CRIMINAL LAW 1.

The principle of generality of criminal law means that its application to all persons who live or sojourn in the Philippines is A. objective. B. harsh. C. equitable. D. exceptional. 2. Actus non facit reum, nisi mens sit rea is equivalent to A. He who is the cause of the cause of the evil cause is the cause of the evil cause. B. An act does not make a person a criminal unless his mind be criminal. C. An act done by me against my will is not my act. D. Ignorance of fact excuses from criminal liability. 3. Lack of mens rea is a defense in crimes committed A. voluntarily. B. freely. C. deliberately. D. Negligently 4. Mens rea implies A. voluntariness of the act complained. B. intelligence of the person complained. C. deliberateness of the act complained. D. culpability of the person complained 5. A Philippine court can try a crime committed outside the Philippines by a Philippine ambassador who committed a felonious act A. during office hours. B. on board any ship bound to the Philippines. C. while in office. D. related to the Philippine government. 6. A person who injured another person is criminally liable for both the resulting and intended crimes if the resulting injury was A. inflicted to a person whom he thought to be the target. B. graver than what he intended to inflict. C. not worse than what he intended to inflict. D. inflicted on another person when he failed to hit the target. 7. Joe aimed at Johns leg. However, the bullet merely scratched Johns leg and thereafter hit Jeff who was sitting behind him. Jeff suffered serious injuries in his stomach. Joe shall be liable for A. Slight physical injuries insofar as John is concerned and Serious physical injuries insofar as Jeff is concerned.
1

B. Complex crime of Attempted Homicide with Frustrated Homicide. C. Complex crime of Slight physical injuries with Serious physical injuries. D. Separate crimes of Attempted Homicide and Frustrated Homicide. 8. Philippine Criminal law applies to all persons who live and sojourn in the Philippines, EXCEPT to a foreign A. ambassador in the Philippines. B. consul on official mission to the Philippines. C. diplomat while attending an affair hosted by the Philippines. D. royalty while representing his country. 8. A person committed attempted homicide when the resulting injury is A. treatable. B. not serious. C. slight and by oversight. D. slight with specific intent. 9. Both A and B are criminally liable if they agreed to commit a crime and A. committed it. B. decide to commit it. C. proposed its execution to some other person or persons. D. prepared to commit it. 10. A person is criminally liable for all the possible consequences of his felonious act if such act is the A. evil caused. B. intended cause. C. intervening cause. D. cause of the cause. 11. Preparatory acts punishable by law independently as such are treated as A. attempted felony. B. frustrated felony. C. consummated felony. D. conspiracy. 12. An offender who caused grave injuries to the victim would be liable for a consummated felony when he A. desisted from further assault. B. was prevented by a third party. C. committed it by culpa. D. was able to commence it by direct overt act. 13. Actus reus refers to A. intent. B. motive.
2

C. conduct. D. desire. 14. Three accused are equally liable for the commission of a crime in case they A. forged together the plan. B. concurred in the resolution of one of them. C. participated in its commission. D. assisted in its commission. 15. A person who committed an act which causes damage to another incurred no criminal liability when the act is committed without A. fault. B. motive. C. intent. D. discernment. 16. When extraneous circumstances unknown to the accused or beyond his or her control prevent the consummation of the murder intended, he or she would be liable for A. Attempted murder. B. Frustrated murder. C. Consummated murder. D. Impossible crime. 17. The victims two fingers were cut off when he tried to parry the bolo of the accused. He was immediately brought to the hospital where he was treated. Two weeks later, he died because of tetanus. Is the accused criminally liable for his death? A. Yes, because his felonious act is the immediate cause of death. B. Yes, because he is criminally liable for the direct, natural and logical consequences of his felonious act. C. No, because there was an efficient intervening cause between the felonious act and the resulting injury. D. No, because he should be criminally liable only for the injury that he actually inflicted on the victim. 18. Discernment is the A. mental capacity of a minor between 9 and 15 years of age to fully appreciate the consequences of his unlawful act. B. mental capacity of a minor between 15 and 17 years of age to fully appreciate the consequences of his unlawful act. C. mental aberration of a minor between 9 and 15 years of age that prevent him to fully appreciate the consequences of his unlawful act. D. mental aberration of a minor between 15 and 17 years of age that prevent him to fully appreciate the consequences of his unlawful act.

19. L was caught trying to slip his body inside Cs house after unfastening a board from its window. When asked, he declared that he was planning to kill C. L is criminally liable for A. Attempted homicide. B. Frustrated homicide. C. Indeterminate offense. D. Attempted qualified trespass to dwelling. 20. Packy and Macky fought in an official boxing bout. The fight was violent with each boxer sustaining serious injuries in different parts of their body. Suddenly, Packy hit Macky below the belt. Macky fell down in pain. Minutes later the shock caused a heart attack. He died instantaneously. Is Packy criminally liable for his death? A. Yes, because the death is the natural, direct and logical consequence of his act and the fact that Macky has a weak heart does not constitute an efficient intervening cause. B. Yes, because by hitting Macky below the belt he acted recklessly without foresight and skill. C. No, because the heart attack is an efficient intervening cause that effectively cut off the logical succession between the act that he performed and its resulting injury. D. No, because he was not performing a felony when he injured Macky in the boxing bout. 21. The subjective phase of a felony is that point where the A. necessary elements of the consummation of the felony are present but the latter did not occur because of the intervention of a third person. B. acts constituting the felony are present but the latter could not be accomplished for improbability of its accomplishment. C. offender begins the assault until he was prevented from accomplishing his criminal intention. D. point where he has performed the last act but were prevented from accomplishing his objective because of an intervening cause. 22. Van and Ben were having an altercation regarding the latest boxing fight between Pacquio and Mosley. As the argument is heating up, Ben became aware of the bolo in Vans waist. Ben snatched the bolo from his waste to prevent Van from using it but the latter was quick to hold it. During the scruples, Vans armed was seriously injured. Is Ben criminally liable for the injury? A. Yes, because he is criminally liable for all the direct, natural and logical consequences of his felonious act. B. Yes, because he was the proximate cause of the injury. C. No, because Van was defending his property when Ben had injured him. D. No, because he was not committing a felony when Van was injured.

23. Johnny was caught trying to enter the window of Jet Lis house. When asked why he was trespassing, he declared that he was intending to take some cash from the vault inside the house. Johnny is criminally liable for A. Attempted trespass to dwelling. B. Attempted robbery. C. Indeterminate offense. D. Impossible crime. 24. Domeng and Dionisio are arguing about the latest games of the Azkals. Dionisio got so angry that he hit Domeng with a piece of wood. He hit him for four times. Domeng stabbed him in the chest. Is Domeng criminally liable for Dionisio death? A. Yes, for the means he used in preventing the further attack was not reasonable. B. Yes, for he had not acted in self-defense but in retaliation. C. No, because it was not shown if the death resulted from the stabbing incident. D. No, because he acted in self-defense. 25. N went out of his house after hearing the noise coming from the outside. He discovered that F was chiselling the partition wall between his and that of the latters property. F told him that he needed to put up a scaffolding to strengthen his part of the wall. Despite warning, F continued his work. Two days after a big crack at Ns wall began to appear because of the chiselling outside it. N demanded F to stop but F angrily retorted, Do what you have to do. You will die if you try to stop me. F stood up and held firmly his chisel against N. At that instance, N strike F with a hammer in his head. Is N criminally liable for the death of F? A. Yes, because the means he employed to prevent the aggression against his person and property is not reasonable. B. Yes, because he has no right to kill an aggression against his property right. C. No, because the aggression against his person is sufficiently strong and had not for his quick reaction he would have been the one who was killed. D. No, because the means he employed to defend his property and his person was reasonable. 26. Tikyo and Ben were drinking in a lomi stand when they started arguing about the cartoon character Chowder. Sensing that Ben would be using his cal. 45, Tikyo pulled out his balisong. Ben grabbed his wrist to prevent him from using it. Juner, the stand owner, intervened to take the balisong from them. However, in his attempt to pacify them, his left arm was slashed when Tikyo pulled the knife from Bens hold. Can Juner hold anyone liable for his injury? A. No, because both are trying to protect one another from harm when he was accidently injured. B. No, because his injury was caused by his own carelessness. C. Yes, because Ben and Tikyo were committing a felony when he was injured. D. Yes, because Tikyo was committing a felony when an injury was inflicted on him.

