BAR (Title I - Title VII)

Question 1

CRIMES AGAINST NATIONAL SECURITY AND LAWS OF NATIONS

Answer 1

CRIMES AGAINST NATIONAL SECURITY AND LAWS OF NATIONS

Question 2

The Royal S.S. Maru, a vessel registered in Panama (America), 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

Answer 2

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.

Question 3

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)

A) espionage;
B) disloyalty;
C) treason;
D) violation of neutrality.

Answer 3

A. Espionage

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).

Question 4

Can the crime of treason be committed only by a Filipino citizen? (2012 Bar Question)

A) Yes. The offender in the crime of treason is a Filipino citizen only because the first element is that the offender owes allegiance to the Government of the Philippines.

B) No. The offender in the crime of treason is either a Filipino citizen or a foreigner married to a Filipino citizen, whether residing in the Philippines or elsewhere, who adheres to the enemies of the Philippines, giving them aid or comfort.

C) 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.

D) Yes. It is not possible for an alien, whether residing in the Philippines or elsewhere, to commit the crime of treason because he owes allegiance to his own country.

Answer 4

C

Question 5

Because peace negotiations on the Spratlys situation had failed, the People’s Republic of China declared war against the Philippines. Myra, a Filipina who lives with her Italian expatriate (person live outside native country) 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)

Answer 5

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.

Question 6

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(front) of the vessel, boarded it and divested(deprived) 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)

Answer 6

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 waters, and seized 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.

Question 7

CRIMES AGAINST THE FUNDAMENTAL LAW OF THE STATE

Answer 7

CRIMES AGAINST THE FUNDAMENTAL LAW OF THE STATE

Question 8

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(annoyed) 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. (belonging to same church community)

Policeman Stone was subsequently charged. The Office of the Provincial Prosecutor is now about to resolve the case, and is mulling(considering) 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.

Explain fully your answers.

Answer 8

A) 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’s statements during his homily, and not to mock or ridicule the ceremony. Hence, he is not guilty of offending religious feelings.

Question 9

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)

Answer 9

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.

Question 10

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.

Answer 10

Yes, the respondent military officers may be criminally 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

Question 11

CRIMES AGAINST PUBLIC ORDER

Answer 11

CRIMES AGAINST PUBLIC ORDER

Question 12

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 every 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%)

Answer 12

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 was 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).

Question 13

Dancio, a member of a drug syndicate(org involved in production and sale of drugs), 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)

Answer 13

[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 was negligent in relaxing 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 [NO]bribery ((CORRUPTION OF PO)) Helping a person confined in jail to escape constitutes this crime, and by providing Dencio with a pistol, he helped him escape.

Question 14

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(anger) on Dencio and punched him repeatedly, causing him injuries

What crime or crimes, if any, did Mariano commit? (2013 Bar Question)

Answer 14

Mariano 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

[i disagree on the 2nd count of DA, it should be Indirect Assault]

Question 15

Amelia, a famous actress, bought the penthouse unit of a posh(elegant) 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)
A) Alarms and scandals because her act of swimming naked disturbs the public tranquility.
B) Grave scandal because she committed highly scandalous acts that are offensive to decency or good customs.
C) Immoral doctrines, obscene publications and exhibitions, and indecent shows under Article 201 of the Revised Penal Code, because her act of swimming naked is akin to an indecent live show.
D) Amelia did not commit any crime because the swimming pool is located in her private home.

Answer 15

D

Question 16

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? (2013 Bar Question)

A) Rebellion complexed with serious illegal detention and estafa.
B) Rebellion.
C) Coup d’etat.
D) Terrorism.
E) None of the above.

Answer 16

C

Question 17

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, B and C, as well as those who were carrying unlicensed firearms and those who were merely present at the meeting? (2012 Bar Question)

A) Inciting to sedition for A, B and C and illegal possession of firearms for those carrying unlicensed firearms.
B) Inciting to sedition for A, B and C and those carrying unlicensed firearms.
C) Illegal assembly for A, B, C and all those present at the meeting.
D) Conspiracy to commit sedition for A, B, C and those present at the meeting.

