crim law 2013 suggested answers

8/10/2019 Crim Law 2013 Suggested Answers

1/5

1

Crim Law 2013 Suggested Answers

MCQ Answers

Question 1

C. Citing section 2 (4th paragraph Rule 111 Revised Rules ofCriminal Procedure. The extinction of the penal action did not carrywith it extinction of the civil action, However, the civil action based ondelict shall be deemed extinguished if there is a finding in a final

judgement in the criminal action that the act or omission from the civi lliability may arise did not exist.

The case of Faraon V Priela GR No. L-23129 August 2 1968Extinction of the penal action does not carry with it extinction of civilUNLESS the extinction proceeds from a declaration in a final

judgement that the fact from which the civil might ar ise did not exist.

Question 2

D. Citing Clemente V foreign Mission sisters. A hospital is notengaged in industry, hence not subsidiarily liable for acts of nurses.Nurses, in treating a patient, are not acting as servants of thehospitals because they are employed to carry out the orders of the

physicians to whose authority they are subject.

Question 3

B. citing People V Engay Although it was held in the Hicks case thatthe causes which produce in the mind loss of reason and self controland which lessens criminal responsibility are those which originatefrom lawful sentiments not those which arise from vicious unworthyand immoral passions yet such s not the case here where the factthat the accused lived for 15 years as the real wife of the deceasedwhose house she helped support could not but arouse that naturalfeeling of despair in the woman who saw her life broken and foundherself abandoned by the very man whom she considered for so longa time as her husband and fro whom she had made so many

sacrifices.The circumstance of passion and obfuscation wasconsidered in favor of the accused.

Question 4

A. Minority is always a priv ilege mitigating circumstance. It is easy todetect whether the circumstance which mitigates the liability of theoffender is privilege or not, that is, if the penalty is reduced bydegree. If the penalty is lowered by one or two degrees, it is privilege;therefore, even if there is an aggravating circumstance, do notcompensate because that would be violating the rules.

The circumstances under Article 13 are generally ordinary mitigating,except in paragraph 1, where it is privilege, Article 69 would apply.So also, paragraph 2, in cases where the offender is below 18 yearsold, such an offender if criminally liable is entitled to the lowering ofpenalty by one degree. But if over nine but under 15, he is entitled toa discretionary penalty of at least two degrees lower. When there is alowering of penalties by degrees, it is a privilege. It cannot be offsetby an aggravating circumstance.

Although the bulk of the circumstances in Article 13 are ordinarymitigating circumstances, yet, when the crime committed ispunishable by a divisible penalty, two or more of these ordinarymitigating circumstances shall have the effect of a privilege mitigatingcircumstances if there is no aggravating circumstance at all.

Question 5

B

Question 6

D

Question 7

D. Generally, death extinguishes criminal liability as to personalpenalties. As to pecuniary penalties, liability is extinguished onlywhen the death of the offender occurs before final judgment.Exception:

Art. 33 (based on contracts). Even if the accused dies pendingappeal, the right to file a separate civil action is not lost.The Code express provides that death of the convict, as to thepersonal penalties and as to pecuniary penalties, liability therefor isextinguished only when the death of the offender occurs before final

judgment.

The Effect of the Death of the Accused on His Civil LiabilityIn a separate concurring opinion of Mr. Justice Aquino in People v.Satorre, the effect of the death of the accused on his civil liability may

be deduced from the following rules:1. Every person criminally liable for a felony is also civilly liable (Art.100, Revised Penal Code). When a criminal action is instituted, thecivil action for recovery of civil liability arising from the offensecharged is impliedly instituted with the criminal action, unless theoffended party expressly waives the civil action or reserves his rightto institute it separately (Sec. 1, Rule 111, Rules of Court).2. The plaintiff in the criminal action is the State. Its purpose is toobtain a judgment of conviction imposing the corresponding penaltyfor the vindication of the disturbance to the social order caused bythe offender. On the other hand, a private person is the plaintiff in thecivil action. The satisfaction of the civil liability does not extinguishthe criminal action. Extinction of the penal action does not carry with

it extinction of the civil, unless the extinction proceeds from adeclaration in a final judgment that the fact from which the civil mightarise did not exist (Sec. 3[c], Rule 111, Rules of Court).3. Although the criminal and civil actions may be joined in thecriminal case, they are distinct from each other. The plaintiffs in twoactions are distinct and the objectives of the two actions are different.Thus, even if the accused started serving his sentence within thefifteen-day period from the promulgation of the judgment ofconviction by the lower court, thereby making the judgment againsthim final, the complainant may, within the fifteen-day reglementaryperiod, still ask that the civil liability be fixed by the court, if the

