Removal Bar Qs Flashcards
What is the difference between violation of domicile and trespass to dwelling? (2%)
The differences between violation of domicile and trespass to dwelling are; 1) The offender in violation of domicile is
a public
officer acting under color of authority; in trespass to
dwelling, the offender is a private person or public
officer acting in a private capacity.
2)
Violation of domicile is committed in 3 different
ways: (1) by entering the dwelling of another against the will of the latter; (2) searching papers and other effects inside the dwelling without the previous consent of the owner; or (3) refusing to leave the premises which he entered surreptitiously, after being required to leave the premises.
3)
Trespass to dwelling is committed only in one
way; that is, by entering the dwelling of another against the express or implied will of the latter.
gh Seas & Qualified Piracy (2006) While the S.S. Nagoya Maru was negotiating the sea route from Hongkong towards Manila, and while still 300 miles from Aparri, Cagayan, its engines malfunctioned. The Captain ordered the ship to stop for emergency repairs lasting for almost 15 hours. Due to exhaustion, the officers and crew fell asleep. While the ship was anchored, a motorboat manned by renegade Ybanags from Claveria, Cagayan, passed by and took advantage of the situation.
They cut the ship’s engines and took away several heavy crates of electrical equipment and loaded them in their motorboat. Then they left hurriedly towards Aparri. At daybreak, the crew found that a robbery took place. They radioed the Aparri Port Authorities resulting in the apprehension of the culprits.what crime is committed?
Piracy in the high seas was committed by the renegade Ybanags. The culprits, who are neither members of the complement nor passengers of the ship, seized part of the equipment of the vessel while it was three hundred miles away from Aparri, Cagayan (Art. 122, Revised Penal Code).
On May 5, 1992, at about 6:00 a.m., while Governor Alegre of Laguna was on board his car traveling along the National Highway of Laguna, Joselito and Vicente shot him on the head resulting in his instant death. At that time, Joselito and Vicente were members of the liquidation squad of the New People’s Army and they killed the governor upon orders of their senior officer. Commander Tiago. According to Joselito and Vicente, they were ordered to kill Governor Alegre because of his corrupt practices. If you were the prosecutor, what crime will you charge Joselito and Vicente? [5%J
.
If I were the prosecutor, I would charge Joselito and Vicente for the crime of murder as the purpose of the killing was because of his “corrupt practices “, which does not appear to be politically motivated. There is no indication as to how the killing would promote or further the objective of the New Peoples Army. The killing is murder because it was committed with treachery.
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. (2%)
No, one cannot be criminally liable for frustrated coup d’ etat or frustrated rape because in coup d’ etat the mere
attack directed against the duly constituted authorities of the Republic of the Philippines, or any military camp or installation, communication networks, public utilities or other facilities needed for the exercise and continued possession of power would consummate the crime. The objective may not be to overthrow the government but only to destabilize or paralyze the government through the seizure of facilities and utilities essential to the continued possession and exercise of governmental powers.
On the other hand, in the crime of rape there is no frustrated rape it is either attempted or consummated rape. If the accused who placed himself on top of a woman, raising her skirt and unbuttoning his pants, the endeavor to have sex with her very apparent, is guilty of Attempted rape. On the other hand, entry on the labia or lips of the female organ by the penis, even without rupture of the hymen or laceration of the vagina, consummates the crime
of rape. More so, it has long abandoned its ―stray‖ decision
in People vs. Erina 50 Phil 998 where the accused was found guilty of Frustrated rape.
If a group of persons belonging to the armed forces makes a swift attack, accompanied by violence, intimidation and threat against a vital military installation for the purpose of seizing power and taking over such installation, what crime or crimes are they guilty of? (3%)
The perpetrators, being persons belonging to the Armed Forces, would be guilty of the crime of coup d’etat, under Article 134-A of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, because their attack was against vital military installations which are essential to the continued possession and exercise of governmental powers, and their purpose is to seize power by taking over such installations.
- How is the crime of coup d’etat committed? [3%] 2. Supposing a public school teacher participated in a coup d’etat using an unlicensed firearm. What crime or crimes did he commit? [2%]
- The crime of coup d’etat is committed by a swift attack, accompanied by violence, intimidation, threat, strategy or stealth against the duly constituted authorities of the Republic of the Philippines, military camps and installations, communication networks, public utilities and facilities needed for the exercise and continued possession of power, carried out singly or simultaneously anywhere in the Philippines by persons belonging to the military or police or holding public office, with or without civilian support or participation, for the purpose of seizing or diminishing state power. (Art 134-A, RPC).
- The public school teacher committed only coup d’etat for his participation therein. His use of an unlicensed firearm is absorbed in the coup d’etat under the new firearms law (Rep. Act No. 8294).
VC, JG. GG and JG conspired to overthrow the Philippine Government. VG was recognized as the titular head of the conspiracy. Several meetings were held and the plan was finalized. JJ, bothered by his conscience, confessed to Father Abraham that he, VG, JG and GG have conspired to overthrow the government. Father Abraham did not report this information to the proper authorities. Did Father Abraham commit a crime? If so, what crime was committed? What is his criminal liability?
No, Father Abraham did not commit a crime because the conspiracy involved is one to commit rebellion, not a conspiracy to commit treason which makes a person criminally liable under Art 116, RFC. And even assuming that it will fall as misprision of treason, Father Abraham is exempted from criminal liability under Art. 12, par. 7, as his failure to report can be considered as due to “insuperable cause”, as this involves the sanctity and inviolability of a confession.