Answer 17

C

Question 18

.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)

A) B is a quasi-recidivist because he was serving sentence when found in possession of an unlicensed firearm.
B) B is not a quasi-recidivist because the offense for which he was serving sentence is different from the second offense.
C) B is not a quasi-recidivist because the second offense is not a felony.
D) B is not a quasi-recidivist because the second offense was committed while still serving for the first offense.

Answer 18

C

Art 160

note
First crime for which the offender is serving sentence need not be a felony; but the second crime must be a felony.

Question 19

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 Question)

A) The escaping prisoner does not incur criminal liability.
B) The escaping prisoner is liable for evasion through negligence.
C) The escaping prisoner is liable for conniving with or consenting to, evasion.
D) The escaping prisoner is liable for evasion of service of sentence.

Answer 19

A

A. 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 by 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,
A is the answer. The escapee does not incur criminal liability.

Question 20

How is the crime of coup d’etat committed? (2012 Bar Question)
A) By rising publicly and taking arms against the Government for the purpose of depriving the Chief Executive of any of his powers or prerogatives.
B) 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.
C) When persons rise publicly and tumultuously in order to prevent by force the National Government from freely exercising its function.
D) When persons circulate scurrilous libels against the Government which tend to instigate others to meet together or to stir up the people against the lawful authorities.

Answer 20

B

Question 21

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)

A) disloyalty of public officers or employees;
B) rebellion;
C) conspiracy to commit rebellion;
D) dereliction of duty.

Answer 21

B

Question 22

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)

A) inciting to sedition;
B) inciting to rebellion or insurrection;
C) crime against legislative body;
D) unlawful use of means of publication or unlawful utterances.

Answer 22

B

Art. 138

1. That the offender does not take up arms or is not in open hostility against the Government;
2. That he incites others to the execution of any of the acts of rebellion;
3. That the inciting is done by means of speeches, proclamations, writings, emblems, banners or other representations (SPWEBO) tending to the same end.

Question 23

What is the crime committed when a group of persons entered the municipal building rising publicly and taking up arms in pursuance of the movement to prevent exercise of governmental authority with respect to the residents of the municipality concerned for the purpose of effecting changes in the manner of governance and removing such locality under their control from allegiance to the laws of the Government? (2012 Bar Question)

A) sedition;
B) coup d’etat;
C) insurrection;
D) public disorder.

Answer 23

B (suggested answer)
- there is no mention that they are public officers in coup d’etat

C (mine)

Insurrection – more commonly employed in reference to a movement which seeks merely to effect some change of minor importance, or to prevent the exercise of governmental authority with respect to particular matters or subjects

Question 24

When is a disturbance of public order deemed to be tumultuous? (2012 Bar Question)

A) The disturbance shall be deemed tumultuous if caused by more than three (3) persons who are armed or provided with means of violence.
B) The disturbance shall be deemed tumultuous when a person causes a serious disturbance in a public place or disturbs public performance, function or gathering.
C) The disturbance shall be deemed tumultuous when more than three (3) persons make any outcry tending to incite rebellion or sedition or shout subversive or provocative words to obtain any of the objectives of rebellion or sedition.
D) The disturbance shall be deemed tumultuous when at least four (4) persons participate in a free- for-all-fight assaulting each other in a confused and tumultuous manner.

Answer 24

A

Question 25

.What is the criminal liability, if any, of a police officer who, while Congress was in session, arrested a member thereof for committing a crime punishable by a penalty higher than prision mayor? (2012 Bar Question)

A) The police officer is criminally liable for violation of parliamentary immunity because a member of Congress is privileged from arrest while Congress is in session.
B) The police officer is criminally liable for disturbance of proceedings because the arrest was made while Congress was in session.
C) The police officer incurs no criminal liability because the member of Congress has committed a crime punishable by a penalty higher than prision mayor.
D) The police officer is criminally liable for violation of parliamentary immunity because parliamentary immunity guarantees a member of Congress comp

Answer 25

C

Question 26

What is the proper charge against a group of four persons who, without public. uprising, employ force to prevent the holding of any popular election? (2012 Bar Question)

A) sedition;
B) disturbance of public order;
C) grave coercion;
D) direct assault.

