whereas, in recidivism, it is enough that a final judgment has been rendered in the first offense.

In reiteracion, the previous and subsequent offenses must not be embraced in the same title of the Code; whereas, recidivism requires that the offenses be included in the same title of the Code.

Reiteracion is not always an aggravating circumstance; whereas, recidivism is always to be taken into consideration in fixing the penalty to be imposed upon the accused.

There is habitual delinquency when a person, within a period of ten years from the date of his release or last conviction of the crimes of serious or less serious physical injuries, robo, hurto, estafa, or falsification, is found guilty of any said crimes a third time or oftener.

However, a habitual delinguent is not necessarily a recidivist. The offender is either a recidivist or one who has been previously punished for two or more offenses. He, however, shall suffer an additional penalty for being a habitual delinquent.

(1) Conviction of a crime by final judgment of a court is not necessary.

The Court succintly declared that the determination of the occurrence of a breach of a condition of a pardon, and the proper consequences of such breach, may either be a purely executive act, not subject to scrutiny under the Revised Administrative Code, or a judicial act consisting of trial for and conviction of violation of a conditional pardon under the Revised Penal Code. In the former case, no judicial pronouncement of guilt of a subsequent crime is necessary, much less conviction therefor by final judgment of a court. The case of petitioner falls squarely in the former case.

(2) No, due process is not violated.

A phlethora of case laws declares that due process is not semper et unique judicial process. The conditionally pardoned convict had already been accorded due process during his trial and conviction. There is, therefore, now no violation of due process to speak of.

Immanuel Granada

2020-12-16

Karl Rigo Andrino

Exam: QUIZ CRIMINAL LAW DEC 14 2020

Word count: 1103

Writing time: 91 minutes

Email: karlrigo13@gmail.com

Class: Criminal Law Review

Teacher: Judge Ric S. Bastasa

No. I would not issue a warrant of arrest. It is a well-settled rule that the issuance of a bad post-dated check in payment of a pre-existing obligation cannot be penalized as estafa by means of deceit. In this case, the petitioner, Daylinda Lagua, is not guilty of the crime of estafa. She merely has drawn a check with insufficient balance for the payment of her pre-existing obligation with Gempesaw Hardware in Davao City. She is only civilly liable for such transaction.

The crimes committed by the accused are the crimes of illegal recruitment in large scale and estafa. The elements of the illegal recruitment in large scale are: that the offender has no valid license or authority to lawfully engage in recruitment and placement of workers; that the offender undertakes any activities within the meaning of recruitment and placement; and the offender committed the same against three or more persons, individually or as a group. All the elements are present in this case. The accused-appellant has defrauded the victims on the promise of hiring the victims in consideration for a sum of money without actually placing the victims on the designated place of employment. Also, the illegal recruitment is committed by a group of 5 persons. Hence, they are guilty of illegal recruitment in large scale.

The crime of estafa is also present in this case. The elements of estafa are the accused defrauded another by abuse of confidence or by means of deceit; and that offended party suffered damages. The accused has defrauded the victims on the promise that they will be hired and employed overseas and as a result of such promise the victims suffered damages because they could no longer recover such placement fees they had paid for such employment.

The crime of estafa and illegal recruitment in large scale can be filed separately because the crime of estafa is mala in se which is penalized by the Revised Penal Code and crime of illegal recruitment in large scale is mala prohibita penalized by a special law. It is a well-settled rule that one crime as mala in se and one crime as mala prohibitum can be filed separately. Therefore, the accused is guilty of the crimes of estafa and illegal recruitment in large scale.

No crime is committed in this case. The accused-petitioners are only civilly liable for the actions they have committed. Estafa committed by a syndicate is absent in this case and simple estafa is also absent in this case. There is no estafa committed by a syndicate because the accused-petitioners did not use BATTELEC II to defraud the contributions of the members of the cooperative or of the general public.

Further, the elements of estafa are that the money, goods, or other personal property is recevied by the offender in trust, or for administration, or under any obligation invloving the duty to make a delivery of, or to return, the same; that there is misappropriation or conversion of such money or property by the offender, or on denial on his part of such receipt; such misappropriation or denial is to the prejudice of another; and that there is demand made by the offended party to the offender.

In this case, the first and second requisites are absent. First, the petitioners in this case did not receive the funds of the cooperative and has no juridical possession of the cooperative funds. They are merely vested with the control over how they spend the cooperative funds but they do not have juridical possession of such funds. Second, there is no misappropriation of the funds of BATELEC II because what is done by the accused-petitioners are merely irregularities and they violate the rules provided by the NEA. This acts does not constitute an act of misappropriation. Therefore, the accused did not commit any crime.

In reiteracion, the offender has been previously punished for an offense which the law attaches an equal or greater penalty for two or more crimes to which it attaches a lighter penalty. It is also necessary that the offender shall have served out the first sentence of his offense. As to the crimes committed, the previous and subsequent offenses must not be in the same title of the Revised Penal Code.

Recidivism on the other hand, the offender at the time of his trial for one crime shall have beeen previously convicted by final judgment of another crime in the same title of the Revised Penal Code. It requires that the offense must be included in the same title of the Revised Penal Code.

In contrast to reiteracion and recidivism, in habitual delinquency, the offender within the period of 10 years from the date of his last conviction of the crimes of theft, robbery, serious or less serious physical injuries, estafa or falsification, is found guilty of such crimes for a third time or oftener. The crimes committed to qualify as a habitual delinquent are exclusive.

Yes, a habitual delinquent is necessarily a recidivist when the crime committed is serious or less serious physical injuries, theft, robbery, estafa or falsification. However, there are instances where a habitual delinquent is not necessarily a recidivist when the two crimes are not embraced in the same title of the Revised Penal Code.

Reitiracion and recidivism are generic aggraviting circumstance which can be offset by mitigating circumstance. It generally increases the penalty to the maximum period if there are no mitigating circumstance. While, habitual delinquency is a special aggravating circumstance which cannot be offset by a mitigating circumstance.

1.) No. It is not necessary for the conviction of the petitoner by a final judgment of the Court. It may either be an executive act in Section 64 of the Administrative Code or it may be a judicial act under violation of a conditional pardon in Article 159 of the Revised Penal Code.