27. Johnny boxed Mely in her abdomen. As a result thereof, she bled and was brought to the hospital. As the baby in her womb died, the doctors performed an operation to take it out. Unfortunately, Mely died during the operation. Is Johnny criminally liable for homicide? A. No, because the death of the victim was the result of the erroneous or unskilful surgical operation. B. No, because the injury he inflicted is not sufficient to cause the death of the victim. C. Yes, because while other causes cooperated in the death of the victim, the injury that he inflicted was dangerous and would endanger the life of the victim. D. Yes, because the unskilful surgical operation was not an efficient intervening cause. 28. There is an unlawful aggression in the following instances EXCEPT A. Aiming a revolver at another after a heated altercation. B. Kicking another in his butt upon meeting him in the middle of the street. C. Poking a toy gun at another to demand his money. D. Holding the handle of his bolo during an altercation. 29. Shooting a person is justified in a continuing fight when the aggression A. was made by the victim in the inception of the fight. B. happened immediately before the shooting. C. present at the time of the shooting. D. was commenced anytime during the incident. 30. A declared a hold-up in a passenger jeepney he was riding. B, fearing for her life, jumped from the vehicle. She hit her head in the asphalt pavement and died. A is criminally liable because the injuries sustained by the deceased had been A. impliedly intended by him as when declared a hold-up he created danger in her mind which lead to her injury. B. caused by him because he declared a hold-up in a moving jeepney. C. inflicted by him as an integral part of the robbery. D. his responsibility as he created danger in her mind which prompted her to jump from the jeepney. 31. B struck C with a cane in his head. C parried the second attack and was able to wrestle the cane away from B. B tried to pick up the cane but before he could get, C shot him in the back with his cal. 45. C is criminally liable for the death of B because A. his life is no longer at risk when he shot him. B. he did not fire a warning shot. C. he shot him treacherously. D. the means he employed far exceeds Bs aggression. 32. A person was found trying to force open a car parked outside the school. The policeman told him to stop but he did not. Hence, he took out his revolver and pointed it to the man.
6

Suddenly, the gun fired without him intending to do so. The man died from gunshot wound. The policeman was criminally liable for the death of the man for A. performing his duty with excessive force. B. causing an injury different from what he intended. C. committing a lawful act without due care. D. the death is the logical consequence of his act. 33. A shot B twice but failed to hit him. At the third shot, the bullet passed through Bs shoulder. It failed to hit him in the chest because a spare tire hanging in the left side of the jeepney where he was hiding deflected its trajectory. A committed attempted homicide because the A. injuries he sustained could not kill him. B. injuries he sustained could be treated. C. elements to consummate the crime are not all present. D. completion of the crime was prevented by an extraneous cause. 34. When there is an agreement to a fight, the prevailing combatant could not interpose selfdefense because the agreement A. made both of them aggressor and victim at the same time. B. made both of them criminally liable. C. provided the aggressor immunity from liability. D. gave the prevailing party reason to inflict injury on the aggressor. 35. To be reasonable, the means employed to prevent or repel an unlawful attack should be A. commensurate with the means of attack. B. rationally equivalent with the means of attack. C. the same with the means of attack. D. not greater than the means of attack. 36. C pointed his gun to D and told him that he would kill him. Fortunately, E, Ds wife arrived, and pleaded for his life. C desisted from shooting D. Is C criminally liable? A. No, because he desisted from committing the intended felony. B. No, because he did not perform any direct overt act to commit the intended felony. C. Yes, because his act constituted a direct overt act to commit the intended felony. D. Yes, because a felony was already consummated before his desistance. 37. F, an Indian national, stabbed H, a Filipino, on board a Philippine vessel while they are re-provisioning in Hawaii. Can a Philippine court try the case against F? A. Yes, because the act was committed on board Philippine ship. B. Yes, because the act affects the internal management of the vessel. C. No, because the Philippine ship was not on the high seas. D. No, because the accused is not a Filipino. 38. Jane took a wrist watch from the compartment but before she could put it in her bag the saleslady was able to get hold of her hand. Jane committed
7

A. B. C. D.

attempted theft. frustrated theft. consummated theft. impossible crime to commit theft.

39. E was charged with homicide. He interposed self-defense. The prosecutor failed to present any evidence as his witnesses can no longer be found during the trial. Can court hold him criminally liable for homicide? A. No, because the prosecution failed to present any proof of guilt. B. No, because the court is bound to accept an uncontradicted plea of self-defense. C. Yes, because the court can take judicial notice of his guilt. D. Yes, because the burden is shifted to him to disprove his guilt. 40. Pepe assaulted Juan with a wooden cane. Juan was able to run away to his house pursued by Pepe. Upon reaching his house, Juan got a bolo and waited for Pepe. Few minutes after, he saw Pepe walking towards his house with the wooden cane. Seeing Pepe coming and sensing that he was still pressed on hitting him, Juan told him, Lumapit ka kung matapang ka. Pepe slowed down but approached Juan with his weapon just the same. Before Pepe could raise his cane, Juan stabbed him. The timely medical attendance prevented Pepes wound from becoming worse and killing him. Is Juan criminally liable for any felony? A. Yes, for attempted homicide because the means he employed to prevent the aggression was not reasonable. B. Yes, for frustrated homicide because he agreed to a fight after he secured a weapon to defend himself with. C. No, because the means he employed to prevent the attack was reasonable. D. No, because he only defended himself from the assault which the victim started. 41. Daniel was walking along the alley when Fred blocked his way and stabbed him in his left arm. Despite his injury, Daniel was able to wrestle the knife away from Fred. Thereafter, he stabbed Fried and then ran away. Fried died because of the stab wound. Is he criminally liable for homicide? A. Yes, for the aggression had ceased after he disarmed his assailant. B. Yes, for the means he employed is grossly disproportionate to the means of attack. C. No, for he has the right to injure the victim in return for the injury that the latter inflicted on him. D. No, for he had the right to disable his attacker with the same weapon used by the latter in injuring him. 42. The following instances are acts of lawful self-defense EXCEPT A. Killing an armed intruder who forcibly entered ones dwelling. B. Killing an unarmed intruder who forcibly entered ones dwelling. C. Killing an unarmed intruder who forcibly entered ones dwelling and assaults persons residing therein.

D. Killing an armed person who entered peacefully with consent to ones dwelling and demanded money from occupants thereof. 43. To be exempt from criminal liability on the ground of insanity, an accused must be proved that he was A. insane immediately before the incident and that he remembers that he could not control himself when he was committing the act B. deprived of reason when committing the act and came to reason only after its commission. C. without the least discernment and could not remember what happened. D. suffering from severe abnormality of mental faculties when he committed the act. 44. Juanito brought his son to Angue, a known ispiritista. Angue told him that the boy was possessed by a bad spirit. Angue and his followers held the boy upside down and dipped him to a drum filled with water. Later, they banged his head in the bench. The boy died because of head injury. Angue and his followers were charged for the death of the boy. Is criminal intent presumed in their acts? A. Yes, because death resulted from their ritual. B. Yes, because the injuries inflicted were deliberate. C. No, because they were performing a ritual which is not unlawful. D. No, because the injuries are not deliberate. 45. X, determined to overthrow the government called on Y, Z, and W for a meeting. He discussed his plan of overthrowing the government through armed struggle. However, as he is physically handicapped, he suggested the carrying out of rebellion to Y, Z, and W who later levied war against the government. Is X criminally liable? A. Yes, for rebellion because he proposed its execution to X, Z and W who actually carried it out. B. Yes, for conspiracy to commit rebellion because Y, Z and W accepted his proposal. C. No, because his act of convincing Y, Z and W is a not a direct overt act that will result to a concrete offense. D. No, because preparatory act is not a punishable felony. 46. Joseph and Hanns had a fight. Two days after, Hanns saw Joseph eating in the karinderia. He sat beside him and told him that their bout is about to be finished. Joseph hurriedly stood up, told him to catch up with him if he can, and left. Hanns followed him and upon reaching him, stabbed him in his side. Joseph survived because of the skilful medical attendance. Hanns is criminally liable for A. Attempted Murder with qualifying aggravating circumstances of treachery and evident premeditation. B. Attempted Homicide without any aggravating circumstance. C. Frustrated Murder with qualifying aggravating circumstances of treachery and evident premeditation. D. Frustrated Homicide without any aggravating circumstance.

