2018 UST Quamto CRIMINAL LAW PDF

Preview

Summary

University of Santo TomasFaculty of Civil LawCRIMINALLAWQuestions Asked MoreThan Once(QuAMTO 201 8)*QUAMTO is a compilation of past bar questions with answers assuggested by UPLC and other distinct luminaries in the academe, andupdated by the UST Academics Committee to fit for the 2017 Bar Exams.*Ba...

Description

University of Santo Tomas Faculty of Civil Law

CRIMINAL LAW Questions Asked More Than Once

(QuAMTO 2018) *QUAMTO is a compilation of past bar questions with answers as suggested by UPLC and other distinct luminaries in the academe, and updated by the UST Academics Committee to fit for the 2017 Bar Exams. *Bar questions are arranged per topic in accordance with the bar syllabus released by the Supreme Court and were selected based on their occurrence on past bar examinations from 1987 to 2016.

ACADEMICS COMMITTEE EDREA JEAN V. RAMIREZ

SECRETARY GENERAL

ARIANNA LAINE T. SARMIENTO MARIA ANGELICA J. HADLOC GENA MYRTLE P. TERRE MAICA A. PRUDENTE MARIELLA A. MARASIGAN

EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE

LAURISSE MARIE T. PERIANES JED NATHANIEL M. GONZALEZ

LAYOUT AND DESIGN

QUAMTO COMMITTEE MEMBERS MARHEN CASTRO MARIA ANGELICA HADLOC EDREA JEAN RAMIREZ ARIANNA LAINE SARMIENTO

ATTY. AL CONRAD B. ESPALDON ADVISER

QUAMTO (1987-2017) CRIMINAL LAW QUAMTO

PART I. REVISED PENAL CODE BOOK I

A. FUNDAMENTAL AND GENERAL PRINCIPLES IN CRIMINAL LAW Power of Congress to Enact Penal Laws Q: What are the limitations upon the power of Congress to enact penal laws? (1988, 2012 Bar) A: The limitations upon the power of congress to enact penal laws are as follows: 1. 2. 3.

Congress cannot enact an ex post facto law. Congress cannot enact a bill of attainder. Congress cannot provide for a cruel punishment.

However, other limitations may be considered like: 1.

2.

Congress cannot enact a law which shall punish for a condition. Congress shall punish an act and not the condition or status. (Robinson v. California) Congress should consider Article 21 of the Revised Penal Code which provides that “penalties that may be imposed. No felony shall be punishable by any penalty not prescribed by law prior to its commission.”

Doctrine of Pro Reo (2010, 2012 Bar) Q: What is the Doctrine ofPro Reo? How does it relate to Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code? (2010 Bar) A: The Doctrine of Pro Reo provides that whenever a penal law is to be construed or applied and the law admits of two interpretations, one lenient to the offender and one strict to the offender, that interpretation which is lenient or favorable to the offender will be adopted. Following this doctrine, crimes under Art. 48 of the RPC are complexed and punished with a single penalty (that prescribed for the most serious crime and to be imposed in its maximum period). The rationale being, that the accused who commits two crimes with a single criminal impulse demonstrates lesser perversity than when the crimes are committed by different acts and several criminal resolutions (People v. Comadre, G.R. No. 153559, June 8, 2004). However, Art. 48 shall be applied only when it would bring about the imposition of a penalty lesser than the penalties imposable for all the component crimes if prosecuted separately.

Q: What is the fundamental principle in applying and interpreting criminal laws xxx? (2012 Bar) A: The fundamental principle in interpreting and applying penal laws is the principle of pro reo. The phrase “in dubio pro reo” means “when in doubt, for the accused” (Intestate Estate of Gonzales v. People, GR No. 181409, February 11, 2010). This is in consonance with the constitutional guarantee that the accused ought to be presumed innocent until and unless his guilt is established beyond reasonable doubt (See People v. Temporary, GR No. 173473) Mala in Se and Mala Prohibita (1997, 1999, 2001, 2003, 2005, 2017 Bar) Q: Distinguish between crimes mala in se and mala prohibita. (1997, 1999, 2001, 2003, 2005, 2017 Bar) A: In concept, crimes mala in se are those where the acts or omissions penalized are intently bad, evil, or wrong that they are almost universally condemned. Crimes mala prohibita are those where the acts penalized are not inherently bad, evil, or wrong but prohibited by law for public good, public welfare, or interest and whoever violate the prohibition are penalized. In legal implications, in crimes mala in se, good faith or lack of criminal intent or negligence is a defense, while in crimes mala prohibita, good faith or lack of criminal intent or malice is not a defense; it is enough that the prohibition was voluntarily violated. Also, criminal liability is generally incurred in crimes mala in se even when the crime is only attempted or frustrated, while in crimes mala prohibita, criminal liability is generally incurred only when the crime is consummated. Also in crimes mala in se, mitigating and aggravating circumstances are appreciated in imposing the penalties, while in crimes mala prohibita, such circumstances are not appreciated unless the special law has adopted the scheme or scale of penalties under the Revised Penal Code. Lack of criminal intent is a valid defense in mala in se except when the crime results from criminal negligence. Such defense is not available in cases of mala prohibita. Q: May an act be malum in se and be, at the same time, malum prohibitum? (1997 Bar) A: Yes, an act may be malum in se and malum prohibitum at the same time. In People v. Sunico, et. al. (CA, 50 OG 5880) it was held that the omission or failure of election inspection and poll clerks to include a voter’s name in the registry list of voters is wrong per se because it disenfranchises a voter of his right to vote. In