Conspiracy to commit rebellion results in criminal liability to the co-conspirators, but not to a person who learned of such and did not report to the proper authorities (US vs. Vergara, 3 Phil. 432; People vs. Atienza. 56 Phil. 353).
A, a teacher at Mapa High School, having gotten mad at X, one of his pupils, because of the latter’s throwing paper clips at his classmates, twisted his right ear. X went out of the classroom crying and proceeded home located at the back of the school. He reported to his parents Y and Z what A had done to him. Y and Z immediately proceeded to the school building and because they were running and talking in loud voices, they were seen by the barangay chairman, B, who followed them as he suspected that an untoward incident might happen. Upon seeing A inside the classroom, X pointed him out to his father, Y, who administered a fist blow on A, causing him to fall down. When Y was about to kick A, B rushed towards Y and pinned both of the latter’s arms. Seeing his father being held by B, X went near and punched B on the face, which caused him to lose his grip on Y. Throughout this incident, Z shouted words of encouragement at Y, her husband, and also threatened to slap A. Some security guards of the school arrived, intervened and surrounded X, Y and Z so that they could be investigated in the principal’s office. Before leaving, Z passed near A and threw a small flower pot at him but it was deflected by B. a) What, if any, are the respective criminal liability of X Y and Z? (6%) b) Would your answer be the same if B were a barangay tanod only? (4%)
Qualified Piracy under Article 123 of the Revised Penal Code was committed because all the elements
thereof were present, to wit:
(1) the vessel Royal S.S. Maru is on the high seas, or 300 nm away from Appari, Cagayan; (2) that the
offenders are not members of its complement or passengers thereof; and (3) that the offenders seized
equipment from the vessel, i.e., the crates.
Moreover, the crime was qualified because: (1) the offenders seized the vessel by boarding; and (2) the
crime of piracy was accompanied by murder and physical injuries.
The Royal S.S. Maru, a vessel registered in Panama, was 300 nautical miles from Aparri, Cagayan
when its engines malfunctioned. The Captain ordered his men to drop anchor and repair the ship.
While the officers and crew were asleep, armed men boarded the vessel and took away several
crates containing valuable items and loaded them in their own motorboat. Before the band left,
they planted an explosive which they detonated from a safe distance. The explosion damaged the
hull of the ship, killed ten (10) crewmen, and injured fifteen (15) others.
What crime or crimes, if any, were committed? Explain. (2016 Bar Question)
Art. 123. Qualified piracy. — The penalty of reclusion temporal to death shall be imposed upon those who commit any of the crimes referred to in the preceding article, under any of the following circumstances:
- Whenever they have seized a vessel by boarding or firing upon the same;
- Whenever the pirates have abandoned their victims without means of saving themselves; or
- Whenever the crime is accompanied by murder, homicide, physical injuries or rape.
What is the crime committed by a public officer who discloses to the representative of a foreign
nation the contents of the articles, data or information of a confidential nature relative to the defense of the Philippine archipelago which he has in his possession by reason of the public
office he holds? (2012 Bar Question)
Espionage is committed by public officer, who is in possession, by reason of the public office he holds, of the articles, data, or information of a confidential nature relative to the defense of the Philippine Archipelago, discloses their contents to a representative of a foreign nation (Article 117 of the Revised
Penal Code).
Can the crime of treason be committed only by a Filipino citizen?
No. The offender in the crime of treason is either a Filipino citizen or an alien residing in the Philippines because while permanent allegiance is owed by the alien to his own country, he owes a temporary allegiance to the Philippines where he resides.
- Because peace negotiations on the Spratl s situation had failed, the People s Republic of China
declared war against the Philippines. Myra, a Filipina who lives with her Italian expatriate
boyfriend, discovered e-mail correspondence between him and a certain General Tung Kat Su of
China.
On March 12, 2010, Myra discovered that on even date, her boyfriend sent an e- mail to General
Tung Kat Su, in which he agreed to provide vital information on the military defense of the
Philippines to the Chinese government in exchange for P1 million and his safe return to Italy.
Two weeks later, Myra decided to report the matter to the proper authorities.
Did Myra commit a crime? Explain. (2010 Bar Question
Yes, Myra committed the crime of Misprision of Treason because she failed to report as soon as possible
to the governor or provincial fiscal or to the mayor or fiscal of the City where she resides, the conspiracy
between her Italian boyfriend and the Chinese General to commit treason against the Philippine
Government.
Under Article 116 of the Revised Penal Code, every person who, owing allegiance to the Government,
without being a foreigner, and having knowledge of any conspiracy against it, conceals or does not disclose
and make known the same, as soon as possible to the governor or fiscal of the province, or the mayor or
fiscal of the city in which he resides, commits misprision of treason.
