2011

Question 1

(1) Isabel, a housemaid, broke into a pawnshop intent on stealing items of jewelry in it. She found, however, that the jewelry were in a locked chest. Unable to open it, she took the chest out of the shop. What crime did she commit?

(A) Robbery in an uninhabited place or in a private building

(B) Theft

(C) Robbery in an inhabited house or public building.

(D) Qualified theft

Answer 1

(A) Robbery in an uninhabited place or in a private building

Question 2

(2) The alternative circumstance of relationship shall NOT be considered between

(A) mother-in-law and daughter-in-law.

(B) adopted son and legitimate natural daughter.

(C) aunt and nephew.

(D) stepfather and stepson.

Answer 2

(C) aunt and nephew.

Question 3

(3) Arthur, Ben, and Cesar quarreled with Glen while they were at the latter’s house. Enraged, Arthur repeatedly stabbed Glen while Ben and Cesar pinned his arms. What aggravating circumstance if any attended the killing of Glen?

(A) Evident premeditation.

(B) None.

(C) Abuse of superior strength.

(D) Treachery.

Answer 3

(C) Abuse of superior strength.

Question 4

(4) The presence of a mitigating circumstance in a crime

(A) increases the penalty to its maximum period.

(B) changes the gravity of the offense.

(C) affects the imposable penalty, depending on other modifying circumstances.

(D) automatically reduces the penalty.

Answer 4

(C) affects the imposable penalty, depending on other modifying circumstances.

Question 5

(5) He is an accomplice who

(A) agreed to serve as a lookout after his companions decided to murder the victim.

(B) watched quietly as the murderer stabbed his victim.

(C) helped the murderer find the victim who was hiding to avoid detection.

(D) provided no help, when he can, to save the victim from dying.

Answer 5

(C) helped the murderer find the victim who was hiding to avoid detection.

Question 6

(6) Principles of public international law exempt certain individuals from the Generality characteristic of criminal law. Who among the following are NOT exempt from the Generality rule?

(A) Ministers Resident

(B) Commercial Attache of a foreign country

(C) Ambassador

(D) Chiefs of Mission

Answer 6

(B) Commercial Attache of a foreign country

Question 7

(7) As a modifying circumstance, insanity

(A) is in the nature of confession and avoidance.

(B) may be presumed from the offender’s previous behavior.

(C) may be mitigating if its presence becomes apparent subsequent to the commission of the crime.

(D) exempts the offender from criminal liability whatever the circumstances.

Answer 7

(A) is in the nature of confession and avoidance.

Question 8

(8) Zeno and Primo asked Bert to give them a sketch of the location of Andy’s house since they wanted to kill him. Bert agreed and drew them the sketch. Zeno and Primo drove to the place and killed Andy. What crime did Bert commit?

(A) Accomplice to murder, since his cooperation was minimal.

(B) Accessory to murder, since his map facilitated the escape of the two.

(C) None, since he took no step to take part in executing the crime.

(D) Principal to murder, since he acted in conspiracy with Zeno and Primo.

Answer 8

(A) Accomplice to murder, since his cooperation was minimal.

Question 9

(9) A police officer surreptitiously placed a marijuana stick in a student’s pocket and then arrested him for possession of marijuana cigarette. What crime can the police officer be charged with?

(A) None, as it is a case of entrapment

(B) Unlawful arrest

(C) Incriminating an innocent person

(D) Complex crime of incriminating an innocent person with unlawful arrest

Answer 9

(D) Complex crime of incriminating an innocent person with unlawful arrest

Question 10

(10) The police officer in civilian clothes asked X where he can buy shabu. X responded by asking the officer how much of the drug he needed. When he told him, X left, returned after a few minutes with the shabu, gave it to the officer, and took his money. X is

(A) liable for selling since the police operation was a valid entrapment.

(B) not liable for selling since the police operation was an invalid entrapment.

(C) liable for selling since the police operation was a valid form of instigation.

(D) not liable since the police operation was an invalid instigation.

Answer 10

(A) liable for selling since the police operation was a valid entrapment.

Question 11

(11) Plaintiff X said in his civil complaint for damages that defendant Y, employing fraud, convinced him to buy a defective vehicle. Y filed a criminal action for libel against X for maliciously imputing fraud on him. Will the action prosper if it turns out that the civil complaint for damages was baseless?

(A) No, since pleadings filed in court are absolutely privileged.

(B) No, since malice is not evident.

(C) Yes, given the fact that the imputation of fraud was baseless.

(D) Yes, parties must state the truth in their pleadings.

Answer 11

(A) No, since pleadings filed in court are absolutely privileged.