47. Felimon was drinking coffee when Felix, Ferdie and Fred approached him. After some tee-a-tat, Felimon bid goodbye. Felix followed him and stopped him. Thereafter, Ferdie approached them and without warning, kicked him in his butt. Felix boxed him twice which made him fall to the ground. After getting up, he ran towards the caf where Fred was drinking soft drinks. When he came near Fred, the latter suddenly stabbed him with the bread knife on the table. Fred walked away. Felix and Ferdie saw him and followed him. Felimon died as a result of the incident. Felix, Ferdie and Fred should be prosecuted for A. Homicide, with the three of them liable as principals since there was implied conspiracy among them. B. Homicide, with Fred as principals while Felix and Ferdie as accomplices. C. Homicide, with Fred as principal, and Slight Physical Injuries for Felix and Ferdie. D. Homicide, with Fred as principal and with Felix as an accomplice, and Slight Physical Injuries insofar as Ferdie is concerned. 48. Rosa saw Lester in the city hall. She followed Lester to his office and upon seeing him there, hit him with a flashlight. Lester, a policeman, suffered contusion in his head because of the assault. Rosa claimed that she was prompted to hit him because he deliberately misplaced her complaint against her neighbors. Rosa is criminally liable for A. Complex crime of direct assault with slight physical injuries. B. Complex crime of direct assault with attempted homicide. C. Separate crimes of direct assault and slight physical injuries. D. Direct assault only. 49. Lupito asked money from Janice claiming that the son of the latter would need to post bail on account of a criminal complaint for falsification. Janice gave him P10,000.00. Two days after, she asked Lupito for proof that the money was paid for her sons bail. Lupito showed to her a court order directing the boys release from jail on account of the cash bail posted in his behalf. It turned out that Janices son had never been in jail nor charged with any criminal offense. Is Lupito criminally liable for any crime? A. Yes, for a complex crime of Estafa through Falsification of public document. B. Yes, for separate crimes of Estafa and Falsification of public document. C. No, for he did not falsify anything to get money from Janice and hence, he is merely civilly liable. D. No, for there was nothing that shows he had falsified anything to get money from Janice. 50. Castor entered a chicken coop and upon realizing that nobody was looking, took three rare rabbits costing P5,000.00 each. He was later on caught and the rabbits were returned to the three persons who owned them. Castor is criminally liable for A. Three counts of theft since the rabbits belonged to three separate owners. B. Three counts of theft since the taking of the rabbits consist of several acts. C. One count of theft because the crime he committed is a complex crime. D. One count of theft because he was animated by one criminal intention of stealing everything inside the coop.
10

51. A compound crime is one A. arising from a series of acts animated by a single purpose. B. committed after a final conviction in another crime embraced in the same Title of the Revised Penal Code. C. referring to a single act constituting two or more less grave or grave felonies. D. committed as a necessary means to commit another crime. 52. Joe lost his watch. Two days after, he saw Berto wearing a watch which looks similar to his. Because of this, he went home and looked for his revolver. Later, he waited for Berto in the alley. When Berto passed by, he demanded for the wrist watch at gun point. Unfortunately, Berto had lost the wrist watch an hour earlier. Thus, Joe could do nothing but to desist from continuing with his criminal designed. He walked away frustrated. Is Joe criminally liable for any crime? A. Yes, for impossible crime because of the factual impossibility of the accomplishment of the crime intended to be committed. B. Yes, for attempted robbery for he was prevented from consummating the crime intended by an accident other than his spontaneous desistance. C. No, because he had desisted from carrying out the crime he intended to commit. D. No, because he could not be considered to have entertained intent to gain since he believed that the watch was his. 53. Alfredo threw a hand grenade at Lito. The grenade blew up but minutes later, Lito rose up with minor injuries only. Lito claimed that he was not hurt despite the grenade because he was protected by his amulet. Alfredo is criminally liable for A. Impossible crime because there was a factual impossibility for the commission of the crime on account of the amulet protecting the victim. B. Slight physical injuries since the injuries sustained by the victim are only slight. C. Attempted murder since the accused failed to do everything needed to be done to accomplish the intended crime as manifested by the injuries sustained by the victim. D. Frustrated murder since the accused had performed all the acts of execution necessary to accomplish the crime and considering that after the grenade was thrown, the offender had passed the subjective phase of the felony. 54. Jayvee stole Charlies check and wrote P100,000.00 in the face of the check. He presented it to the bank for payment but it was dishonoured for being drawn against a closed account. Is Jayvee criminally liable for any crime? A. Yes, for theft because he stole a check and wrote therein the amount of P100,00.00 evidencing his intent to gain. B. Yes, for impossible crime for there was factual impossibility of stealing a check which is actually worthless. C. No, because the bank account for which the check was drawn upon was already non-existent at the time he stole the worthless paper. D. No, because he did not commit any violation of the Anti-Bouncing Check Law when he presented for payment the worthless check.
11

55. E was mending his fence when F approached him. F reiterated to him that he could no longer work on the farm because it was already in the name of G, Fs master. E continued with what he was doing but retorted that the farm was inherited by his father from his grandfather. E told F to go to hell with G. F, with revolver in his waist moved forward and drew the gun. E was quick to grab his arm and to shake it until the gun fell down. F tried to pick it up but E slashed his right arm with his bolo. Then, F picked up the gun with his left hand but E was quick to slash the said arm also. In his last attempt to pick up the gun with his right hand, F was hacked by E in his shoulder. E left the place and surrendered to the police station. Is E criminally liable for the death of F? A. Yes, because there was no longer an unlawful aggression when he hacked the victim in his shoulder. B. Yes, because the means he employed to prevent the attack far exceeds the aggression since he could have easily taken the gun away from the victim because of the injuries that the latter sustained. C. No, because all the elements of self-defense are present in this case, the hacking being prompted by the continuing aggression from the victim. D. No, because as owner of the property subject of their altercation, he has the right to defend it from any aggressor who come to violate it. 56. X was coming out of the toilet when Y suddenly stabbed him twice with a dagger. Despite the wounds he sustained, he was able to walk towards his house. Y pursued him and stabbed him in the back. Z approached them and hit Xs head with a stone. At this instance, Y told him, Patay na yan. Z is liable for the death of X as A. principal by direct participation since his act tended directly to an implied conspiracy with Y, the first assassin. B. principal by indispensable cooperation since the act that he performed was different and distinct from the assault which the other accused committed and without which, the victim would not have died. C. an accomplice since the act that he performed was not indispensable to the crime committed by the other accused and no conspiracy could be inferred from their acts. D. an accessory since the victim was already dead when he hit him with a stone and thus, his participation was not that of a principal or an accomplice. 57. M, a police officer, responded to the call for help from a concerned citizen informing him that a robbery was taking place in Hs house. When M arrived in the place, he saw three men running away from the house. He shouted, Stop! but they did not heed him. Fearing that they would escape, M fired his revolved at them. One of the persons was shot and suffered serious injuries. It turned out that the person he shot was H who was running after the robbers. To be exempt from criminal liability, M must prove that A. there was unlawful aggression on the part of the robbers and the shooting was due to a b of fact. B. a mistake of fact prompted the shooting of H whom he believed was one of the robbers. C. he was not negligent in shooting the supposed robbers.
12

