7/29/2019 1980 bar

1/5

Question No. Ill CONSPIRACY

"F" and "G" quarreled. "F" attacked "G" with a club two or three times, but "G" was able to parrythe attack. "G" did not move backward? but struck back hitting "F" on his head with a lead pipewhich he picked up from the ground, causing "F's" death.

"G" was charged with Homicide. If you were the Judge, would you find "G"guilty as charged?

Answer

If the term "quarreled" implies an agreement to a fight, G would be guilty of the crime charged. He cannotInvoke Self-defense because if there is an agreement to fight there would be no unlawful aggression.Any attack is considered as a mere consequence of the agreement to fight.

On the other hand, if the word "quarreled" involves only a verbal altercation, G would not beguilty because F committed unlawful aggression when he attacked G three times with a club. When Gstruck back hitting F on his head with a lead pipe which he picked up on the ground, he acted in self-defense because the aggression of F was still present and the pipe was the only means available tohim in defending his person as he was acting under the instinct of self-preservation. The assumption ithat G did not give any sufficient provocation which immediately preceded the attack made by F.

Question No. IV Conspiracy

"H" made a bet of P10.00 with "I" in a game of "beto-beto". "H" won but "I" refused to pay theamount. A dispute arose between them, which culminated in a fist fight. "J", the father of "H", and"K", the brother of "H", intervened.

When the fight began. "H" held the hand of "I", "J" seized the front part of "I's" shirt, and whilethey were dealing blows on one another, "K" came with a "balisong" and stabbed "I" inflicting uponhim a mortal wound.

"H", "J", and "K" were charged with Homicide. Is it proper to hold all the accused responsible forthe fatal wound inflicted upon the victim by "K"?

AnswerIt is not proper to hold H and J liable for the fatal wound inflicted upon the victim by K because of theabsence of conspiracy. He and J are not co-principals of K in the killing of the victim. The liability of H, J

and K is not collective but individual. They have not acted concertedly for the realization of a commoncriminal objective. H and J who dealt blows on the victim without causing any physical injury could bliable for iil-treatment. (Art. 266, par. 3, R.P.C.)

Question # 6 Article 29

"L" pointed a .45. caliber revolver at "M" without good reason. There ensued a struggle betweenthe two for the weapon. "N", a female companion of "L" approached the combatants and quicklywounded "M'

1in the chest with a knife, as a consequence of which "M" died almost instantly.

Can "L" be convicted as an accomplice?

Answer

L is not liable as an accomplice. An accomplice must be aware of the criminal design of theprincipal and must perform acts, whether previous or simultaneous, showing his approval oconcurrence to said criminal design. The facts of the problem clearly show that while L .and Mwere struggling for the possession of the revolver, N, the female companion of L, approached thecombatants and wounded M in the chest with a knife which caused his death. L had no knowledge ofwhat N would do, and he did not perform any act subsequent to the stabbing to show that he approvedof what N did. (People vs. Cajandab, 52 SCRA 161).

7/29/2019 1980 bar

2/5

Question No. VI Art. 70a) Under Article 29 of the Revised Penal Code, offenders who have undergone preventive

imprisonment shall be credited in the service of their sentence consisting of depr iva ti on of liberty, withthe full time during which they have undergone preventive imprisonment. An accused was sentenced to"destierro" for having killed his wife under exceptional circumstances. He had been preventivelydetained for a period of almost twelve years. Would he be entitled to the benefits of Art. 29 in so far ashis preventive imprisonment is concerned?

b) An accused was found guilty of double murder and was meted out two sentences of reclusionperpetua.. How would the accused serve the sentences?

ANSWER:(a) Article 29 as amended by R.A. No. 6127 provides that an offender who has undergone

preventive imprisonment shall be credited in the service of his sentence consist ing of deprivationof liberty, with the ful l time of the period of his preventive imprisonment if he has agreed inwriting to observe the rules of discipline applied to convicted prisoners and four-fifth if there isno written commitment. The penalty of destierro involves also deprivation of liberty (People vs.Abilong, 82 Phil. 172).

