Bar Questions with Suggested Answer for Criminal Law

2007 Bar Questions

Q: Macky, a security guard, arrived home late one night after rendering
overtime. He was shocked to see Joy, his wife, and Ken, his best friend, in
the act of having sexual intercourse. Macky pulled out his service gun and
shot and killed Ken. Macky was charged with murder for the death of Ken.
The court found that Ken died under exceptional circumstances and
exonerated Macky of murder but sentenced him to destierro, conformably
with Article 247 of the Revised Penal Code. The court also ordered Macky to
pay indemnity to the heirs of the victim in the amount of P50,000. Did the
court correctly order Macky to pay indemnity even though he was
exonerated of murder? Explain your answer.
A: No, the court did not act correctly in ordering the accused to indemnify the victim.
Since the killing of Ken was committed under the exceptional circumstances in Article
247, Revised Penal Code, it is the consensus that no crime was committed in the light of
the pronouncement in People v. Cosicor (79 Phil. 672 [1947]) that banishment
(destierro) is intended more for the protection of the offender rather than as a penalty.
Since the civil liability under the Revised Penal Code is the consequence of criminal
liability, there would be no legal basis for the award of indemnity when there is no
criminal liability.
AA: Yes, because the crime punishable by destierro was committed, which is death
under exceptional circumstances under Art. 247 of the Revised Penal Code. Jervis and
Marlon asked their friend, Jonathan, to help them rob a bank. Jervis and Marlon went
inside the bank, but were unable to get any money from the vault because the same was
protected by a time-delay mechanism. They contented themselves with the customers'
cellphones and a total of P5,000 in cash. After they dashed out of the bank and rushed
into the car, Jonathan pulled the car out of the curb, hitting a pedestrian which resulted
in the latter's death.
Q: What crime or crimes did Jervis, Marlon and Jonathan commit? Explain
your answer.
A: Jervis and Marlon committed the crime of robbery, while Jonathan committed the
special complex crime of robbery with homicide. Jervis and Marlon are criminally liable
for the robbery only, because that was the crime conspired upon and actually committed
by them, assuming that the taking of the cellphones and the cash from the bank's
customers was effected with intimidation. They will not incur liability for the death of
the pedestrian because they have nothing to do with it. Only Jonathan will incur liability
for the death of the pedestrian, aside from the robbery, because he alone brought about
such death. Although the death caused was not intentional but accidental, it shall be a

component of the special complex crime of robbery with homicide because it was
committed in the course of the commission of the robbery.
AA: Jervis, Marlon and Jonathan committed robbery with homicide, because there was
conspiracy among them to commit the robbery and the death of the pedestrian was
caused on the occasion of the robbery. Even though the death was accidental, it is
enough that such death was caused by any of the robbers' felonious act and on the
occasion of the
commission of the robbery (People v. Guiapar, 129 SCRA. 539 [1984]).
Q: Distinguish between an accomplice and a conspirator.
A: The distinctions between an accomplice and a conspirator are:
1. An accomplice incurs criminal liability by merely cooperating in the execution of the
crime without participating as a principal, by prior or simultaneous acts; whereas a
conspirator participates in the commission of a crime as a co-principal.
2. An accomplice incurs criminal liability in an individual capacity by his act alone of
cooperating in the execution of the crime; while a conspirator incurs criminal liability
not only for his individual acts in the execution of the crime but also for the acts of the
other participants in the commission of the crime collectively. The acts of the other
participants in the execution of the crime are considered also as acts of a conspirator for
purposes of collective criminal responsibility.
3. An accomplice participates in the execution of a crime when the criminal design or
plan is already in place; whereas a conspirator participates in the adoption or making of
the criminal design.
4. An accomplice is subjected to a penalty one degree lower than that of a principal;
whereas a conspirator incurs the penalty of a principal.
Q: What are the penalties that may be served simultaneously?
A: The penalties that may be served simultaneously are imprisonment/ destierro and:
1. Perpetual absolute disqualification;
2. Perpetual special disqualification;
3. Temporary absolute disqualification;
4. Temporary special disqualification;
5. Suspension from public office, the right to vote and be voted for, and the right to
follow a profession or calling;
6. Fine; and any principal penalty with its accessory penalties.
Q: What are the different acts of inciting to sedition? (2007 Bar Question)