Answer 26

D

DA in the first form
- w/o public uprising
- employing force/intimidation
- for the purpose enumerated in Sedition & Rebellion

Question 27

Which of the following circumstances may be appreciated as aggravating in the crime of treason?

(2012 Bar Question)
A) cruelty and ignominy;
B) evident premeditation;
C) superior strength;
D) treachery.

Answer 27

A

A. Cruelty may be appreciated in treason by deliberately augmenting the wrong by being unnecessarily cruel. However, treachery, abuse of superior strength and evident premeditation are by their nature, inherent in the offense of treason and may not be taken to aggravate the penalty.

Question 28

.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) AAA is criminally liable for delivering prisoner from jail and for using fictitious name.
(B) AAA is criminally liable as an accessory of the crime of homicide by assisting in the escape or concealment of the principal of the crime.
(C) AAA is criminally liable for infidelity in the custody of prisoners.
(D)AAA is criminally liable for misrepresentation or concealing his true name.

Answer 28

Elements of Delivering Prisoners From Jail
1. That there is a person confined in a jail or penal establishment;
2. That the offender removes such person, or helps the escape of such person.

Elements: (using fictitious name)
1. That the offender uses a name other than his real name;
2. That he uses that fictitious name publicly;
3. That the purpose of the offender is— a. To conceal a crime; b. To evade the execution of a judgment; or c. To cause damage to public interest.

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).

note
But if the crime committed by the prisoner for which he is confined or serving sentence is treason, murder, or parricide, the act of taking the place of the prisoner in prison is that of an accessory under Art. 19, par. 3.

Question 29

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)

A) Yes. The Manila Court has the authority to recommit AAA to serve the unexpired portion of the original sentence in addition to the penalty for violation of conditional pardon.
B) No. The penalty remitted by the conditional pardon is less than six (6) years.
C) Yes. The penalty for violation of conditional pardon is the unexpired portion of the punishment in the original sentence.
D) No. AAA must first be found guilty of the subsequent offense before he can be prosecuted for violation of conditional pardon.

Answer 29

D

Offender must be found guilty of the subsequent offense before he can be prosecuted under Art 159.

Question 30

Which of the following statements constitute Inciting to Sedition? (2011 Bar Question)

A) Utterance of statements irritating or obnoxious to the ears of the police officers.
B) Speeches extolling communism and urging the people to hold a national strike and paralyze commerce and trade.
C) Leaders of jeepney and bus associations shouting “Bukas tuloy ang welga hanggang sa magkagulo na!”
D) Speeches calling for resignation of high government officials

Answer 30

B

Question 31

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 (apparently) as witnesses in a pending case. She forged the judge’s signature, and delivered the Order to the jail warden who, in turn, allowed Willy and Vincent to go out of jail in the company of an armed escort, Edwin. Chito also gave Edwin P50,000.00 to leave the two inmates unguarded for three minutes and provide them with an opportunity to escape. Thus, Willy and Vincent were able to escape.

What crime or crimes, if any, had been committed by Chito, Willy, Vincent, the Branch Clerk of Court, Edwin, and the jail warden? Explain your answer. (2009 Bar Question)

Answer 31

[Chito]
- (2) corruption of public officials
- delivery of prisoners from jail
- falsification of public documents AS PRINCIPAL BY INDUCEMENT

[Lady Clerk of Court]
- direct bribery
- falsification of public documents
- Delivery of Prisoners from Jail AS A CO-PRINCIPAL OF CHITO by indispensable cooperation
- evasion of Service of Sentence AS A CO-PRINCIPAL by INDISPENSABLE COOPERATION for Vincent

[Guard Edwin]
- direct bribery
- Conniving with or Consenting to Evasion / infidelity in the custody of prisoners

[Willy]
- incur no criminal liability

[Vincent]
- evasion of service of sentence

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’s Order by the Branch Clerk of Court.

Willy committed the crime of Delivery of Prisoners from Jail (Art. 156, RPC) as a principal by indispensable participation if he was aware of the criminal plan of Chito to have them escape from prison and he did escape pursuant to such criminal plan; otherwise he would not be liable for said crime if he escaped pursuant to human instinct only.

