CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW

QUIZ NO. 1

SUMMER 2013

PART I: MULTIPLE CHOICE: SELECT THE BEST ANSWER. CHOOSE ONE LETTER-ANSWER ONLY (2% each) 1. It refers to the mental capacity to determine the morality of an action: a. b. c. d.
2.

Intelligence Free will Discernment Discretion

A and B had a heated argument. In an effort to stop B from arguing further, A raised his shirt and exhibited a knife tucked at his waist, as if to threaten B. Instead of being threatened, B grabbed hold of the knife and thereafter A and B struggled for the possession of the knife. C, their common friend, went near the two to pacify them, but it was at that instant that B was able to wrest possession of the knife away from B, simultaneously hitting C on his chest with the knife. a. b. c. d. Both A and B are liable for the injury sustained by C because the injury resulted from their mutual action when they wrestled for the possession of the knife. Only B is liable for the injury because of the principle of praeter intentionem. Only A is liable because had he not exhibited the knife, B would not have wrestled for its possession, and C would not have been injured. B is not liable because he did not intend to injure C.

3.

While the Spanish luxury liner MV Frances was cruising the Pacific Ocean, they chanced upon a boat with some Mexicans on board, and who pleaded that they be allowed to go on board the liner, as they had been shipwrecked and had not eaten for a week already. The liners captain took pity and allowed the Mexicans on board and let them occupy a room to sleep in. At night, when the crew and the passengers were asleep, the Mexicans drew their weapons which they had concealed and then took the passengers and crews valuables and then escaped on board a speed boat. The Captain thereafter radioed for help. The BRP Miguelito, a Philippine Naval Ship patrolling the Philippine territorial waters near the Pacific Ocean, was informed of the incident. Some 500 meters from where the BRP Miguelito was moored, they saw the speed boat ridden by the Mexicans.

a.

The Philippine Navy can effect the arrest of the Mexicans because they committed acts amounting to piracy, which is a felony punished under Philippine Laws. b. The Philippine Navy cannot effect the arrest of the Mexicans because the Mexicans performed the acts in the Pacific Ocean, which is part of the international waters. c. The Philippine Navy can effect the arrest of the Mexicans because piracy is a universal crime, and considering further that the Mexicans were already within the limits of our waters. d. The Philippine Navy cannot effect the arrest of the Mexicans because the crime was not committed in our territorial waters, even if piracy is a universal crime. 4. A penal law which impliedly repeals another penal law, which previously expressly repeals a first law: a. b. c. d. 5. Results to the revival of the provisions of the first law. Does not have any effect upon the first law, which remains repealed. Modifies the penalties in the first law. Modifies the penalties of the second law which expressly repeals the first law.

The right to be informed of the right to remain silent: a. b. c. d. Is a right that can be waived by the accused because it is a personal right. Is a right which cannot be waived because it affects public interest. Is a right that can be waived by the fact that the accused makes statements during the investigation, or testifies in Court during trial. Is a right which cannot be waived because only the right to remain silent can be waived.

6.

A was convicted in July 2000 for Theft. After serving his sentence, he committed another case of Theft and was again convicted in August 2006, and served two years in jail. In May 2010, he committed, and was convicted of Robbery with Homicide. a. b. c. A is a Recidivist because the third crime he committed is embraced in the same title of the Revised Penal Code. A is a Habitual Delinquent because he has three convictions, within a ten year period, of the crimes embraced under paragraph 5 of Article 62 of the Revised Penal Code. A is both a Recidivist and Habitual Delinquent because at the time of his trial for his third crime, he was found guilty of the crime embraced in the same Title of the Revised Penal Code, and this same third conviction is embraced under paragraph 5 of Article 62 of the Revised Penal Code. A is both a Recidivist and a Habitual delinquent, but in the imposition of the additional penalty under paragraph 5 of Article 62 of the Revised Penal Code, his recidivism can no longer be appreciated.

d.

Page TWO 7.

MCQ Quiz 1

Chris Uno is employed as a janitor at the American Embassy along Roxas Boulevard, Manila. One day, Chris Uno was approached by Gilbert, a Chinese, who was also employed as a civilian security guard at the Embassy, and the latter berated him and accused him of being a thief. a. b. c. d. Gilbert can be prosecuted under Philippine Laws because he does not enjoy diplomatic immunity. Gilbert cannot be prosecuted under Philippine Laws because he is not a Filipino. Gilbert can be prosecuted under Philippine Laws because of the principle of Generality, which provides that penal laws of the Philippines apply upon all who live or sojourn in Philippine Territory. Gilbert cannot be prosecuted under our Laws because of the principle of Territoriality.

8.

The Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA) is an example of: a. b. c. d. A Treaty which adheres to the Doctrine of Reciprocity. A Treaty which supports the Doctrine of Exterritoriality. A Treaty which is akin to a law of preferential application. A classic example of an Ex post Facto Law.

9.