In this case, the president has chosen to proceed against the petitioner under Section 64 of the Administrative Code. This choice is an exercise of the Presidents executive prerogative and is not subject to Judicial Scrutiny. Thus, it not necessary for the conviction by final judgment of the Court for the violation of the conditional pardon.

2.) No, due process is not violated in this case. Section 64 of the Administrative Code does not violate the due process clause of the Constitution because the petitioner has already been convicted of crime by final judgment and he is no longer constitutionally entitled to another judicial determination whether he had breached the condition of his pardon by committing a subsequent offense.

Karl Rigo Andrino

2020-12-16

Lady Rubyge Denura

Exam: QUIZ CRIMINAL LAW DEC 14 2020

Word count: 612

Writing time: 123 minutes

Email: ladybyge@gmail.com

Class: Criminal Law Review

Teacher: Judge Ric Bastasa

1.) I will not issue a warrant if I were the Judge.

Under the law, the elements of Estafa are as follows:

a. postdating or issuance of a check in payment of an obligation contracted at the time the check was issued,

b. lack or insufficient funds to cover the check, and

c. the payee was prejudiced or suffered damage.

In the given case, the false pretense or the fraudulent act which is the issuance of the check was not executed prior to or simultaneously with the commission of the fraud. Also, the issuance of the check is for the payment of a pre existing obligation and not to obtain a valuable consideration from the payee. Thus, on the foregoing facts, the act did not constitute Estafa and will not warrant an arrest.

2.) The accused committed Illegal Recuitment in Large Scale and Estafa.

Under the law, to constitute illegal recruitment in large scale, these elements mst be present:

a. the offender has no valid authority or license required by law to enable him to lawfully engaged in a recruitment and placement workers,

b. the offender undertakes any prohibited practices under Article 34 of the Labor Code,

c. the offfender committed the same against 3 or more persons, individually or as a group.

The law also provides for the elements of Estafa, namely, the accused defrauded another by abuse of confidence or by means of deceit and the offended party suffered damage or prejudice capable of pecuniary estimation.

In the case at bar, all the foregoing elements to convict the accused are present. The accused conspired with her co accused, misrepresented to have the power, influence, authority and business to obtain overseas employment upon payment of placement fees which was duly collected from the complainants.

3.) There is no crime commited in the instant case.

In the instant case, the accused did not even commit Simple Estafa much more a Syndicated Estafa. There was no simple estafa because not all the elements are present. The first element that the offender must have receieved money, goods or other personal property was absent in this case because accused did not receive any of the funds.

4. In reiteracion, the offender shall have been punished previously for an offense to which the law attaches an equal or greater penalty or for two or more crimes to which it attaches a lighter penalty. In recidivism, the offender shall have been previously convicted by final judgment of another crime embraced in the PCR. In habitual delinquency, if within a period of 10 years from the date of his release or last conviction of a crime of robbery, theft, estafa or falsification, he is found guilty of any of the said crimes a third time or otfener.

A habitual deliquent is necessarily a recidivist, and in imposing the penalty as it affects to the accused, the aggravating circumstance of recidivism has to be taken into account.

5.) In proceeding against a convict who has been granted conditional pardon and who was alleged to have breached such condition, the Exucutive Branch has two options, namely, a purely executive act under Revised Administrative Code, not subject to judicial scrutiny or a judicial act under Revised Penal Code consisting of trial for and conviction of violation of a conditional pardon.

In the case at bar, the President has chosen to proceed against the petitioner under the Revised Administrative Code which is an exercise of the President's executive prerogative and is not subject to judicial scrutiny.

Due process is not violated here because the accused was already given a day in court and afforded opportunity to defend himself.

Lady Rubyge Denura

2020-12-16

Liwayway Elumbaring

Exam: QUIZ CRIMINAL LAW DEC 14 2020

Word count: 503

Writing time: 71 minutes

Email: Liwaywayelumbaring.realmotors@gmail.com

Class: Criminal Law Review

Teacher: Judge Ric Bastasa

1.) Yes, if I were the Judge, I will issue the warrant of arrest since there is a probable cause for the issuance of arrest gainst the respondent. The abobove-mentioned accused knowing that she did not have sufficient funds in the bank, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously and with intent to gain issue check as payment in the amount of P30,000.00.

2.) The crimes committed by the accused are illegal recruitment and syndicated estafa. They are liable of illegal recruitment because there is an act of canvassing, enlisting, contracting, transporting, utilizing, hiring and procuring of workers and includes referring, contract services, promising or advertising for employment abroad, whether for profit or not, when undertaken by non-licensee or non-holder of authority contemplated. Since they offer or prmises for a fee employment abroad. They are also liable in syndicated estafa because according to Section 1 in Artcle 315 and 316 of the Revised Penal Code that if the swindling (estafa) is committed by a syndicate consisting of five or more persons formed with the intentrion of carrying out the unlawful or illegal act, transaction, enterprise or scheme.

3.) The crime committed is syndicated estafa. Estafa is committed when fraud is employed to the prejudice of another person. It may be committed in several ways such as through unfaithfulness or abuse of confidence, by false pretense or fraudulent acts executed prior to or simultaneous with the commission of the fraud, by other frauulent means or by swindling or other deceits. Since all of its grounds were clearly present on the given situation, hence, the crime committed is syndicated estafa.

4.) Reiteracion is when the offender is convicted of two crimes but there is no requisite that the two crime must belong to the same title of the code. On the other hand, recidivism is the act of a person repeating an undesirable behavior after they have either experienced negative consequenses of that behavior or have to be trained to extinguish that behavior. While habitual delinquency under the last subsection of Article 62 of the Revised Penal Code a person shall deemed to be habitually delinquent, if within a period of 10 years from the date of its release or last conviction of the crime of robbery, theft, estafa or falsification, he is found guilty of any said crimes a third time or oftener.

5.)

1. There is no need of a conviction of a crime by final judgment of a court. It is no longer necessary, hence the petitioner can be validly rearrested for violation of the terms of his conditonal pardon. He should serve the balance of his original sentence when he was convicted of the crime estafa. The conditional pardon granted to him by the President of the Philippines clearly states that should the condition be violated, he will be preceeded against in the manner prescribed by law.