Vincent, being a prisoner serving sentence by final judgment, committed the crime of Evasion of Service of Sentence (Art. 157, RPC) for escaping during the term of his imprisonment.

The Branch Clerk of Court committed the crimes of –
1. Direct Bribery (Art. 210, RPC) for accepting the P50,000.00, in consideration of the Order she issued to enable the prisoners to get out of jail;
2. Falsification of Public Document for forgoing the judge’s signature on said Order (Art. 171, RPC);
3. Delivery of Prisoners from Jail (Art. 156, RPC), as a co- principal of Chito by indispensable cooperation for making the false Order and forgoing the judge’s signature thereon, to enable the prisoners to get out of jail;
4. Evasion of Service of Sentence (Art. 157, RPC) as a co- principal of Vincent by indispensable cooperation for making the false Order that enable Vincent to evade service of his sentence;

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).

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.

Question 32

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’s hospitalization for 30 days. 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)

Answer 32

[suggested answer]

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.

Question 33

CRIMES AGAINST PUBLIC INTEREST

Answer 33

CRIMES AGAINST PUBLIC INTEREST

Question 34

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)

Answer 34

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.

Question 35

.What is the criminal liability, if any, of a physician who issues a false medical certificate in connection with the practice of his profession? (2012 Bar Question)

A) The physician is criminally liable for falsification of medical certificate.
B) The physician is criminally liable if the false medical certificate is used in court.
C) The physician incurs no criminal liability if the false medical certificate is not submitted to the court.
D) The physician incurs no criminal liability if the false medical certificate does not cause prejudice or damage.

Answer 35

A

Question 36

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)

A) The ecclesiastical minister is criminally liable for falsification of baptismal certificate by causing it to appear that C participated in the baptismal ceremony when he did not in fact so participate.
B) 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.
C) The ecclesiastical minister is not criminally liable because he is not a public officer, employee or notary.
D) The ecclesiastical minister is not criminally liable because he did not take advantage of his official position nor cause damage to a third party.

Answer 36

B

Question 37

CRIMES AGAINST PUBLIC MORALS

Answer 37

CRIMES AGAINST PUBLIC MORALS

Question 38

CRIMES COMMITTED BY PUBLIC OFFICERS

Answer 38

CRIMES COMMITTED BY PUBLIC OFFICERS

Question 39

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 (improvement) 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

Answer 39

[suggested 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

Question 40

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(those who benefit of it) 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.

Answer 40

[suggested answer]
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.

Question 41

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)

Answer 41

[suggested answer]
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.

Question 42

7.Frank borrowed P1,000,000 from his brother Eric. To pay the loan, Frank issued a post-dated (date writtein is on a future date after issuance) (it cannot be cashed until the date indicated on it) check to be presented for payment a month after the transaction. Two days before maturity(the post-date) ,

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)

Answer 42

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 (make it less possible/likely) against his prosecution for BP Blg. 22.

Question 43

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.

If you were counsel for Darjeeling Ventures, Inc., what criminal charge should you file against Judge Talim? (2013 Bar Question)

A) Rendering a manifestly unjust judgment.
B) Knowingly rendering an unjust interlocutory order.
C) Causing undue injury through manifest partiality under R.A. No. 3019.
D) Bribery.
E) None of the above.

Answer 43

B

Question 44

AA was appointed for a two-year term to serve the unexpired portion of a resigned public official. Despite being disqualified after the lapse of the two- year term, AA continued to exercise the duties and powers of the public office to which appointed. What is the criminal liability of AA? (2012 Bar Question)

A) AA is criminally liable for malfeasance in office.
B) AA is criminally liable for prolonging performance of duties and powers.
C) AA is criminally liable for disobeying request for disqualification.
D) AA incurs no criminal liability because there is no indication that he caused prejudice to anyone.

Answer 44

B

Question 45

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)

A) anticipation of duties of a public office;
B) usurpation of authority;
C) prohibited transaction;
D) unlawful appointment.

Answer 45

A

Question 46

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) abandonment of office or position;
B) qualified abandonment of office;
C) misprision of treason;
D) negligence in the prosecution of offense

Answer 46

B

Question 47

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)

A) The jailer should be charged with maltreatment of prisoner and serious physical injuries.
B) The jailer should be charged with serious physical injuries only.
C) The jailer should be charged with complex crime of maltreatment of prisoner with serious physical injuries.
D) The jailer should be charged with maltreatment of prisoner only.