1

CRIMINAL LAW this regard, it is considered as malum in se. Since it is punished under a special law (Sec. 101 and 103, Revised Election Code), it is considered malum prohibitum. Applicability and Effectivity of the Penal Code (1988, 1994, 1998, 2000, 2015, 2016 Bar) Q: State the characteristics of criminal law and explain each. (1988, 1998 Bar) A: The characteristics of criminal law are as follows:

1.

2.

3.

Generality – that the law is binding upon all persons who reside to sojourn in the Philippines, irrespective of age, sex, color, creed, or personal circumstances. Territoriality – that the law is applicable to all crimes committed within the limits of Philippine territory, which includes its atmosphere interior water and maritime zone. (Art. 2) Prospectivity – that the law does not have any retroactive effect, except if it favors the offender unless he is a habitual delinquent (Art. 22) or the law otherwise provides.

Q: Abe, married to Liza, contracted another marriage with Connie in Singapore. Thereafter, Abe and Connie returned to the Philippines and lived as husband and wife in the hometown of Abe in Calamba, Laguna. Can Abe be prosecuted for bigamy? (1994 Bar) A: No. Abe may not be prosecuted for bigamy since the bigamous marriage was contracted or solemnized in Singapore, hence, such violation is not one of those where the Revised Penal Code, under Art. 2 thereof, may be applied extraterritoriality. The general rule on territoriality of criminal law governs the situation. Q: After drinking one (1) case of San Miguel Beer and taking two plates of “pulutan”, Binoy, a Filipino seaman, stabbed to death Sio My, a Singaporean seaman, aboard M/V “Princess of the Pacific”, an overseas vessel which was sailing in the South China Sea. The vessel, although Panamanian registered, is owned by Lucio Sy, a rich Filipino businessman. When M/V “Princess of the Pacific” reached a Philippine Port at Cebu City, the Captain of the vessel turned over the assailant Binoy to the Philippine authorities. An Information for homicide was filed against Binoy in the Regional Trial Court of Cebu City. He moved to quash the Information for lack of jurisdiction. If you were the judge, will you grant the motion? Why? (2000 Bar)

A: Yes. The motion to quash the information should be granted. The Philippine court has no jurisdiction over the crime committed since it was committed on the high seas or outside of Philippine territory and on board a vessel not registered or licensed in the Philippines (US v. Fowler, 1 Phil 614) It is the registration of the vessel in accordance with the laws of the Philippines, not the citizenship of her owner, which makes it a Philippine ship. The vessel being registered in Panama, the laws of Panama govern while it is in the high seas. Q: Ando, an Indonesian national who just visited the Philippines, purchased a ticket for a passenger vessel bound for Hong Kong. While on board the vessel, he saw his mortal enemy Iason, also an Indonesian national, seated at the back portion of the cabin and who was busy reading a newspaper. Ando stealthily approached Iason and when he was near him, Ando stabbed and killed Iason. The vessel is registered in Malaysia. The killing happened just a few moments after the vessel left the port of Manila. Operatives from the PNP Maritime Command arrested Ando. Presented for the killing of Iason, Ando contended that he did not incur criminal liability because both he and the victim were Indonesians. He likewise argued that he could not be prosecuted in Manila because the vessel is a Malaysianregistered ship. Discuss the merits of Ando's contentions. (2015 Bar) A: Both contentions of Ando lack merit. The argument of Ando that he did not incur criminal liability because both he and the victim were Indonesians is not tenable. Under the generality principle, penal laws shall be obligatory upon all who live or sojourn in the Philippine territory (Article 14 of the Civil Code). The foreign characteristic of an offender and offended party does not exclude him from operation of penal laws (People v. Galacgac, C.A., 54 O.G. 1027). Under the Revised Penal Code, except as provided in treaties and laws of preferential application, penal laws of the Philippines shall have force and effect within its territory. Here, since the killing took place within the Philippine territory, our penal laws applies and Ando may be held criminally responsible despite his being and Indonesian citizen B. FELONIES Corpus delicti Q: (a) Define “Corpus delicti”. (b) What are the elements of “Corpus delicti”? (2000 Bar) A:

