Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
1
degrees higher than reclusion temporal is death; (b) the higher
penalty would be reclusion perpetua with the accessory penalties for
said penalty, because Article 74 proscribes the imposition of the
death penalty resulting from the graduation of the penalty; (c)
reclusion perpetua but with the accessory penalties of death under
Article 40 of the Revised Penal Code if the death penalty is
commuted, i.e., . perpetual absolute disqualification and civil
interdiction during thirty (30) years following the date of sentence,
applying Article 74; (d) reclusion perpetua for forty years with the
accessory penalties of death under Article 40 of the Revised Penal
Code, which means, in fine, that the accused is not entitled to
pardon before the lapse of the forty-year period.
2
and the girl understand RP's desire that AM remain with him as his querida
or paramour. FC, accompanied by several privates, at RP's order, arrested
FB and took him to the barracks to be then turned over to VF who, obeying
orders from the same lieutenant, which orders were translated by FC in
order that it may be understood by VF, proceeded to kill the prisoner in or
near the cemetery of the said town, by shooting him. Can FC be held liable
for participating in the killing of FB? (a) Yes, as a principal by direct
participation for acting as interpreter to convey the mastermind’s
criminal determination or if not, at least, by indispensable
cooperation, without whose services the criminal determination of
the mastermind could not have been conveyed to the actual
perpetrators of the crime; (b) Yes, as an accomplice, because by
serving as interpreter, he cooperated in the execution of the crime
by previous or simultaneous act, but not in the manner of a
principal; (c) Yes, but as an accessory-after-the fact only as it was
not shown that the accused took a direct part in the crime or
compelled any other person to commit it, or that he cooperated in its
consummation by some act without which it would not have been
committed, or that he lent such cooperation by means of acts prior
or simultaneous to its perpetration; (d) No, because it cannot be
held that the act of interpreting, in obedience to orders of his
superior, the latter's criminal determination, so that it might be
understood by the actual perpetrator of the crime, constituted
cooperation in the commission thereof.
10. A light felony prescribes in: (a) one year; (b) five years; (c)
two months; (d) six months.
3
12. A disposition under which a defendant, after conviction and
sentence is released subject to conditions imposed by the court and to the
supervision of an officer appointed by the court to investigate such referral
for investigation or to supervise the convict: (a) suspended sentence; (b)
indeterminate sentence; (c) probation; (d) destierro.
4
delinquent; (c) Yes, but only to the reduced measure equivalent to
four-fifths (4/5) of time spent in preventive detention; (d) Yes, to the
extent of the full time spent in preventive detention as his refusal to
abide by the rules and regulations prescribed for convicted prisoners
serving sentence in the institution in which he is detained is
irrelevant, understandable and proper considering that he is a mere
detention prisoner.
19. Not among the civil liability arising ex delictu: (a) Restitution;
(b) Reparation for the damage caused; (c) Indemnification for
consequential damages; (d) Fines.
20. Does not prescribe even after ONE (1) YEAR: (a) offenses
under special penal laws punished only by fine or by imprisonment
for not more than one month or both; (b) libel or other similar
offenses; (c) light penalties; (d) crimes punishable with arresto
mayor.
21. A wife who prepared the way for the perpetration of a crime of
rape committed by her husband upon a 12-year old victim, by conducting
her by force and violence to a place apart among the trees, where she called
to her husband, the person chiefly interested in perpetrating the crime,
delivering the victim to her husband and then going away from the scene of
the crime so that her husband might freely consummate the pre-arranged
rape, as the latter did with violence and intimidation – (a) is a principal
5
by indispensable cooperation; (b) is a mere accomplice; (c) is a
principal by direct participation; (d) is a principal by inducement.
22. Under Article 70, the period of perpetual penalties is: (a)
twenty years and one day to forty years; (b) forty years; (c) thirty
years; (c) twenty years.
24. Not necessarily having a duration of six months and one day to
six years: (a) prision correccional; (b) suspension when imposed as an
accessory penalty; (c) destierro; (d) suspension when imposed as a
principal penalty.
25. A father simply said to his son who was at the time engaged in
combat with another, "Hit him! Hit him!". After the father spoke those
words, his son drew a firearm and shot his adversary. Under those
circumstances: (a) the father is responsible for the injuries
committed by the son after such advice was given, under the facts
presented; (b) the father is not necessarily responsible unless
sufficient facts be shown upon which to affirm that the father
foresaw the use of the firearm on the part of his son when he spoke
the words referred to, or, for that reason, that he thereby induced
6
him to use said weapon; (c) the father cannot be held responsible
simply for uttering those words in the excitement of the moment; (d)
the father is necessarily responsible because inducement to the
commission of the crime by means of which a person may be
considered a principal in the same manner as he who executes the
act itself can be founded in commands, sometimes in advice, or in
words of encouragement.