D. the shooting was necessary consequence of the performance of duty had the facts been as he believed them to be. 58. Augustus found Augustina, his paramour, in the arms of another married man, Currant. Without warning, and due to passion, he shot her twice in the chest. Currant ran away leaving Augustus in the place of the incident. Augustus was prosecuted for homicide. Is Augustus entitled to any mitigating circumstance? A. Yes, he should be credited with passion and obfuscation the crime being a product of loss of reason and self-control which arose from the sudden discovery of the infidelity of the woman he loves. B. Yes, he should be credited with immediate vindication of a grave offense done to him by the adulterous woman. C. No, he is entitled to any mitigating circumstance since his loss of reason and self-control arose from immoral and lustful passion. D. No, for the crime was attended by treachery as shown by sudden and unexpected shooting of the victim by the accused. 59. Berto and Pedro are fighting when Kulas passed by. Kulas stayed awhile to see who would emerge unscatched. Seeing Pedro armed himself with a knife, he approached him and told him, Kill him. Thereafter, Pedro lunged at Berto and stabbed him twice. Berto survived because of timely medical attendance. Is Kulas criminally liable for Frustrated Homicide? A. Yes, as principal by induction since it was by his command that the victim was stabbed. B. Yes, as an accomplice since he provided a moral support to the accused. C. No, because the killing was motivated by some other reason, not by the command he gave to the accused. D. No, because he had not concurred to the criminal intention of the principal. 60. Greg was charged of murder. He pleaded not guilty during the arraignment. After the pretrial, the prosecutor started to present his evidence when his counsel interrupted the swearing of the witness and informed the court that he is willing to plead guilty to a lesser offense of homicide. The court asked the offended party through the prosecutor if they are amenable to the offer and they signified their assent. Thus, Greg was rearraigned and pleaded guilty to a lesser offense of homicide. In the imposition of the penalty, should the court take into consideration the plea of guilty as a mitigating circumstance? A. Yes, since the plea of guilty was done prior to the declaration of the witness as to his participation in the killing. B. Yes, since the prosecutor and the offended party consented to the plea of guilty. C. No, since the plea he made is in itself a mitigating factor that lessened the liability for the crime charged. D. No, since the plea of guilty was done during the presentation of the witness for the prosecution.

13

61. Intoxication shall be taken into consideration as a mitigating circumstance in the commission of the crime when it is A. intentional. B. habitual. C. prior to the commission of the crime. D. not habitual. 62. M and N entered the house of O one evening and demanded money at gun point. O gave them P200,000.00. After receiving P200,000.00, M and N left the house taking with them a golden wall clock. Is the crime attended by any aggravating circumstances? A. Yes, the crime was attended by the aggravating circumstance of dwelling. B. Yes, the crime was attended by the aggravating circumstances of dwelling and nighttime. C. No, dwelling was an integral part of the robbery. D. No, dwelling was an integral part of the robbery while nighttime was not taken advantage of by the offenders. 63. V told U, T, S that he will give them P5,000,000.00 if they would kill X. In view of the promised reward, U, T, S, met with V to polish the intended crime. Thereafter, U, T, S, and V, all armed with clubs went to Xs house. U and T entered the house while S posted himself as a lookout in the gate. V stood by with the get away vehicle. U and T brought out X from the house and killed him outside in full view of the two other accused. Later, they were all arrested for murder. Is the crime attended by the aggravating circumstance of a band? A. Yes, since all the four accused who were all armed participated together in the commission of the crime. B. Yes, the four accused who were all armed abused their superior strength in killing the victim. C. No, for while all of them are armed only two participated in the killing. D. No, for there are only three armed principals by direct participation as the other one is merely a principal by inducement. 64. A felony is frustrated when the offender performs all the acts of execution which would produce the felony as a consequence but which, nevertheless, do not produce it by reason of A. some cause other than his own spontaneous desistance. B. causes independent of his will. C. extraneous circumstances beyond the control of the perpetrator which prevents the consummation of the crime. D. supervening cause independent of the perpetrators will which prevents the consummation of the crime. 65. The essence of premeditation is that the execution of the criminal act must be preceded by cool thought and A. preparedness for the commission of the crime which shows the accused reflection upon the nature of the act to be committed.
14

B. reflection upon the resolution to carry out the criminal intent during the space of time sufficient to arrive at a calm judgment. C. premeditation as shown by the reflection during the determination of the offense until the commission of the crime intended. D. reflection upon the cause and the nature of the act which reflections became the basis of the judgment to commit it. 66. The doctrine of lenity means A. court, in construing an ambiguous criminal statute that sets out multiply or inconsistent punishments, should resolve the ambiguity in favour of the lesser punishment. B. it is better to set free ten guilty criminals than to convict one innocent person. C. when in doubt, all ambiguity in the interpretation of the state should be resolved in favour of the accused. D. no person can be convicted under a statute which has not yet been enforced at the time the act was committed. 67. A Chinese national was on board a Japanese vessel bound for Malaysia. Because of strong wind, the vessel was constrained to resort refuge in the Manila Bay. Xing, the Chinese national was caught by the ship captain smoking marijuana just before the vessel left the Manila Bay for Malaysia. Can Xing be prosecuted in the Philippines? A. Yes, under the French Rule he is only exempted from prosecution if the crime he committed merely affects the management of the vessel, he being a Chinese and not a Filipino citizen. B. Yes, while the vessel is merely in transit when the offense happened, the offense constitutes breach of public order because it produces pernicious effects within our country. C. No, he is not criminally liable because the act committed merely affects the management of the vessel, an exception to the exercise of jurisdiction both in the English and French Rules. D. No, since the vessel is merely in transit and that no Filipino citizens are affected by the prohibited conduct, the offense is not triable in the Philippines. 68. G, a security guard in the warehouse of the National Food Authority, was making his rounds when he chanced upon L, an employee who is in the process of bringing out a sack of rice through the back gate. He told L to stop but L suddenly threw the sack to him and ran away. Fearing that L would get away, he shot him. Luckily L only sustained a serious injury in his right shoulder. Prosecuted for Serious Physical Injuries, can G interpose defense of property? A. Yes, because there was an unlawful aggression against the property right of the government agency where he is a security guard and the means he employed was reasonable to prevent the accused from furthering the aggression. B. Yes, because aside from violation of the right to property, the victim also assaulted him when a sack of rice was thrown unto him. C. No, because technically his proprietary right was not violated since the sack of rice does not belong to him.
15

D. No, because the means he employed was not reasonable to repel a violation of the property right which had ceased already because the victim had run away. 69. Consuelo showed Julia two Transfer Certificates of Title over two lots in the name of Leonora. Consuela told Julia that Leonora was badly in need of money and was willing to mortgage the two lots for the amount of P300,000.00. Julia was persuaded to loan P300,000.00 in exchange for the mortgage. Consuelo received the P300,000.00 after handing to her two Deeds of Real Estate Mortgage over the parcels of lands purportedly signed by Leonora. Four months after, Julia met Leonora in a family gathering. Julia discovered that Leonora did not sign any deed of mortgage nor loan any money from her. She looked for Consuelo but the latter could not be found. Consuelo is liable for A. Two counts of the complex crime of Estafa through Falsification of Public Documents since there were two falsification of mortgage committed to obtain money from the victim. B. One count of Estafa through Falsification of Public Document since the series of acts committed by the accused in falsifying the deeds of mortgage was set in foot by the single intent or impulse of defrauding the victim of a total amount of P300,000.00 C. Two separate counts of Falsification of Public Documents since the falsifications were separately committed already when the money was loaned to the accused. D. Two separate crimes of Falsification of Public Document and Estafa since estafa could be prosecuted separately from the falsification case. 70. Patrolman Dan was awakened by Forrest. Forrest told him that a dead man was discovered in hanging in a tree in Barangay Tinaguan. When Patrolman Dan went there he discovered that the dead man was hanging in a bamboo pole which was suspended in between two nearby trees. The arms of the victim were tied together behind his back and his mouth was stuffed with rags. He suffered several cuts in his necks and stabbed wounds in his back and stomach. Traces that he was bleed to death in the site are everywhere. Later, a witness claimed that he saw Johnny and Peter coming out of the place holding bloodied knives and wearing blood stained shirts. In deciding the case filed against Johnny and Peter for the death of the victim, can the judge ruled that treachery attended the killing? A. Yes, because it was clear that the two accused abused their superior strength in taking turns to stab the victim. B. Yes, because while there was no direct evidence establishing treachery, it can be presumed in this case that the victim was not in any position to defend himself when he was killed. C. No, because treachery needs to be established by proof beyond reasonable doubt in accordance with existing jurisprudence. D. No, because there are no exceptions to the rule that aggravating circumstances, especially treachery, must be proved beyond reasonable doubt before they can be appreciated.