Answer 47

A

Question 48

What is the proper charge against a lawyer who reveals the secrets of his client learned by him in his professional capacity? (2012 Bar Question)

A) The lawyer should be charged with revelation of secrets of private individual.
B) The lawyer should be charged with betrayal of trust.
C) The lawyer should be charged with unauthorized revelation of classified materials.
D) The proper charge against the lawyer should be revealing secrets with abuse of office.

Answer 48

B

Betrayal of trust is committed by an attorney-at-law who, by any malicious breach of professional duty or of inexcusable negligence, shall reveal any of the secrets of his client learned by him in his professional capacity (Article 209 of the Revised Penal Code)

Question 49

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)

A) The public officer commits malversation.
B) The public officer commits technical malversation.
C) The public officer commits the crime of failure of accountable or responsible officer to render accounts.
D) The public officer commits the crime of failure to make delivery of public funds or property.

Answer 49

A

It is settled that a public officer is liable for malversation even if he does not use public property or funds under his custody for his personal benefit, if he allows another to take the funds, or through abandonment or negligence, allow such taking.

Question 50

Direct bribery is a crime involving moral turpitude. From which of the following elements of direct bribery can moral turpitude be inferred? (2011 Bar Question)

A) The offender receives a gift by himself or through another.
B) The offender is a public officer.
C) The offender takes a gift with a view to committing a crime in exchange.
D) The act which the offender agrees to perform or which he executes is connected with his official duties.

Answer 50

C

Question 51

In malversation of public funds, the offender’s return of the amount malversed has the following effect: (2011 Bar Question)

A) It is exculpatory (clear alleged guilt).
B) It is inculpatory (imputing guilt), an admission of the commission of the crime.
C) The imposable penalty will depend on what was not returned.
D) It is mitigating.

Answer 51

D

Question 52

A public officer who immediately returns the bribe money handed over to him commits: (2011 Bar Question)

A) no crime.
B) attempted bribery.
C) consummated bribery.
D) frustrated bribery.

Answer 52

A

Question 53

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)

Answer 53

[suggested answer]
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.

Question 54

What is the crime of qualified bribery? (2010 Bar Question)

Answer 54

[suggestd answer]
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

Question 55

Roger and Jessie, Municipal Mayor and Treasurer, respectively, of San Rafael, Leyte, caused the disbursement (paid out) 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 (correctness) of the charges filed against Roger and Jessie. Explain. (2009 Bar Question)

Answer 55

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.

Question 56

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 (district/city marked for administrative purposes) 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)

Answer 56

malversation. even when the properties were private in nature, when it was surrendered to him by Eman, it was imbued with public character

[suggested answer]
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).

Question 57

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)

Answer 57

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.

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.

Question 58

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)

money orders - Money orders are a form of payment similar to checks but are issued by a financial institution or postal service. They are often used for transactions where the payer and payee may not have access to traditional banking services or where the payee requires a guaranteed form of payment. When someone purchases a money order, they pay the issuing institution the face value of the money order plus a fee, and the issuing institution then guarantees payment to the payee.

Answer 58

opening of sealed documents and not breaking of sealed documents

[suggested answer]
(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 payment

Question 59

Manolo revealed to his friend Domeng his desire to kill Cece. He likewise confided to Domeng his desire to borrow his revolver. Domeng lent it. Manolo shot Cece in Manila with Domeng’s revolver. As his gun was used in the killing, Domeng asked Mayor Tan to help him escape. The mayor gave Domeng P5,000.00 and told him to proceed to Mindanao to hide. Domeng went to Mindanao. The mayor was later charged as an accessory to Cece’s murder.

Can he be held liable for the charge? Explain. (2007 Bar Question)

Answer 59

[suggested answer]
No, the mayor may not be charged as an accessory because he merely helped Domeng, an accomplice, to escape. Par. 3 of Art. 19, of the Revised Penal Code speaks of harboring or assisting in the escape of a principal, not an accomplice.