7
should be acquitted as his act of inflicting the second mortal would
with a bolo was no longer necessary to kill C.
29. When is the penalty for failure to give bond to keep the peace,
whenever the convict is so obligated under his sentence, a period of
detention not exceeding THIRTY (30) DAYS? (a) if the accused shall have
been prosecuted for a grave felony; (b) if the accused shall have
been prosecuted for a less grave felony; (c) if the accused shall have
been prosecuted for a light felony; (d) if the accused shall have been
prosecuted for grave threats or light threats under Arts. 282 and
283, respectively, RPC.
31. An instance where a penal law favorable to the accused may not
be applied retroactively: (a) the offender is a habitual delinquent; (b) a
final sentence had already been pronounced upon the offender upon
publication of such law or the offender is already serving sentence
by final judgment at that time; (c) the law fails to expressly provide
for its retroactive application; (d) the offender is already undergoing
probation at the time the law takes effect.
8
many penalties as there are separate and distinct offenses
committed, since for every individual crime committed, a
corresponding penalty is prescribed by law; (d) it is not obvious
whether or not the Sandiganbayan erred unless the individual
penalties for each convictions are known, as only then will it be
possible to apply the three-fold rule.
33. The prosecution seeks to hold four of the accused, XM, XN, ZS,
and US, criminally liable for the killing of JA and YN, particularly as co-
authors thereof by inducement, considering that they attended the
conferences and entered no opposition to the nefarious scheme while, after
the commission of the murders, they joined with the other accused in
celebrating with a fiesta, although aside from this, these four did not
cooperate in the commission of the crimes, nor is it certain that, as relatives
or retainers of XA, the four had any influence over XS and YS, and that any
of the four said or did anything that determined the commission of the
crimes. Can they be considered as co-authors within the meaning of article
[17] of the [Revised] Penal Code? (a) Yes, their presence at the
conferences and the fact that they entered no opposition to the
nefarious scheme and, after the commission of the murders, they
joined with the other accused in celebrating with a fiesta, make them
liable as principals by inducement; (b) Yes, because their presence at
the conferences and the fact that they entered no opposition to the
nefarious scheme, being part and parcel of the development of the
crime, could be considered active participation in the commission of
the crime itself; (c) Yes, because their actions constituted joining in
a conspiracy and where there is conspiracy, the act of one is the act
of all; (d) No, because although what the four did amounted to
joining in a conspiracy, the [Revised] Penal Code, in Article [8], does
not punish conspiracy as such.
9
civil indemnity from X, seeks to enforce the same against X’s employer. Can
X’s employer be held subsidiarily liable for the payment of civil indemnity?
(a) only if X’s employer is engaged in a business or industry and does
not exclusively use the automobile for private ends; (b) only if X’s
employer is found guilty of negligence in the selection and
supervision of X; (c) only if X’s employer has been charged as co-
principal in the crime; (d) only if X’s employer has been impleaded in
the civil aspect of the criminal case.
36. RB is one of the several persons accused in more than one
hundred (100) counts of Estafa thru Falsification of Public Documents
before the Sandiganbayan. In the meantime, RB run for and was elected as
mayor in a town in Cavite. Subsequently, Batas Pambansa Big. 195 was
passed amending, among others, Section 13 of Republic Act No. 3019,
providing that any incumbent public officer against whom any criminal-
prosecution under a valid information under this Act or under Title 7, Book
II of the Revised Penal Code or for any offense involving fraud upon
government or public funds or property whether as a simple or as a complex
offense and in whatever stage of execution and mode of participation, is
pending in court, shall be suspended from office. On that basis and in all
cases pending before the Sandiganbayan in which RB is one of the accused,
the prosecution filed a motion to suspend all the accused-public officers
"from their public positions or from any other public office that they may be
holding ... for ninety (90) days ". Under the circumstances: (a) the
Sandiganbayan may issue an order directing the suspension of all
the accused including RB "from their public positions or from any
other public office that they may be holding ... for ninety (90) days",
as long as the informations in question are shown to be valid and
regardless of when they were filed as such suspension does not
constitute a penalty; (b) the Sandiganbayan can issue an order
directing the suspension of all the accused including RB "from their
public positions or from any other public office that they may be
holding ... for ninety (90) days" because such suspension amounts to
a penalty and no penalty can be imposed which was not prescribed
by law for the offense at the time of its commission; (c) to apply the
provision of Batas Pambansa Blg. 195 to the herein accused would
be violative of the constitutional guarantee of protection against an
ex post facto law and, therefore, the Sandiganbayan is not obligated
to apply the provisions thereof and grant the motion; (d) being
unfavorable to the accused, the amendatory provision of Batas
Pambansa Blg. 195 should be applied prospectively; besides, such
suspension deprives the people of the services of an elected official
and may not, therefore, be applied in this case.
