Criminal Law Midterm Exam MCQ Page Two (2)

PART 1: MULTIPLE CHOICE: There are Eighty (80) items in this exam in fifteen (15) pages. Choose one
letter/answer only.

1. The police arrested Pablo Jobs for killing Ping Guerrero on May 22, 2020 at about 6:30 pm. SPO4 Juancho Paen, a
cousin of Ping, learns of the arrest and proceeds to the police blotter where the incident had been reported, and
made it appear that Pablo was actually arrested only on November 22, 2013 at about 8:30 pm. SPO4 Juancho Paen
committed the crime of:
a. Arbitrary Detention under Article 124
b. A Violation of Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code
c. A Violation of PD 1829
d. A Violation of Article 171 of the Revised Penal Code

2. Which of the following groups had been declared as a terrorist organization or illegal association in relation to the
provisions of Article 147 of the Revised Penal Code and RA 9372?
a. New Peoples Army
b. Moro Islamic Liberation Front
c. Magdalo Group
d. Reform the Armed Forces Movement

3.Ponso, Mario and Alfredo met and conferred at the residence of Ruben in Switzerland, as they contemplated on
financing a group of armed men to take up arms against the government and take over the administration of Government.
Before they could leave the residence of Ruben, Swiss police arrived and arrested them. They are liable for:
a. Conspiracy to Commit Rebellion b. A Violation of RA 9372
c. They have no liability as the crime was committed in Switzerland. d. Espionage

4. A went to the Bank to encash a check. B, the teller, noticed that C, the payor’s signature, was forged. There was no
evidence, however, that A had forged the signature of C, the payor, and thus B refused to pay the check.
a. A is liable for Use of falsified Documents under Article 172
b. A is liable for a Violation of BP Blg 22
c. A is presumed to be the material author of the forgery
d. A does not have any liability as the check was not paid or encashed anyway.

5. A, a lawyer-notary public, caused the notarization of a Deed of Sale executed between B and C, and where D and E
acted as witnesses. E presented a cedula but which turns out to be expired. A did not verify if the cedula presented to
him by E was valid and proceeded to notarize the Deed.
a. A is liable for Falsification for Public Documents under Article 172
b. A is liable for Falsification of Documents through Reckless Imprudence
c. A is liable for Falsification of Public Documents under Article 171
d. A is not liable criminally, but only administratively.

6. In the year 2001, A was convicted for a crime of Homicide and was imposed a penalty of 12 years imprisonment. The
judgment became final and A was committed to prison. In 2006, on the fifth year of his service, A was granted
conditional pardon by the President, subject to the condition that he should not commit any crimes in the future. A was
thereafter released from prison. In 2008, he inflicted serious physical injuries against B.
a. Considering that A violated his Conditional pardon he should be re-arrested to serve the unexpired portion of his
sentence, pursuant to Article 159.
b. The Conditional Pardon granted to A bars his re-arrest because 2 years had expired from the time he had been
granted pardon, pursuant to Article 159.
c. A should be re-arrested but should only served five (5) years in jail because 2 years had lapsed from the time that
he was granted pardon, pursuant to Article 159.
d. A should not be required to serve the penalty of prision correccional because the unexpired portion of his original
sentence exceeds 6 years, pursuant to Article 159.

7. A, a lawyer-notary public, notarized a Deed of Sale executed between B and C, and prepared seven copies of said
Deed. D was able to secure a copy of the Deed and thereafter falsified the entries in said copy by making it appear that B
had sold the property to D.
a. D is liable for Falsification under Article 172 even if the document falsified is only a copy.
b. D is not liable for Falsification under Article 172 because the document falsified is only a copy.
c. D is liable for Falsification under Article 171 even if the document falsified is only a copy.
d. D is not liable for Falsification under Article 171 r 172 but for Use of a falsified document.

Criminal Law Midterm Exam MCQ Page Three (3)

8. The accused was caught in possession of false money bills. The accused is:
a. Liable under Article 168 of the Revised Penal Code because mere possession is already punishable under said law.
b. Not liable for a violation of Article 168 of the Revised Penal Code but rather under RA 247 which prohibits the
utterance of counterfeit bills.
c. Not liable under Article 168 of the Revised Penal Code because mere possession without intent to utter the same
excuses the accused from liability.
d. Not liable under RA 247 because mere possession without intent to utter the false bill is not punished under said
law.

9. Rouelli saw a promissory note signed by Regine where the latter promised to pay the amount of P 50,000.00 on or
before January 14,2020 to Zoe. Rouelli thereafter erased the name Zoe as payee in the note and placed her name
thereon to make it appear that she was the payee. Rouelli thereafter indorsed the note to Alfred for the amount of
P 40,000.00, claiming that Alfred can collect P 50,000.00 fromZoe. After collecting the P 40,000.00 from Alfred, Rouelli
used the money to purchase an IPad. Rouelli is liable for:
a. The separate crimes of Estafa and Falsification of a Private Document.
b. The complex crime of Estafa through Falsification of a Private Document.
c. The crime of Estafa only because the Falsification is absorbed by the crime of Estafa.
d. The crime of Falsification of Private Documents only.

10. A, who had decided to commit acts amounting to Sedition, met and conferred with B and C, and proposed to the
two that they join him in the acts of Sedition against the present government.
a. A is liable for the crime of Proposal to Commit Sedition
b. A is not liable for the crime of Proposal to Commit Sedition but for Conspiracy to commit Sedition.
c. A is not liable for the crime of Proposal to Commit Sedition but for Inciting to Sedition.
d. A is not liable for any crime because the proposal in this case is merely a preparatory act.

11. PMSgt Mads Duga falsely accuses Adelle, a store owner, of violating the law and threatened to arrest her unless the
said store owner hands him P 5,000.00. Because of fear, Adelle gave the money. Subsequently, Adelle filed a Complaint
against PMSgt Duga with the Office of the City Prosecutor, Baguio City because of the said incident. As a Prosecutor, what
case will you file in Court against PMSgt Duga?
a. A Violation of Article 282 of the Revised Penal Code for Grave Threats.
b. A violation of Article 286 of the Revised penal Code for Grave Coercion
c. A Violation of Article 294 of the Revised Penal Code for Robbery
d. A Violation of Article 287 of the Revised Penal Code for Light Coercions

12. A, the City Chief of Police, was directed by the Mayor to seize the ukay-ukay items being sold by B at the Harrison
Road, upon complaint of C, a creditor of B, and to deposit the seized goods at the City Hall lobby. Acting on the orders of
the Mayor, the Chief of Police and his men told B to surrender his wares. B refused and a scuffle ensued between B and
the Chief of Police, resulting to injuries to the Chief of Police.
a. B is liable for Direct Assault because of the injuries he had inflicted upon the Chief of Police.
b. B is not liable for Direct Assault because the Chief of Police was an unlawful aggressor when he tried to seize B’s
goods on the bases of an unlawful order of the Mayor.
c. B is liable for Direct Assault because he assaulted the Chief of Police who was then merely obeying the lawful
orders of the Mayor.
d. B is not liable for Direct Assault because the Chief of Police was not performing he lawful functions of his office
when he tried to seize B’s goods .