16

71. Patrolman Dan was searching for an escaped convict named Popey. He found him in Georges house. When he saw Dan, he threw a pointed piece of bamboo to the policeman and ran away with another pointed bamboo in his hand. Dan run after Popey. Fearing that he was already getting a big distance from him, the policeman shot him with his cal. 38 revolver. The fugitive was hit in his head. Is Patrolman Dan criminally liable for his death? A. Yes, the means he employed in performing his duty was excessive and unjustified since the fleeing convict no longer posed any danger to his life. B. Yes, the force he exerted was not reasonably necessary to the performance of his duty. C. No, the aggression he made against the fleeing convict is reasonable and necessary under the circumstances. D. No, he acted in self-defense as the fleeing convict still has a means to assault him anytime he would choose to do so. 72. Henry was drinking in a nightclub when Benjie approached him and invited him outside. Once outside, Henry was grabbed by Fernan from behind and suddenly thrown inside the car where Perry was waiting. Then, the car sped off. They tied up Henry. They brought Henry to Baliug, Bulacan. After six hours, Benjie killed Henry in the presence of the two other accused. Henry, Fernan and Perry are criminally liable for A. Complex crime of Murder through Kidnapping because they kidnapped the victim as a necessary means to the commission of murder. B. Murder only since the kidnapping of the victim was only incidental to the main objective of killing him. C. Separate crimes of kidnapping and murder since the kidnapping was already consummated the moment he has taken forcibly and detained for some hours before he was killed. D. Special complex crime of Kidnapping with Murder since murder was committed after the victim was kidnapped by the accused. 73. Roberto grabbed Umbertos arms behind him. Suddenly, Felixberto stabbed Umberto in the chest. Roberto is criminally liable for the death of Umberto as A. Principal by direct participation as his acts and that of the other accused are so closed together showing unity of criminal design. B. Principal by indispensable cooperation as he cooperated in the killing by another act, without which, it would not have been committed. C. Accomplice as he performed another act not indispensable to the commission of the crime by the principal. D. Accomplice as there was no evidence of conspiracy and that his acts were not indispensable to the commission of the crime. 74. Isko stabbed Lito who nearly died were it not for timely medical attendance. Isko eluded arrest and went to the office of Mayor Benny, his uncle. Mayor Benny told him to cool down for a while. He gave him P50,000.00 and directed him to go to the Visayas while he is trying to settle the case. Isko hid in Cebu until he was arrested two months after the incident. Is Mayor Benny criminally liable as an accessory for helping Isko hid in Cebu?
17

A. Yes, because he harbored, concealed, and assisted him to escape. B. Yes, because he assisted in the escape of the accused who is guilty of an attempt to take the life of another person. C. No, because the act of a public official in giving money to the principal is not per se punishable even if the money given was used by the accused in hiding from the authorities. D. No, because as an ascendant he is immune from criminal liability for any act committed to help a relative escape from the authorities. 75. Dodgie killed Taggie, his illegimate father. He was pursued by the authorities, but Luchico, his adopted brother, concealed him from the policemen. Later, Dodgie gave P50,000.00 to Luchico because of what he did for him. Is Luchico criminally liable for parricide as an accessory? A. Yes, because although he is the brother- in-law of the principal, his immunity was lifted when he received P50,000.00 from the latter. B. Yes, because he harboured and concealed a principal in the crime of parricide. C. No, because as an adoptive brother, he is exempt from criminal liability for an act of accessory in the crime of parricide. D. No, because he did not abuse any public position in harbouring and concealing the accused. 76. Absolutory cause is any cause A. which in its natural and continuous sequence, unbroken by any efficient intervening cause, produces the injury, and without which, the result would not have occurred. B. founded on public policy, which grants exemption from liability for the crime committed by the cause. C. which resulted to the injury as its direct, natural and logical consequence. D. based on Positivist perspective, which attendant to the commission of the crime, tends to mitigate or aggravate the liability of the accused depending on its nature.

77. Homer saw his father, David, fighting with Jose. He came forward to help David. However, Teban blocked his way and told him, Opps, san ka pupunta? Because he was prevented by Teban, he was not able to prevent the stabbing of his father. Jose and Teban left the place together after the former killed David. Is Teban criminally liable for the death of the victim? A. Yes, as a principal since it was evident that there was conspiracy between him and Jose as disclosed by his standing guard while the crime was taking place and confirmed when he and Jose left the crime scene together. B. Yes, as an accomplice as he had committed another act, not indispensable, but provided moral support to the commission of the crime. C. No, since he did not perform any act which directly tended to the crime committed by Jose. D. No, since there was no indication that he had conspired with Jose for the commission of the crime and that he performed no act which provided material or moral support to the latter.
18

78. Adolfo committed a crime to which the law imposed reclusion perpetua as penalty. He pleaded guilty during arraignment. The penalty that should be meted to him after considering the circumstances attendant to the commission of the crime shall be A. reclusion temporal minimum to reclusion perpetua. B. reclusion temporal, in any of its range, to reclusion Perpetua. C. reclusion perpetua. D. reclusion perpetua minimum. 79. Isabela told Romano that he would have sex with him if he would kill Estelita. Romano killed Estelita. Thereafter, he was caught by the pursuing policemen while having sex with Isabela. Is Isabela criminally liable for the death of Estelita? A. Yes, as a principal by inducement since her sexual inducement was the determining cause why Romano killed the victim. B. Yes, as an accomplice since it is not clear whether there was conspiracy between her and Roman and that the promise she gave him partook of a mere moral assistance rather than material inducement. C. No, since the inducement contemplated under the law refers to material or financial inducement or promise. D. No, since it was not shown whether the inducement was made directly with the intention of procuring the commission of the crime. 80. Andy sold Reno, his brother in law, a car for P500,000.00. Anton sued Andy for swindling because he disposed of his car without paying Anton in full their agreed selling price. Later, Anton came to know that the car was sold by Andy to Reno. Can Andy hold Reno criminally liable for dealing with or buying his car? A. Yes, for accessory because Reno helps the offender profits by the effects of the crime. B. Yes, for violation of the Anti-Fencing Law because Reno dealt with or bought personal property which is a product of an offense or a crime. C. No, for Renos acts does not fall under the provision punishing accessories and the Anti-Fencing Law. D. No, for there was no proof that Reno knew that the car he bought is a product of an offense or a crime . 81. Janet was seated in a bench when Dalmatio sat beside her and grabbed her breasts. She immediately pulled a revolver from her bag and shot Dalmatio in his head. During trial, she interposed self-defense but because the means she employed to repel the unlawful aggression on her honor was not reasonable, and despite her lack of provocation, she was found guilty by the trial court. Taking into consideration that homicide is punishable with reclusion temporal, and that the majority of the elements of self-defense are present, the penalty impossible to her shall be A. prision correccional, in any of its range, to prision mayor in its minimum period. B. prision correcional, in any of its range, to prision mayor in its medium period. C. arresto mayor, in any of its range, to prision correccional in its minimum period.
19

D. arresto mayor, in any of its range, to prision correctional in its medium period. 82. Borling stabbed Moslu from behind. Furtunately, the dagger landed in the back of the chair where Borling was seated. Moslu is criminally liable for A. Frustrated Murder because the crime was not consummated due to a cause independent of his will. B. Attempted Murder because an accident prevented the offender from performing all acts of execution. C. Impossible crime because a factual impossibility prevented the commission of the crime intended. D. Grave threats because it is the only crime consummated given the facts of the case. 83. Lujan pawned five golden watches. Ester, knowing what Lujan did, stole Lujans pawn tickets and presented them to the pawnshop for the redemption of the watches. After paying the necessary costs in the pawnshop, Ester ran away with the golden watches. Ester is criminally liable for A. Separate crimes of Theft, for stealing the pawn tickets, and Estafa for fraudulently using the tickets to take the watches away. B. Complex crime of Estafa through Theft since theft was committed to perpetuate the crime of estafa. C. Theft only since the pawn tickets stolen merely represents ownership of the watches which he was intending to take away with intent to gain. D. Estafa only since the stealing of the pawn tickets is only its integral part. 84. Dario shot Mario in his stomach with the gun handed by Donato after an altercation. Mario survived. He filed a criminal case against Dario and Donato. Dario pleaded guilty but Donato fought the charge claiming that he did not provide any assistance to Dario. Dario turned out to be seventeen year old only when he committed the crime. Thus the prosecutor had presented evidence showing that he knew the moral consequences of his act when he gave the gun to Dario to kill Mario. If Donato is convicted, he may be penalized with A. arresto mayor, in any of its range, to prision correccional in its minimum period. B. arresto menor, in any of its range, to arresto mayor in its medium period. C. arresto menor, in any of its range, to arresto mayor in its minimum period. D. arresto mayor in its medium period. 85. Aris entered the department store and secreted two Tide bars inside his jacket. On his way out, he was accosted by the security guard. The two Tide bars were confiscated from him. Aris is criminally liable for A. attempted felony because he failed all the acts of execution which should produce theft as a felony because of the timely action of the security guard. B. frustrated felony because while he was able to perform all acts of execution which would consummate theft, the timely discovery by the security guard of this acts, prevented its consummation.