The inter-island vessel M/V Viva Lines I, while cruising off Batanes, was forced to seek shelter at
the harbor of Kaoshiung, Taiwan because of a strong typhoon. While anchored in said harbor,
Max, Baldo and Bogart arrived in a speedboat, fired a bazooka at the bow of the vessel, boarded
it and divested the passengers of their money and jewelry. A passenger of M/V Viva Lines I,
Dodong took advantage of the confusion to settle an old grudge with another passenger, and killed
him. After their apprehension, all four were charged with qualified piracy before a Philippine court. Was the charge of qualified piracy against the three persons (Max, Baldo, and Bogart) who
boarded the inter-island vessel correct? Explain. (2008 Bar Question)
Yes, Max, Baldo and Bogart committed qualified piracy when, not being members or passengers of the
M/V Viva Lines I, attacked said vessel in Philippines aters, and sei ed the passengers personal
belongings. Moreover, the crime was qualified when Max, Baldo and Bogart boarded the vessel and fired
upon the ship, and divested the passengers of their money and jewelry (Art. 122, 123 of the Revised Penal
Code as amended by R.A. 7659 and P.D. 532). The crime was further qualified when they fired upon the
vessel and boarded it.
In his homily, Fr. Chris loudly denounced the many extrajudicial killings committed by the men in uniform. Policeman Stone, then attending the mass, was peeved by the denunciations of Fr. Chris. He immediately approached the priest during the homily, openly displayed his firearm tucked in his waist, and menacingly uttered at the priest: Father, may kalalagyan kayo kung hindi kayo tumigil. His brazenness terrified the priest, who cut short his homily then and there. The celebration of the mass was disrupted, and the congregation left the church in disgust over the actuations of Policeman Stone, a co-parishioner.
Policeman Stone was subsequently charged.
The Office of the Provincial Prosecutor is now about to resolve the case, and is mulling on what to charge Policeman Stone with.
May Policeman Stone be properly charged with either or both of the following crimes, or, if not, with what proper crime? (2017 Bar Question)
A. Interruption of religious worship as defined and punished under Art. 132 of the Revised Penal Code; and/or
B. Offending the religious feelings as defined and punished under Art. 133 of the Revised Penal Code.
‘
Policeman Stone may be charged with Interruption of religious worship because he is a public officer who disrupted the mass and caused the congregation to leave.
Under the Revised Penal Code, a public officer or employee who shall prevent or disturb the ceremonies or manifestations of any religion shall be liable for interruption of religious worship.
In this case, Policeman Stone, a public officer, disrupted the mass and caused the congregation to leave when he approached and threatened the priest during his homily.
B) Policeman Stone may not be charged with the crime of offending religious feelings because his act of
threatening the priest was not for the purpose of mocking or ridiculing the mass.
Jurisprudence provides that to be liable for offending religious feelings, the acts must be directed against religious practice or dogma or ritual to ridicule, mock or scoff at or attempt to damage an object of religious veneration [People v. Baes, (G.R. No. 46000 (1939)].
In this case, however, Policeman Stone threatened the priest because of the priest
A policeman who, without a judicial order, enters a private house over the owner s opposition is guilty of trespass to dwelling. (2009 Bar Question)
False, the policeman committed Violation of Domicile under Article 128 of the Revised Penal Code because it is committed by public officer who enters a dwelling against the will of the owner thereof without authority from a judicial order.
- After due hearing on a petition for a writ of amparo founded on the acts of enforced disappearance and extralegal killing of the son of the complainant allegedly done by the respondent military officers, the court
granted the petition. May the military officers be criminally charged in court with enforced disappearance and extralegal killing? Explain fully. (2008 Bar Question)
Yes, the respondent militar officers ma be criminall charged in court since enforced disappearance
may constitute Arbitrary Detention under Article 124 of the Revised Penal Code. On the other hand, extralegal killing may either be considered as Murder under Article 248 or Homicide under Article 249 of the same Code.
- Bernardo was enraged by his conviction for robbery by Judge Samsonite despite insufficient evidence. Pending his appeal, Bernardo escaped in order to get even with Judge Samsonite. Bernardo learned that the Judge regularly slept in his mistress house ever weekend. Thus, he
waited for the Judge to arrive on Saturday evening at the house of his mistress. It was about 8:00
p.m. when Bernardo entered the house of the mistress. He found the Judge and his mistress
having coffee in the kitchen and engaging in small talk. Without warning, Bernardo stabbed the
judge at least 10 times. The judge instantly died.
Prosecuted and tried, Bernardo was convicted of direct assault with murder. Rule with reasons
whether or not the conviction for direct assault with murder was justified, and whether or not the
trial court should appreciate the following aggravating circumstances against Bernardo, to wit: (1)
disregard of rank and age of the victim, who was 68 years old; (2) dwelling; (3) nighttime; (4)
cruelty; and (5) quasi-recidivism. (10%)
Bernardo was correctly convicted of direct assault with murder. Attacking Judge Samsonite by reason of
past performance of duty of convicting Bernardo based on his assessment of the evidence constitutes
qualified direct assault. He likewise committed the crime of murder when he committed the direct assault
with the circumstance of treachery. In a single act of attacking Judge Samsonite, he committed two crimes,
direct assault and murder. The two crimes may be complexed under Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code.
(1) The circumstance of disregard of rank shall be absorbed because it is inherent element of the crime of
direct assault.
2) The circumstance of disregard of age is not present in this case because Bernardo s attack as not for the purpose of offending or insulting Judge Samsonite s age. (People v. Onabia, G.R. No. 128288, Apr. 20, 1999).
(3) The circumstance of dwelling maybe appreciated as an aggravating circumstance because Judge Samsonite was attacked in the house of his mistress, where he regularly slept. In the aggravating circumstance of dwelling, the victim need not be the owner of the dwelling place, but as the owner s invited guest, he, the stranger, is sheltered by the same roof and protected by the same intimacy it affords. He is entitled to respect even for that short moment. (People v. Balansi, G.R. No. 77284, 19 July 1990).