13. The Philippines and Malaysia are at war. Armed hostilities have begun. The Philippine government prohibited flights
to Malaysia. Robert has a girlfriend named Joanna and who is based in Malaysia. Robert boarded Cebu Pacific, an
airplane bound for Malaysia. Before the plane could take off, Robert was arrested by members of the Civil Aviation
Command. Robert committed:
a. Attempted Flight to enemy’s country
b. Frustrated Flight to enemy’s country
c. Flight to Enemy’s country
d. Violation of RA 6235 (Act prohibiting certain acts inimical to Civil Aviation)

14. A Rape that is committed by rebels during a rebellion:

a. Is absorbed by the crime of Rebellion following the absorption theory espoused by the Hernandez and Enrile
rulings.
b. Is to be prosecuted separately from Rebellion because Rape cannot be considered as a means of committing
rebellion.
c. Can be complexed with Rebellion because RA 6968 or the Coup d’ etat law had made possible the application of
Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code in relation to Article 134 of the same Code.
d. Is to be considered merely an aggravating circumstance in the crime of Rebellion.

Criminal Law Midterm Exam MCQ Page Four (4)

25. Captain Baldog led a large group of rebel soldiers in attacking Camp Crame in order to wrest control thereof and
establish a military junta. They wanted to declare the independence of the military camp from the government. They
were repulsed by the armed forces loyal to the government. In the process, the rebel soldiers killed twenty soldiers loyal
to the government. Captain Baldog and his men were eventually quelled and arrested. If I were the Prosecutor, I will
charge them with:
a. Rebellion
b. Rebellion with Homicide
c. Insurrection
d. Coup d’ etat

16. During the barangay elections, Ruben and Oscar, contenders for the Punong Barangay position, got entangled in a
heated argument. Ruben pulled out a gun which was secretly tucked in his waist and with it shot Oscar to death. The gun
turned out to be unlicensed. Ruben is liable for:
a. Homicide, aggravated by illegal possession of firearms
b. Murder, aggravated by illegal possession of firearms
c. Homicide and illegal possession of firearms
d. Murder and illegal possession of firearms

17. The accused was acquitted of the crime of rape on the ground of reasonable doubt. The Court, however, imposed
civil liability upon the accused. Is the ruling of the Court in accord with law?
a. No, because the acquittal also serves to extinguish any civil liability oft he accused.
b. Yes, because the civil liability survives where the acquittal is based on reasonable doubt.
c. No, because the ruling would violate the Accused’s right against double jeopardy.
d. Yes, because the civil liability is deemed impliedly instituted with the criminal case.

18. Personnel from SM City delivered certain goods which were consigned to Juan de la Cruz at the latter’s residence. The
goods were however received by Jose Reyes, who falsely pretended that he was Juan de la Cruz. The crime for which Jose
Reyes is liable for is:
a. Using Fictitious Name under Article 178 of the Revised Penal Code
b. Estafa under Article 315, 2 (a) through the use of a Fictitious Name
c. Theft through the Use of a Fictitious Name
d. Falsification under Article 171 of the Revised Penal Code, by making it appear that a person participated in a
proceeding when he did not in fact appear or participate.

19. Aramina, 16 years old, was found guilty for violating the provisions of RA 9165 for selling Dangerous Drugs. The Court
did not appreciate the privileged mitigating circumstance of minority and imposed upon him the penalty of life
imprisonment.
a. The Decision was erroneous because the Accused must be entitled to the privileged mitigating circumstance of
minority pursuant to the provisions of Article 13, in relation to Article 68 of the Revised Penal Code.
b. The Decision is correct because Erexion was charged under a Special Law and mitigating circumstances can not be
appreciated under said law.
c. The penalty of Life Imprisonment should have been reduced to Reclusion Perpetua because of the minority of the
Accused.
d. The penalty is incorrect because the Judge should have fixed an Indeterminate Sentence consisting of two
penalties, one a minimum and the other a maximum.

20. Gino is a serial rapist. He committed rape in Manila, Quezon City, San Juan, Cavite, Tarlac, Abra, Concepcion, Makati
and Baguio. The commission of the crimes had sowed and created a condition of widespread and extraordinary fear and
panic among the populace. Gino demanded from the government the payment of P 10 million as a condition for him to
stop committing the crime.
a. Gino committed the crime of Terrorism
b. Gino did not commit the crime of Terrorism because the commission of the rape was not widespread.
c. Gino committed Terrorism because the commission of Rape is a crime result.
d. Gino is not liable for Terrorism as it is not one of the predicate crimes under RA 9372.

21. Which of the following crimes is an exception to the Territoriality Rule in Criminal Law?
a. Violation of the Trademark law committed by an alien in the Philippines
b. Crime committed by a Filipino in the disputed Spratly’s Island.
c. Plunder committed at his place of assignment abroad by a Philippine public officer
d. Forgery of US bank notes committed in the Philippines

Criminal Law Midterm Exam MCQ Page Five (5)

22. A, a police officer in civilian clothes, asked X where he can buy shabu. X responded by asking the officer how much
the drug he needed. After A had told X how much drugs he needed, X left, and when he returned after a few minutes, he
was already carrying the shabu. X then gave the shabu to the officer and took the money given by A. X is:
a. Liable for selling since the police operation was a valid form of instigation.
b. Liable for selling since the police operation was a valid entrapment.
c. Not liable for selling since the police operation was an invalid entrapment
d. Not liable since the police operation was an invalid instigation.

23. In Article 166 of the Revised Penal Code, the penalties imposed depend upon the following documents that are
counterfeited, except one:
a. Obligation or security issued by the Government of the Philippines
b. Treasury or Bank Notes payable to bearer issued by a bank.
c. Circulating Note issued by any banking association duly authorized by law to issue the same.
d. Circulating Note or bill issued by a foreign bank duly authorized to issue the same.

24. Spreading false rumors that the Armed Forces of the Philippines is about to stage a coup d’ etat against the Aquino
administration, which causes panic and divisiveness among the people is a violation of:
a. PD No. 90 or the unlawful rumor mongering act which took effect on January 6, 1973
b. Article 154 of the Revised Penal Code on Unlawful use of means of publication and unlawful utterances.
c. CA 616 or the law which punishes other acts of espionage as the same partakes of disloyal acts or words in times of
peace.
d. Inciting to Sedition under Article 142 of the Revised Penal Code.