2. No, the due process was not violated here based on the facts of the case given.

Liwayway Elumbaring

2020-12-16

Mendel Casao

Exam: QUIZ CRIMINAL LAW DEC 14 2020

Word count: 686

Writing time: 100 minutes

Email: delsky056@gmail.com

Class: Criminal Law Review

Teacher: Judge Ric S. Basatasa

Answer:

1. If I were the judge in this case, I will not issue the warrant of arrest yet, instead, I will issue summons to the accused for him or her to appear in court and submit a judicial affidavit narrating her defenses and grounds for failing and refusing to make payment to his or her obligations to the complainant. In a similar case decided, the Court ruled that warrant of arrest shall not be issued immediately in estafa cases involving bouncing checks, instead, summons should be issued in order for the accused to have a chance to settle his or her obligations and not to proceed to a full blown lenghty trial. The Court also ruled that trial courts should not be used as a collection agency of complainants in bouncing checks cases.

2. All the accused in this case committed the crimes of Syndicated Illegal Recruitment under the Labor Law for their act of recruitng and promising employment abroad in exchange for a fee to the above named complainants but fails to deploy them abroad as promised, and the crime of Estafa under the Revised Penal Code for collecting a fee in exchange for the promise of overseas employment but fails to fulfill such promise or to return their money.

3. In the case presented, the accused officers and members of the Board of Directors of BATELEC II are guilty of the crime of Syndicated Estafa under the special law punishing the said crime. Under the said law, syndicated estafa is committed by a syndicate who commits estafa as prescribed under the Revised Penal Code, and such estafa or swindling resulted in the misappropriation of money contributed by stockholders or funds collected from the public.

4. Under the law, reiteracion is committed by a person who, while being tried for an offense, has been previously convicted of another crime with an equal or greater penalty than the present crime committed. Or has been previously convicted by two offenses with lesser penalties than the present crime committed.

Recidivism is when a person while being tried for the commission of a crime, has been previously convicted of an offense under the same title in the Revised Penal Code with the present crime committed.

While habitual delinquency is when a person commits the crimes of serious or less serious physical injuries, robbery, estafa, theft or falsification three times or oftener within a ten year period.

A habitual delinquent is not necessarily a recidivist because the crimes in habitual delinquency are not all falling under the same title under the Revised Penal Code. But a habitual delinquent can be a recidivist if the previous crimes committed falls under the same title in the Revised Penal Code.

The effect of recidivism and reiteracion under the Revised Penal Code are those with regard to the application of penalties to the accused. Recidivism and reiteracion are generic aggravating circumstance which can be offset by the presence of mitigating circumstances. While in habitual delinquency, it is a special aggravating circumstance and it adds to the original penalty imposed upon the accused. It cannot be offset with mitigating circumstances.

5. (1.) In the case at bar, the conviction of a crime by final judgment of a court is not necessary before a person who violated his conditional pardon can be validly rearrested and recommitted to prison. A person serving sentence in prison but was subsequently granted conditional pardon is considered by law as being under a suspended sentence. Any violations committed on the terms and conditions of his conditional pardon is sufficient ground to validly rearrest and recommit him to jail in order for him to serve the remaining term of his sentence.

(2.) Due process is not violated here. The Supreme Court ruled that a convicted person who was eventually granted conditional pardon is under a suspended sentence and he is not entitled to invoke due process where he violated his own commitment under the conditioal pardon. He is not yet entitled to invoke his constitutional right being a convicted felon who has not yet served in full his penalty.

Mendel Casao

2020-12-16

Oscar Abadies Jr

Exam: QUIZ CRIMINAL LAW DEC 14 2020

Word count: 602

Writing time: 102 minutes

Email: oabadiesjr@gmail.com

Class: Criminal Law Review

Teacher: Judge Bastasa, R

1. If I were the judge, I will not issue warrant of arrest and thus would dismiss the case against the accused.

It is well settled that nullum crimen nulla poena sine lege. Hence, since there is no express provision of law under the Revised Penal Code which penalizes the postdating or issuance of a bad check in payment of a pre-existing obligation, then the charge will fail.

2. The accused committed separate crimes of illegal recruitment involving economic sabotage and five counts of estafa.

Under the law, illegal recruitment involving economic sabotage is committed when its commission is attended through commission by a syndicate and in large scale. It is committed by a syndicate when carried out by a group of three or more persons who are conspiring with one another; and it is committed in large scale when committed against three or more persons, individually or as a group.

Here, there were five accused who conspired one another in promising the five victims for a work abroad but the same did not materialize. The elements of illegal recruitment are apparent in this case, such that the accused undertake prohibited activity of illegal recruitment which made the victims to part with their money hoping to find a job abroad thru the promise of the accused.

Moreover, the accused may also be charged with five counts of estafa since the filing of illegal recruitment is not a bar to the filing of estafa. The former crime is malum prohibitum, while the latter is malum in se. Thus, they can be filed simultaneously or separately.

In this case, estafa is committed because the accused defrauded the victims by abuse of confidence and that the victims suffered damage capable of pecuniary estimation.

3. The accused may be charged with syndicated estafa when the accused or a group, with the intention of carrying out the unlawful or illegal act, transaction, enterprise or scheme, defrauded another which results in the misappropriation of money from the general public.

Here, the act of failing to distribute electric power supply intended to the consumers constitutes estafa.

4. Reiteracion involves any crime, while in recidivism, the crimes involved must be embraced in the same title of the Revised Penal Code. On the other hand, in habitual delinquency, the crimes are specified.

In the first, the offender previously served sentence for another offense to which the law attaches an equal or greater penalty, or for two or more crimes to which it attaches lighter penalty than that for the new offense. Whereas, on the second, the offender is on trial for an offense and is subsequently convicted of the new crime. On the third, after conviction and serving out his sentence, the offender is convicted again of any of the second crimes and after conviction and serving out his sentence for the second crime, the offender again committed and was convicted within 10 years from his last sentence or conviction of any of the crimes specified the third time or oftener.

Finally, as to the effects, on the first and second, they are generic aggravating circumstances, while the third is an extraordinary aggravating one.

5. Yes. It has been settled that a convict who is granted conditional pardon and who is recommitted must be convicted by final judgment of a court of the subsequent crime with which he was charged before the criminal penalty for such subsequent offense may be imposed.