(4) The circumstance nighttime shall not be appreciated because the presence of treachery in the instant case absorbs this aggravating circumstance (People v. Pagador, G.R. No. 140006-10, April 20, 2001).
(5) The circumstance of cruelty may not also be appreciated because the infliction of several stab wounds by the perpetrator was not shown to be for the purpose of exacerbating the pain and suffering of the victim. The number of wounds inflicted on the victim is not proof of cruelty (Simangan v. People, G.R. No. 157984, July 8, 2004).
(6) Bernardo is also not a quasi-recidivist because he committed the crime while the judgement of conviction is on appeal. A quasi-recidivist is someone who shall commit a felony after having been convicted by final judgment, before beginning to serve such sentence, or while serving the same (Article 160 of the Revised Penal Code).
- Dancio, a member of a drug syndicate, was a detention prisoner in the provincial jail of X Province.
Brusco, another member of the syndicate, regularly visited Dancio. Edri, the guard in charge who had been receiving gifts from Brusco everytime he visited Dancio, became friendly with him and became relaxed in the inspection of his belongings during his jail visits. In one of Brusco’s visits, he was able to smuggle in a pistol which Dancio used to disarm the guards and destroy the padlock of the main gate of the jail, enabling Dancio to escape. What crime(s) did Dancio, Brusco and Edri commit? Explain. (2015 Bar Question)
Dancio committed the crime of direct assault under Article 148 of the Revised Penal Code for disarming the guards with the use of pistol while they are engaged in the performance of their duties.
Edri committed infidelity in the custody of prisoner or evasion through negligence under Article 224 of the RPC. As the guard in charge, Edri as negligent in rela ing the inspection of the Brusco s belongings during jail visits allowing him to smuggle a pistol to Dencio, which he subsequently used to escape. Edri also committed indirect bribery under Article 211 of the Revised Penal Code by accepting gifts from Brusco, who was part of the syndicate to which Dancio belonged.
Brusco committed delivery of prisoner from jail under Article 156 of the Revised Penal Code, as well as bribery under Article 210 of the same Code. Helping a person confined in jail to escape constitutes this crime, and by providing Dencio with a pistol, he helped him escape.
Miss Reyes, a lady professor, caught Mariano, one of her students, cheating during an examination. Aside from calling Mariano’s attention, she confiscated his examination booklet and sent him out of the room, causing Mariano extreme embarrassment
In class the following day, Mariano approached Miss Reyes and without any warning, slapped her on the face. Mariano would have inflicted grave injuries on Miss Reyes had not Dencio, another student, intervened. Mariano then turned his ire on Dencio and punched him repeatedly, causing him injuries. What crime or crimes, if any, did Mariano commit? (2013 Bar Question)
M ariano is liable for two counts of direct assault for slapping Miss Reyes and repeatedly punching
Dencio. Miss Reyes is a person in authority expressly mentioned in Article 152 of the Revised Penal
Code, who was in the performance of her duties on the day of the commission of the assault. On the
other hand, Dencio, became an agent of a person in authority when he came to the aid of a person in
authority, Miss Reyes.
- Amelia, a famous actress, bought the penthouse unit of a posh condominium building in Taguig
City. Every night, Amelia would swim naked in the private, but open air, pool of her penthouse
unit. It must have been obvious to Amelia that she could be seen from nearby buildings. In fact, some residents occupying the higher floors of the nearby residential buildings did indeed entertain themselves and their friends by watching her swim in the nude from their windows.
What crime did Amelia commit? (2013 Bar Question)
- During a military uprising aimed at ousting the duly constituted authorities and taking over the government, General Tejero and his men forcibly took over the entire Rich Hotel which they used as their base. They used the rooms and other facilities of the hotel, ate all the available food they found, and detained some hotel guests.
What crime did General Tejero and his men commit?
.couplet
- A, B, and C organized a meeting in which the audience was incited to the commission of the crime of sedition. Some of the persons present at the meeting were carrying unlicensed firearms.
What crime, if any, was committed by A, 8 and C, as well as those who were carrying unlicensed firearms and those who were merely present at the meeting? (2012 Bar Question)
- ## B was convicted by final judgment of theft. While serving sentence for such offense, B was found in possession of an unlicensed firearm. Is B a quasi-recidivist? (2012 Bar Question)
The guard was entrusted with the conveyance or custody of a detention prisoner who escaped through his negligence. What is the criminal liability of the escaping prisoner? (2012 Bar
Evasion through negligence (Article 224 of the Revised Penal Code) and conniving with or consenting
to evasion (Article 223) are crimes committed by public officer in charged with the conveyance or custody
of the prisoner; either detention prisoner or prisoner b final judgment; hence, letters b and c are not
the answer. Evasion of service of sentence (Article 157) can only be committed by a prisoner by final
judgment, and not by mere detention prisoner (Curiano vs. CFI, G.R. No. L- 8104, April 15, 1955). Hence,
How is the crime of coup d’etat committed
When a person holding public employment undertakes a swift attack, accompanied by
strategy or stealth, directed against public utilities or other facilities needed for the exercise and continued possession of power for the purpose of diminishing state power.