UST BAR OPERATIONS

2

QUAMTO (1987-2017) Motive and Intent (a) Corpus Delicti literally means “the body or substance of the crime” or the fact that a crime has been committed, but does not include the identity of the person who committed it. (People v. Pascal, 44 OG 2789) (b) Elements of corpus delicti: The actual commission by someone of the particular crime charged. It is a compound fact made up of two things: (1) The existence of a certain act or result forming the basis of the criminal charge; and (2) The existence of a criminal agency as the cause of the act or result. The identity of the offender is not a necessary element of corpus delicti. Q: At a birthday party in Cebu, A got intoxicated and started quarreling with B and C. At the height of their arguments, A left and took a bolo from his house, after which he returned to the party and threatened to stab everybody. B got scared and ran towards the seashore, with A chasing him. B ran up a steep incline along the shore and was cornered on top of a cliff. Out of fear, B jumped from the cliff into the sea. A returned to the scene of their confrontation and seeing that nobody was there, went home to sleep. The next day, B’s wife reported to the police station that her husband had not yet come home. A search was conducted by the residents of the barangay but after almost two days, B or his body could not be located and his disappearance continued for the next few days. Based on the testimony of C and other guests, who had seen A and B on top of the cliff, A was arrested and charged with Murder. In his defense, he claimed that since B’s body has not been found, there was no evidence of corpus delicti and therefore, he should be acquitted. Is the defense of A tenable or not? State the reason(s) for your answer? (2001 Bar) A: The defense of A is not tenable. “Corpus delicti” does not refer to the body of the purported victim which had not been found. Even without the body of the purported victim being found, the offender can be convicted when the facts and circumstances of a crime, the body of the crime or “corpus delicti” is established. In other words, the non-recovery of the body of the victim is not a bar to the prosecution of A for Murder, but the fact of death and identity of the victim must be established beyond reasonable doubt.

Q: May a crime be committed without criminal intent? (1988 Bar) A: A crime may be committed without criminal intent in two cases: 1. In offense punishable as mala prohibita; and 2. Felonies committed by means of culpa. Q: Distinguish intent from motive in Criminal Law. (1996, 2004 Bar) A: Motive is the moving power which impels one to action for a definite result; whereas intent is the purpose to use a particular means to effect such results. Motive is not an essential element of a felony and need not be proved for purpose of conviction, while intent is an essential element of felonies by dolo. Q: When is motive relevant to prove a case? When is it not necessary to be established? Explain. (1999, 2006 Bar) A: Motive is relevant to prove a case when there is doubt as to the identity of the offender or when the act committed gives rise to variant crimes and there is the need to determine the proper crime to be imputed to the offender. It is not necessary to prove motive when the offender is positively identified or the criminal act did not give rise to variant crimes. IMPOSSIBLE CRIME (1994, 1998, 2000, 2004, 2009, 2014) Q: JP, Aries and Randal planned to kill Elsa, a resident of Barangay Pula, Laurel, Batangas. They asked the assistance of Ella, who is familiar with the place. On April 3, 1992, at about 10:00 in the evening, JP, Aries and Randal, all armed with automatic weapons, went to Barangay Pula. Ella, being the guide, directed her companions to the room in the house of Elsa. Whereupon, JP, Aries and Randal fired their guns at her room. Fortunately, Elsa was not around as she attended a prayer meeting that evening in another barangay in Laurel. JP, et. al., were charged and convicted of attempted murder by the Regional Trial Court at Tanauan, Batangas. On appeal to the Court of Appeals, all the accused ascribed to the trial court the sole error of finding them guilty of attempted murder. If you were the ponente, how will you decide the appeal? (1994 Bar) A: If I were the ponente, I will set aside the judgment convicting the accused of attempted murder and instead find them guilty of