judgment does not adjudicate any civil l iability. In that case, the trialcourt has jurisdiction to adjudge the civil liability although the

judgment imposing the penalty is already final and cannot be alteredby the court anymore .4. The extinction of the civil liability is governed by the rules of thecivil law regarding obligations (Art. 112, Revised Penal Code).5. Actions to recover damages for an injury to person or property,real or personal, may be commenced against an executor oradministrator. For the recovery or protection of the property or rightsof the deceased, an executor or administrator may bring or defend, inthe right of the deceased, actions for causes which survive. As toordinary money claims, if the defendant dies before final judgment inthe Court of First Instance, the claims should be dismissed and maybe prosecuted under Rule 87 of the Rules of Court (Sec. 21, Rule 3,Rules of Court).


2/5

2

The corollary is that if death occurs after final judgment by the Courtof First Instance, the action may be continued but the propersubstitution of party defendant should be made under section 17 ofRule 3.

Question 8

B

Question 9

E. All of the above. Motive is relevant in the following:

The identity ofthe accused is disputed. There are two antagonistic versions of the killing. No eyewitnesses to the crime and there are several suspects. Where evidence is circumstantial.

As held in People v. De Mesa, the Supreme Court held that Motiveis generally irrelevant, unless it is utilized in establishing the identityof the perpetrator. Coupled with enough circumstantial evidence orfacts from which it may be reasonably inferred that the accused wasthe malefactor, motive may be sufficient to support a conviction.

Question 10

B. Subsidiary Imprisonment Not Proper

Principal penalty imposed is more than prision correccional Principal penalty consists in other than prison sentence which is notof fixed duration Subsidiary penalty not expressly stated in sentence to take theplace of fine in case of insolvency Sentence imposed does not include fine Convict has means to pay the fine

Question 11

B

Question 12B

Question 13

Question 14

B

Question 15

D. IVLER case

Question 16

C

Question 17

E

Question 18

C

Question 19

C

Question 20

D

Question 21

Question 23

B

Question 24

B. The Supreme Court in a landmark case of Colinares v. People,may have qualified its earlier ruling enunciated in De los Santos andFrancisco and held that even if the accused who made an appeal, hecan still apply for a probation, if there was no fault on his part.

In this case, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) rendered judgment,finding the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of frustratedhomicide and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment from two yearsand four months of prision correccional, as minimum, to six yearsand one day of prision mayor, as maximum. Since the maximum

probationable imprisonment under the law was only up to six years,accused did not qualify for probation.

Accused appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA), invoking self -defense and, alternatively, seeking conviction for the lesser crime ofattempted homicide with the consequent reduction of the penaltyimposed on him. The CA entirely affirmed the RTC decision butdeleted the award for lost income in the absence of evidence tosupport it. Not satisfied, accused went to the Supreme Court onpetition for review.

In the course of its deliberation on the case, the Court required theaccused and the Solicitor General to submit their respective positionson whether or not, assuming accused committed only the lesser

crime of attempted homicide with its imposable penalty ofimprisonment of four months of arresto mayor, as minimum, to twoyears and four months of prision correccional, as maximum, he couldstill apply for probation upon remand of the case to the trial court.

Both complied with accused taking the position that he should beentitled to apply for probation in case the Court metes out a newpenalty on him that makes his offense probationable. The languageand spirit of the probation law warrants such a stand. The SolicitorGeneral, on the other hand, argued that under the Probation Law noapplication for probation can be entertained once the accused hasperfected his appeal from the judgment of conviction.

The issue is that given a finding that the accused is entitled to

conviction for a lower offense and a reduced probationable penalty,whether or not he may still apply for probation on remand of the caseto the trial court.

The Supreme Court held in the affirmative. Ordinarily, accused wouldno longer be entitled to apply for probation, he having appealed fromthe judgment of the RTC convicting him for frustrated homicide. But,the Supreme Court found the accused guilty only of the lesser crimeof attempted homicide and held that the maximum of the penaltyimposed on him should be lowered to imprisonment of four months ofarresto mayor, as minimum, to two years and four months of prisioncorreccional, as maximum. With this new penalty, it would be but fair


3/5

3

to allow him the right to apply for probation upon remand of the caseto the RTC.

Some in the Supreme Court disagreed. They contended thatprobation is a mere privilege granted by the state only to qualifiedconvicted offenders. Section 4 of the probation law (PD 968)provides: That no applicationfor probation shall be entertained orgranted if the defendant has perfected the appeal from the judgmentof conviction. Since the accused appealed his conviction forfrustrated homicide, he should be deemed permanently disqualified

from applying for probation.

