CRIMINAL LAW - BAR Questions
CRIMINAL LAW
(WITH PRACTICAL EXERCISES)
1. Police officer John ran after Randy who had just
killed Willy in John’s presence. John fired at Randy in an attempt to stop him
in his tracks. In response, Randy fired back at John, hitting him. John was
seriously wounded but survived due to timely medical assistance. Randy was then
charged with Frustrated Homicide. During the trial, Randy claimed self-defense.
Is Randy’s claim of self-defense tenable?
Explain briefly. (5 points)
2. Moe, Curly, and Larry were drinking and singing
inside a karaoke bar when suddenly, Buboy entered the bar and without warning,
immediately shot all three of them using a caliber .45 pistol. Thereafter,
Buboy ran out of the bar to escape. Moe, Curly, and Larry died instantly due to
gunshot wounds in their heads and bodies. With the help of eyewitnesses, Buboy
was arrested. After inquest, the
prosecutor charged Buboy with three counts of Homicide.
Do you agree with the charge of Homicide
against Buboy? Explain briefly. (5 points)
3. Michael was driving along the highway when he
executed a prohibited U-Turn. Dyords, a police officer, accosted Michael for
the traffic violation. A verbal argument ensued between them. Dyords suddenly
drew his service firearm, and pointed it at Michael. Dyords ordered Michael to
alight from his car, which the latter obeyed. Dyords then handcuffed Michael
and pinned his head and body against the pavement until he could no longer
breathe. Michael died. Charged with Homicide, Dyords interposed the exempting circumstance
of accident as a defense.
If you were the judge, how would you
resolve Dyords’ defense? Explain briefly. (5 points)
4. Bernardo, a mayoralty candidate of Osram City,
wanted to eliminate Yori, his political opponent. Yori announced his intention
to run for mayor of the same city. A month before the filing of candidacy,
Bernardo and Benjamin met at a hotel and discussed their plan to kill Yori on
the day when he would file his certificate of candidacy. Based on their
agreement, Bernardo would provide the guns and the money, while Benjamin would
provide the personnel to cordon off all roads leading to the COMELEC’s local
office.
On the day of the execution of the
plan, however, Benjamin flew to Manila to avoid being involved in the planned
killing of Yori. Bernardo, determined to kill Yori, convened his own armed
group and laid out a new plan to kill Yori, and in accordance with it, his
armed group patrolled all the roads leading to the COMELEC’s local office.
Bernardo remained in his house and monitored the execution of the plan from
there. As soon as Yori and his supporters passed by the main road at around
2:00 p.m., Bernardo’s armed group opened fire at them. Yori was unharmed as he
was inside a bulletproof vehicle, but ten of his supporters were killed.
Bernardo, the members of his armed group, and Benjamin were later charged with
ten counts of Murder for the death of Yori’s supporters and one count of
Attempted Murder of Yori.
Discuss the criminal liability for the
crimes charged against each of the following: (i) Bernardo, (ii) the members of
Bernardo’s armed group, and (iii) Benjamin. Explain briefly. (5 points)
5. A police officer responded to a disturbance call
at around 1:30 p.m. in an apartment in Quezon City. Upon his arrival, the
police officer encountered Sisa stabbing her 1-year old child with a kitchen
knife. The police officer grabbed Sisa and the latter threw the knife on the
floor. Sisa was immediately taken into custody. Despite suffering multiple stab
wounds on her back, the child survived. During the trial, Sisa insisted that
she can only be held liable for Attempted Parricide because she voluntarily
desisted when she threw down the knife.
Is Sisa’s contention tenable? Explain
briefly. (5 points)
6. Anna and Barbara, while working inside their sari-sari store, saw Javier and Jorge
robbing an elderly woman of her purse and brutally beating her to death. Anna
and Barbara immediately ran outside and, when they tried to help the elderly
woman, Javier and Jorge stabbed both of them. Thereafter, Javier and Jorge ran
away with the elderly woman’s purse. Anna suffered one stab wound which
punctured her lung, but she survived due to timely medical assistance. Barbara,
however, died as a result of nine stab wounds, one of which pierced through her
spleen.