The same is not violative of due process since being a convict he is not entitled to another judicial determination of whether he had breached the condition of his pardon.

Oscar Abadies Jr

2020-12-16

Pamela Rubi-Anito

Exam: QUIZ CRIMINAL LAW DEC 14 2020

Word count: 667

Writing time: 78 minutes

Email: pamela12813@gmail.com

Class: Criminal Law Review

Teacher: Judge Ric Bastasa

Problem 1:

If I were the judge, I would issue the warrant of arrest.

The law provides that a warrant shall be issued when it was known that there is probable cause of the commission of the crime complaint of. Under Republic Act No. 4885, Estafa is committed when the offender postdated a check or issued a check as payment for an obligation and such issuing and postdating a check was done when the offender has no funds in the bank, or has insufficient funds to cover the check amount. Failure on the part of the drawer to deposit the amount needed to cover the check within three days from receipt of the notice of dishonor shall be a primafacie evidence of deceit constituting false pretense or fraudulent act.

Here, the accused issued and postdated a check. The said check was dishonor due to insufficiency of funds. Morever, despite written notice of the dishonor, the accused failed to make payment. Hence, as a judge, I would issue the warrant of arrest.

Problem 2:

The five accused committed an illegal recruitment involving economic sabotage by a syndicate and in a large scale.

Under the law, illegal recruitment is committed when the act of recruitment is committed by a non-licensee or one with or without licensee but done with acts prohibited by law.

An illegal recruitment involving economic sabotage is committed either a syndicate or in large scale. It is by a syndicate when there are atleast three recruiters and it is in a large scale when there are atleast two recruitees,

Here, there are five accused or recruiters. They had promised employment to the five recruitees and collected money from them. However, the accused were not able to provide the promised employment nor were able to returned the collected money from the victims.

Hence, the five accused had committed the crime of illegal recruitment by a syndicate and in a large scale against the five victims are provided for by law.

Problem 3

Here, per jurisprudence, the accused officers of BATELEC II and the presidents of ITI and Supertrac cannot be held liable for the crime of syndicated estafa under Article 315 of the RPC in relation to PD No. 1689. To be held liable for estafa, the accused must have misappropriated the funds of the company. Here, there was no misappropriation nor conversion of funds being committed. Hence, the accused cannot be held liable for syndicated estafa under the law.

Problem 4

In reiteracion, the accused must have served out his sentence for the first conviction. such conviction must have a greater or equal penalty to that of the current offense he us charged of.

Recidivism, on the other hand,happens when the accused during trial of one crime has been previously convicted by final judgment of another crime under the same title in the RPC. Recidivisim is a generic aggravating circumstance.

Habitual delinquency happens when within a period of 10 years from the date of release or last conviction for crimes of falsification, robbery, estafa, theft, serious or less serious physical injuries, the accused is found guilty of the said crims a third time or oftener. This is special aggravating circumstance.

A habitual deliquent is not necessarily a recidivist. He would only be a habitual deliquent and a recividist at the same time if he is convicted a third time for crimes within the same title of the RPC, example, estafa, robbery or theft.

Problem 5

No, convicted of a crime by final judgment of a court is not necessary before the accused can be rearrested. Under the law, a person charged with violating his conditional pardon may be summarily arrested and recommitted to prison. He has to serve the unexpired portion of his original sentence.

Conditional pardon amounts to temporary liberty provided the accused continues to observe such conditions. Otherwise, he can be rearrested under the law. Trial or conviction is not necessary, Moreover, the arrest is not a violation of his right to due process.

Pamela Rubi-Anito

2020-12-16

Paula Bianca Eguia

Exam: QUIZ CRIMINAL LAW DEC 14 2020

Word count: 948

Writing time: 75 minutes

Email: pb.eguia@gmail.com

Class: Criminal Law Review

Teacher: Judge Ric Bastasa

No, I will not issue the warrant of arrest. Estafa is a crime committed by any person who shall defraud another by means of false pretenses or fraudulent acts executed prior to or simultaneously with the commission of the fraud. This can be done by postdating a check or issuing a check in payment of an obligation when the offender had no funds in the bank or that his funds is not sufficient to cover the amount of the check. In this case, there is no false pretense or fraudulent act executed prior to or simultaneously with the commission of the fraud since the check was issued as payment of a pre-existing debt. The issuance of the check is not a means to obtain any valuable consideration from the payee. By virtue thereof, the issuance of bad check, as what happened in this case, shall not be penalized as estafa by means of deceit. Hence, no warrant of arrest shall be issued.

The crimes committed by the accused are illegal recruitment in large scale and estafa. Illegal recruitment in large scale is committed by any person who undertakes recruitment and placement activities against 3 or more persons, individually or as a group, without any valid license or authority required by law in order for him to lawfully engage in the recruitment and placement of workers. In this case, all the elements of the crime of illegal recruitment in large scale is present. They have misrepresented that they have the authority to provide overseas employment upon the payment of placement fees. Further, they can also be convicted with the crime of estafa. Estafa is committed by any person who defrauds another by abuse of confidence or by means of deceit which results to damage or injury which is capable of pecuniary estimation to the offended party. A person guilty of illegal recruitment can also be be liable separately for the crime of estafa provided all the elements of the crime are present. In this case, they are also guilty of estafa since they defrauded the complainants and lead them to believe that they have the power to send them abroad for overseas employment. It is because of this assurances that the complainant gave their money for the promise of work abroad.

There was no crime committed. Estafa is committed by any person who defrauds another by abuse of confidence by misappropriating or converting, to the prejudice of another, money, goods, or any other personal property received by the offender in trust, or on commission or for administration or under any obligation involving the duty to make delivery of or to return the same. In this case, all of the elements for the crime of estafa are present. In this case, the receipt and possession of the funds in question cannot fall under the crime of estafa because even though they are the directors of BATELEC, they do not have the juridical possession of the funds of the cooperative. Juridical possession is a specific type of possession which is acquired by the transferee of a thing when he receives the same under the instances as aforementioned in the elements of the crime of estafa. The petitioners do not have have such juridical possession since they did not obtain any right over the funds which they could set up against the owner. Further, there was no misappropriation nor conversion over the funds in question.