25. An offender who hires, employs, uses, persuades, induces or coerces a child to perform in obscene exhibitions and
indecent shows (live or in video) is liable for:
a. Grave Coercion under Article 286 of the Revised Penal Code
b. Indecent and Immoral or Obscene Exhibitions under Article 201 of the Revised Penal Code
c. Violation of RA 7610 or the Anti-Child Abuse Law
d. Violation of RA 9262 or Violence Against Women and Children

26. Where a neophyte who undergoes hazing under the terms of RA 8049 eventually dies because of the acts of hazing,
those who performed the acts of hazing leading to the death of the neophyte will be liable for:
a. Homicide under Article 249 of the Revised Penal Code
b. Murder under Article 248 of Revised Penal Code
c. Reckless Imprudence Resulting to Homicide
d. Dereliction of Duty

27. Archie was arrested for violation of RA 9165 or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002 for allegedly selling
shabu to Ompong, a PDEA agent who pretended to be a poseur-buyer. Archie was thereafter subjected to a drug or urine
test, the results of which turned out to be positive that Archie had used shabu before the transaction with Ompong.
a. Archie is liable for a separate charge for Use of Dangerous Drugs under Section 11 of RA 9165 per the results of
the drug test conducted on his person.
b. Archie cannot be made liable for a separate charge for Use of Dangerous Drugs under Section 15 of RA 9165 as the
same would violate his right against self-incrimination.
c. Archie cannot be made liable for a separate charge for Use of Dangerous Drugs under Section 15 of RA 9165 as the
same would violate his right against double jeopardy.
d. Archie is liable for a Sale of Dangerous Drugs under Section 5 of RA 9165 and a separate charge for Use of
Dangerous Drugs under Section 15 of RA 9165, as the charges are mala prohibita in nature.

28. In the case referred to in Number 27, suppose that Archie was eventually charged with a Violation of Section 5 of RA
9165 for Sale of Dangerous Drugs. Before trial could ensue, Archie intimated his desire to enter into a plea-bargaining
agreement with the Prosecution where he offered to plead guilty to the offense of Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs
under Section 11 of RA 9165.
a. The plea-bargaining may be allowed as it shows an act of repentance on the part of the Accused and which ought
to be treated as a mitigating circumstance in relation to Paragraph 7 of Article 13 of the Revised Penal Code.
b. The plea-bargaining may not be allowed and cannot be treated as a mitigating circumstance in relation to
Paragraph 7 of Article 13 of the Revised Penal Code because RA 9165 is mala prohibita.
c. The plea-bargaining cannot be allowed because it is prohibited under the provisions of RA 9165.
d. The plea bargaining can be allowed because our penal laws, whether under the Revised Penal Code or under a
special law, the principle of pro reo is observed, and further considering the truism that penal laws are construed
liberally in favor of the accused.

Criminal Law Midterm Exam MCQ Page Six (6)

29. Suppose that in the case referred to in Numbers 27 and 28, Archie, who was a first-time offender, was charged with
Use of Dangerous Drugs under Section 11 of RA 9165. Archie was found guilty for said violation.
a. Archie will be penalized with 6 months imprisonment up to 1 year of imprisonment, with option to undergo
rehabilitation after the 1 year imprisonment had been served.
b. Archie will be penalized with 6 months rehabilitation only, without need of undergoing imprisonment.
c. Archie can file a Petition for Suspension of Service of Sentence and thereafter pray that he be allowed to undergo
Rehabilitation.
d. Archie can avail of the fact that he is a first-time offender as a mitigating circumstance.

29. Baby Noodles told Bernz to kill Juswa. Bernz killed Juswa. Later, Baby Noodles gave Bernz P 50,000.00. Bernz is
liable fort he crime of:
a. Homicide, as a Prinicipal by Direct participation
b. Murder, because of the qualifying circumstance that he committed it in consideration of price, reward or money
c. Homicide, because of the absence of any qualifying aggravating circumstance
d. Murder, because he acted in conspiracy with Baby Noodles.

30. In relation to question No. 29, Baby Noodles, on the other hand, is liable for the crime of:
a. Homicide, as a Prinicipal by Inducment
b. Murder, because of the qualifying circumstance that he gave a consideration of price, reward or money to Bernz
c. Homicide, because of the absence of any qualifying aggravating circumstance
d. Murder, because he acted in conspiracy with Bernz.

30. A Violation of BP Blg 22 or the Anti-Bouncing Checks Law is a transitory offense, thus:
a. Venue is determined by the place where the elements of making, issuing, or drawing of the check and delivery
thereof are committed.
b. Venue is determined by the place where the elements of delivery and encashment thereof are committed.
c. As a matter of general rule in criminal cases, the Venue is determined only by the place where the offense was
actually committed.
d. Venue can be waived upon agreement of the parties.

31. A is the President of BCD Corporation which, in the course of its business transaction with E, an investor, issued to E a
check in the amount of P 1,000,000.00 postdated January 20, 2020. When the due date of the check arrived, E went to
the Bank to have the check encashed. As fate would have it, the check was dishonored or bounced because it was drawn
against a closed account. For a successful prosecution under BP Blg 22, a letter or notice of dishonor must be sent to:
a. A, being the President of BCD Corporation, and being the maker or drawer of the check.
b. BCD Corporation itself, because the checking account, and the check issued to E itself, belongs to the said
Corporation and A is to be considered merely as an employee thereof.
c. BCD Corporation itself, because the funds which will be used to settle the check belongs to said Corporation and A
only issued the check in behalf of said Corporation.
d. A, because even if the account and the check does not belong to him, it was his signature that appears in the
check as the drawer or maker thereof.

32. The check issued by BCD Corporation to E, in the case referred to in Number 31, turned out to have been issued by the
Corporation to E because the Corporation owed E the amount P 1,000,000.00 for a transaction incurred on December 20,
2019. The check that the Corporation issued to E on January 10, 2020 was postdated or payable on January 20, 2020. As
fate would have it, the check was dishonored or bounced because it was drawn against a closed account.
a. There is no liability for a Violation of BP Blg 22 because the check was issued to settle the pre-existing obligation of
the Corporation to E which was contracted on December 20, 2019.
b. The BCD Corporation is still liable for a Violation of BP Blg 22 because the fact that the check was issued to settle
the pre-existing obligation of the Corporation to E which was contracted on December 20, 2019 is not a valid defense
in Violations of BP Blg 22.
c. There is no liability for a Violation of BP Blg 22 because the check was issued to settle the pre-existing obligation of
the Corporation to E which was contracted on December 20, 2019. Instead, the drawer is liable for Estafa under
Article 315, 2 (d) of the Revised Penal Code.
d. There is liability for a Violation of BP Blg 22 although the check was issued to settle the pre-existing obligation of
the Corporation to E which was contracted on December 20, 2019 because the date of the commission of the offense
is to be reckoned on the date that the check was actually presented for payment and subsequently dishonored by the
Bank.