3

CRIMINAL LAW investigating prosecutor merely filed a case of “Impossible Crime to Commit Kidnapping” against Enrique. Is the prosecutor correct? (2000 Bar)

impossible crime under Art. 4, par. 2, RPC, in relation to Art. 59, RPC. Liability for impossible crime arises not only when the impossibility is legal, but likewise when it is factual or physical impossibility, as in the case at bar. A: Elsa’s absence from the house is a physical impossibility which renders the crime intended inherently incapable of accomplishment. To convict the accused of attempted murder would make Art. 4, par. 2, practically useless as all circumstances which prevented the consummation of the offense will be treated as an incident independent of the actor’s will which is an element of attempted or frustrated felony. (Intod v. CA, 215 SCRA 52) Q: Puti detested Pula, his roommate, because Pula was courting Ganda, whom Puti fancied. One day, Puti decided to teach Pula a lesson and went to a veterinarian to ask for poison on the pretext that he was going to kill a sick pet, when actually Puti was intending to poison Pula, the Vet instantly gave Puti a non-toxic solution which, when mixed with Pula’s food, did not kill Pula. What crime, if any, did Puti commit? (1994, 1998, 2004, 2009, 2014 Bar)

a.

b.

c.

Liability for an impossible crime is to be imposed only if the act committed would not constitute any other crime under the Revised Penal Code. Although the facts involved are parallel to the case of Intod v. CA (215 SCRA 52), where it was ruled that the liability of the offender was for an impossible crime, no hand grenade was used in the said case, which constitutes a more serious crime though different from what was intended.

A: Puti committed an impossible crime of murder. Puti, with intent to kill Pula, unknowingly employed ineffectual means to accomplish the intended felony, that is, using a non-toxic solution. Q: a. What is an impossible crime? b. Is an impossible crime really a crime? c. A, B, C and D, all armed with armalites, proceeded to the house of X, Y, a neighbor of X, who happened to be passing by, pointed to the four culprits the room that X occupied. The four culprits peppered the room with bullets. Not satisfied, A even threw a hand grenade that totally destroyed X’s room. However, unknown to the four culprits, X was not inside the room and nobody was hit or injured during the incident. Are A, B, C and D liable for any crime? Explain. d. Carla, 4 years old, was kidnapped by Enrique, the tricycle driver paid by her parents to bring and fetch her to and from school. Enrique wrote a ransom note demanding P500,000 from Carla’s parents in exchange for Carla’s freedom. Enrique sent the ransom note by mail. However, before the ransom note was received by Carla’s parents, Enrique’s hideout was discovered by the police. Carla was rescued while Enrique was arrested and incarcerated. Considering that the ransom note was not received by Carla’s parents, the

Impossible crime is an act which would be an offense against person or property, were if not for the inherent impossibility of its accomplishment or on account of the employment of inadequate or ineffectual means (Art. 4, par. 2, RPC). No, an impossible crime is not really a crime. It is only so-called because the act gives rise to criminal liability. But actually, no felony is committed. The accused is to be punished for his criminal tendency or propensity although no crime was committed. Yes, A, B, C and D are liable for destructive arson because of the destruction of the room of X with the use of an explosive, the hand grenade.

d.

No, the prosecutor is not correct in filing a case for “impossible crime to commit kidnapping” against Enrique. Impossible crimes are limited only to acts which when performed would be a crime against persons or property. As kidnapping is a crime against personal security and not against persons or property, Enrique could not have incurred an “impossible crime” to commit kidnapping. There is thus no impossible crime of kidnapping.

STAGES OF EXECUTION (1996, 2000, 2005, 2015) Q: Edgardo induced his friend Vicente, in consideration of money, to kidnap a girl he is courting so that he may succeed in raping her and eventually making her accede to marry him. Vicente asked for more money which Edgardo failed to put up. Angered because Edgardo did not put up the money he required, he reported Edgardo to the police. May Edgardo be charged with attempted kidnapping? (1996 Bar) A: No. Edgardo may not be charged with attempted kidnapping inasmuch as no overt act to kidnap or restrain the liberty of the girl

UST BAR OPERATIONS

4

QUAMTO (1987-2017) had been commenced. At most, what Edgardo has done in the premises was a proposal to Vicente to kidnap the girl, which is only a preparatory act and not an overt act. The attempt to commit a felony commences with the commission of overt act, not preparatory act. Proposal to commit kidnapping is not a crime. Q: Taking into account the nature and elements of the felonies of coup d’etat and rape, may one be criminally liable for frustrated coup d’etat or frustrated rape? Explain. (2005 Bar) A: No. A person may not be held liable for frustrated coup d’etat or for frustrated rape because in a frustrated felony, it is required that all acts of execution that could produce the felony as a consequence must have been performed by the offender but the felony was not produced by reason of causes independent of the ...