10
student of the Philippine Science High School, along with MF, CL, and EG,
also students of the same school, were hit by a pillbox bomb causing the
instantaneous death of FS and physical injuries to others. "Murder with
Multiple Attempted Murder" was filed against AR, a security guard of Feati
University, who threw the pillbox bomb at the student demonstrators who
were then marching, resulting in an explosion, which act was so sudden and
unexpected. In his signed confession, AR admitted throwing the pillbox, but
only to scare the student demonstrators; unfortunately, he miscalculated his
aim and distance, as it fell on the head of and killed the victim, as well as
caused physical injuries to three other student demonstrators. If convicted
of murder and multiple frustrated murder, would it be necessary to consider
whether AR should be credited with the mitigating circumstance of lack of
intent to commit so grave a wrong as that committed? (a) Yes, since AR
did not aim the pillbox at a particular student and merely wanted to
scare the demonstrators, but unfortunately miscalculated his aim
and distance, it appears, therefore, that there was no intention to
commit so grave a wrong as that committed, which should be
appreciated as a mitigating circumstance; (b) Yes, because the result
simply cannot be expected from the means he employed to
accomplish his purpose; (c) Yes, because there is a demonstrated
disproportion between the means he employed to attain his purpose
and the result obtaining, which satisfies the indispensable
requirement of this mitigating circumstance; (d) No, by committing
a complex crime, the imposable penalty is already raised to the
maximum of the most severe penalty for said crimes, which is death;
hence, there should be no occasion to consider further any
mitigating circumstance.
38. AA, EM, and ZM were charged, together with others, in the
killing of VA, but it is claimed that there is no evidence to show that they
took any actual part therein. It appears, however, that they were present
from the time VA was taken from his house until the time he was killed.
Under the evidence in the case, can they be considered as principals? (a)
No, immediate participation in the criminal design entertained by
the slayer is essential to the responsibility of one who is alleged to
have taken a direct part in the killing, as a principal, but who has
not himself inflicted an injury materially contributing to the death;
(b) No, mere presence at the scene of the crime does not give rise to
criminal liability; (c) Yes, one who shares the guilty purpose and aids
and abets the commission of a crime by his presence at the time of
its perpetration, even though he may not have taken an active part in
its material execution, is guilty as a principal; (d) No, mere passive
presence at the scene of another's crime, mere silence and failure to
give the alarm, without evidence of agreement or conspiracy, do not
constitute the cooperation required for complicity in the commission
11
of the crime witnessed passively, or with regard to which one has
kept silent.
39. X was pardoned by the Chief Executive, after his conviction for
plunder, for which he was sentenced to reclusion perpetua. X wanted to run
for office and feels he can do so because the terms of the pardon are silent
about the matter or otherwise does not expressly prevent him from doing
so. Therefore -- (a) X can run for public office inasmuch as the
pardon, not being subject to a condition, should be regarded as
absolute and, therefore, extinguished his criminal liability and all
the effects thereof; (b) X cannot run for public office because though
pardon by the Chief Executive extinguished his criminal liability and
the effects thereof, the right to run for public office can only be
restored if expressly remitted in the pardon; (c) X cannot run for
public office because although pardon extinguished his criminal
liability, it does not erase the effects thereof; (d) X can run for public
office because the pardon in question extinguished his criminal
liability and does not expressly prevent him from running for a
public office.