Question 12

(12) The maxim “Nullum crimen nula poena sine lege” means that

(A) the act is criminal at the time of its commission and recognized as such at the time of its commission but the penalty therefor is prescribed in a subsequently enacted law.

(B) the act is criminal and punished under and pursuant to common law.

(C) there is a crime for as long as the act is inherently evil.

(D) crime is a product of the law.

Answer 12

(D) crime is a product of the law.

Question 13

(13) X, a tabloid columnist, wrote an article describing Y, a public official, as stupid, corrupt, and having amassed ill-gotten wealth. X relied on a source from Y’s own office who fed him the information. Did X commit libel?

(A) Yes, since the article was libelous and inconsistent with good faith and reasonable care.

(B) No, since X but made a fair commentary on a matter of public interest.

(C) No, since X’s article constitutes privileged communication.

(D) No, since he wrote his article under the freedom enjoyed by the press.

Answer 13

(A) Yes, since the article was libelous and inconsistent with good faith and reasonable care.

Question 14

(14) The husband has for a long time physically and mentally tortured his wife. After one episode of beating, the wife took the husband’s gun and shot him dead. Under the circumstances, her act constitutes

(A) mitigating vindication of grave offense.

(B) battered woman syndrome, a complete self-defense.

(C) incomplete self-defense.

(D) mitigating passion and obfuscation.

Answer 14

(B) battered woman syndrome, a complete self-defense.

Question 15

(15) There is violation of Art. 316, RPC (Other forms of Swindling) where

(A) the owner of property sells a property and subsequently rescinds the sale.

(B) the real property subject of the sale does not exist.

(C) the property was mortgaged for a usurious contract of loan.

(D) the owner disposes of his encumbered real property as if it is free from encumbrances.

Answer 15

(D) the owner disposes of his encumbered real property as if it is free from encumbrances.

Question 16

(16) X, a police officer, placed a hood on the head of W, a suspected drug pusher, and watched as Y and Z, police trainees, beat up and tortured W to get his confession. X is liable as

(A) as accomplice in violation of the Anti-Torture Act.

(B) a principal in violation of the Anti-Torture Act.

(C) a principal in violation of the Anti-Hazing Law.

(D) an accomplice in violation of the Anti-Hazing Law.

Answer 16

(B) a principal in violation of the Anti-Torture Act.

Question 17

(17) Dr. Chow, a government doctor, failed to submit his Daily Time Record (DTR) from January to March 2000 and did not get approval of his sick leave application for April because of evidence that he was actually moonlighting elsewhere. Thus, the medical Director caused the withholding of his salary for the periods in question until he submitted his DTRs in May 2000. Can Dr. Chow prosecute the medical director for causing him undue injury in violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act?

(A) Yes, since the medical Director acted with evident bad faith.

(B) No, since the medical director has full discretion in releasing the salary of government doctors.

(C) Yes, since his salary was withheld without prior hearing.

(D) No, since Dr. Chow brought it upon himself, having failed to submit the required DTRs.

Answer 17

(D) No, since Dr. Chow brought it upon himself, having failed to submit the required DTRs.

Question 18

(18) When a penal law is absolutely repealed such that the offense is decriminalized, a pending case charging the accused of the repealed crime is to be

(A) prosecuted still since the charge was valid when filed.

(B) dismissed without any precondition.

(C) dismissed provided the accused is not a habitual delinquent.

(D) prosecuted still since the offended party has a vested interest in the repealed law.

Answer 18

(B) dismissed without any precondition.

Question 19

(19) In malversation of public funds, the offender’s return of the amount malversed has the following effect

(A) It is exculpatory.

(B) It is inculpatory, an admission of the commission of the crime.

(C) The imposable penalty will depend on what was not returned.

(D) It is mitigating.

Answer 19

(D) It is mitigating.

Question 20

(20) The exchanges of highly offensive words between two quarrelling women in the presence of a crowd of people constitute

(A) one count of grave slander against the woman who uttered the more insulting expressions.

(B) grave slander against the woman who started it and light slander against the other woman.

(C) two separate counts of light slander, one for each woman.

(D) two separate counts of grave slander, one against each of them.

Answer 20

(C) two separate counts of light slander, one for each woman.

Question 21

(21) Any person who, having found lost property, shall fail to deliver the same to the local authorities or to its owner is liable for

(A) occupation or usurpation of personal property.

(B) civil damages only.

(C) theft.

(D) other deceits.

Answer 21

(C) theft.

Question 22

(22) A crime resulting from negligence, reckless imprudence, lack of foresight or lack of skill is called

(A) dolo.