John Paul and Ken, both armed with guns, drew their weapons at the vehicle being driven by Prelyn, and told the latter to alight from the vehicle. Prelyn refused to leave her vehicle. Consequently, John Paul shot Prelyn, killing the latter. Thereafter, John Paul and Ken escaped with Prelyns vehicle. John Paul and Ken are liable for: a. b. c. d. The complex crime of Carnapping with Homicide. Homicide only. Carnapping only. A charge for Carnapping and a separate charge for Homicide.

10. The doctrine of transferred intent refers to: a. A situation where an offender perpetrates a felony but he had no intention to inflict the injury that resulted. b. A circumstance where an accused inflicts a blow for a specific or intended victim, but the injury instead falls or lands upon another, like a case of aberratio ichtus. c. A form of defense in a criminal case to show that the accused had no motive. d. Another term for the defense of good faith in crimes mala in se. 11. The subjective phase of a felony: a. Refers to the portion of a crime where the offender consummates the overt acts leading to a felony. b. Refers to the non-performance of all the overt acts because of supervening causes. c. The part of a felony where the felon commences a felony, up to the point where he has still control of his actions. d. The part of a felony where the felon commences a felony, up to the point where he manifests a spontaneous desistance. 12. The crime of Terrorism, even if committed outside Philippine Territory, can be prosecuted in our jurisdiction, and under our penal laws, because: a. Terrorists are considered as hostes humani generis. b. The law on Terrorism has extra-territorial application. c. The law on Terrorism has exterritorial application. d. Terrorism is a crime malum prohibitum in nature, and good faith is not a defense. 13. Cristina Luningning had just taken and shower and wrapped herself with a towel, and had not yet placed any undergarment on. She proceeded to hang her wet clothes at the clothes line which was placed about four feet from the ground, and she stood on a stool to reach the clothes line. Unknown to her, Randall, her neighbor, was sleeping at a bench near the clothes line, but was covered by a tarpaulin which he used as a blanket. Randall stretched his right hand and yawned and did not realize that his right index finger protruded and found its way inside Cristinas sex organ. a. Randall is liable for Rape by sexual assault for inserting his finger in the vagina. b. Randall is not liable for Rape by sexual assault because he did not intend to insert his finger into the vagina. c. Randall is liable for Rape by sexual assault because the said felony can be committed by means of culpa. d. Randall is not liable for Rape by sexual assault because Cristina Luningning herself contributed to the consummation of the felony by her own recklessness.

Page THREE 14.

MCQ Quiz 1

There is legal impossibility when: There are extraneous circumstances which occurred which prevent the consummation of the felony. The provisions of the Revised Penal Code state that the accused is absolved from liability because of a legal excuse like self-defense. c. The acts, even if completed up to the consummation of the felony, would still not result to a crime. d. The crime was not consummated because of the inherent impossibility of its accomplishment, pursuant to Paragraph 2 of Article 4 of the Revised Penal Code. a. b.

15. A violated a special law passed by the municipal authorities of his province. When A was being questioned by the authorities, he claimed good faith because at the time of the offense, he was yet to be informed of the new law. Would his defense be tenable? a. No, applying the principle of mala prohibita. b. Yes, an ordinance (passed by a municipality) is an exemption because they are not national in scope. c. It depends upon the gravity or nature of the offense. d. Yes, because of the principle of mistake of fact. 16. C and D got into an exchange of painful words. The exchange eventually turned bad and one moment, C punched D and after that, they were already physically hurting each other. After both were pacified, they were sent home. That night, D complained of a bad headache. Ds family did not treat such as something serious, leaving the same as such, without any medical attention. Three days after, D died. The doctors findings indicate that D died of a brain trauma caused by an excessive force applied. Is C liable? a. Yes. Because even if D failed to seek medical attention, Cs action wa s still the proximate cause of the death of the victim. b. No. It would be gravely unfair to C, Considering that the fight occurred three days ago. c. No. The evidence is unclear, pro reo should be used. d. Yes because the medical findings should be made basis of his liability. 17. Alfonse, with intent to kill, points his gun at Ruben, and shoots the latter. The bullet, instead, hits a wall and ricochets and hits Edison, a by-stander and eventually kills Edison. a. Alfonse is not liable for the death of Edison because what transpired is an accident which is an exempting circumstance. b. Alfonse is liable for a culpable felony which resulted to the death of Edison. c. Alfonse is liable because by shooting at Ruben with intent to kill, he was already performing an intentional felony. d. Alfonse is not liable for the death because he was not the proximate cause.