If you were the prosecutor, what crime/s
will you file against Javier and Jorge for: (i) the death of the elderly
woman, (ii) the death of Barbara, and
(iii) the injuries sustained by Anna? Explain briefly. (5 points)
7. Jesusa, a mayoralty candidate of the
Municipality of Jaen, Nueva Ecija during the 2019 local elections, was ambushed
and gunned down by Jhudas, a gun for hire. Jhudas was arrested at a COMELEC
checkpoint just after the incident. The firearm he used, a baby Armalite, was
verified to be without any license. During the interrogation, Jhudas admitted
that Pontio, the rival mayoralty candidate of Jesusa, paid him Php 1,000,000.00
to assassinate Jesusa. Due to Jhudas’ admission, coupled with the sworn
statement of an eyewitness, the prosecutor filed two Informations, one for
Murder and one for Illegal Possession of Firearm, against both Jhudas and
Pontio.
Do you agree with the prosecutor’s charges
against Jhudas and Pontio? Explain briefly. (5 points)
8. Jenny obtained a fire insurance from YG
Insurance Co. (YG). In payment of the policy, she issued a postdated check
payable to cash in the amount of Php
15,000.00 which was handed to Lisa,
YG’s sales agent. Lisa did not remit the check to YG. Instead, Lisa deposited
it in her husband’s bank account, but the check was dishonored for having been
drawn from a closed account.
What crime, if any, was committed by Lisa
and, if there was any, what is its prescribed penalty? Explain briefly. (5
points)
9. Madame X, with the promise of money, and without
the use of force, intimidation, or threat, enticed Zia, a 15-year-old, to
engage in oral sex by allowing Madame X to lick Zia’s vagina. Zia consented
because she needed the money.
What crime, if any, was committed by Madame
X? Explain briefly. (5 points)
10.
During the 2022 national elections, Bern posted
on her Facebook page a statement that Alfredo, an incumbent mayor vying for
re-election, has a pending corruption case with the Sandiganbayan for pocketing
Php
20,000,000.00 of public funds under
his custody. Czarina, Bern’s friend, saw the post and commented online,
stating: “Bhie, true yan. Alfredo is so
corrupt. Marami ding binabahay yan. Sugarol pa!” Donnabel, also Bern’s
friend, reacted to Bern’s post by clicking the “like” button. Another person,
Justine, who is a stranger to Bern and her friends, but who claims to be a
crusader for good governance, came across the said post. Finding it relevant to
her advocacy and crusade, Justine shared the link to Bern’s post on her Twitter
account.
Who among Bern, Czarina, Donnabel, and
Justine, if any, are liable for the crime of Cyberlibel? Explain briefly. (5 points)
11. On May 15, 2013 at around 3:00 a.m., Lucy, Mary,
and Raphael were on board a passenger jeepney, with Raphael behind the wheel.
They were traversing the highway on the southbound lane.
Meanwhile, a Virgen Bus, driven by
Kiko, was traveling along the northbound lane. Kiko overtook the vehicle in
front of him, which caused him to occupy the opposite lane where the jeepney
was on. With the Virgen Bus traveling at a high speed, Raphael tried to avoid
the collision but failed. The bus hit the jeepney which resulted in Raphael’s
death, serious physical injuries to Lucy and Mary, and extensive damage to the
jeepney amounting to Php 500,000.00.
The public prosecutor filed two
Informations charging Kiko for two separate offenses: (i) Reckless Imprudence
resulting in Serious Physical Injuries for the injuries suffered by the passengers;
and (ii) Reckless Imprudence resulting in Homicide and Damage to Property for
Raphael’s death and the damage to the jeepney.