Reiteracion is a circumstance where the offender, at the time of his trial for an offense, has previously served a sentence to which the law attaches an equal or greater penalty than to the second offense or for two or more offenses, in which the law attaches a lighter penalty. This is a generic aggravating circumstance and if present, the maximum penalty of the offense shall be imposed. Recidivism is committed by a person who, at the time of his trial for one crime, shall have been previously convicted by final judgment of another crime embraced in the same title of the Code. Habitual deliquency is committed by any person if within a period of 10 years from the date of his release or last conviction of the crime of robbery, theft, estafa or falsification, he is found guilty of any of the said crimes a third time or oftener. Recidivism is an aggravating circumstance is not an element which necessarily forms an integral part of habitual delinquency. The difference between recidivism and habitual delinquency is the application of bail. If the penalty imposed on a crime exceeds 6 years, the accused shall be denied bail or his bail shall be cancelled if he is a recidivist or habitual delinquent, as the case may be. Hence, if a recidivist commits a crime whose penalty is less than 6 years, there can be no application for bail.

There is no necessity for a judicial pronouncement of guilt of a subsequent crime nor a conviction by final judgment of court in order for a convict to be recommended for the violation of his conditional pardon. The law provides that the grant of pardon and the determination of the terms and conditions of a conditional pardon are purely executive in nature which shall not be subjected to judicial inquiry. The Executive Department in this case has the option to proceed thru an administrative case for breach of a conditional pardon or charge him under the RPC for violation of the conditions of the pardon.

Further, there is no violation of due process because the conditionally pardoned convict already benefited judicial process during his trial and conviction for the offense for which he was conditionally pardoned.

Paula Bianca Eguia

2020-12-16

Perigrino Varquez

Exam: QUIZ CRIMINAL LAW DEC 14 2020

Word count: 787

Writing time: 78 minutes

Email: varquez.perigrino@gmail.com

Class: Criminal Law Review

Teacher: Judge Ric S. Bastasa

1) No. If I were the judge I will not issue the warrant of arrest. As provided by law to constitute estafa through the issuance of a check, the same must be issued simultaneously with the obligation and without which the other party will not part or give his materials to the other. In this case, the post-dated check an Equitable Banking Corporation Check No. 22711219A was issued only after the obligation was consummated in October, 1973 to June 20, 1974 and the check was issued in July, 1974 in other words the transaction was already consummated when the check was issued. The element of deceit or false pretense was lacking since the check was only issued when petitioner, Daylinda A. Laguia and the supplier Gempesaw had already finished their transaction of delivering hardware materials to the petitioner. The transaction between the two (2) parties is plainly a civil obligation and not the crime of estafa. Therefore, if I were the judge I will not issue the warrant of arrest as the action is purely civil in nature.

2. The accused committed the crimes of illegal recruitment in large-scale by a syndicate involving economic sabotage and estafa. The law provides that when a group of three (3) or more persons confederating with each other and without any license or authority recruited person for a fee and promising for employment abroad shall be liable for illegal recruitment in large-scale and the victims consisting of three (3) or more persons shall be considered a crime involving economic sabotage and should be penalized higher than that of simple illegal recruitment. In the given case, there are five (5) accused all employees of Alternative Travel and Tours Corporation (ATTC) and it is not provided that they have the license and authority to engage in the recruitment and placement of workers for employment abroad. Absence of any authority or license for recruitment and placement of workers for employment abroad the accused committed illegal recruitment. Hence, the five accused having confederated and helping each other to commit the illegal recruitment they are deemed a syndicate under the law.

Moreover, as they have employed false pretense and machinations that deceive the victims to part their moneys in exchange for the promise of employment abroad, the accused are also liable for the crime of estafa under the Revised Penal Code. Hence, all the accused are liable for the crimes of illegal recruitment in large-scale by a syndicate involving economic sabotage and estafa.

3. The accused are liable for the crime of estafa through falsification of documents for having rigged the bidding documents to make it appear that the transaction are all legitimate. The falsification of document is a necessary means to commit estafa without which the crime will not be committed.

4. Recidivism under the Revised Penal Code means that the accused while on trial for an offense has been previously convicted of another offense under the same title. While a habitual delinquent on the other hand, the accused committed any of the crimes of theft, robbery, estafa or serious or less serious physical injuries within a period of ten (10) years or oftener. And reiteracion, the accused while serving sentence of the crime that he committed has committed another crime. The effect of recidivism, habitual delinquent and reiteracion will be considered in the imposition of the penalty to the accused and the court shall impose the higher penalty and it shall be imposed in the maximum period to the accused to teach him a lesson because of his criminal perversity.

5. The conditional pardon granted by the President of the Republic of the Philippines in favor of the accused is in the nature a contract between the accused and the President of the Republic. As provided by law through jurisprudence decided by the Supreme Court that a conditional pardon granted by the President to the accused is a contract that carries with it conditions that must be complied by the accused that he would "not again violate any of the penal laws of the Philippines and a violation of which the accused can be rearrested immediately without need of any notice and to serve the remaining term of his sentence. In this case, the accused was given conditional pardon on the crimes that he committed and while on conditional pardon, the accused again was charged of twenty counts of estafa which is a violation to the pardon given to him. Therefore, in view of the violation that he committed to his conditional pardon, the accused can be rearrested even without any notice on his part and it is not a violation of due process for him to serve the remaining term of his sentence.

Perigrino Varquez

2020-12-16

Renante Carumba

Exam: QUIZ CRIMINAL LAW DEC 14 2020

Word count: 429

Writing time: 120 minutes

Email: renantecarumba153@gmailc.om

Class: Political Law Review

Teacher: Judge Ric Bastasa

If I were the judge, I will not issue the warrant of arrest. Under the law, the mere issuance of of a check with knowledge on the part of the drawer that he had no funds to cover the amount and without informing the payee of such circumstances, does not constitute the crime of estata if the check was intended as payment of a pre-existing obligation, Here, the check was not issued prior or simultaneiusly with the money borrowed but as payment of the pre-existing credit. Thus, the was no deceit or fraud so to speack.

The accused committed the crimes of Large Scale Illegal Recruitment and five counts of estafa.