Criminal Law Midterm Exam MCQ Page Seven (7)

33. An Alias is a name or names used by a person in addition to his real name by which he is registered at birth or baptized
the first time or a substitute name authorized by competent authority. For a person to be liable under CA 142, or the Anti-
Alias Law, as amended by RA 6085, the evidence must show that:
a. The offender used the Alias at least in a single transaction where he represented to another that the name or Alias
he used is his real or registered name.
b. The offender used the Alias at least in a single transaction where he represented to another that the name or Alias
he used is his real or registered name without seeking the permission of competent authority.
c. The offender used the Alias in several transactions where he represented to another that the name or Alias he used
is his real or registered name.
d. The offender used the Alias in several transactions and publicly and habitually, where he represented to another
that the name or Alias he used is his real or registered name.

34. Pablo Jobs pumped six bullets into the body of Pining garcia, who died instantly. Seeing that Pablo had no more
bullets, Jack Collins gave him four more which Pablo also fired into the dead body. Pablo is liable for:
a. Homicide
b. Murder
c. Serious Physical Injuries
d. Grave Threats

35. In relation to question No. 34, Jack Collins would be liable for:
a. Homicide
b. Murder
c. Serious Physical Injuries
d. Impossible Crime of Murder or Homicide

36. Under RA 9372 or the Human Security Act, the said law follows the treble provisions of the Revised Penal Code with
respect to persons criminally liable for said offense. Thus, Principals, Accomplices, and Accessories who commit acts of
Terrorism are punished under said law. Moreover, a relative of a Principal offender who violated RA 9372 and who acts
as an accessory of said Principal:
a. Is exempt from criminal liability under RA 9372, the same being considered as an absolutory cause.
b. Is still liable under RA 9372 because the said law is malum prohibitum.
c. Is to be excluded as an Accused in the violation of RA 9372 provided that the relative is properly discharged as a
State Witness.
d. Is still liable under RA 9372 as the concept of conspiracy is likewise observed under the said special law.

37. A person arrested for violation of the provisions of RA 9372 is entitled to the following rights, except one:
a. To be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him
b. To communicate and confer with counsel at any time without restriction
c. To communicate and confer with members of family or relatives at any time without restriction and be visited by
them
d. To avail of the services of a physician to be provided him by the government authorities.

38. Rey Pinioco is the bastard son of Ivan. For refusing to support his studies, Rey stabbed Ivan to death and left him
lying on the road. Juwe, who saw what had happened, placed a knife beside the hands of Ivan. When Charleine, the
mother of Rey, learned what happened, she brought Rey to a far away place and Rey was never arrested. Rey is liable for
the crime of:
a. Homicide
b. Murder
c. Parricide
d. Obstruction of Justice

39. In relation to question No. 38, Charleine’s liability is:

a. For the crime of Homicide
b. For the crime of Murder
c. Fort he crime of Parricide
d. Extinguished by the fact that she is the mother of Rey

Criminal Law Midterm Exam MCQ Page Eight (8)

40. In relation to questions Nos. 8 and 99, auppose that Rey was actually arrested and prosecuted for the death of Ivan
but pending trial, Rey suffers a fatal heart attack. What is the effect of this circumstance to the liability, if any, of his
mother Charleine in the said case?
a. Charleine remains liable for a crime of Homicide because of her act of concealing her son Rey.
b. Charleine remains liable for a crime of Murder because of her act of concealing her son Rey.
c. Charleine remains liable for a crime of Parricide because of her act of concealing her son Rey.
d. Charleine remains not liable for any crime because of her relationship to her son Rey.

41. Joseph was dismissed from his job by his employer. Upon reaching home, his pregnant wife, Yasmine, nagged him
about money for her medicines. Depressed by his dismissal and angered by the nagging of his wife, Joseph struck
Yasmine with his fist. She fell to the ground. As a result, she and her unborn baby died. What crime/s was/were
committed by Joseph?
a. Parricide only, because the baby is still unborn
b. Parricide and a separate case for Unintentional Abortion
c. Parricide and a separate case for Intentional Abortion
d. Parricide with Intentional Abortion

42. The offender committed a crime of robbery and had a firearm tucked in his waist, but which firearm he did not use in
perpetrating the crime of robbery. The crime committed is:
a. Robbery and a separate charge of Violation of RA 8294
b. Robbery with Violence or Intimidation only, as the Firearm is absorbed in the felony as the means by which the
crime was committed
c. Robbery only, and the Illegal Possession of Firearm is considered only as an aggravating circumstance
d. Illegal Possession of Firearms only, as a provision of the Revised Penal Code cannot be complexed with a violation
of a Special Law.

43. Camilo was the VP for Finance of Unlad, Inc., a newly established realty firm. As such, he was authorized to sign and
issue checks for the obligations of the Corporation. As the company was relatively new, the Board of Directors approved a
Resolution authorizing Camilo to sign and issue checks drawn from his personal account with the BDO. On March 12,
2020, Camilo issued and signed ten (10) checks for purposes of paying the salaries of ten employees, at P 6,000.00 per
check. As fate would have it, the checks that Camilo had issued bounced for insufficiency of funds.
a. Camilo is liable for a Violation of BP Blg 22, a malum prohibitum, as the gravamen of said offense is the issuance of
a check that bounces upon encashment.
b. Camilo is not liable for a Violation of BP Blg 22 because he is only an employee of the Unlad, Inc. and the checks
were issued for purposes of settling the salaries of the employees.
c. Camilo is liable because the checks were drawn from his personal account although they were meant to settle the
obligations of the Corporation.
d. Camilo is not liable for a Violation of BP Blg 22 because the checks were issued to settle a pre-existing obligation.

44. Rey Pinioco went to the house of Pining Garcia, who was then alone. Pining offered Rey a drink and after consuming
three bottles of beer, Rey made advances to her, and with force and violence, ravished her. Thereafter Rey killed Pining
and took her jewelry. Chino Pacia, Rey’s adopted brother, learned about the incident. He went to Pining’s house, hid her
body, cleaned everything and washed the bloodstains inside the room. Later, Rey gave Katay Pinioco, his legitimate
brother, one piece of jewelry belonging to Pining. Katay knew that the jewelry was taken from Pining but nonetheless he
(Katay) sold it for P2,000.00 to Bino Lojab. Rey Pinioco is liable for:
a. The separate crimes of Rape and Theft.
b. The composite crime of Rape with Homicide.
c. The composite crime of Rape with Homicide and a separate charge for Theft.
d. The complex crime of Rape with Homicide.
e. The complex crime of Rape with Homicide and a separate charge for Theft.