20

C. consummated felony because theft is consummated the moment he took hold of the same with intent to gain. D. impossible crime because extraneous circumstances beyond the control of the accused prevented the consummation of the crime. 86. Patrolman Dan was awakened by Forrest. Forrest told him that a dead man was discovered in hanging in a tree in Barangay Tinaguan. When Patrolman Dan went there he saw that the dead man was hanging in a bamboo pole which was suspended in between two nearby trees. The arms of the victim were tied together behind his back and his mouth was stuffed with rags. He suffered several cuts in his necks and stabbed wounds in his back and stomach. Traces that he was bleed to death in the site are everywhere. His fingers were cut and his penis was sliced into two pieces. Later, a witness claimed that he saw Johnny and Peter coming out of the place holding bloodied knives and wearing blood stained shirts. In deciding the case filed against Johnny and Peter for the death of the victim, can the judge ruled that the crime was attended by the aggravating circumstance of cruelty? A. Yes, the number of the wounds found in the body of the victim showed that the accused deliberately augmented the suffering of the victim. B. Yes, the nature of the wounds inflicted by the accused showed that they were calculated to add obliquy to the physical suffering of the victim. C. No, the nature and number of the wounds found in the body alone would not show that they were inflicted to increase the sufferings of the victim before he died. D. No, in order that cruelty may be appreciated it must be shown that after the victim was killed the accused committed further acts aimed at scoffing at his corpse. 87. Aleda, a cashier in a government office, used the money which she has collected pursuant to her duties to buy a new car. A year after, the Chief of Office discovered what she did and berated her for such gross abuse of confidence. Not content with this, he filed a criminal case for malversation of public funds against her. Is the crime aggravated by any aggravating circumstances? A. Yes, the crime was attended by abuse of public position and abuse of confidence because by converting the public funds to personal use, she had violated the trust reposed upon her. B. Yes, the crime was aggravated by abuse of public position only since abuse of confidence was considered absorbed by this aggravating circumstance. C. No, because she did not abuse her position to misappropriate the moneys entrusted to her as the said aggravating circumstance is available only when the public position became instrumental in the commission of the crime. D. No, because abuse of public confidence or abuse of public position is inherent in the crime of malversation of public funds. 88. The following circumstances do not affect the imposition of the penalty of reclusion perpetua EXCEPT the A. Indeterminate Sentence Law. B. ordinary mitigating circumstances.
21

C. privileged mitigating circumstances. D. generic circumstances. 89. Dennis was convicted with an offense and was sentenced to twenty days to six years imprisonment. He appealed believing that the penalty imposed was erroneous. The appeal was later on dismissed and the penalty was affirmed. Instead of appealing the new decision, he filed an application for probation. Assuming that his only previous conviction was for an offense punished with ten days imprisonment, can the court approve his application for probation? A. Yes, since the penalty affirmed by the appellate court is also imprisonment for less than six years, he is deemed to acquire his right to apply for probation. B. Yes, since his previous conviction was for less than thirty days and his new conviction was for less than six years. C. No, because he lost his chance to apply for probation when he appealed his conviction. D. No, because he had been convicted before for an offense punished with imprisonment. 90. Rowan shouted at Atkins upon seeing him walking towards the plaza. Atkins approached him and pushed him down the bench. Enraged, Rowan stood up and punched Atkins in the nose. Atkins nose was broken. He was confined in the hospital for two weeks. Rowan was charged with Serious Physical Injuries. Rowan cannot interpose self-defense because A. there was no unlawful aggression as the act done by Atkins was more of a practical joke than an assault against his limbs. B. while there was unlawful aggression on the part of Atkinson, the means he employed to prevent the assault against him was not reasonable. C. he gave sufficient provocation that prompted Atkins to assault him. D. the unlawful aggression which Atkins started had ceased when he attacked him. 91. Error in personae shall be punishable by the penalty for the A. crime intended or that actually committed whichever is lower to be imposed in the maximum period. B. crime intended or that actually committed whichever is graver to be imposed in the maximum period C. graver crime to be imposed in the maximum period. D. lighter crime to be imposed in the maximum period. 92. The following circumstances shall interrupt the running of the prescription of penalties EXCEPT if the accused should A. commit another crime before the expiration of the period of prescription. B. surrender to the authorities. C. file an application for pardon. D. go abroad to where the government cannot ask for his extradition.

22

93. Anario was driving along Osmenia highway when his vehicle bumped a tricycle. The tricycle was totally wrecked, two of its passengers suffer slight physical injuries, its driver and a back rider died, and a pedestrian nearly died because of the incident. Anario is criminally liable for A. complex crime of reckless imprudence resulting to multiple homicide, serious physical injuries and damage to property and a separate crimes of slight physical injuries. B. complex crime of reckless imprudence resulting to double homicide, serious physical injuries and damage to property and a separate crimes of slight physical injuries. C. complex crime of reckless imprudence resulting to multiple homicide and serious physical injuries, separate crimes of reckless imprudence resulting to damage to property, and to slight physical injuries. D. one count of reckless imprudence with multiple homicide, serious physical injuries, damage to property and slight physical injuries.

94. T, a policeman tried to arrest S for theft. S fought back and boxed T in his abdomen. Then, he ran away but T was able to overtake and grab him by the waist. S is criminally liable for A. Direct assault against an agent of person in authority. B. Direct assault with less serious physical injuries. C. Resistance to an agent of person in authority. D. Resistance with less serious physical injuries. 95. J challenged M to a fight after the latter denied his request for transfer to the municipal purchasing department. M accepted the challenged and told J to meet him after office hours in the plaza. Come 5:00 oclock in the afternoon, J mauled M in a hand to hand combat which almost cost the latters life. J committed the crime of A. Direct assault. B. Duel. C. Serious physical injuries. D. Attempted homicide. 96. Both arbitrary detention and illegal detention would involve unlawful deprivation of liberty. They differ in the A. manner by which deprivation of liberty was done. B. nature of the act punished. C. length of detention. D. character of the offender.

23

97. Delivering prisoners from jail is qualified by A. Violence. B. Minority. C. Fraud. D. Deception. 100.Rebellion is distinguished from any other crimes involving crowd action under the Revised Penal Code by the A. membership of its perpetrators in an armed dissident group. B. nature as a crime of multitudes. C. political motive of its perpetrators. D. scope of violence resorted to accomplish a political objective. 101.Quasi-recidivism is present when before and while serving sentence, an accused committed A. an offense. B. a felony. C. the same offense. D. the same felony. 102.Motive is not essential in proving direct assault when it is committed A. during rebellion. B. during sedition. C. while the victim is performing his duty. D. by reason of performance of past duty. 103.A person who proposed to commit a felony to another is not criminally liable if the subject thereof is A. Rebellion. B. Coup detat. C. Sedition. D. Treason. 104.Which of the following distinguished rebellion from sedition? A. Public uprising. B. Character of the offender. C. Purpose. D. Presence of force or intimidation. 105.Violation of domicile is distinguished from trespass to dwelling by the A. situs of the act. B. nature of the act. C. character of the perpetrator. D. purpose of the perpetrator. 106. Conspiracy to commit rebellion is distinguished from inciting to rebellion by the
24

A. B. C. D.

character of the perpetrator. objectives of the perpetrator. publicity or secrecy of the act. presence or absence of public uprising.