Is the public prosecutor correct? Explain
briefly. (5 points)
12. Sometime in 2011, while police officers were
conducting a foot patrol in connection with the report of rampant illegal
activities in the area, police officer Pepe saw Raul inside a small shanty
holding a disposable syringe. Being a police officer for almost 15 years and
having previously made more than ten arrests involving possession of drug
paraphernalia, Pepe entered through the
open door of Raul’s shanty and
arrested him. Inside the shanty, 23 more pieces of disposable syringes and
empty ampules were seized from Raul. Pepe immediately marked the seized items,
took photographs thereof, and conducted an inventory in the presence of Raul, a
barangay kagawad, a representative
from the Department of Justice (DOJ), and a media practitioner. The seized
items were turned over to the evidence custodian, who kept them in a sealed
container in the police station.
During the trial of Raul for the crime
of Illegal Possession of Drug Paraphernalia, police officer Pepe, the sole
witness for the prosecution, testified as narrated above. After which, the
prosecution rested its case. The defense did not present any evidence.
If you were the judge, would you convict or
acquit Raul for the crime charged? Explain briefly. (5 points)
13. Joben, a school principal, called high school
students Paula and Gina, both 15 years old, to the faculty room regarding the
sexual text message circulating around campus which made reference to Joben’s
daughter. In front of teachers and some students, Joben shouted at Paula and
Gina, asking them who sent the said text message. Joben also threatened to sue
them and said: “Siguro nainggit kayo sa
anak ko kasi maganda sya, matalino at mayaman. Sabihin nyo kasi sa mga magulang
nyo magsumikap sila para maging mayaman din kayo. Di yung tatamad-tamad.” Joben
then raised her middle finger in front of Paula and Gina, saying “Mga burikat (whore)!”
Later that day, Paula and Gina
narrated the incident to their parents and said that they were ashamed of going
back to school.
Is Joben guilty of violating Section 10(a)
of Republic Act No. 7610 for other acts of child abuse? Explain briefly. (5
points)
14. On February 25, 2019, Bob approached Edward to
borrow Php 100,000.00 purportedly to settle some obligations, promising that he
would pay the loan using a postdated check. Convinced by Bob's promises of
repayment with interest, and because of their closeness as former classmates in
high school, Edward agreed to lend the said amount. As payment, Bob made, drew,
issued in favor of, and delivered to Edward in the latter's residence at No.
112 Maria Orosa St., Ermita, Manila, CBC Savings Bank Check No. 32710 postdated
August 25, 2019 in the amount of Php 105,000.00. When the check was presented
for payment on its due date in CBC Savings Bank Quezon City Branch, it was
dishonored due to: “Drawn Against Insufficient Funds” (DAIF).
On January 22, 2020, Edward sent a
demand letter to Bob to pay the face value of the check, but said demand,
although received by Bob, was not heeded. Hence, the check remained unpaid,
with no arrangement for its payment.
Draft the appropriate Information, complete
with caption and title, charging Bob for violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22.
(5 points)
15. In 2003, the Province of Davao del Sur purchased
two vehicles for the use of the Governor and Vice Governor, respectively. The
purchase requests, which were all signed by Luis as then Governor of the
province, requested for the acquisition of one unit of Ford Ranger XLT 4x4 and
one unit of Toyota Hilux 4x4. The procurement of the subject vehicles did not
undergo competitive public bidding as it was effected through direct purchase.
The mode of procurement was approved by the members of the Bids and Awards
Committee (BAC) of the province. The two vehicles were delivered to the
provincial government, and after inspection and acceptance by the concerned
officials, payments were issued to the suppliers.
Subsequently, a complaint was filed by
a concerned citizen before the Office of the Ombudsman-Mindanao (OMB) claiming
that the purchase of the provincial government violated the procurement law.
The OMB, after due investigation, verified that the provincial government did
not comply with the required procedure of the procurement law. Based on this
finding, the OMB filed with the Sandiganbayan an Information against Luis and
the members of the BAC for violation of Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019.
The Sandiganbayan found Luis and the
members of the BAC guilty on the sole reason that violation of the procurement
law constitutes evident bad faith and manifest partiality on the part of the
accused.
Is the Sandiganbayan correct? Explain
briefly. (5 points)
Comments
Post a Comment