The problem does not show whether there is a written commitment. So, the deduction ofthe fu l l period of preventive imprisonment cannot technically be applied. However, the period of

preventive imprisonment is almost 12 years. Hence, even if four-fifth thereof of 12 years isapplied, the result wil l be more than 8 years. The duration of destierro is from 6 months 1 day to6 years. The accused therefore is entitled to be released because the period of his preventive

imprisonment exceeds the penalty of destierro imposed upon him. (b) The rule is if two or more penalties in view of t he ir nature cannot be served simultaneously,

such must be served successively in the order of severity in accordant with the scale of theseverity of penalties provided in Art. 70 K.P.C., but in no case is he to serve more than three timesthe most severe penalty, and which is not to exceed 40 years. If the penalties are the same, such is to

be considered as the most severe penalty. (Aspr'a vs. Director of Prisons, 85 Phil. 737). In theproblem, two penalties of reclusion perpetua were imposed upon the accused. In view of theirnature, these penalties cannot be served simultaneously. Reclusion perpetua has a duration of thirtyyears. Multiplied by 3 (three times the most severe penalty) The result is 90 years. The accusedshould serve however imprisonment not exceeding 40 years. (Art . 70 R.P.C.)

Question No VII mitigating circumstances

Convicted of the special complex crime of Rape with Homicide, an accused was sentenced todeath. On automatic review to the Supreme Court, his counsel pleaded the mitigatingcircumstances of plea of guilty and voluntary surrender which were not offset by any aggravatingcircumstance and prayed that the penalty be reduced to reclusion perpetua. The existence of saidmodifying circumstances was, in fact, established.

Is the contention legally tenable?

Answer:

The intention is not legally tenable. Death is a single and indivisible penalty. Under Articl63 of the Revised Penal Code, it could be applied regardless of any mitigating or aggravating

circumstances which attended the commission of the crime. (People vs. Amit , 32 SCRA 95). The

mitigating circumstances of plea of guilty and voluntary surrender cannot have the affect of reducing

the death penalty to reclusion perpetua.

Question No. VII I Art. 39

P" was sentenced from six (6) years and one (1 ) day to twelve (1 2) years and one (1) day, andordered to pay a fine of P2,000.00.

May "P" be compelled to serve subsidiary imprisonment in case of f ai lure to pay the fine?

Answer

P cannot be compelled to serve subsidiary imprisonment. Art. 39 par. 3 (R.P.C.) providesthat there is no subsidiary imprisonment if the principal penalty is higher than prision

7/29/2019 1980 bar

3/5

correctional. The penalty of 6 years 1 day to 12 years and 1 day is higher than prision correctionalwhich has a maximum of 6 years only. The mere addition of 1 day to 6 years is already higher than

prision correctional and in such a case there can be no subsidiary imprisonment for f ai lure to pay thefine. (Rosario vs.Director of Prisons, L-03463, March 6, 1950)

QuestionNo. IX complex crime Art. 48

"Q", a postmaster, stole a treasury warrant payable to "R" valued at P30.00, increased theamount to P230.00 by adding the figure "2" before "3", and forged "R's" name as well as that of"S", making it appear that "R" had endorsed the warrant to "S" and then later cashed it. "Q"

thereafter misappropriates the amount represented by the altered warrant.Of what complex crime would you hold "Q" liable?

Which crime would control the penalty to be imposed on him, assuming that he is foundguil ty?

Answer

The facts of the problem are similar to those in the case of People vs. Silvallana, 61 Phil. 636although in this case the postmaster Q was the one who stole the treasury warrant payable to R andwho raised the amount stated therein from P30.00 to P230.00 and forged R's name as well as thatof K making it appear that R had endorsed the warrant to S. In the problem, the fact is stated thatthe postmaster cashed the forged treasury" warrant and misappropriated, the amount representedin the altered warrant.

Falsification of a public document (treasury warrant) is committed because of the alteration ofthe amount appearing in the treasury' warrant, a genuine document and by causing it to appear that"R", the payee, endorsed the document to "S" and "S" encashed it which is false. (A r t . 171 pars. 2and 6, R.P.C.) The falsification was committed to facilitate the misappropriation by Q of theproceeds of the treasury warrant, which are public funds. Q. therefore, committed the complexcrime of malversation th ru falsification of public document.