107.Resistance and disobedience is distinguished from direct assault against an agent of person in authority by the A. character of the perpetrator. B. purpose of the perpetrator. C. seriousness of the assault. D. seriousness of the criminal intention. 108.A attended the meeting in a secluded place in Marikina. When given a chance, he stood in the platform and told the other five persons attending the meeting to rise up against the oil companies and to set on fire the oil depots in Manila. A and the persons who attended the meeting are liable for A. Illegal assembly. B. Illegal association. C. Inciting to sedition for A and Illegal assembly for the others. D. Inciting to sedition. 109.J was walking when he met K, L, and M, who were having a drinking spree in a sari-sari store. M invited J for another drink but the latter refused. K seconded the invitation but J was not moved. Then, K suddenly struck J with a cane from behind. M boxed him in the face, and when he was already sprawled in the ground, L boxed him in the stomach. Not content with what they did, K and M took turns in kicking him while L was watching. J died because of the injuries he sustained. K, L, and M are criminally liable for A. Slight physical injuries insofar as L is concerned while K and M are liable for Murder. B. Murder as they conspired to kill J. C. Slight physical injuries insofar as L is concerned and homicide for K and M. D. Homicide as they there was implied conspiracy among them. 110.H, a movie actor, was slapped twice by I, a fanatic. H was hit so hard that both of his eyes were blackened. It took him five days before he was able to fully work as a TV host. I is criminally liable for A. Serious physical injuries because his good looks are vital to him. B. Serious physical injuries because he suffered deformity. C. Slight physical injuries only. D. Maltreatment only. 111.One who had agreed with the others to commit rebellion can be arrested for such agreement to commit rebellion A. during the commission of rebellion. B. when the overt act for rebellion was carried out. C. after the rebellion was carried out.
25

D. only when the rebellion was not carried out. 112.When is a consummated rape committed? A. slight touching of external genitalia by the penis. B. mere touching of external genitalia during attempts at penile penetration. C. slight touching of the vagina by the penis. D. mere touching of vagina during the struggle between the victim and the accused. 113. B, who killed A during a tumultuous affray, should be penalized with A. reclusion temporal for homicide. B. prision mayor as with the other who inflicted serious physical injuries on A. C. prision mayor as with the other who inflicted violence on A. D. reclusion perpetua for death in tumultuous affray. 114. Direct assault maybe committed by any person against an offended party who is A. either a person or agent of person in authority or a private individual. B. either a person in authority or an agent of person in authority. C. a person in authority. D. an agent of person in authority. 115.To prevent J, a judge, from going to his court and perform his job, X, Y, Z, and U blew up the front tire of Js car. They were caught by P, a police officer, after attending to J who had suffered contusion when his car hit a post. X, Y, Z, and U are criminally liable for A. Direct assault. B. Sedition. C. Direct assault with slight physical injuries. D. Sedition with slight physical injuries. 116.Is a convicted prisoner who left his prison cell during an earthquake criminally liable for evasion of service of sentence? A. Yes, because his escape during an earthquake cannot be justified. B. Yes, because he was bound to stay in his cell despite the earthquake. C. No, because there was no evasion of sentence yet. D. No, because his action was dictated by necessity. 117.F struck G with a stick at his nape after seeing him walking ahead of the group. G fell down and hit his head in the pavement. G was unconscious for a week; then, he died after contracting pneumonia in the ICU. F committed the crime of A. murder because the attack was unexpected. B. homicide because the accused had no intention to kill. C. serious physical injuries because death ensued from an intervening cause. D. homicide because death was the logical results of the assault. 118. C attacked D, the mayor, after seeing him coming down from the municipal building. E, a casual employee of the general services department of the municipality, saw what
26

happened and blocked C from further hitting D with an umbrella. C shouted at E telling him not to meddle but E did not move away. C hit him with the umbrella in the head. The arrival of the police prevented C from inflicting more injuries to D and E. C is criminally liable for A. Direct assault and indirect assault. B. Two counts of direct assault because by coming to the aid of the mayor, C became an agent of person in authority. C. Two counts of serious physical injuries. D. Attempted homicide for the attack against the mayor and serious physical injuries for the injury inflicted on C. 119.Believing that the government reneged in its obligation under a peace treaty by conducting a new election in the place covered by the agreement, Nur told his followers to attack the municipality of Pili. During the attack, they seized election paraphernalia from the office of the COMELEC and declared that no election would ever take place in their territory. Also, they lowered the Philippine flag and hoisted the banner of the dissident organization. Nur and his followers are liable for A. Rebellion with violations of the Omnibus Election Code. B. Sedition with violations of the Omnibus Election Code. C. Sedition. D. Rebellion. 120.The contract of lease between the lessor and the lessee provides that in case the latter defaulted by three rentals, the lessor would have the right to rescind the contract without a need of judicial action or intervention. The lessee defaulted to pay rentals for four months. The lessor opted to exercise the option for rescission by posting his security guards to the premises and threatening that the lessee and his employees could not enter it except by violence. Is the lessor criminally liable for grave coercion? A. No, because what he did is in accordance with written agreement. B. No, because the lessee waived any right at judicial action by a written agreement. C. Yes, because he has taken the law into his hands by evicting the lessee without filing an ejectment suit against him. D. Yes, because there was threats that violence would erupt should the lessee try to regain it. 121.After a short altercation, B suddenly pulled his pocket knife and stabbed C who was absolutely without any means to defend himself at that time. The crime committed by B is A. Murder because the victim was defenseless. B. Murder because he consciously adopted the means of attack. C. Homicide because the victim was presumed on guard when he was attacked. D. Homicide because accused did not intend the means of attack. 122.X and Y entered the house of J one evening. After waking J at gunpoint, they brought her to the bathroom where she was raped by X while Y was watching. Then, X told Y to

27

look in the bedroom for something handy. When the morning came, J found out that five pieces of valuable jewelry were missing in her safe. X and Y are criminally liable for A. Separate crimes of Rape and Theft. B. Separate crime of Rape and Robbery. C. Complex crime of Robbery with Rape. D. Special complex crime of Robbery with Rape. 123.Accused and his two companions rented a Tamarraw FX to go to Bicol. The owner instructed his driver to drive them to Bicol. Four days after, the driver went missing. Accused was later on arrested and confessed that they left the driver dead in Tarlac. He was charged with Carnapping with Homicide. He alleged that he could only be convicted with Homicide and not with Carnapping because his possession of the Tamarraw FX was lawful. Is he correct? A. Yes, since he rented the vehicle. B. Yes, since the driver of the vehicle was with him when he commandeered it to Bicol. C. No, because possession was unlawful in the very beginning since his intention to take it way existed during the negotiation with the owner. D. No, because his lawful possession was transformed into an unlawful one when he killed the driver of the vehicle. 124. A, posing himself as a traffic enforcer, hailed Fs car, and boarded the same. F gave him P50.00 to settle whatever traffic violation she had committed. Suddenly, G boarded also the car and told her that they need to take the car. G drove the car for three hours and when they were out of Metro Manila, he told F to get out of the car. Once outside the car, G shot her with a 38 cal. Thereafter, A, believing her to be dead, snatched her necklace. F survived. A and G are criminally liable for A. Robbery for the necklace taken from her and Carnapping with Frustrated Homicide for taking away the vehicle and shooting her. B. Serious Illegal detention with Frustrated Murder because she was detained for three hours and shot by the accused and Carnapping for taking away the car and Theft for the necklace. C. Carnapping with Frustrated Murder and Robbery for the taking of the necklace. D. Serious Illegal detention with Frustrated Murder because she was detained for three hours and shot by the accused and Carnapping for taking away the car and Robbery for the necklace. 125.The four accused went to the house of Temyong, a rich old man. Flavio saw them entering the house and sensing that something was wrong, he called on to his three friends, Tito, Vic and Joey. They went to the house but was fired upon before they could enter the gate. They fired back and two hours after, the accused escaped through the backdoor. Flavio was killed during the incident but the old man was left unscatched. The accused took with them a LCD television. The four accused are criminally liable for A. Robbery in Band with Homicide. B. Robbery with Homicide.