45. Romar, Momar, Marc, Carter and Michael entered the house of Ejileen by destroying the lock of the front door.
Romar, Momar, Marc, Carter and Michael were armed at the time of the commission of the crime. All of them
conspired to commit Robbery, however, Ejileen, the owner of the house was killed by Marc when Ejileen strongly
resisted. Romar, Momar, Marc, Carter and Michael are liable for the crime of:
a. Robbery only, because the killing of Ejileen was not part oft he conspiracy
b. All of them are liable for Robbery and a separate crime of Homicide
c. All of them are liable for Robbery but Marc will be separately liable for Homicide
d. All of them are liable for Robbery with Homicide

Criminal Law Midterm Exam MCQ Page Nine (9)

46. Rhenan was convicted of the crime of Robbery on October 2, 2008. On October 12, 2008, he committed Theft. He
was convicted of the Theft on December 20, 2008. Rhenan is:
a. A Recidivist
b. A Quasi-Recidivist
c. A Habitual Delinquent
d. Neither a Recidivist nor Quasi-Recidivist

47. Police Officer Kotong Laki was invited to a Benefit Dance at a nearby Barangay, to observe the Barangay’s compliance
with the social distancing policy of the government. As he just received a brand-new service firearm, Officer Laki brought
out his service firearm and showed it around. A lad bumped onto him and the gun fell down on the floor causing it to
fire and the bullet hit a girl, killing the latter. Is the policeman criminally liable?
a. Yes, for the crime of Rekless Imprudence reuslting to Homicide
b. Yes, for the crime of Homicide
c. No, because the Homicide arose out of an accident
d. No, because he was acting in the performance of his lawful duty

48. Hazel was charged in an information with the crime of grave oral defamation but after trial, the court found her guilty
only of the offense of simple slander. She filed a motion for reconsideration contending that, under the law, the crime of
simple slander would have prescribed in two months from commission, and since the information against her was filed
more than four months after the alleged commission of the crime, the same had already prescribed. The Solicitor
General opposed the motion on two ground: first, in determining the prescriptive period, the nature of the offense
charged in the information should be considered, not the crime proved; second, assuming that the offense had already
prescribed, the defense was waived by the failure of Hazel to raise it in a motion to quash. The motion for
reconsideration:
a. Must be granted, because Hazel’s contention that the crime against her had already prescribed is meritorious,
considering that the Information was filed after four months.
b. Must be denied, because Hazel’s contention that the crime against her had already prescribed is not meritorious,
considering that the Information was filed promptly with the Court.
c. Must be granted, because Hazel’s contention that the crime against her had already prescribed is meritorious,
considering that she timely raise the issue of prescription before the Court.
d. a. Must be denied, because Hazel’s contention that the crime against her had already prescribed is not
meritorious, considering that the contentions of the Solicitor General is correct.

49. Jeeson, a Law student, was flunked in Environmental Law by his Professor John Lloyd Samartino. Angered by this,
Jeeson waited for him and punched him on the face. Atty. Samartino suffered injuries and was medically attended for
three (3) days. Jeeson committed:
a. Direct Assault with Slight Physical Injuries b. Direct Assault and Slight Physical Injuries
c. Qualified Direct Assault d. Slander by Deed

50. While the Spanish luxury liner MV Frances was cruising the Pacific Ocean, they chanced upon a boat with some
Mexicans on board, and who pleaded that they be allowed to go on board the liner, as they had been shipwrecked and had
not eaten for a week already. The liner’s captain took pity and allowed the Mexicans on board and let them occupy a
room to sleep in. At night, when the crew and the passengers were asleep, the Mexicans drew their weapons which they
had concealed and then took the passengers’ and crews’ valuables and then escaped on board a speed boat. The Captain
thereafter radioed for help. The BRP Miguelito, a Philippine Naval Ship patrolling the Philippine territorial waters near the
Pacific Ocean, was informed of the incident. Some 500 meters from where the BRP Miguelito was moored, they saw the
speed boat ridden by the Mexicans.
a. The Philippine Navy can effect the arrest of the Mexicans because they committed acts amounting to piracy, which
is a felony punished under Philippine Laws.
b. The Philippine Navy cannot effect the arrest of the Mexicans because the Mexicans performed the acts in the
Pacific Ocean, which is part of the international waters.
c. The Philippine Navy can effect the arrest of the Mexicans because piracy is a universal crime, and considering
further that the Mexicans were already within the limits of our waters.
d. The Philippine Navy cannot effect the arrest of the Mexicans because the crime was not committed in our
territorial waters, even if piracy is a universal crime.

51. A, who had decided to commit acts amounting to Sedition, met and conferred with B and C, and proposed to the two
that they join him in the acts of Sedition against the present government.
a. A is liable for the crime of Proposal to Commit Sedition
b. A is not liable for the crime of Proposal to Commit Sedition but for Conspiracy to commit Sedition.
c. A is not liable for the crime of Proposal to Commit Sedition but for Inciting to Sedition.
d. A is not liable for any crime because the proposal in this case is merely a preparatory act that is not punished
under the Revised Penal Code.

Criminal Law Midterm Exam MCQ Page Ten (10)

52. A, the City Chief of Police, was directed by the Mayor to seize the ukay-ukay items being sold by B at the Harrison Road,
upon complaint of C, a creditor of B, and to deposit the seized goods at the City Hall lobby. Acting on the orders of the
Mayor, the Chief of Police and his men told B to surrender his wares. B refused and a scuffle ensued between B and the
Chief of Police, resulting to injuries to the Chief of Police.
a. B is liable for Direct Assault because of the injuries he had inflicted upon the Chief of Police.
b. B is not liable for Direct Assault because the Chief of Police was an unlawful aggressor when he tried to seize B’s
goods on the bases of an unlawful order of the Mayor.
c. B is liable for Direct Assault because he assaulted the Chief of Police who was then merely obeying the lawful
orders of the Mayor.
d. B is not liable for Direct Assault because the Chief of Police was not performing he lawful functions of his office .

53. The crime of Treason cannot be complexed with crimes like murder and physical injuries because:
a. It is a political crime like Rebellion.
b. These crimes are inherent in the crime of Treason.
c. Article 48 is expressly not applicable in crimes like Treason.
d. Crimes against Persons cannot be complexed with crimes against National Security.