But, firstly, while it is true that probation is a mere privilege, the pointis not that the accused had the right to such privilege; he certainly didnot have. What he had was the right to apply for that privilege. TheCourt noted that his maximum jail term should only be 2 years and 4months. If the Court allowed him to apply for probation because ofthe lowered penalty, it is still up to the trial judge to decide whether ornot to grant him the privilege of probation, taking into account the fullcircumstances of his case.

Secondly, it is true that under the probation law the accused whoappeals from the judgment of conviction is disqualified from availinghimself of the benefits of probation. But, as it happens, two

judgments of conviction have been meted out to the accused: one, aconviction for frustrated homicide by the regional trial court, now setaside; and, two, a conviction for attempted homicide by the SupremeCourt. If the Court chooses to go by the dissenting opinions hardposition, it will apply the probation law on the accused based on thetrial courts annulled judgment against him. He will not be entitled toprobation because of the severe penalty that such judgment imposedon him.

Moreover, the Supreme Courts judgment of conviction for a lesseroffense and a lighter penalty will also have to bend over to the trialcourts judgmenteven if this has been found in error. And, worse,

Arnel will now also be made to pay for the trial courts erroneousjudgment with the forfei ture of his right to apply for probation. As

clearly stated by Justice Abad: Ang kabayo ang nagkasala, anghagupit ay sa kalabaw (the horse errs, the carabao gets the whip).Where is justice there?

It also declared that had the RTC done what was right and imposedon the accused the correct penalty of two years and four monthsmaximum, he would have had the right to apply for probation. No onecould say with certainty that he would have availed himself of theright had the RTC done right by him. The idea may not even havecrossed his mind precisely since the penalty he got was notprobationable.

Question 25

A. Even if he did not appeal his conviction i f the accused wassentenced to serve a maximum term of imprisonment of more than 6years he will still be disqualified from being placed on probation.citing section 9 of probation law. the penalty for Art. 155. Alarms andscandals is arresto menor or a fine not exceeding P200 pesos.

Essay Questions

1.

Answer 1

The question is a tricky one, but on my part I based my answer onlyon the things that have been proven during trial on the part of theaccused, voluntary surrender and plea of guilt which are twoseparate mitigating circumstance. The supposed aggravating

circumstance of dwelling, night time and disregard of age I purposelydid not take into consideration since the accused was a tenant, hedid not purposely sought the night, and that there was no disregardof age as it was proven by the accused that the first attack camefrom the victim. After taking the above considerations the judgeshould impose an indeterminate penalty ( this is where I illustratedthe appropriate penalty). Whether Im correct or not I believe I earnpoints for that kind of answer, hehe

Answer 2

Bruno should be acquitted, he should not have been convicted. Hewas able to prove self-defense. There was no provocation on his partwhen the victim attacked him. The fact is silent as to the nature of theattack, but I assume that there was necessity on Brunos part thatswhy he used his knife. Again, he did not provoke the victim and itwas the latter who attacked first. As a supplemental, assuming thatBruno failed to establish self-defense, he is entitled to claimincomplete self-defense and the other mitigating circumstances givenand then use ISLAW to determine the actual penalty.

2.

Anwer

Kidnapping and serious illegal detention with rape?

3.

Obstruction of justice?

Benj yan din inisip ko, but the problem is art. 20 rpc brothers kasi silaand i dont think he profited or assisted in allowing the offender toprofit since hindi lang nya sinabi dahil di nya alam gagawin. Butnevertheless those accessories that can not be held liable as suchunder art 20 does not preclude them from being liable under PD1829

4.

Gigi is not correct. She committed libel. I believe even if Gigi was

correct in claiming that Pablo is a public servant, the content of hercolumn was about his private and personal life, which does notbelong to the public sphere. Mas Consti at Civ ang attack ko dito, Ithink I cited that even the freedom of expression has a limitation andthat journalists are not given an overarching license to writeeverything they want to write about. Issues pertaining to familyrelations are private and must remain that way.

5.

Medyo nabitin ang sagot ko dito, under 9344 pwede but upto 21years old under the same law. I forgot a case na na discuss sa aminwhich interpreted that part, parang ang gist nung case na yun is that


4/5

4

pag umabot na ng 21 when the sentence his handed down,suspension of sentence can no longer be availed of.

Answer 2

The promotion of the welfare of a child in conflict with the law shouldextend even to one who has exceeded the age limit of twenty-one(21) years, so long as he/she committed the crime when he/she wasstill a child. The age of the child in conflict with the law at the time ofthe promulgation of the judgment of conviction is not material. What

matters is that the offender committed the offense when he/she wasstill of tender age. P vs jimenez, 2011.

6.