28

C. Robbery in Band and a separate crime of Homicide because the deceased was not the victim of the robbery. D. Robbery and a separate crime of Homicide because the deceased was not the victim of the robbery. 126.M, a credit and collection assistant of E, was tasked to collect payments from buyers of real estate properties. She received amortization pay from an instalment buyer in the amount of P22,470.66 but remitted only P4,000.00. M is criminally liable for A. Theft, he having only a material possession of the money. B. Estafa, he having both material and juridical possessions over the money collected. C. Qualified theft, he having abused the confidence of E by misappropriating the money which actually belonged to the latter. D. Estafa through abuse of confidence, he having abused the confidence of E when he misappropriated the money belonging to the latter. 127.The accused who embraced, dragged and kissed the victim in front of her friend committed the crime of A. Acts of lasciviousness. B. Unjust vexation. C. Slander by deed. D. Maltreatment. 128.Accused brought the victim to the side of the street and forcibly removed her pants and underwear. He then forcibly inserted his finger into her vagina. The victim tried to shout for help but he covered her mouth. Accused was on top of her and about to insert his penis into her vagina but she was able to kick him and run away. Accused committed the crime of A. Acts of lasciviousness. B. Unjust vexation. C. Attempted rape. D. Consummated rape. 129.The municipal mayor arrested a balut vendor over an argument as to the price of a broken egg and transmitted his custody to the police station for proper legal processes. Is the mayor criminally liable for any crime? A. Yes, for unlawful arrest under Art. 269 as there was no legal ground for the arrest. B. Yes, for arbitrary detention under Art. 124 as there was no legal ground for the arrest. C. No, for he has authority to arrest anyone for overpricing of commodities. D. No, for the vendor committed a crime in his presence. 130.One who took possession over parcel of land belonging to another by means of violence or intimidation is criminally liable for A. Grave coercion.
29

B. Occupation of real property or usurpation of real rights. C. Grave threats. D. Other light coercion. 131.A defrauded his mother-in-law by asking her money for the payment of real property tax and spending the said money for personal use after receiving them. He was criminally charged for estafa through abuse of confidence. He interposed exemption under Art. 332 of the Revised Penal Code contending that since he is the son in law of the offended party, he incurred no criminal but only civil liability to the alleged wrongful act. The prosecution countered that he could not claim exemption since the death of his wife took him out of the exemption under the said provision of law. The prosecutor is A. correct since As relationship by affinity with the victim was dissolved when death dissolved the marriage. B. correct since Art. 332 does not cover a situation where the son in law committed estafa against a parent-in-law. C. wrong because the exemption extended to relative by affinity under Art. 332 survived the death of the spouse which created the filiation between the accused and the parents-in law. D. wrong because Art. 332 does not apply to the situation obtaining in the case since the crime committed was a complex crime. 132. E, a high ranking government official, opened a bank account to deposit a large sum of money. In the presence of L, M and J, E signed the name of V in several documents related to the said bank account. Later, E was charged for illegal use of an alias under C.A. 141. Is E criminally liable? A. Yes, for there was already publication of the use of an alias when he signed it in the presence of three other persons. B. Yes, for he used an alias to cover-up a crime committed in relation to office. C. No, because he did not habitually and publicly use his alias. D. No, because the opening up of an account was not done to conceal the commission of a crime. 133.G mauled N. A few hours later, M, Ns spouse, went to the barangay hall to report the incident. On her way to the barangay hall, G confronted her and pointed a gun to her head saying, Saan ka pupunta, gusto mo ito? G is criminally liable for grave threats because the threat A. was subject to a condition. B. amounts to a crime and not subject to a condition. C. does not amount to a crime but subject to a condition. D. does not amount to a crime and not subject to a condition. 134.N was riding in a tricycle when C blocked her way. When the tricycle stopped, C cussed N saying, Sinabihan na kita na huwag kang magpapakita sa akin. Walanghiya ka, kapal ng mukha mo, papatayi kita. He thereafter grabbed Ns necklace with a crucifix, kicked the tricycle and left saying, Kayo mga nurses lang, anong ipinagmamalaki ninyo. Kami,

30

marami kaming abogado. Hindi ninyo kami maipapakulong kahit kalian! N was criminally liable for the crime of A. Robbery because he had taken away Ns necklace with violence and intimidation. B. Robbery because there was force upon thing. C. Grave coercion because there was nothing which indicates that he had taken away the necklace with intent to gain. D. Grave threats because N was threatened with death. 135. D issued a post dated check for P200,000.00 in favour E. E presented the check for payment when it becomes due. The bank dishonoured the check on the ground that it was drawn against uncollected deposits. Is D criminally liable for violation of Section 1 of the B.P. Blg. 22? A. Yes, because what the law punishes is the violation of the public faith put on the commercial paper such as checks. B. Yes, because the check was dishonoured for reason akin to being drawn against insufficient fund. C. No, because to be liable under Section 1 of BP Blng. 22, the check must be issued to apply for an account or for value which is not the case here. D. No, because BP Blng. 22 speaks only of insufficiency of funds and not of uncollected deposits. 136.D issued a blank check to E. E completed the check by writing P150,000.00 in the face of the check. When E presented it to the bank for payment, it was dishonoured for being drawn against insufficient funds. Is D criminally liable for violation of Section 1 of B.P. Blng. 22? A. Yes, because what B.P. Blg. 22 punishes is the issuance of a bouncing check and not the purpose for which it was issued. B. Yes, because the drawer could not claim the lack of knowledge that the payee would be writing an unconscionable amount as a defense for violation of the law. C. No, because D would not be liable for the forgery which E committed. D. No, because D would not be liable for the failure to maintain sufficient fund to cover up the amount which was written. 137.In cases involving prohibited drugs, the evidence required to establish the identity of the prohibited drug is A. clear and convincing. B. preponderance in character. C. beyond reasonable doubt. D. substantial. 138.T wrote in his column that X collected a large sum of money from Y a contractor for a project which the latter had undertaken with the municipality with the help of Y, a close associate of the Mayor. X filed a case for libel against T. May he interpose the truth of his imputation as a defense in the libel case against him? A. Yes, because it concerns a commission of the crime committed by X. B. Yes, because it concerns a public officials reputation and conduct.
31

C. No, because even if X had actually collected a large sum of money would not amount to a crime, the latter not being a public official. D. No, because it has nothing to do with any social and moral duties. 139.Q was charged of malicious mischief. During a court hearing, the prosecutor borrowed the court record and asked the witness to identify the exhibits, including the picture of the destroyed property. When he had his chance, Q surreptitiously took the picture and tore it to pieces. Q committed the crime of A. Malicious mischief. B. Qualified theft. C. Estafa through fraudulent means. D. Removal and destruction of public documents. 140.Robbery in uninhabited place or in a private building may be committed by any of the following means EXCEPT by A. effecting the entrance through any opening not intended for the purpose. B. breaking any door, wardrobe, chest or any sealed or closed furniture. C. using any fictitious name or pretending the exercise of public authority. D. taking away sealed receptacle. 141. A person who injured another and abandoned the latter would not be liable for the said abandonment if the injuries were inflicted A. negligently. B. deliberately. C. consciously. D. Imprudently. 142.Persons who are present during a meeting are criminally liable for illegal assembly if they A. attended the assembly with the organizers. B. joined the illegal organization as members thereof. C. were incited to attack the mayor of the municipality. D. concurred with the evil intent of the leaders of the assembly. 143. X, Y, Z, and W, all armed with short firearms, boarded BLTBCO bus and announced a hold-up. After collecting the passengers valuables, they directed the driver to stop the bus. On their way out, an old woman suddenly boarded the bus, and thereby, blocked their way. X pushed the old woman. Thereafter, they hurriedly left the bus and escaped. The old woman died of heart attack because of the trauma she suffered from the injuries she got when she fell in the pavement. X, Y, Z, and W were criminally liable for A. Robbery with Homicide B. Robbery in Band and with Homicide C. Robbery with Homicide in Band. D. Robbery in Band and a separate crime of homicide.

32

144.J entered a restaurant. He ordered two fried chickens. After eating the first, he stood up and took away the other one. J is criminally liable for A. Complex crimes of estafa and theft. B. Separate crimes of estafa and theft. C. Estafa only. D. Theft only. 145.N was charged of malversation of public funds. Can he interpose the failure of the COA auditor to send him a demand to account for the missing funds as a defense? A. Yes, for without the demand the auditor could not know whether he indeed committed malversation. B. Yes, for under Article 217 demand is considered as one of the elements of the crime. C. No, for he could be convicted by direct evidence, the demand being merely necessary to create the presumption that he misappropriated the funds. D. No, for the audit made by the auditor partake of the nature of a demand and hence, demand is implicit.

33