2021 Quamto Criminal Law PDF

Preview

Summary

University of Santo TomasFaculty of Civil LawCRIMINAL LAWQuestions Asked More Than OnceQuAMTO 2021####### QuAMTO is a compilation of past bar questions with answers as suggested by the UPLC and other####### distinct luminaries in the academe, and updated by the UST Academics Committee to fit for the...

Description

University of Santo Tomas Faculty of Civil Law

CRIMINAL LAW Questions Asked More Than Once

QuAMTO 2021

QuAMTO is a compilation of past bar questions with answers as suggested by the UPLC and other distinct luminaries in the academe, and updated by the UST Academics Committee to fit for the 2021 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 2019.

ACADEMICS COMMITTEE MARIA FRANCES FAYE R. GUTIERREZ JOHN EDWARD F. FRONDA ANGEL ISAH M. ROMERO KIRBY ANNE C. RENIA KAREN ABBIE C. ASPIRAS JOSE CHRISTIAN ANTHONY I. PINZON NATHAN RAPHAEL D.L. AGUSTIN MARIA FRANCES FAYE R. GUTIERREZ

SECRETARY GENERAL

EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE

LAYOUT AND DESIGN

QuAMTO COMMITTEE MEMBERS JUSTINE ISCAH F. MADRILEJOS RON-SOPHIA NICOLE C. ANTONIO REEM D. PRUDENCIO LARISA C. SERRANO

ATTY. VICENTE JAN O. PLATON III ATTY. AL CONRAD B. ESPALDON ADVISERS

OUR DEEPEST APPRECIATION TO OUR MENTORS AND INSPIRATION JUSTICE AMPARO CABOTAJE-TANG JUDGE OSCAR B. PIMENTEL JUDGE PHILIP AGUINALDO JUDGE CHRISTIAN PIMENTEL JUDGE MADONNA ECHIVERRI JUDGE PEDRO DABU PROSECUTOR VICTORIA GARCIA ATTY. LORENZO GAYYA ATTY. RONALD CHUA ATTY. RAMON ESGUERRA ATTY. JEDREK NG ATTY. GIDGET ROSE DUQUE ATTY. ALWYNE FAYE MENDOZA

For being our guideposts in understanding the intricate sphere of Criminal Law. - Academics Committee 2021

QuAMTO (1987-2019) 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 such as: 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 B AR) Q: What is the Doctrine of Pro 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. Further, 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. All crimes punished under the Revised Penal Code, and any amendments thereto through special penal laws, are considered mala in se. As such, they are called Felonies. While Crimes punished by special penal laws, standing alone, are considered as mala prohibita. Q: May an act be malum in se and be, at the same time, malum prohibitum? (1997 B AR)

UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS 2021 ACADEMICSCOMMITTEE

1

UST BAR OPERATIONS

Criminal Law 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 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, 2014, 2015, 2016 BAR) Q: State the characteristics of criminal law and explain each. (1988, 1998 B AR) 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 shall 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 Malaysian- registered ship. Discuss the merits of Ando's contentions. (2015 B AR) 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 (Art. 14, New 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. Retroactive Effect of Penal Laws Q: Congress passed a law reviving the AntiSubversion Law, making it a criminal offense again for a person to join the Communist Party of the Philippines. Reporma, a former highranking member of the Communist Party, was charged under the new law for his membership in the Communist Party when he was a student in the 80’s. He now challenges the charge against him. What objections may he raise? (2014 BAR) A: Reporma may raise the limitations imposed by

the 1987 Constitution on the power of Congress to

2

QuAMTO (1987-2019) enact retroactive penal laws which are prejudicial to the accused. Under the Bill of Rights of the Constitution such is classified as an ex post facto law. It should be noted that when Congress decriminalized the crime of subversion, under R.A. 7637, it obliterated the felony and its effects upon Reporma. Consequently, charging him now under the new law for his previous membership in the Communist Party would be constitutionality impermissible. B. FELONIES Corpus delicti (2000, 2001 BAR) Q: a. Define “Corpus delicti”. b. What are the elements of “Corpus delicti”? (2000 B AR) A: 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.

2.

The existence of a certain act or result forming the basis of the criminal charge; and The existence of a criminal agency as the cause of the act or result.

NOTE: 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: NO. The defense of A is not tenable. “Corpus

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. Motive and Intent (1988, 1996, 1999, 2004, 2006 BAR) Q: May a crime be committed without criminal intent? (1988 BAR) A: YES A crime may be committed without criminal intent in two cases: 1. 2.

In offenses punishable as mala prohibita; and Felonies committed by means of culpa.

Q: Distinguish intent from motive in Criminal Law. (1996, 2004 B AR) 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. Classification of felonies Q: Define/Distinguish the following terms: a. Grave, less grave, and light felonies; b. Aberratio ictus, error in personae, and praeter intentionem (2019 BAR) A: a. Under Art. 9 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), grave felonies are those to which the law attaches the capital punishment or penalties which in any of their periods are afflictive, in accordance with Art. 25 of the same Code. Less grave felonies are those which the law punishes with penalties which in their maximum period are correccional, also in accordance with Art. 25. Light felonies are those infractions of law for the commission of which a penalty

delicti” does not refer to the body of the UN I V E R SI T Y

OF

SANTO TOMAS

3

UST

Criminal Law

b.

of arresto menor or a fine not exceeding P40,000 or both is provided. (as amended by R.A. 10951) In aberratio ictus, there is a mistake in the blow meaning to say that the offender intending to cause an injury to one person actually inflicts it on another because of lack of precision. In error in personae, there is a mistake in the identity of the victim. In praeter intentionem, the injurious result is greater than that intended by the offender, the act exceeds the intent. IMPOSSIBLE CRIME (1994, 1998, 2000, 2004, 2009, 2014 BAR)

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 B AR) A: If I were the ponente, I will set aside the judgment convicting the accused of attempted murder and instead find them guilty of 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. 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

BAR) 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 t...