54. In Misprision of Treason, the offender who knows of a plot to commit treason against the government but who fails to
report the same to the authorities, is:
a. An Accessory to the crime of Treason punished under Article 114.
b. A Principal under the provisions of Article 116.
c. An Accomplice under Article 115.
d. Not criminally liable because of the provisions of the Ruiles on Evidence on privileged communications.

55. In the crime of Piracy, if the offenders are not outsiders but members of the complement or are passengers:
a. The crime is still Piracy under Article 122.
b. The crime is Robbery on the High Seas.
c. There is no crime that had been committed, but only civil liability.
d. The crime should be Mutiny in the High Seas.

56. In the case of People vs. Rolito Go, the facts show that he shot Eldon Maguan on November 1. He was, however,
arrested by the police only on November 6, or five (5) days after the incident, and without any warrant. He was
subsequently detained at the Rizal Police Station, while charges were being prepared against him.
a. There was already Arbitrary detention because his arrest, without a warrant, was made five (5) days after the
shooting incident, which violates the provisions of Section 5, Rule 113 of Rules on Criminal Procedure.
b. The arresting officers are not liable for Arbitrary detention because Go’s arrest, without a warrant, even if made
five (5) days after the shooting incident, is still within the bounds of the provisions of Section 5, Rule 113 of Rules on
Criminal Procedure.
c. The arresting officers are liable for a Violation of Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code because Go’s arrest,
without a warrant, made five (5) days after the shooting incident, and his subsequent detention, exceeded the
periods contemplated by Article 125.
d. The arresting officers are not liable for a Violation of Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code because Go’s arrest,
without a warrant, even if made five (5) days after the shooting incident, and his subsequent detention, is still
within the period contemplated by Article 125.

57. A Bible Study session was being held at the garage of the house of a retired teacher, when Juancho, a police officer,
barged in and fired a gun in the air, which resulted to the dispersal of the bible study session. Juancho is liable for:
a. Offending the religious Feelings
b. Interruption of religious Worship
c. Prohibition or Dissolution of a Peaceful Meeting
d. Tumults under the first paragraph of Article 153.

58. In Article 153 of the Revised Penal Code, the term “to make an outcry tending to incite to sedition or rebellion” means:
a. The offender must have consciously resorted to means to incite the audience to the objectives of sedition or
rebellion.
b. The offender deliberately displayed placards or made express statements that tend to incite the audience to the
objectives of sedition or rebellion.
c. The offender made a spontaneous or unconscious outburst that tended to incite the audience to the objectives of sedition or
rebellion.
d. The offender’s remarks that tended to incite the audience to the objectives of sedition or rebellion were mere afterthoughts.

Criminal Law Midterm Exam MCQ Page Eleven (11)

59. Where in the course of a direct assault upon a person in authority, the latter sustains slight physical injuries:
a. The proper charge is Direct Assault with Physical Injuries
b. The Accused is liable for Direct Assault and a separate charge for Physical Injuries
c. The accused is only liable for Direct Assault as the Injuries are absorbed as a necessary consequence of the
violence.
d. The accused is only liable for Direct Assault as the Injuries are inherent in the crime because of the violence.

60. Under Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code, when the last day of a prescriptive period falls on a Sunday or a legal
holiday:
a. The Information can be filed on the next working day pursuant to the provisions of law.
b. The Information can no longer be filed on the next working day because the crime had already prescribed.
c. The Information can be filed on the next working day as the fact that it fell on a Sunday or Holiday is a lawful cause.
d. The Information cannot be filed on the next working day but the accused may be released on recognizance.

61. The accused, not intending to kill the victim, treacherously shot the victim while the victim was turning his back to him.
He aimed at and hit the victim only on the leg. The victim, however, died because of loss of blood. The accused can be
held liable fort he crime of:
a. Consummated Homicide
b. Consummated Murder
c. Frustrated Murder only
d. Frustrated Homicide only

62. Rinse always resented his classmate Dill. One day, Rinse planned to kill Dill by mixing poison on his lunch. Not
knowing where he can get poison, he approached another classmate, Jefferson, to whom he disclosed his evil plan.
Because he himself harbored resentment towards Dill, Jefferson gave Rinse a poison which Rinse placed on Dill’s food.
However, Dill did not die because, unknown to both Rinse and Jefferson, the poison was actually powdered milk. Rinse is
liable for the crime of :
a. Homicide
b. Murder
c. Serious Physical Injuries
d. Impossible crime of Homicide or Murder

63. In relation to Question No. 62, Jefferson, having conspired with Rinse, is liable for the crime of:
a. Homicide
b. Murder
c. Serious Physical Injruies
d. Impossible crime of Homicide or Murder

64. Jose, a licensed private contractor, convinced his former classmate, Teddy, now an engineer working at the Public
Works Department, that he (Jose) be allowed to submit a bid for a government contract for the construction of a highway
in Isable, using bthe license of Pedro. In exchange, Jose promised to give Teddy an amount of P 1,000,000.00. Jose is
liable for:
a. A Violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act
b. A Violation of RA 9184
c. A Violation of RA 7080
d. The crime of Malversation of Public Funds under the Revised penal Code.

65. In 1990, A was charged with, and convicted of, the crime of Homicide, and was sentenced to the penalty of Reclusion
temporal, minimum. After serving five years in prison, or in 1995, A was given an absolute pardon by the President, and
was thus released from detention. In the year 2000, A raped B.
a. A is a recidivist.
b. A is a quasi-recidivist.
c. A is liable for reiteracion, he having served part of his sentence.
d. No aggravating circumstance can be appreciated against him, as there was absolute pardon.

66. For a public officer to be liable as an Accessory under Paragraph 3 of Article 19 of the Revised Penal Code, the crime
committed by the Principal must be:
a. Treason or rebellion
b. An Attempt to kill the Chief Executive and any other High Crimes
c. Any light felony only
d. Any felony, provided it is not light.

Criminal Law Midterm Exam MCQ Page Twelve (12)

67. In the year 2001, A was convicted for a crime of Homicide and was imposed a penalty of 12 years imprisonment. The
judgment became final and A was committed to prison. In 2006, on the fifth year of his service, A was granted
conditional pardon by the President, subject to the condition that he should not commit any crimes in the future. A was
thereafter released from prison. In 2008, he inflicted serious physical injuries against B.
a. Considering that A violated his Conditional pardon he should be re-arrested to serve the unexpired portion of his
sentence, pursuant to Article 159.
b. The Conditional Pardon granted to A bars his re-arrest because 2 years had expired from the time he had been
granted pardon, pursuant to Article 159.
c. A should be re-arrested but should only served five (5) years in jail because 2 years had lapsed from the time that
he was granted pardon, pursuant to Article 159.
d. A should not be required to serve the penalty of prision correccional because the unexpired portion of his original
sentence exceeds 6 years, pursuant to Article 159.