18. Suppose that in the case referred to in question 17, Alfonse did not have the intent to kill Ruben when he (Alfonse) pointed the gun at the latter. Nonetheless, the gun fired but hit and killed Edison instead. a. Alfonse is still liable for the death of Edison because a person is criminally liable for all the direct, natural and logical consequences of his felonious acts. b. Alfonse is not liable for the death of Edison because the death resulted from an accident which exempts Edison from criminal liability. c. Alfonse is not liable for the death of Edison because he did not have the intent to kill Edison. Neither did he have intent to kill Ruben. d. Alfonse is liable for a culpable felony if it can be proven that the death resulted because of Alfonses negligence. 19. Suppose that in the case referred to in Question 17, Alfonse had the intent to kill Ruben. Alfonse then aimed his firearm at Ruben and fired at the latter, who was hit. Without Alfonses knowledge, Tomas, Alfonses body guard, had earlier replaced the bullets of Alfonses gun with blank bullets. Consequently, although he was hit, Ruben did not actually die. a. Alfonse is still liable for a consummated felony as all the elements necessary to execute and accomplish the felony are present. b. Alfonse is liable for the consummated felony because he had indeed committed a felony and he is liable for all the direct, logical and natural consequences of his felonious acts. c. Alfonse is not liable for any felony because Ruben did not die even though he was actually hit by the bullet which emanated from Alfonses gun. d. Alfonse may be liable for another felony, but not because of the fact that Ruben did not die despite having been actually hit by the bullet which emanated from Alfonses gun.

Page FOUR

MCQ Quiz 1

20. C found a kris a muslim warriors sword at the back of the house of D. C later put the kris on display at his sala. When D went to visit C, he saw the kris and grabbed hold of the same, claiming it was his. C tried to take the kris back, and he and D struggled for possession. E, the wife of C, heard the commotion, and tried to help C in taking the kris back from D, but D swung the kris around so that C could not reach for it, but in doing so, D injured E on the neck. a. b. c. d. Only D is liable for the injury sustained by E because he is the proximate cause of the injury. Both C and D and liable for Es injury because the injury was sustained during the struggle. Only D is liable because of the principle of praeter intentionem. C cannot be liable because E is his wife and he had no intention to injure E.

PART II. ANSWER BRIEFLY BUT CONCISELY. SUPPORT YOUR ANSWERS WITH PROPER LEGAL BASIS.

I. James had the following criminal record: Crimes Committed Estafa Falsification Less Serious Physical Injuries Serious Physical Injuries Homicide Robbery Theft Date of Commission March 8, 1991 June 10, 1993 September 1, 1994 December 24, 1995 January 1, 1996 March 25, 1997 April 16, 1998

He was convicted of the Estafa case on March 8, 1997; He was convicted of the Falsification on March 2, 2001; in the Homicide case on March 20, 2000 and in the Robbery case on June 2, 2001. From the facts of this case, is James a habitual delinquent? Discuss fully. (5 %)

II.(a) When can the provisions of the Revised Penal Code be given supplemental application to violations of a Special Law? Explain (5 %) (b) Distinguish mistake of facts from mistake in identity. (5 %)

III. Francisco met and pursued his enemy Jervin, who took cover behind a tree. Every time that Jervin showed his head, Francisco fired at him but missed. Two bullets hit and killed Pining Garcia, who was seated at a nearby store and one bullet hits Jack Cole in the left thumb, causing injuries that required two weeks to heal. Three sets of information were filed against Francisco one for frustrated murder with respect to Jervin; one for reckless imprudence resulting to homicide as to Pining Garcia and one also for reckless imprudence resulting to physical injuries as to Jack Cole. Francisco was convicted in the three cases. Are the convictions correct? Explain. (5 %) IV. Explain the effects of an express and implied repeal of a penal law upon (a) the act or omission defined as a crime; (b) upon ongoing criminal proceedings and (c) upon persons already convicted under the repealed law. (10%) V. Salba Kuta already had three (3) previous convictions by final judgment for Theft when he was found guilty of Robbery with Homicide. In the last case, the trial judge considered against the accused both recidivism and habitual delinquency. The accused appealed and contended that in his last conviction, the trial court cannot consider against him a finding of recidivism and, again, of habitual delinquency. Is the appeal meritorious? Explain. (5%) VI. Nilo and Leo were passengers of the Carribean Liner, a world class merchant vessel registered under the laws of Cuba. While the vessel was docked at the Subic Bay Port area, Nilo and Leo engaged in a fight. Consequently, Nilo shot Leo, resulting to the death of the latter. Nilo was thereafter arrested by members of the Philippine National Police. Can Nilo be tried before Philippine Courts? Discuss fully. (5 %)

Page FIVE

MCQ Quiz 1

VII. What are the statutory rights of an Accused? (10 %)

VIII. a. Bernard Walters, an American Consul assigned at the American Embassy located at Roxas

Boulevard, Manila, had an argument with Karina Obama, the American Ambassador. The argument between them became so heated, that Bernard even drew a knife and with it stabbed Karina while they were inside Karinas office at the Embassy. Philip came to the rescue of the Ambassador and pacified Bernard. Karina Obama suffered a stab wound at her stomach. Does our country have jurisdiction over the person of Bernard Walters and the crime that he committed? Explain fully. (5 %) b. What is an ex post facto law? Cite at least five (5) instances for the application of this principle.(5%)