41. GJ, JV, and CI together with the two deceased DF and FR, were
fencing the land of GF, father of deceased DF. The place was in the
boundary of the highway and the hacienda owned by GF. At the place of the
fencing is the house and rice drier of MN. At that time, MN was taking his
rest, but when he heard that the walls of his house were being chiselled, he
arose and there he saw the fencing going on. If the fencing would go on,
MN would be prevented from getting into his house and the bodega of his
ricemill. So, he addressed the group, saying “Pare, if possible you stop
destroying my house and if possible we will talk it over what is good,”
addressing FR, who is compadre of MN. DF, however, answered: “No,
gademit, proceed, go ahead.” MN apparently lost his equilibrium and he got
12
his gun and shot DF, hitting him. As DF fell down, FR ran towards the jeep,
and knowing there is a gun on the jeep, MN fired at FR, likewise hitting
him. Both DF and FR died “as a result of the shooting”. Can MN, after
admitting having shot DF and FR from the window of his house with the
shotgun under the foregoing circumstances, claim that he did so in defense
of his person and of his rights, and therefore he should be exempt from
criminal liability? (a) Yes, the assault on MN's property amounts to
unlawful aggression as contemplated by law and, therefore, gives
occasion to the lawful exercise of defense that MN did; (b) No,
defense of property is not of such importance as the right to life and
defense of property can only be invoked when it is coupled with some
form of attack on the person of one entrusted with said property; (c)
No, MN's act in killing the deceased was not justifiable since not all
the elements for justification are present; he should therefore be
held responsible for the death of his victims, although he could be
credited with the special mitigating circumstance of incomplete
defense; (d) No, the defense of property, whether complete or
incomplete, to be available, must be coupled with an attack by the
one getting the property on the person defending it and, in this case,
there is absolutely no evidence that an attack was attempted, much
less made upon the person of MN, while the mere utterance "No,
gademit proceed, go ahead" is not the unlawful aggression which
entitles MN to the plea of self-defense.
42. Penalty for an impossible crime: (a) penalty for the crime
intended to be committed in its attempted stage; (b) penalty for the
crime intended to be committed in its frustrated stage; (c) penalty
for the crime intended to be committed but mitigated by lack of
intent to commit so grave a wrong; (d) arresto mayor or a fine from
200 to 500 pesos.
13
hemorrhage. It is established, however, that MB had anal intercourse with
EA after she was already dead. The muscles of the anus did not close and
also the presence of spermatozoa in the anal region as testified to by the
medico-legal officer, and confirmed to be positive in the Laboratory Report,
clearly established the coitus after death. MB had a notorious advantage of
height accused had over his hapless victim, EA, he being 6 feet tall and
weighing 155 lbs. while the girl was only 4 ft 11 inches tall. Under the
circumstances, the crime committed is: (a) homicide only, considering
that no qualifying or aggravating circumstance could be proved; (b)
murder, qualified by outraging or scoffing at the corpse of the
victim; (c) murder, qualified by abuse of superiority and aggravated
by outraging or scoffing at the corpse of the victim; (d) murder,
qualified by treachery and aggravated by abuse of superiority and
scoffing or outraging at the corpse of the victim.
45. Five different thefts were committed. It has been proved that X,
knowing that the oil which was brought to her for sale was stolen by the
persons who were seeking to sell it to her, advised them thereupon to
continue stealing oil and furnished them vessels in which to carry it and
contributed on five different occasions to the realization of the said thefts.
The physical authors of the crime were boys under 15 years of age. They
acted upon the suggestions of X without discernment or judgment of their
own. What is the liability of X? (a) X is not criminally liable because
her act would have made her an accessory-after-the- fact but there
can be no accessory without a principal; (b) X is a principal by
inducement, which inducement not merely favored the execution of
the crime but determined its commission; (c) X is a mere accessory-
after-the-fact for having benefitted from or assisted the principals
(albeit themselves exempt from criminal liability) in benefitting from
14
the proceeds of the crime; (d) although not liable under the Revised
Penal Code, under which the liability of an accessory is subordinate
to that of the principal, she is nevertheless liable as a fence under
PD No. 1612.
15
48. In case of accident under Article 12(4), Revised Penal Code --
(a) there is no criminal liability incurred but there is civil liability;
(b) there is neither criminal nor civil liability incurred; (c) a crime is
committed but there is no criminal liability incurred; (d) there is
civil liability despite the absence of crime.
49. The mother of a thief who helped the latter in selling stolen
goods is – (a) always exempt from criminal liability as an accessory-
after-the-fact by reason of her relationship to the principal of the
crime; (b) is liable as an accessory-after-the-fact if she acted with
knowledge of the stolen character of the goods, but is exempt from
criminal liability in view of her relationship to the principal of the
crime; (c) is liable as an accessory-after-the-fact if she acted with
knowledge of the stolen character of the goods and is not exempt
from criminal liability as such despite her relationship to the
principal of the crime; (d) is a fence and, therefore, guilty under the
Anti-Fencing Law.
16