- What is the proper charge against public officers or employees who, being in conspiracy with the rebels, failed to resist a rebellion by all means in their power, or shall continue to discharge the duties of their offices under the control of the rebels, or shall accept appointment to office under them? (2012 Bar Question)
The public officer or employee who performs any of the acts of disloyalty should not be in conspiracy with the rebels otherwise he will be guilty of rebellion
- What is the proper charge against a person who, without taking arms or being in open hostility
against the Government, shall incite others to deprive Congress of its legislative powers, by means
of speeches or writings? (2012 Bar Question)
- When is a disturbance of public order deemed to be tumultuous?
The disturbance shall be deemed tumultuous if caused by more than three (3) persons who
are armed or provided with means of violence.
. What is the criminal liability, if any, of AAA who substitutes for a prisoner serving sentence for
homicide by taking his place in jail or penal establishment? (2012 Bar Question)
A. A person, who shall help the escape of person confined in jail or penal establishment by means of violence, intimidation, or bribery or other means, is liable for delivering prisoner from jail (Article 156 of the Revised Penal Code). A person who shall publicly use a fictitious name for the purpose of concealing a crime commits using fictitious name (Article 178 of the Revised Penal Code).
- AAA was convicted of theft by a Manila Court and sentenced to a straight penalty of one (1) year
of prision correccional. After serving two (2) months of the sentence, he was granted conditional
pardon by the Chief Executive. One of the conditions of the pardon was for him not to be found guilty of any crime punishable by the laws of the country. He subsequently committed robbery in Pasay City. Can the Manila Court require AAA to serve the unexpired portion of the original
sentence? (2012 Bar Question)
No. AAA must first be found guilty of the subsequent offense before he can be prosecuted for
violation of conditional pardon.
To secure the release of his brother Willy, a detention prisoner, and his cousin Vincent, who is serving sentence for homicide, Chito asked the RTC Branch Clerk of Court to issue an Order which would allow the two prisoners to be brought out of jail. At first, the Clerk refused, but when Chito gave her P50,000.00, she consented.
She then prepared an Order requiring the appearance in court of Willy and Vincent, ostensibly as witnesses in a pending case. She forged the judge
Chito committed the crimes of (a) Delivery of Prisoners from Jail (Art. 156, RPC) for working
out the escape of prisoners Willy and Vincent; (b) two counts of Corruption of Public Officials when he gave Php50,000.00 each to the Branch Clerk of Court and Edward; Art. 212, RPC); and (c) Falsification of Public Documents, as a principal by inducement (Art. 172[1], RPC, when he caused the falsification of the court Edwin, the jail guard who escorted the prisoner in getting out of jail, committed the crimes of
1. Infidelity in the Custody of Prisoners, especially conniving with or consenting to Evasion
for leaving unguarded the prisoners escorted by him and provide them an opportunity to
escape (Art. 223, RPC);
2. Direct Bribery for receiving the P50,000.00 as consideration for leaving the prisoners
unguarded and allowing them the opportunity to escape (Art. 210, RPC).
The jail warden did not commit nor incur a crime there being no showing that he was aware of what his subordinates had done nor of any negligence on his part that would amount to infidelity in the custody of prisoners.
- Rigoberto gate-crashed the 71st birthday party of Judge Lorenzo. Armed with a piece of
wood commonly known as dos por dos, Rigoberto hit Judge Lorenzo on the back, causing the latter hospitali ation for 30 da s. Upon investigation, it appeared that Rigoberto had a grudge against Judge Lorenzo who, two years earlier, had cited Rigoberto in contempt and ordered his imprisonment for three (3) days.
A) Is Rigoberto guilty of Direct Assault? Why or why not? (2009 Bar Question)
B) Would your answer be the same if the reason for the attack was that when Judge Lorenzo
was still a practicing lawyer ten years ago, he prosecuted Rigoberto and succeeded in
sending him to jail for one year? Explain your answer. (2009 Bar Question)
A) No, Rigoberto is not guilty of Direct Assault because Judge Lorenzo has ceased to be a judge when
he was attacked. He has retired (71 years old) from his position as a person in authority when he was attacked. Hence, the attack on him cannot be regarded as against a person in authority anymore.
B) Yes, Rigorberto would still not be guilty of Direct Assault because a lawyer, who is deemed a person
in authority, must have been assaulted when engaged in actual performance of his professional duties or on the occasion of such performance. In this case, however, Judge Lorenzo, who was still a lawyer then, was celebrating his birthday at the time when Rigoberto assaulted him. He was neither in the performance of his duties nor attacked on occasion thereof.