As to the crime of large scale illegal recruitment, the accused acted in conspiracy in misrrepesenting themselves of their capacities to send the complainants abroad and as a consideration of that mispresentation, the complainants parted their money to the accused for processing the documents needed.

As to the crime of estafa, because of the deceit resorted to by the accused in order for the complainant to apply and process the necessary documents/ Thus, complainants were defrauded and as a consequence, they suffered damages.

The crime committed by the accused is Syndicated Estafa.

Reiteracion, Recidivism and Habitaul Delinquency may be distinguished as follows.

In Reiteracion

-The accused must have served out his sentence for the first conviction

- The previous and subsequent offense must not be embraced within the same title of the Revised Penal Code

In Recidivism

`-Final Judgment is necessary

- both offenses must embraced within the same title of the Revised Penal code

In Habitual Delinquency

-The offenses are specified

- the third offense must be committed within 10 years from the date of last conviction or released

No, Habitual Delinquent necessarily a recidivist because the latter is not a factor or element which necessarily forms an integral part of Habitual Delinquent/

The affect then is that it will increase the penalty imposed against the accused either as an aggravating circumstances or as an additional penalty.

The contention of the petitioner is not meritorious.

The cancellation by the President of the conditional partdo of the petitioner is an Executive Act, not subject to judicial review.. There is no judicial pronoucement of guilt of a subsequent crime is necessary. Neither final judgment of a court in order that a convict may be recommended for the violation of the conditional pardon. Thus, cancellation of conditional pardon is in the nature of President.s executive prerogative and is not subject to judicial scrutuny

Renante Carumba

2020-12-16

REY GAVINO CADAG

Exam: QUIZ CRIMINAL LAW DEC 14 2020

Word count: 546

Writing time: 144 minutes

Email: reygavinocadag@gmail.cm

Class: REFRESHER

Teacher: JUDGE RIC BASRASA

1. If i were the judge i will issue the warrant of arrest because while the credit extended by Gempesaw Hardware covers the period of one year, this means to say that there was no element of false pretense that Lagua Enterprises made a fraudulent means as they were buyer and customer for a long time and this element of fraud is a matter of defense which could be determined in a full blown trial. And besides all the element of Estafa under Par. 2(d) are present in the case at bar.

The accused committed the crimes of :

Illegal Recruitment in Large Scale when three or more persons recruited or promised for employment abroad by the accused whether for profit or not, they committed such act of Illegal Recruitment.

Illegal Recruitment by Syndicate when three or more recruiters recruited or promised for employment abroad any person or group of persons whether for propfit or not, said accused cmmitted the said crime.

Syndicated Estafa when five or more persons confiring and confederating to defraud any person in false pretense by way giving them employment abroad in exchange of any consideration without any license or capacity to fulfill their services.

Trafficking in Persons could also a crime be charged by the accused having without any authority or lincense from the government to engage such activities and they recruited persons to be sent abroad without any documentation having no authority from the government.

3.Falsification by private individual and use of falsified documents becuase the directors take advantage of their positions manipulated the transaction using the falsified document to pursue the proposal of which he is also the signatory.

4. Reiteracion is an agravating circumstance which a person or offender who is previously punished of a crime which attaches equal or greater penalty or two or more crimes which attaches lesser penalty.

Recidivism is also an agravating circumstance which a person or accused at the time of the trial of his case, he has previously convicted of a crime by final judgment that embraced in same title of the Revised Penal Code.

Habitual deliquent is that within 10 years from the released or last conviction of the accused for the crime of Serious or less serious physical injuries, robo, hurt, estafa or falsification of documents, he is found guilty of the crime for the third time or oftener. this is special aggravating circumstance.

The offender can be a recidist and habitual deliquent at the same time if he convicted for the third time of the forementioned offenses but Habitual delinquent is not necessarily a recidist because the offenses before the habitual deliquent are specific and not all falls within same title of the Revised Penal Code.

5. The contention of the petitioner is not correct that he was not given the opportunity tobe heard before he was arrested when the President through the Ministry of Justice as his alter ego revoked his conditional pardon because said right is personal to the President and said action cannt be impugned by the court.

Due process clause of the Constitution is not violated becaused said authority to cancel or revoked the pardon is vested by the Constitution on the power of the President, and this powere is within his own prerogative.

REY GAVINO CADAG

2020-12-16

ROJEAN CULANAG

Exam: QUIZ CRIMINAL LAW DEC 14 2020

Word count: 788

Writing time: 103 minutes

Email: rojeanculanag.rc@gmail.com

Class: CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW

Teacher: JUDGE RIC BASTASA

1.) If I were the judge, I will not issue the warrant of arrest since the same was issued by the accused as payment of a pre-existing obligation.

Under the Revised Penal Code, to be held liable for estafa, the law requires among others, that the postdating or the issuance of the check must be in payment of an obligation contracted at the time the check was issued. In other words, the false pretense or fraudulent act must be executed prior to or simultaneous with the commission of the fraud.

Here, the issuance of the check by Daylinda Lagua was made as payment of a pre-existing obligation and as such, she derives no material benefit in return as its consideration had long been delivered to her before the check was issued.

Thus, the warrant of arrest should not be issued against Daylinda Lagua.

2.) The accused committed the crimes of estafa and illegal recruitment in large scale.

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

Here, the accused employed deceit by promising to the offended parties that they have the capacity to obtain employment for them and such promise was not fulfilled. Where it not for such promise of employment, the offended parties would not have parted with their money.

Thus, the accused clearly committed the crime of estafa.

Also, aside from estafa, the accused are also liable for illegal recruitment in large scale.

Illegal recruitment in large scale is committed when it is carried out by a group of three or more persons conspiring and confederating with one another.

This crime is separate and distinct from the crime of estafa since it is punished under Special Law and deceit is immaterial in this crime.

Thus, the accused can also be held liable for illegal recruitment in large scale.

3.) The crime committed is syndicated estafa.

The Supreme Court has held that syndicated estafa is committed by a group of at least five persons using an association that they formed to defraud its members.

Here, there was defraudation since BATELEC II did not comply with the bidding requirements laid down under the law.

Thus, syndicated estafa was committed by BATELEC II.

4.) In reiteracion, the offender shall have been punished previously for an offense to which the law attaches an equal or greater penalty or for two or more crimes to which it attaches a lighter penalty.