The more serious crime, which in this case is the falsification, will control the penalty, which is to beimposed in its maximum period. In a complex crime, the penalty is for the more serious crime, to beimposed in its maximum period. (Art. 48 R.P.C.)

Question No. X Art. 90

"T" was charged in Information with the complex crime of Reckless Imprudence resulting in Damageto Property in the sum of P700.00 and Slight Physical Injuries, both resulting from a single act ofimprudence. The incident which gave rise to the quasi-offense occurred on November 14, 1979. Theaccused was charged on March 14, 1980.

Should the resulting offenses be considered a complex crime subject to one penalty?

Answer

The resulting offenses cannot be considered as a complex crime. The slight physical injuries whichresulted from a single act of imprudence which occurred on Nov. 14, 1979, prescribed already whenthe accused was charged on March 14, 1980. A slight physical injury, being a light felony,

prescribes in two months. (Art. 90, R.P.C.). Another reason is that a complex crime exists if a singleact results in two grave or less grave felonies. If one of the resulting felonies is light, like sligh

physical inj ur ies. ASstated in the problem there can be no complex crime. (Lontok vs. Gorgonio, L-37396 April 30, 1979)

Question No. XI

Patrolman Cruz, acting under orders of the Municipal Mayor, who wanted to put a stop to thefrequent occurrence of robbery in sitio Masukal, patrolled the place. At about midnight, seeing three

persons acting suspiciously in front of an uninhabited house and entering the same, he arrested themwithout warrant and took them to themunici pa l b ui lding where they were detained in jail for about five hours before they were released

Patrolman Cruz was accused of arbitrary detention, If you were the Judge, would you convict himof the crime charged?

7/29/2019 1980 bar

4/5

Patrolman Cruz cannot be accused of arbitrary detention Since the three persons actedsuspiciously in front of an uninhabited house at midnight, and entered the same, the policeman wasju stif ied to arrest them even without a warrant, considering the circumstances of the case, mainly,since he was patrolling the place upon orders of the Mayor to put a stop to frequent occurrences ofrobberies therein. The three persons were arrested in a suspicious place at midnight and undersuspicious circumstances that they were about to commit a crime or breach of peace. Good people donot ordinarily lu rk in uninhabited places at midnight. (U.S. vs. Santos, 36 Phil. 853)

Question No. XII Child and Youth Welfare Code

Under the Child and Youth Welfare Code, what is the controlling criterion to determine whetheror not an accused is a youthful offender so as to entitled him to suspension of sentence? Is there anydifference between the Revised Penal Code and the Child and Youth Welfare Code in so far assuspension of the sentence of a juvenile offender is concerned?

Answer:Under the Youth and Child Welfare Code, the youthful offender must be under eighteen years old noonly at the time of the commission of the crime but also at the time of the trial so as to be entitled tosuspension of sentences. (People vs. Casiguran, L-45387, Nov. 7, 1979) Under the Child and YouthWelfare Code, the youthful offender who is found guilty after trial, must file an application (for thesuspension of the pronouncement of the sentence, which the Court may grant if the interest of theminor and of the public so requires. Under Article 80 of the Revised Penal Code which covers a minounder 16 years of age at the time of the commission of a grave or less grave felony and at the time of

the trial, which was expressly repealed by Presidential Decree No. 1179, the suspension of thepronouncement of the sentence upon the minor where there is evidence of guilt is automatic.

No. XIV Consummated fel

At about 11:30 A.M., "W" noticed that the nipa roof of their house was on fire. He got up to getwater with which to extinguish the fire. While putting out the fire "W" noticed "X" near the housecarrying a pole to the end of which was attached a rug soaked with gasoline "W", shouted "fire! fire"and started to put out the fire. With the help of some neighbors, "W" succeeded in putting out the fire

but only after a small portion of the roof had been burned.

Is "X" liable for frustrated or consummated arson?

Answer

X will be liable for consummated arson. The mere burning of a portion of the house, which in theproblem is the nipa roof, is consummated arson. "All the elements of the acts of execution andaccomplishment are present (People vs. Hernandez, 54 Phil. 122). It cannot be frustrated arson

because in frustrated arson the offender sets on fire gasoline soaked rags to burn a building but thefire is put out by a cause independent of the will of the offender before any portion of the building is

burned. (U.S. vs. Valdez. 39 Phil. 240) .