- What are the different acts of inciting to sedition? (2007 Bar Question)
The different acts which constitute the crime of inciting to sedition are:
1. Inciting others through speeches, writings, banners and other media of representation to commit acts which constitutes sedition;
2. Uttering seditious words, speeches or circulating scurrilous libels against the Government of the
Philippines or any of its duly constituted authorities, which tend to disturb or obstruct the
performance of official functions, or which tend to incite others to cabal and meet for unlawful
purposes;
3. Inciting through the same media of representation rebellious conspiracies or riots;
4. Stirring people to go against lawful authorities, or disturb the peace and public order of the
community or of the Government; or
5. Knowingly concealing any of the aforestated evil practices (Art. 142, Revised Penal Code).
Erwin and Bea approached Mayor Abral and requested him to solemnize their marriage. Mayor Abral agreed. Erwin and Bea went to Mayor Abral’s office on the day of the ceremony, but Mayor Abral was not there. When Erwin and Bea inquired where Mayor Abral was, his chief of staff Donato informed them that the Mayor was campaigning for the coming elections. Donato told them that the Mayor authorized him to solemnize the marriage and that Mayor Abral would just
sign the documents when he arrived. Donato thereafter solemnized the marriage and later turned over the documents to Mayor Abral for his signature. In the marriage contract, it was stated that the marriage was solemnized by Mayor Abral. What crime(s) did Mayor Abral and Donato commit? Explain. (2015 Bar Question)
Donato committed Usurpation of Official Functions under Article 177 of the Revised Penal Code because
he performed the act of solemnizing a marriage which pertained to the mayor, without being lawfully entitled to do so.
Mayor Abral is liable for falsification of public document by a public officer under Article 171. Making an untruthful statement by stating in a marriage contract, a public document, that the marriage was solemnized
him, is an act of falsification.
To aid in the rebuilding and revival of Tacloban City and the surrounding areas that had been
devastated by the strongest typhoon to hit the country in decades, the Government and other sectors , including NGOs, banded together in the effort. Among the NGOs was Bangon Waray, Inc. (BaWI), headed by Mr. Jose Ma. Gulang, its President and CEO. BaWI operated mainly as a social amelioration and charitable institution. For its activities in the typhoon-stricken parts of
Leyte Province, BaWI received funds from all sources, local and foreign, including substantial amounts from legislators, local government officials and the EU. After several months, complaints were heard about the very slow distribution of relief goods and needed social services by BaWI.
The COA reported the results of its audit to the effect that at least P10 Million worth of funds coming from public sources channeled to BaWI were not yet properly accounted for. The COA demanded reimbursement but BaWI did not respond.
Hence, Mr. Gulang was criminally charged in the Office of the Ombudsman with malversation of public funds as respectively defined and punished by Art. 217 and Art.218 of the Revised Penal Code. He was also charged with violation of Sec. 3(e) of R.A. 3019 for causing undue injury to the Government.
In his defense, Mr. Gulang mainly contended that he could not be held liable under the various charges because he was not a public officer. (2017 Bar Question)
A) Who is a public officer?
B) Discuss whether the crimes charged against Mr. Gulang are proper. Explain your answer.
A) A public officer is any person who, by direct provision of the law, popular election or appointment by
competent authority, shall take part in the performance of public functions in the Government of the Philippine Islands, or shall perform in said Government or in any of its branches public duties as an employee, agent or subordinate official, of any rank or class.
B) Mr. Gulang, although a private person, may be charged with malversation and failure of accountable
officer to render accounts because he was in made in charge of public funds. Malversation and failure to render accounts shall also apply to private individuals who, in any capacity whatever, have charge of any national, provincial or municipal funds, revenues or property.
Mr. Gulang may not be held liable for RA No. 3019 because it was not shown that he conspired with a public officer in committing the crime. As a general rule, a private individual can be held liable for violation of if he conspired with a public officer in committing this crime.
The baptism of A was solemnized by B, an ecclesiastical minister, in the absence of C, one of the godparents. Upon request of the mother of A, B caused the inclusion of the name of C in
the baptismal certificate of A as one of the godparents and allowed a proxy for C during the baptismal ceremony. What is the criminal liability, if any, of the ecclesiastical minister? (2012
Bar Question)
The ecclesiastical minister is not criminally liable because the insertion of the name of C in
the baptismal certificate will not affect the civil status of A.
To aid in the rebuilding and revival of Tacloban City and the surrounding areas that had been
devastated by the strongest typhoon to hit the country in decades, the Government and other
sectors , including NGOs, banded together in the effort. Among the NGOs was Bangon Waray,
Inc. (BaWI), headed by Mr. Jose Ma. Gulang, its President and CEO. BaWI operated mainly as a
social amelioration and charitable institution. For its activities in the typhoon-stricken parts of
Leyte Province, BaWI received funds from all sources, local and foreign, including substantial
amounts from legislators, local government officials and the EU. After several months, complaints
were heard about the very slow distribution of relief goods and needed social services by BaWI.
The COA reported the results of its audit to the effect that at least P10 Million worth of funds coming from public sources channeled to BaWI were not yet properly accounted for. The COA
demanded reimbursement but BaWI did not respond.
Hence, Mr. Gulang was criminally charged in the Office of the Ombudsman with malversation of
public funds as respectively defined and punished by Art. 217 and Art.218 of the Revised Penal
Code. He was also charged with violation of Sec. 3(e) of R.A. 3019 for causing undue injury to
the Government.
In his defense, Mr. Gulang mainly contended that he could not be held liable under the various
charges because he was not a public officer. (2017 Bar Question)
A) Who is a public officer?
B) Discuss whether the crimes charged against Mr. Gulang are proper. Explain your answer.
A) A public officer is any person who, by direct provision of the law, popular election or appointment by
competent authority, shall take part in the performance of public functions in the Government of the Philippine Islands, or shall perform in said Government or in any of its branches public duties as an employee, agent or subordinate official, of any rank or class.
B) Mr. Gulang, although a private person, may be charged with malversation and failure of accountable
officer to render accounts because he was in made in charge of public funds. Malversation and failure to render accounts shall also apply to private individuals who, in any capacity whatever, have charge of any national, provincial or municipal funds, revenues or property.