In recidivism, the accused, at the time of his trial for one crime, he shall have been previously convicted by final judgment of another crime embraced in the same title of the Revised Penal Code.

In habitual deliquency, a person is deemed a habitual delinquent if within the period of ten years from the date of his release or last conviction of the crime of theft, estafa, robbery or falsification, he is found guilty of any of said crimes a third time of oftener.

Yes, a habitual delinquent is necessarily a recidivist. As such, in imposing the principal penalty against the accused, the aggravating circumstance of recidivism has to be taken into account.

The presence of reiteracion and recidivism have the effect of increasing the penalty of the accused and the presence of habitual deliquency has the effect of not only increasing the penalty of the accused but also of imposing an additional penalty.

5.)

a.) The conviction of a crime by final judgment is not necessary before the petitioner can be validly rearrested and recommitted for violation of the terms of his conditional pardo.

The Supreme Court has held that the grant of pardon and the determination of the terms and conditions of a conditional pardon is purely executive acts which are not subject to judicial scrutiny. The acceptance of a conditional pardon by the parolee carries with it the authority of the President to determine whether the conditions of the pardon have been violated.

Thus, conviction of a crime by final judgment is not necessary before the petitioner can be validly rearrested and recommitted for violation of the terms of his conditional pardon.

b.) No, due process was not violated since the accused was given the opportunity to defend himself during the trial of his first case for the crime of estafa with which he was convicted.

When he was granted a conditional pardon by the President, it was an exercise by the latter of his constitutional prerogative and his acceptance of the same carries with it the authority of the President to determine whether the conditions of the pardon have been violated.

Thus, due process was not violate.

ROJEAN CULANAG

2020-12-16

Vera Nataa

Exam: QUIZ CRIMINAL LAW DEC 14 2020

Word count: 757

Email: vnataa@gmail.com

Class: Criminal Law Review

Teacher: Judge Ric S. Bastasa

If I were the judge, I would not issue the warrant of arrest. Issuance of warrant of arrest can be validly made when the judge personally evaluates the cause of action and finds probable cause for such issuance. In this case, at first glance, there seems to be a commission of a crime of estafa by postdating or issuance of bad checks. However, it must be noted that the constitution of such fraudulent act must be executed prior or simultaneously with the commission of such deceit for personal gain.

In this case, the issuance of check was made for payment of a pre-existing obligation from the Gempesaw Hardware. Since the obligation is pre-existing, it cannot be said that the drawer gained something as a result of such issuance. Consequently, such issuance does not constitute a crime of estafa.

The accused committed the crimes of illegal recruitment and five counts of estafa. Under the Labor Code, the following are necessary to constitute illegal recruitment: (1) the offender has no valid license or authority to engage in recruitment; and (2) the offender performs activities within the meaning of recruitment or any prohibited acts as provided by the Code. Estafa, on the other hand, is committed when: (1) the offender defrauded another by means of deceit or by abuse of confidence; and (2) the offended party suffered damage.

In this case, the accused recruited and promised overseas employment, for a fee, to complainants. However, none of them was able to leave nor recover the amounts they had paid. Apparently, all elements of the crimes of illegal recruitment and estafa are present in this case. It is a well-settled rule that a person can be convicted separately of the crimes of illegal recruitment and estafa for the same acts.

The case should be dismissed. Estafa is committed when the offender received money or property in trust or for administration, there is misappropriation or conversion in prejudice of another, and there is demand by the offended party. To constitute syndicated estafa, the commission of the crime of estafa must be committed by a syndicated consisting of 5 or more persons and the commission of fraud or deceit resulted to misappropriation of money contributed by members of cooperatives or associations, stockholders of corporations, or funds solicited from general public.

In this case, one of the elements of the crime of estafa is absent. As provided in the facts of the case, there is no money or any personal property received in trust or for admnistration from BATELEC II. The directors did not acquire juridical possession of the funds. Hence, there can be no crime of estafa.

Reiteracion is a form of habituality wherein the offender has been previously punished. It is a kind of aggravating circumstance in a sense that despite his previous punishment, he did not learn his lesson.

Recidivism is a form of habituality wherein the offender has been previously convicted by final judgment, and at the time of his trial of another crime which is in the same title under the RPC. To constitute recidivism, there must be at least two convictions.

Habitual delinquency is another form of habituality wherein the offender is found guilty for at least third time of the crimes of falsification, robbery, estafa, theft and serious or less serious physical injuries within a period of 10 years from the date of his release or his last conviction.

Yes, a habitual delinquent is necessarily a recidivist. These are all kinds of aggravating circumstances which have the effect of increasing the penalty.

5.1.

No, conviction of a crime by final judgment of a court is not necessary before the petitioner can be validly rearrested and recommitted for violation of the terms of his conditional pardon. While it is true that conviction by final judgment of the subsequent offense committed is necessary to charge criminal penalty of such subsequent offense, it is not necessary to rearrest and recommit him to prison. A conditional pardon is in the nature of a contract between the President and the convict. Consequently, any violation of such contract shall authorize the President to arrest such person and recommit to prison to serve the unexpired portion of his sentence.

5.2.

No, the due process is not violated. Should there be violation in the conditional pardon granted by the President, the President is authorized to order arrest of such person and shall be proceeded in the manner prescribed by law. However, such due process is not necessarily judicial in nature.

Vera Nataa

2020-12-16

Virgilio Encabo

Exam: QUIZ CRIMINAL LAW DEC 14 2020

Word count: 799

Writing time: 139 minutes

Email: jing86virenc@gmail.com

Class: Criminal Law

Teacher: Judge Ric Bastasa

1. If I were the Judge, I would issue the warrant of arrest since their is clear violation of BP Blg. 22. The crime violated is one committed against Public Order. Any person who makes and issues any check to apply for account, knowing that at the time of the issue that he does not have sufficient funds for the payment of such check upon presentment, which check is subsequently dishonored by the drawee bank for insufficinecy of funds. Here, Daylinda issued a check in payment of her obligation but this same was dishonored by the Equitable Banking Corporation, the drawee bank, upon presentment, and despite repeated demands upon Daylinda, she refused and failed to make payment to the damage of Gempesaw Hardware. Since, all the elements of the offense are present, to wit: a.) The accuses makes or draws, and issues check to apply on account; b.) The accuses knows at the time of the issuance that she does not have sufficient funds in the drawee bank; and c) The check is subsequently dishonored by the drawee bank, thus, as Judge, I will issue a warrant of arrest against her.