68. Jessa saw a promissory note signed by Louella where the latter promised to pay the amount of P 50,000.00 on or
before January 14,2020 to Jmy. Jessa thereafter erased the name Jmy as payee in the note and placed her name thereon
to make it appear that she was the payee. Jessa thereafter indorsed the note to Alfred for the amount of P 40,000.00,
claiming that Alfred can collect P 50,000.00 from Jmy. After collecting the P 40,000.00 from Alfred, Jessa used the money
to purchase an IPad. Jessa is liable for:
a. The separate crimes of Estafa and Falsification of a Private Document.
b. The complex crime of Estafa through Falsification of a Private Document.
c. The crime of Estafa only because the Falsification is absorbed by the crime of Estafa.
d. The crime of Falsification of Private Documents only.

69. A was charged before the City prosecutor’s Office with the crime of Theft. On February 14, 2020, B, A’s friend, who
learned of the complaint against A, talked to C, the employee of the Office who was supposed to serve the subpoena to
A, for C not to serve it to A on that date, because it was A’s birthday and it might spoil the celebrations. B told C to
instead serve the subpoena upon A on February 17, 2020.
a. B is liable for a Violation of Article 126 of the Revised Penal Code.
b. B is not liable for any violation because the subpoena was anyway served just the same.
c. B is liable for a violation of PD 1829.
d. B is not liable for a violation of PD 1829 as the said law is not applicable to investigations being conducted by
Prosecutor’s during a Preliminary Investigation

70. Ka Satur, a known member of the New Peoples Army (NPA), was arrested by elements of the military while he was
walking along Abanao Road, Baguio City. When frisked, the authorities discovered a firearm that was tucked in his waist.
The firearm was unlicensed. The authorities thereafter charged Ka Satur with Rebellion, pursuant to the ruling of the
Supreme Court in People v. Avila.
a. Ka Satur can be charged with a separate case of Violation of RA 10591 pursuant to Section 29 of said law.
b. Ka Satur can no longer be charged under Section 29 of RA 10591 because the firearm is considered inherent in the
crime charged.
c. The loose firearm confiscated from Ka Satur ought to be considered only as an aggravating circumstance in the
crime with which he was charged.
d. The separate charge for a Violation of Section 29 cannot be sustained because the crime of possession of the loose
firearm is deemed absorbed by the crime of rebellion pursuant to the case of People vs. Ladjaalam.

71. Henry, who was driving his brand new car, beat the red light and was accosted by a traffic officer, who thereafter asked
for his driver’s license. Henry then brought out a license, which turned out to be a mere photocopy. When the traffic
officer verified about the entries in the photocopy of the license presented by Henry, the traffic officer found out that the
real owner of the license was Jimmy, which license Henry had caused to be photocopied. Thereafter, Henry erased
Jimmy’s name in the photocopy, and had super-imposed his name in the photocopy, and had it again photocopied, thus it
now bore Henry’s name. Henry is liable for:
a. Falsification
b. Usurpation of Rights
c. Concealing true name
d. Estafa.

Criminal Law Midterm Exam MCQ Page Thirteen (13)

72. Marco was convicted as an Accomplice in a case of Frustrated Murder. The penalty for Consummated Murder under
Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code is Reclusion Perpetua. The proper penalty to be imposed upon Marco is:
a. Reclusion Temporal, it being the penalty lower by one degree than Reclusion Perpetua.
b. Prision Mayor, because Marco was merely an Accomplice and the liability of an Accomplice in a Frustrated Felony
is two degrees lower than the penalty of the Principal.
c. Prision Correccional, duly considering the facts of the case, and the exercise of sound discretion by the Judge.
d. Arresto Mayor, maximum, , duly considering the facts of the case, and the exercise of sound discretion by the
Judge.

73. Elmer, with intent to kill, stabbed Alex and inflicted a slight injury upon him. When Elmer was about to stab Alex
again, the latter pleaded for mercy that Elmer spares his life. Elmer took pity upon Alex and voluntarily desisted from
further attacking Alex.
a. Elmer is not liable for any felony because of his spontaneous desistance.
b. Elmer is liable only for Attempted Homicide.
c. Elmer is liable for Frustrated Homicide.
d. Elmer is liable only for Physical Injuries.

74. Chino Pacia entrusted his Torrens Title to his friend Jack Cole. The latter approached Rey Pinioco for a loan and
executed a notarized promissory note where he (Jack) signed and represented himself to be Chino Pacia and delivered
the Title as security. Jack later repaid the loan and retrieved the Title.
a. Jack Cole is not liable for Falsification because he repaid the loan and was able to retrieve the Title, thus no
damage was caused to Rey Pinioco
b. Jack Cole is liable for Falsification because even if he repaid the loan and was able to retrieve the Title, the
damage was not a material element in the crime
c. a. Jack Cole is not liable for Falsification because he repaid the loan and was able to retrieve the Title, and the
damage was caused to Rey Pinioco and not to Chino Pacia
d. a. Jack Cole is not liable for Falsification but is liable instead for Estafa for deceiving Rey Pinioco by representing
himself as Chino Pacia, the owner of the property.

75. Rinon is detained at the Muntinglupa Penal Institution for having been convicted for a felony by the Regional Trial
Court which imposed upon him the Death penalty. He escaped from Muntinglupa but was re-arrested after three (3)
months.
a. Rinon is liable for Evasion of Service of Sentence under Article 157
b. Rinon is liable for Evasion of Service of Sentence under Article 158
c. Rinon is liable for Delivering prisoners from Jail under Article 156
d. Rinon is not liable for Evasion of Service of Sentence under Arts. 157 or 158

76. At a meeting of about fifty (50) residents of Barangay Bakakeng, Baguio City, Pedro Malaki, whose son was shot by
members of the Philippine National Police, told the residents that it was hopeless to seek redress from the authorities and
that the only recourse was to topple it by force. Among those in the meeting were four (4) burly looking men in civilian
clothes but with sidearms. They even participated therein by edging and cheering Pedro. Baguio City policemen arrived
and they arrested Pedro together with Berting Malalim and Juan Matigas who were with Pedro on the platform. The four
(4) armed persons, however, quietly disappeared when the policemen arrived. As a Prosecutor, I will file charges against
Pedro Malaki, Berting Malalim and Juan Matigas for:
a. Illegal association
b. Illegal Assemblies under the first form
c. Illegal association under the second form
d. Inciting to Sedition