Mr. Gulang may not be held liable for RA No. 3019 because it was not shown that he conspired with a public officer in committing the crime. As a general rule, a private individual can be held liable for violation of if he conspired with a public officer in committing this crime.
A typhoon destroyed the houses of many of the inhabitants of X Municipality. Thereafter, X Municipality operated a shelter assistance program whereby construction materials were provided to the calamity victims, and the beneficiaries provided the labor. The construction was partially done when the beneficiaries stopped helping with the construction for the reason that they needed
to earn income to provide food for their families. When informed of the situation, Mayor Maawain approved the withdrawal of ten boxes of food from X Municipality’s feeding program, which were given to the families of the beneficiaries of the shelter assistance program. The appropriations for the funds pertaining to the shelter assistance program and those for the feeding program were separate items on X Municipality’s annual budget. (2015 Bar Question)
A) What crime did Mayor Maawain commit? Explain. B) May Mayor Maawain invoke the defense of good faith and that he had no evil intent when he
approved the transfer of the boxes of food from the feeding program to the shelter assistance
program? Explain
A) Mayor Maawain committed the crime of Illegal use of public funds or property or Technical
Malversation under Art. 220 of the RPC, because as an accountable public officer, he applied public funds and property under his administration, which were supposedly for the feeding program, to some other public use, i.e., the beneficiaries of the shelter assistance program.
B) No. Since the offense of Technical Malversation is mala prohibita, good faith is not a defense. The law
punishes the mere act of diverting public property earmarked by law or ordinance for a particular purpose to another public purpose.
- Filthy, a very rich businessman, convinced Loko, a clerk of court, to issue an order of release for Takas, Filthy s cousin, who was in jail for a drug charge. After receiving P500,000.00, Loko forged the signature of the judge on the order of release and accompanied Filthy to the detention center.
At the jail, Loko gave the guard P10,000.00 to open the gate and let Takas out. What crime or crimes did Filthy, Loko, and the guard commit? (2014 Bar Question)
Filthy committed the following crimes:
(a) Delivery of prisoners from Jail, Article 156, RPC, because he assisted in the removal of Takas, a
detention prisoner, from jail.
(b) Corruption of Public Officials, Article 212, RPC, because he gave P500,000.00 to the clerk of
court, under circumstances in which said public officer would be liable of direct bribery.
(c) Falsification of Public Document, Article 172(1), RPC, as a principal by inducement because he
gave the clerk of court P500,000.00 to induce him to forge the signature of the judge in the order
of release.
Loko committed the following crimes:
(a) Direct Bribery, Article 210, RPC, because he accepted P500,000.00 in consideration of the
execution of an act which constitutes a crime, i.e., forging the signature of the judge in the order of release that would enable Takas to get out of jail, in connection with the performance of his duty as a clerk of court.
(b) Falsification of Public Document, Article 171, RPC, because he took advantage of his position as
a clerk of court in forging the signature of the judge in the order of release. (c) Delivery of Prisoners from Jail, Article 156, RPC, because he assisted in the removal of Takas from
jail by forging the signature of the judge in the in the falsified order of release.
The guard committed the following crimes:
(a) Direct Bribery, Article 210, RPC, because in consideration of P10,000.00, he agreed to open the
gate and let Takas out. (b) Infidelity in the Custody of Prisoners, Article 223, RPC, because as the custodian of Takas,
connived or consented to his escape by opening the gate.
- Frank borrowed P1,000,000 from his brother Eric. To pay the loan, Frank issued a post-dated check to be presented for payment a month after the transaction. Two days before maturity, Frank called Eric telling him he had insufficient funds and requested that the deposit of the check be deferred. Nevertheless, Eric deposited the check and it was dishonored. When Frank failed to pay despite demand, Eric filed a complaint against him for violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 (The Bouncing Checks Law).
Was the charge brought against Frank correct? (2013 Bar Question)
Yes, the charge of Violation of BP 22 is correct. Being malum prohibitum , it is committed by mere issuance of a worthless check, and the conditions relating to the issuance are irrelevant to the prosecution of the offender. Frank s request to defer the deposit of the check as it has insufficient funds will not militate against his prosecution for BP Blg. 22.
- Judge Talim, upon complaint and application of the realty corporation Batmanson, Inc., issued a writ of preliminary injunction against Darjeeling Ventures, Inc., a competitor of Batmanson, Inc., without notice and hearing anyone.
If you were counsel for Darjeeling Ventures, Inc., what criminal charge should you file against Judge Talim? (2013 Bar Question)
What crime is committed when a person assumes the performance of duties and powers of a
public office or employment without first being sworn in? (2012 Bar Question)
Anticipation of public office
What crime is committed by a public officer who, before the acceptance of his resignation, shall abandon his office to the detriment of the public service in order to evade the discharge of the duties of preventing, prosecuting or punishing the crime of treason? (2012 Bar Question)
A jailer inflicted injury on the prisoner because of his personal grudge against the latter. The injury caused illness of the prisoner for more than thirty (30) days. What is the proper charge against the jailer? (2012 Bar Question)
Maltreatment of prisoner and serious physical injuries
- What is the proper charge against a lawyer who reveals the secrets of his client learned by him in his professional capacity
Betrayal of trust
What crime is committed by a public officer who, having control of public funds or property by reason of the duties of his office and for which he is accountable, permits any other person through abandonment to take such public funds or property? (2012 Bar Question)
- In malversation of public funds, the offender s return of the amount malversed has the following effect.,
A public officer who immediately returns the bribe money handed over to him commits: (2011 Bar Question)
No crime
May a judge be charged and prosecuted for the felony of qualified bribery? How about a public
prosecutor? A police officer? Explain. (2010 Bar Question)
No, a judge may not be charged of this felony because his official duty as a public officer is not law
enforcement but the determination of cases already filed in court.