QuestionNo. XV Treachery

In the course of a fight, the accused assaulted the victim with a knife inflicting upon the other aserious cutOn his left arm prompting the said victim to run and flee. He was pursued by the accused.After having fled for a short distance, the victim fell on the ground, face downward, and before hecould stand, the accused delivered a fatal stub with his kn i fe on the back of the victim.

What crime did the accused commit?

Answer:

Since the accused assault ed the vic tim with a kn i fe in the course of a fight, it cannot be said

that the attack was treacherous because the victim would have been placed on his guard. (People vsGonzales, 76 Phil. 473) (People vs. Ardisa, 55 SC'RA 245), besides, from the location of the wound

of the victim, which was on his left arm, it can reasonably be inferred that she attack was frontal.

Treachery cannot be presumed but must be proved conclusively as the crime itself. So, the inceptionof the attack was not attended by treachery. When the victim after having been seriously wounded ran

and was pursued by the accused, fell on the ground, face downward, was fatally stabbed on the back

7/29/2019 1980 bar

5/5

the accused acted spontaneously. The stabbing at the back was a continuation of the fight, and if the

fight is continuous, even if treachery is present at the latter stage of the fight, treachery cannot beappreciated as attendant. (People vs. Canete, 44 Phil. 478).

Question No. XVI

Five men, one of them armed with a carbine, entered the hut of an octogenarian, who was

li ving by himself, ransacked his things and took his carpentry tools and cash worth P100.00. "Y" saw

them going towards the hut and sensing their evil intentions called some friends to act as a rescueparty. As the five men were going out with their loot, the rescue party opened fire and there was an

exchange of gunshot between the two groups. Killed were one in the five-man team, and another in the

rescue party. The articles taken were recovered Four of the 5 men were charged with Robbery in Bandwith Homicide. Their common defenses were that they could not be convicted of the crime charged

because (a) the killing occurred after the consummation of the robbery ; (b ) the octogenarian victim of

the robbery was not the vict im of the homicide; and (c) the crime was committed by a band.

Evaluate the different defenses of the accused.

Answer

1) Although the killing was committed after the consummation of the robbery, robbery with

homicide is committed because the killing was committed by reason of or on the occasion of therobbery. If the killing is prior or subsequent to the robbery so long as it is directly related to therobbery, the crime committed is robbery with homicide. (People vs Hernandez, 48 Phi l. 48).

2) Even if the victim of the robbery is not the victim of the homicide, robbery with homicide iscommitted because the law does not require that the person killed is the victim of the robbery.{People vs. Barut, 1^42666, March 13, 1979). As a matter of fact, even if the victim killed is amere bystander robbery with homicide is committed. (People vs. Disimban, 88 Phil. 120).

3) There seems to be a typographical error in the question. That band is a defense does not makesense. Obviously, the question would refer to the defense that the accused did not constitute aband. This is tenable because of the five accused, only one was armed with a carbine. There is aband if more than three armed malefactors take part in the commission of a robbery. (Art. 296,R.P.C.;People vs. Barut, supra). This is not, however, a defense because there is conspiracy among

the five accused as shown by the facts of the problem that 'as the five men were going out withtheir loot, the rescue party opened fire and there was an exchange of gunshots between the twogroups." When homicide takes place on the occasion.

1983 Bar

Q2.

Considering that the revised Penal Code provisions on justifying circumstances apply toanyone who acts in defense of his person or rights, can there be self- defense when there issimply an aggression against ones property not coupled with an attack against his person? Explain.

Answer:

No, Self- defense will be incomplete. Under the Civil Code there is unlawful aggression onthe property rights of another. But to constitute self-defense of property two other elements must beconsidered, namely reasonable necessity of the means employed to repel the aggression and lack ofsufficient provocation on the part of the person defending his property. People vs Apolinar (38 OG2079) held that there is no self- defense of property if the attack on the property is not coupled withan attack on the person of the owner or possessor of the property. I for example, the owner shot theaggressor although his person was not attacked, self- defense of property will not be present,although there is unlawful aggression on his property right, because the means adopted to repel theaggression is not reasonable. ( People vs Navaez(1 1983) 121 SCRA 403)