77. Intending to purchase some holiday gifts for her inaanaks, Rany withdrew P 5,000.00 from the ATM Machine located at
the second floor of the SM City. The machine dispensed ten (10) freshly minted and crisp P 500.00 bills. Rany thereafter
went to the Toy Kingdom and purchased a mini-helicopter worth P 1,500.00 and by way of payment, tendered to the
cashier three (3) pieces of the P 500.00 bills she earlier withdrew. The cashier took hold of the P 500.00 bills and began
meticulously scrutinizing each of them, raising them up to the light, in an effort to determine if the bills were genuine.
The cashier then informed Rany that one of the P 500.00 bills is “fake” and thereupon literally tore the alleged fake bill in
front of Rany, to the latter’s consternation, as she insisted that the money was not fake as she even withdrew it from the
ATM machine located at said Mall itself.
a. The cashier can be made liable for Mutilation of currency notes
b. The cashier can be made liable under RA 947
c. The cashier can be made liable for destruction of currency notes
d. The cashier is not liable for any crime

Criminal Law Midterm Exam MCQ Page Fourteen (14)

78. Bernard was charged with slight physical injuries before Judge Jodea Molintas, a Municipal Trial Court Judge. He
listened attentively as the sentence was being read to him. When the dispositive portion of the Decision was being read
and the Judge had announced that Bernard was guilty as charged, the latter was enraged, got hold of an ash tray, and
threw it at the Judge, hitting her in the eye. As his defense lawyer, Atty. Victor Mabalot, attempted to restrain him,
Bernard boxed Atty. Mabalot and knocked him down. Judge Jodea Molintas became blind in one eye as a consequence.
Bernard is liable for the crime of:
a. Direct Assault against the Judge and a separate charge for Serious Disodience against his lawyer
b. Direct Assault against the Judge and a separate charge for Indirect Assault against his lawyer
c. Direct Assault against the Judge and a separate charge for Direct Assault against his lawyer
d. Multiple Direct Assaults against the Judge and his lawyer

79. JO1 Denver is assigned as a jail guard of the Baguio City Jail. After his tour of duty, he brought Pilito Corales, a
recently released prisoner inside the City Jail to substitute for Charles Kaasi, a detention prisoner, whom he later brought
out of jail. After five (5) hours, JO1 Felua brought Jonas back to the City jail. For what crime would JO1 be liable, if any?
a. JO1 Denver is liable for Evasion of Service of Sentence under Article 157
b. JO1 Denver is liable for Evasion of Service of Sentence under Article 158
c. JO1 Denver is liable for Delivering prisoners from Jail under Article 156
d. JO1 Denver is not liable for Evasion of Service of Sentence under Arts. 157 or 158

80. In relation to Question No. 93, for what crime would Charles Caasi beliable?
a. Charles Caasi is liable for Evasion of Service of Sentence under Article 157
b. Charles Caasi is liable for Evasion of Service of Sentence under Article 158
c. Charles Caasi is liable for Delivering prisoners from Jail under Article 156
d. Caasi is not liable for Evasion of Service of Sentence under Arts. 157 or 158 or even under 156

BONUS QUESTION: You may or may not answer this Question. However, if you choose to answer the same
and your answer is correct, it will still be credited in your favor.

81. The following are persons in authority under Article 152, save one:
a. Prosecutor
b. City Councilor
c. Atty. Anton Luis Avila, SLU Bar Top Notcher, Ranked No. 8 in the 2019 Bar Exams
d. Chief of the Barangay Tanods

PART 2: ESSAY:

1. Two (2) Philippine National Police (PNP) officers, Marco and Roy, on board a motorboat with
Erexion, a civilian as motorman, arrested Erwin and Romeo who were in a banca, for dynamite
fishing. The latter’s banca was towed towards the municipality. On the way, the PNP motorboat was
intercepted by a third banca whose occupants, Christian, Guillermo, and Dizon, tried to negotiate
for the release of Erwin and Romeo and their banca. The PNP officers refused and instead shouted at
Christian, Guillermo and Dizon that they are all under arrest. Thereupon, Christian, Guillermo and
Dizon simultaneously threw dynamite sticks at the PNP motorboats. The first dynamite blast killed
Marco. Erwin and Romeo also reacted by throwing dynamite at the PNP motorboat: its blast killed
Roy and Erexion. What crime/s did Erwin, Romeo, Christian, Guillermo and Dizon commit? Explain
fully. (5%)

2. Jack Cole, 16 years old, was found guilty of Homicide. Because of his age, he was held to be a
youthful offender pursuant to PD 603, as amended, and instead of passing sentence, the judge
ordered him committed to the government rehabilitation center in Sto. Domingo, Laguna. Herap was
released after a year and a half because of good behavior. He later applied for and was appointed to
the position of clerk in the Regional Trial Court of Laguna. Among the papers he submitted was an
application under oath in which he stated he had never been charged with, much less convicted of,
any crime, in complete disavowal of his conviction. He was charged with Falsification because of his
act. Is Jack Cole liable for the crime charged against him. Explain fully. (5%)

Criminal Law Midterm Exam MCQ Page fifteen (15)

3. Pining Garcia, the athletic coordinator of the Baguio City National High School received P 20,000.00
from the City Treasurer’s Office as allowance and expense of student athletes who participated in the
Batang Pinoy Games. Three of the student athletes had already graduated thus, Pining summoned
his close nephews to represent themselves as the three students and sign the names of the latter in
the payroll to show that the three did receive the allowance due to them. This way, Pining managed
to account for the money. In truth, Pining Garcia had spent the money supposed to have been given
to the three. What crime/s did Pining Garcia commit? Explain fully. (5%)

4. Mario Palad, 16 ½ years old, is confined in the Urayong Reformatory Institution in Bauang, La
Union pursuant to PD 603 as amended by PD 1179 and RA 8369, having been found guilty of the
crime of Homicide. While in the institution, Mario killed Nayo Tan, a guard at said institution.
Discuss fully the criminal liability, if any, of Mario Palad, considering the aforementioned
circumstances. (2.5%)

5. In a civil case for recovery of a sum of money filed against her by Kathleen, Gladys interposed the
defense of payment. In support thereof, she identified and offered in evidence a receipt which
appears to be signed by Kathleen. On rebuttal, Kathleen denied having been paid by Gladys and
having signed the receipt. She presented a handwriting expert who testified that the alleged
signature of Kathleen on the receipt is a forgery and that a comparison thereof with the specimen
signatures of Gladys clearly shows that Gladys herself forged the signature of Kathleen. For what
crime/s will you make Gladys liable? Discuss fully. (2.5%)