(B) culpa.

(C) tortious crimes.

(D) quasi delict.

Answer 22

(B) culpa.

Question 23

(23) To mitigate his liability for inflicting physical injury to another, an accused with a physical defect must prove that such defect restricted his freedom of action and understanding. This proof is not required where the physical defect consists of

(A) a severed right hand.

(B) complete blindness.

(C) being deaf mute and dumb.

(D) a severed leg.

Answer 23

(B) complete blindness.

Question 24

(24) An extenuating circumstance, which has the same effect as a mitigating circumstance, is exemplified by

(A) the mother killing her 2-day old child to conceal her dishonor.

(B) the accused committing theft out of extreme poverty.

(C) the accused raping his victim in extreme state of passion.

(D) the accused surrendering the weapon he used in his crime to the authorities.

Answer 24

(A) the mother killing her 2-day old child to conceal her dishonor.

Question 25

(25) Three men gave Arnold fist blows and kicks causing him to fall. As they surrounded and continued hitting him, he grabbed a knife he had in his pocket and stabbed one of the men straight to the heart. What crime did Arnold commit?

(A) Homicide with incomplete self-defense, since he could have run from his aggressors.

(B) Homicide, since he knew that stabbing a person in the heart is fatal.

(C) Homicide mitigated by incomplete self-defense, since stabbing a person to the heart is excessive.

(D) No crime, since he needed to repel the aggression, employing reasonable means for doing so.

Answer 25

(D) No crime, since he needed to repel the aggression, employing reasonable means for doing so.

Question 26

(26) A, B, and C agreed to rob a house of its cash. A and B entered the house while C remained outside as lookout. After getting the cash, A and B decided to set the house on fire to destroy any evidence of their presence. What crime or crimes did C commit?

(A) Robbery and arson since arson took place as an incident of the robbery.

(B) Robbery and arson since C took no step to stop the arson.

(C) Just for robbery since he only agreed to it and served as lookout.

(D) Accomplice to robbery since his role in the crime was minimal.

Answer 26

(C) Just for robbery since he only agreed to it and served as lookout.

Question 27

(27) X, a court employee, wrote the presiding judge a letter, imputing to Y, also a court employee, the act of receiving an expensive gift from one of the parties in a pending case. Because of this, Y accused X of libel. Does Y need to prove the element of malice in the case?

(A) No, since malice is self-evident in the letter.

(B) Yes, malice is not presumed since X wrote the letter to the presiding judge who has a duty to act on what it states.

(C) No, since malice is presumed with respect to defamatory imputations.

(D) Yes, since malice is not presumed in libel.

Answer 27

(B) Yes, malice is not presumed since X wrote the letter to the presiding judge who has a duty to act on what it states.

Question 28

(28) X killed B, mistakenly believing that she was his wife, upon surprising her having sex with another man in a motel room. What is the criminal liability of X?

(A) None since he killed her under exceptional circumstances.

(B) None since he acted under a mistake of fact.

(C) Parricide.

(D) Homicide.

Answer 28

(D) Homicide.

Question 29

(29) X draws a check upon request of Y, the payee, who told X that he would merely show the check to his creditor to gain more time to pay his account. The check bounced upon presentation by the creditor. Under the circumstances, who can be prosecuted for estafa based on the dishonored check?

(A) Y as the one who negotiated the check contrary to the agreement

(B) X as the drawer of the check

(C) Both X and Y based on conspiracy

(D) None

Answer 29

(A) Y as the one who negotiated the check contrary to the agreement

Question 30

(30) Ana visited her daughter Belen who worked as Caloy’s housemaid. Caloy was not at home but Debbie, a casual visitor in the house, verbally maligned Belen in Ana’s presence. Irked, Ana assaulted Debbie. Under the circumstances, dwelling is NOT regarded as aggravating because

(A) Dwelling did nothing to provoke Ana into assaulting Debbie.

(B) Caloy, the owner of the house, was not present.

(C) Debbie is not a dweller of the house.

(D) Belen, whom Debbie maligned, also dwells in the house.

Answer 30

(C) Debbie is not a dweller of the house.

Question 31

(31) It is a matter of judicial knowledge that certain individuals will kill others or commit serious offenses for no reason at all. For this reason,

(A) lack of motive can result in conviction where the crime and the accused’s part in it are shown.

(B) motive is material only where there is no evidence of criminal intent.

(C) lack of motive precludes conviction.

(D) the motive of an offender is absolutely immaterial.

Answer 31

(A) lack of motive can result in conviction where the crime and the accused’s part in it are shown.