A public prosecutor may be prosecuted for qualified bribery should he refrain from prosecuting an offender
who has committed a crime punishable by reclusion perpetua and/or death in consideration of any offer,
promise, gift or present.
A police officer who refrains from arresting such offender for the same consideration above stated, may
be prosecuted for this felony since he is a public officer entrusted with law enforcement.
What is the crime of qualified bribery? (2010 Bar Question)
Qualified robbery is a crime committed by a public officer who is entrusted with law enforcement who, in consideration of any offer, promise, gift or offer, refrains from arresting or prosecuting an offender who has committed a crime punishable by reclusion perpetua and/or death (Art. 211-A, Revised Penal
Code).
Roger and Jessie, Municipal Mayor and Treasurer, respectively, of San Rafael, Leyte, caused the disbursement of public funds allocated for their local development programs for 2008.
Records show that the amount of P2-million was purportedly used as financial assistance for a rice production livelihood project. Upon investigation however, it was found that Roger and Jessie falsified the disbursement vouchers and supporting documents in order to make it appear that qualified recipients who, in fact, are non-existent individuals, received the money.
Roger and Jessie are charged with malversation through falsification and violation of Section 3
(e) of R.A. 3019 for causing undue injury to the government. Discuss the propriety of the charges filed against Roger and Jessie. Explain. (2009 Bar Question)
The charge of complex crime of malversation through falsification is incorrect because the act of
falsification was not a necessary means to malverse the money. The falsifications were committed to cover up or hide the malversation and therefore, should be separately treated from malversation.
Moreover, they should be charged of violation of section 3(e) of RA 3019 for the breach of public trust and undue injury cause to the Government.
Eman, a vagrant, found a bag containing identification cards and a diamond ring along Roxas Blvd. Knowing that it was not his, he went to a nearest police station to seek help in finding the owner of the bag. At the precinct PO1 Melvin attended to him. In the investigation Eman proposed to PO1 Melvin, “in case you don’t find the owner let’s just pawn straight to the pawnshop and pawned the ring for P50,000.00 Eman never saw PO1 Melvin again.
What is the criminal liability of PO1 Melvin, if any? Explain. (2008 Bar Question)
PO1 Melvin committed the crime of theft when he took the bag of another, evidently with intent to gain but without violence against or intimidation of persons nor force upon things. Although he is not the one who found the property, he is considered as finder in law since the property was surrendered to him by the
actual finder (People v. Avila, G.R. No. L-19786, 31 March 1923).
N.B.: There is no malversation of public funds property in this case because PO1 is not an accountable officer for public funds or property whose duties permit or require the possession or custody of government funds or property, and who shall be accountable therefor and for the safekeeping thereof
in conformity with law (Arriola v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 165711, 30 June 2006).
Eliseo, the deputy sheriff, conducted the execution sale of the property of Andres to satisfy
the judgment against him in favor of ABC Corporation, a government-owned or controlled
corporation with an original charter. However, the representative of the corporation failed to
attend the auction sale. Gonzalo, the winning bidder, purchased property for P100,000 which he
paid to Eliseo. Instead of remitting the amount to the Clerk of Court as ex-officio Provincial
Sheriff, Eliseo lent the amount to Myrna, his officemate, who promised to repay the amount
within two months, with interest thereon. However, Myrna reneged on her promise. Despite demands of ABC Corporation, Eliseo failed to remit the said amount.
A) State with reasons, the crime or crimes, if any, committed by Eliseo. (2008 Bar Question)
B) Would your answer to the first question be the same if ABC Corporation were a private
corporation? Explain. (2008 Bar Question)
A) Eliseo committed malversation for allowing Myrna to misappropriate the money for which he, as
Sheriff, is accountable for (Art. 217, RPC). In this case, the act of Eliseo of lending the amount to his officemate is tantamount to permitting any other person to take the public funds, considering that the P100,000 involved is a public funds, it should be turned-over to the Office of the Clerk of Court.
B) The answer would be the same since even if ABC is a private corporation, Eliseo is still accountable
for it, and the same should be delivered to the Court.
Upon opening a letter containing 17 money orders, the mail carrier forged the signatures of
the payees on the money orders and encashed them. What crime or crimes did the mail carrier
commit? Explain briefly. (2008 Bar Question)
The mail carrier may be guilty of the following crimes:
(a) malversation and falsification ( People. v. Villanueva); (b) infidelity in the custody of documents (US v. Gorospe); (c) qualified theft since the property stolen is a mail matter (Marcelo v. Sandiganbayan); (d) forgery under Art. 169 (2) RPC because there was a material alteration on a genuine document (US
v. Solito, 36 Phil 785); and (e) falsification under Art. 171 (1), (2) RPC because he counterfeited signatures to make it appear that
the payees signed the money order and received paymen