A: 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 constitute 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; riots;
3. Inciting through the same media of representation rebellious conspiracies or
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, Rev. Penal
Code).
Q: Fe is the manager of a rice mill in Bulacan. In order to support a
gambling debt, Fe made it appear that the rice mill was earning less than it
actually was by writing in a "talaan" or ledger a figure lower than what was
collected and paid by their customers. Fe then pocketed the difference.
What crime/s did Fe commit, if any? Explain your answer.
A: The crimes committed by Fe are theft and falsification of private document because
Fes possession of the proceeds of the rice mill was only physical, not juridical,
possession, and having committed the crimes with grave abuse of confidence, it is
qualified theft. The falsification is a separate crime from the theft because it was not
committed as a necessary means to commit the theft but resorted to only to hide or
conceal the unlawful taking.
Q: Pinky was a lessee of a market stall owned by Giovanni. When Pinky
refused to pay her rental, Giovanni nailed some wooden barricades on one
of the sides of the market stall and posted this warning: "We have closed
this portion of the door. Do not open it or else something may happen to
you." What crime/ s did Giovanni commit, if any? Explain your answer?
A: The crime committed by Giovanni is light coercion under Art. 287 of the Rev. Penal
Code, commonly referred to as unjust vexation. Although what was done by Giovanni
could reasonably be assumed as a retaliation to the lessee's refusal to pay rent, absent
any clear violence in the premises, such would not bring about a case of grave coercion.
The situation should be interpreted liberally in favor of the offender. The rule of pro reo
precludes any finding for grave coercion, because it would be against the offender.
The written warning which states "or else something may happen to you" is so
equivocal that it may not be interpreted as felonious. A crime is never presumed; it is the
contrary that is presumed.

AA: The crime committed by Giovanni is unjust vexation because barricading one of the
sides of the market stall was an act of violence deliberately done. It is not only an act of
unjust vexation or light coercion but of grave coercion.
Q: Fe is the manager of a rice mill in Bulacan. In order to support a
gambling debt, Fe made it appear that the rice mill was earning less than it
actually was by writing in a "talaan" or ledger a figure lower than what was
collected and paid by their customers. Fe then pocketed the difference.
What crime/s did Fe commit, if any? Explain your answer.
A: If the "talaan" or ledger which Fe made to show a falsehood was a private document,
the only crime that Fe committed was estafa thru abuse of confidence or unfaithfulness.
Criminal liability for falsification of a private document does not arise without damage
or at least proof of intent to cause damage. It cannot co-exist with the crime of estafa
which also essentially requires damage or at least proof of intent to cause damage. Since
the "talaan" was falsified to cover-up or conceal the misappropriation of the amount
involved, whatever damage or intent to cause damage attends the falsification, it will be
the same damage or intent to cause damage that will attend the estafa.
If such " talaan" or ledger was' a commercial document, damage or proof of intent to
cause damage is not necessary. The falsification alone if done with intent to pervert the
truth, would bring about criminal liability for falsification of a commercial document.
Damage or intent to cause damage, would sustain the estafa independently of the
falsification of the commercial document. In this case, two (2) separate crimes are
committed; namely, estafa and falsification of the commercial document. The
falsification should not be complexed with the estafa since it was not committed as a
necessary means to commit the estafa but rather resorted to, to conceal or hide the
misappropriation of the amount she pocketed.
Q: What are the three (3) classes of offenders in the crime of qualified
seduction? Give an example of each.
A: The three (3) classes of offenders in the crime of qualified seduction are:
1. Those who exercise moral influence over the victim, such as a priest who acts as
spiritual adviser of the victim, or a teacher in the school where the victim is enrolled;
2. A brother or ascendant by consanguinity of the victim, such as her uncle; and
3. Those who are regarded as "domestic" in relation to the victim, enjoying the
confidence and intimacy shared by members of the same household, such as household
helpers and boarders living under the same roof and with same household as the victim.
AA: The three (3) classes of offenders in the crime of qualified seduction are:
1. Those who abuse their authority. Examples: person in public authority, guardian,

teacher or a person who, in any capacity, is entrusted with the education or custody of
the
woman seduced.
2. Those who abuse the confidence reposed on them. Examples: priest, house
servant, domestics.
3. Those who abuse their relationship. Examples: a brother who seduced his sister;
ascendant who seduced his descendant. (Article 337, Revised Penal Code)
Q: During a concert of Gary V., and in order to prevent the crowd from
rushing to the stage, Rafael Padilla (a security guard) pointed his gun at the
onrush of people. When the crowd still pushed forward, Rafael fired his
gun into the air to scare them off. However, the bullet hit one of the metal
roof supports, ricocheted and then hit one of the stage crew members,
causing injuries which resulted in the latter's confinement in a hospital for
twelve days. What crime/ s did Rafael commit? Explain your answer
A: The crime committed by Rafael is Simple Negligence Resulting in Less Serious
Physical Injuries. Rafael is a security guard and was on duty when he discharged the
firearm. The discharge of the firearm was not calculated to cause alarm or danger but
simply to ward off the unruly crowd which persisted in pushing forward, thereby
challenging the duty he was to fulfill there. The discharge of the firearm, therefore,
should neither constitute a crime of Alarms and Scandal under Art. 155 of the Revised
Penal Code nor may such discharge amount to a crime of Illegal Discharge of Firearms
under Art. 254 of the Code since it was not directed towards a particular person when
the firearm was discharged. However, the physical injuries resulting from the discharge
of the firearm betrays a lack of precaution in a situation where the danger to the
discharge of the firearm is not clearly manifest, thus considered as simple imprudence
only. The crime committed is Simple Imprudence Resulting In Less Serious Physical
Injuries, since the physical injuries required only twelve (12) days of medical attention.
AA: The crime is reckless imprudence resulting in less serious physical injuries, because
the discharge of the firearm was not necessary under the circumstances and therefore,
Rafael should be aware of the possibility of injuries that could result from such
discharge of the firearm.