2. The five accused committed syndicated illegal recruitment as such recrutiment was carried out by three or more conspirators. They can also be liable for syndicated estafa as defined under Article 315 and 316 of the Revised Penal Code. The elements of syndicated estafa are: a.) estafa or other forms of swindling is committed; b.) It is committed by a syndicate of five or more persons; and c) the act of defraudation has resulted to misappropriation of money collected. In the present case, Robles, Miranda Catacotan, Resco and Temporada, being employees of Alternative travel and Tours Corporation, have succeeded willfully, feloniously and unlawfully, in the recruitment with promise for overseas employment, complainants Legaspi, Jr, Atle, Minkay, Estacio and Dimaano as factory workers in Hongkong. After collecting sum of money as placement fees, none on the complainants was able to leave the country. Hence, the accused can be liable fo syndicated illegal recruitment or syndicated estafa.

3. The accused committed estafa by means of deceit. The elements of which are: a.) That there must be false pretense or fraudulent representation as to his power, influence , qualifications, credit, agency , business or imaginary transactions: b) That such false pretense or fraudulent representation was made or executed prior to or simulataneous with the commission of the fraud; c). that the offended party relied of the false pretense, fraudulent acts; and d.) that the offended party suffered damage. In the case before us, the accused, through BATELEC II have entered contracts with I-SOLV technologies (ITI) and with Supertrac Motors Corporation. The bidding of such contract was however rigged with fraud when the directors themselves directly participated in the award of the computerization contract to ITI, despite the prohibition under the NEA Bulletin no 35 (2) that the members of the Board of directors should not involve tofunctions belonging to the management. Besides, ITI was grossly unqualified to perform the contract as it is undercapitalized for the venture. Hence, the board of directors who participated in the anomalous bid transaction can be held liable fot estafa by meansof deceit.

4. Reiteracion, recidivism, and habitual delinquency may be distinguished as follows:

In reiteracion, the offender has been previously punished and has served sentence. The first offense must have been punished with an equal or greater penalty, or he has committed two or more crimes previously to which the law attaches a lighter penalty. In Recidivism, the recidivist, must have been convicted at least twice involving offense embraced in the same title of the Revised Penal Code. The first offense must be by final judgment and must take place prior to the second conviction. And, in Habitual Delinquency, the law requires three convictions. The third conviction must be committed within ten years from the second conviction. Such ten year period is counted from the date of his release is he had been released when again convicted.

A habitual delinquent is necessarily a recidivist. The effect of all these to the accused is that it will vary the imposition of the penalty defending on the appreciation of the attendant circumstances.

5. No, conviction by final judgement is not necessary before the petitioner can be validly rearrested and recommitted for violation of the terms and condition of pardon. The power to grant pardon is exercise by the President alone only after the final conviction. However, in this case, it is the President, who cancelled the grant of the conditional pardon. Therefore, the action of the Minister of Justice, who issue an arrest and recommitment order, is proper and there is violation of the right of the accused to due process.

Virgilio Encabo

students' answer to the quiz in criminal law on dec 15, 2020

Aisha Mie Faith Fernandez

Exam: QUIZ CRIMINAL LAW DEC 14 2020

Word count: 823

Writing time: 115 minutes

Email: mie.aisha23@gmail.com

Class: Criminal Law Review

Teacher: Judge Ric S. Bastasa

Ameliano Himang

Exam: QUIZ CRIMINAL LAW DEC 14 2020

Word count: 807

Writing time: 129 minutes

Email: mhelghimang49@gmail.com

Class: Criminal Law Review Class

Teacher: Judge Ric Bastasa

Ariel Acopiado

Exam: QUIZ CRIMINAL LAW DEC 14 2020

Word count: 1007

Writing time: 106 minutes

Email: spitfirea211@gmaill.com

Class: JD-IV

Teacher: Judge Ric S. Bastasa

Arnold Bongcayao

Exam: QUIZ CRIMINAL LAW DEC 14 2020

Word count: 372

Writing time: 54 minutes

Email: arnoldbongcayao@gmail.com

Class: Criminal Law Review

Teacher: Judge Ric Bastasa

BOBBY BORCES

Exam: QUIZ CRIMINAL LAW DEC 14 2020

Word count: 994

Email: borcesbobby@gmail.com

Class: CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW

Teacher: JUDGE RIC S. BASTASA

Cherrie Mae Granada

Exam: QUIZ CRIMINAL LAW DEC 14 2020

Word count: 944

Writing time: 144 minutes

Email: cherriemae.aguila@gmail.com

Class: Criminal Law Review

Teacher: Judge Ric S. Bastasa

Christian Val G Dionglay

Exam: QUIZ CRIMINAL LAW DEC 14 2020

Word count: 392

Writing time: 78 minutes

Email: christianval4680@gmail.com

Class: Criminal Law Review

Teacher: Judge Ric S Bastasa

cyrus tingcang

Exam: QUIZ CRIMINAL LAW DEC 14 2020

Word count: 819

Writing time: 99 minutes

Email: cyrust2011@gmail.com

Class: 4th year Juris Doctor

Teacher: Judge Ric Bastasa

Dexter Kim Patron

Exam: QUIZ CRIMINAL LAW DEC 14 2020

Word count: 721

Writing time: 117 minutes

Email: dpatron200517@gmail.com

Class: Criminal Law Review

Teacher: Judge Ric Bastasa

eduardo luayon

Exam: QUIZ CRIMINAL LAW DEC 14 2020

Word count: 437

Writing time: 112 minutes

Email: emanlu1962@yahoo.com

Class: IV

Teacher: Judge R. Bastasa

ferdinand solas

Exam: QUIZ CRIMINAL LAW DEC 14 2020

Word count: 0

Email: ferdinandsolas55@gmail.com

Class: criminal law

Teacher: Judge Ric Bastasa

ferdinandd solas

Exam: QUIZ CRIMINAL LAW DEC 14 2020

Word count: 698

Writing time: 113 minutes