In Mel Dimat vs. People (2012) case, there were allegedly 2 salesof a carnapped Nissan Safari orginally owned by Mantequilla.First sale was from Tolentino to Dimat. Then the second salewas from Dimat to Sonia Delgado.

Here, it was only Dimat who was charged before the RTC ofviolation with the anti-fencing law wherein paper works

pertaining to the vehicle and sale thereof were presented asevidence the husband of Delgado, original owner Mantequillaand the police officers testified. after trial the RTC convicted himand the CA subsequently affirmed the same but withmodification.

On appeal to SC, one of Dimats arguments was that SoniaDelgado should also be held liable because she did not checkthe papers pertaining to the sale of the vehicle but the SCsimply said that it is of no moment since she did not standaccused in the case. The SC affirmed

So taking into consideration what the SC said, then examinershould accept any of the following logical answers in this essay

question:

1. Charge both Inigo and Roberto with the crime of fencing thenexplain the requisites for the criminal liability to attach and thefacts of the case satisfying said requisites; or

2. Charge only Inigo because he solely facilitated the sale of thevehicle which came from an illicit source, explain the requisitesfor the criminal liability to attach and the facts of the casesatisfying said requisites and as to Roberto, either make him awitness or not to bother him at all.

7.

Double direct assault?Tama ka. Direct assault upon a person in authority at direct assaultupon an agent of a person in authority.

8.

The charge is correct. ESTAFA through FALSIFICATION OF APUBLIC DOCUMENT. Akala ko nung una mali ako, until Iencountered a case, Estate of Gonzales v Sato. Almost the samefacts, son-in-law nagfalsify ng SPA na ginamit nya to sell the propertyof the mother-in-law. May discussion din sa case na hindi napuputolang family ties with the death of the wife. Kung simple estafa yungcase, hindi proper, pero dahil complex crime na siya, hindi na mag-

aaply yung family ties. Pero di ko ginalaw ang issue ng family ties,sinagot ko siya point blank kung tama o hindi tama yung charge.Medyo mababaw lang ang natatandaan ko na explanation ko, SPA isforged and may sale of land (presumed public ang documents sinceland ang property involved), and the falsified public document wasused to perpetuate fraud, the crucial element of estafa.

9.

Supplement only, the 3 fold rule does not apply to the imposition of

sentence but instead pertains to the service thereof ( see art. 70RPC, look at the title)

Answer 2

Art 70 of the revised penal code is concerned exclusively with theservice of sentence it speaks of duration of penalty and penalty to beinflicted.nowhere is it there envisioned that the court should nake acomputation and in its decision sentence the culprit to not more thanthe 3 fold the most severe of the penalties imposable upon hin.Computation is for the prison authorities to undertake coting people vSalazar

10.

Correct, the gravamen of the offense of violation of BP 222 is themere issuance of a worthless check.

Agree, proper yung charge ng BP 22. Alam naman ng karamihan naBP 22 siya, question is, bakit ganyan ang phrasing ng tanong? Anoang hinahanap ng examiner o ni Justice Brion? Naglagay tuloy akong Pro Reo diyan, magkapatid sila, may fair warning naman na wagmuna i-cash at BP 22 cases clogging the dockets of the courttherefore i-settle na lang alternatively.

tama ka anon na mere issuance of unfunded check is thegravamen of the law. be that as it may, the law provides leeway

that Frank could have prevented the case if after receiving theErics written notice of dishonor and demand for payment, hepaid him the value of the check within 5 banking days.Accordingly, the charge against Frank is correct.

on the other hand, since the facts were silent as to whether Ericgave the written notice of dishonor and demand for paymentand/or the period 5 banking days within which Frank must pay;pwede ring isagot na the charge is not correct against Frankbecause the one and/or two of the requisites for criminal liabilityto attach under the BP22 was/were not satisfied.:

1. no written notice of dishonor and demand for payment weremade by Eric; and/or

2. no 5 banking days within which to make good the value of thecheck was given to Frank.

11.

Penalty is the suffering that is inflicted by the state for thetransgression of a law.the states purpose in punishing crimes is tosecure justice. The state in providing punishment for a criminaloffense seeks refuge from its inherent duty to prevent or suppressthe danger to the state arising from criminal acts of an offender.These penalties are also part of the measure of self defense by thestate so as to protect the society fron the threat and wrong inflictedby criminal.the main objective of imposing punishment in criminal


5/5

5

cases is to correct and reform the offender.imposition of penalty isalso for exemplarity or to serve as an example to deter other fromcommitting crimes. To approve the proposed bill by such senatorwould defeat the very end or purpose of imposing punishment.Considering ethics and morality it is every mans duty to uphold theconstitution, uphold the laws of the land and to always see to it that

justice is served.

crim law 2013 suggested answers

Documents