CRIMINAL LAW

2008 BAR EXAMINATION

I
a) 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. (3%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
a) No. "Enforced disappearance and extralegal killing" is not per se a criminal
offense although it is wrongful. The grant of a writ of amparo only provides a. relief; it
does not establish a basis for a crime. Unless the writ was issued because of specific
overt acts shown to have been committed by the respondent military officers and such
acts are crimes under penal laws, no criminal charge may be routinely filed just because
the petition for the writ was granted.
b) Are human rights violations considered as crimes in the Philippines? Explain. (3%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
B) Not necessarily, since there are human rights violations which do not amount
to criminal offenses. In this country, there can be no crime when there is no
law punishing an act or omission as a crime.
XI
Ricky was reviewing for the bar exam when the commander of a vigilante group came to
him and showed him a list of five policemen to be liquidated by them for graft and corruption. He
was further asked if any of them is innocent. After going over the list, Ricky pointed to two of the
policemen as honest. Later, the vigilante group liquidated the three other policemen in the list.
The commander of the vigilante group reported the liquidation to Ricky. Is Ricky criminally
liable? Explain. (7%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, Ricky is not criminally liable because he has not done any overt act that the
law punishes as a crime. He did not conspire with the vigilante group. Although his act of
pointing out two policemen as honest men may imply his acquiescence to the vigilante's
conclusion that the others were corrupt and deserved to be killed, mere acquiescence to
a crime, absent any criminal participation, does not make one a co-conspirator.

XV
Roger, the leader of a crime syndicate in Malate, Manila, demanded the payment by
Antonio, the owner of a motel in that area, of P10,000 a month as 'protection money". With the
monthly payments, Roger assured, the syndicate would provide protection to Antonio, his
business, and his employees. Should Antonio refuse, Roger warned, the motel owner would
either be killed or his establishment destroyed. Antonio refused to pay the protection money.
Days later, at around 3:00 in the morning, Mauro, a member of the criminal syndicate, arrived at
Antonio's home and hurled a grenade into an open window of the bedroom where Antonio, his
wife and their three year-old daughter were sleeping. All three of them were killed instantly when
the grenade exploded.
State, with reasons, the crime or crimes that had been committed as well as the
aggravating circumstances, if any, attendant thereto. (7%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
By demanding "protection money" under threat and intimidation that the
businessman (Antonio) would be killed or his establishment destroyed if he would refuse
to pay the protection money, the crime of grave threats is committed by Roger, the leader
of the crime syndicate.
For killing the businessman, his wife and three year-old daughter, the complex
crime of multiple murder was committed by Mauro, a member of the same crime
syndicate. The killing is qualified by the use of an explosive (hand grenade). The
treachery attending the killing shall be separately appreciated as another aggravating
circumstance aside from the use of explosive as the qualifying circumstance.
Other aggravating circumstances which may be appreciated are:
1. Dwelling, because the killings were committed in the home of the victims who
had not given any provocation;
2. Nocturnity, considering that the offenders carried out the killing at around 3:00
AM, indicative of a deliberate choice of nighttime for the commission of the crime;
3. Treachery, under Art. 14, par. 16, RPC, mentioned above, considering that
victims were all asleep when killed; and
4. The offense was committed by a person who belongs to an
organized/syndicated crime group under the Heinous Crimes Law (Sec. 23 R.A. 7659),
amending for this purpose Art. 62(1) of the Revised Penal Code.